Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Names in world cultures

Template:Names in world cultures does not include any Anglophone countries. Articles like American name or British name don't seem to even exist, while German name, French name and Tatar name do. This is a very clear example of the anglophone bias that is epidemic in English Wikipedia. Our biased encyclopedia considers American and English names as "normal" - any explanations and articles are unnecessary. German and French names, on the other hand, are "exotic" and therefore need articles explaining them. These names also need to be included in Template:Names in world cultures - it seems that "world culture" here simply means "non-American culture". We should work to fix things like this. Nanobear (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is probably because this is the ENGLISH language version. Other language versions use their own preffered spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.65.55 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Contemporary bias"

Hi. I'm studying several examples of systemic bias in English Wikipedia. Doing some numbers, I have seen that 72% of all the biographies in English Wikipedia are about people who lived in the 20th century, and that 99.66% lived in the 2nd millennium. Further details here User:Emijrp/Systemic bias/Contemporary bias. The notability level for recent centuries is very low compared with older ones. Regards. emijrp (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And how many people who lived in the 8th century can you name off the top of your head compared to the 18th? Yeah. I thought so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I'm not a historian. Perhaps, "contemporary bias" means "lack of historians bias". emijrp (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a silly idea. Estimates say that around the year 1000, world population was about 200-300 million. At the moment it's about 7,000 million. [1] That's a factor of 30. Even if we had perfect records of things that happened hundreds or thousands years ago, there would still be a lot more notable people who lived after 1900 than before that date. But of course we don't. We can't just make up fake biographies for 9th century mayors or the 9th century equivalents of barely notable 1990s starlets. This is definitely not what systemic bias is about. Hans Adler 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And on that note, consider the fact that in the past 100 years, it's been MUCH easier for someone to gain notoriety for various reasons, not the least of which is the ability for instant communication. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bias is when there is the possibility of writing articles on a subject, and we don't - it's not about us not writing about subjects that don't exist. For example, the reason there are more articles on British snooker players - Category:Snooker players by nationality - is not the result of any bias in Wikipedia, it is that most snooker players are British. However, the poor coverage of Kabaddi in comparison to snooker, is the result of systemic bias. When looking at lack of, or poor coverage on Wikipedia, it is helpful to look at the reasons, and not assume it is purely due to bias. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Little weight given to Asian role shaping spontaneous order concept, article entirely from Western perspectives

Hello, I'm new to the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject, but can't help grabbing the megaphone to inform fellow anti-Western-culture-bias editors that Spontaneous order gives little to no coverage to the Chinese philosophers who (arguably) birthed the concept of spontaneous order over two millennia ago. Since Confucius and Confucianism played such a huge role in creating spontaneous order (arguably inventing the concept) failure to include this is especially problematic. The Spontaneous order article is more an economics geek thing than a balanced treatment of the subject.

For my full argument for the importance of China (historically and presently) to this topic, please see Talk:Spontaneous_order#Little_weight_given_to_Asian_role_shaping_spontaneous_order_concept.2C_then_and_now

NickDupree (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ago_Oba article needs at least one source

This is an article about Nigerian royalty that's set to be deleted on June 18th if no sources are added. Cloveapple (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum controversy-related Google bomb and related neologism coverage @ Jimmy Wales' talk page

Hello, here's a thorny one. Please check your breakfast at the door because this discussion involves some unpleasant matter. The short of it is that in 2003 US Senator Rick Santorum said some things about homosexuality, and amongst other repercussions a Mr. Savage linked the Senator's last name to an unflattering definition. I felt, and wrote, that the tendencies here go against common sense policy for civility. This certainly, to my mind, has some applications for systemic bias. Emphasizing media coverage and then "fleshing it out" with excruciating specifics by Wikipedians leads to a coverage with no balance that respects all the individuals involved - this especially seems to be covered by WP:COATRACK as well. My request for contributions is twofold: Firstly, insights on whether there is systemic bias in the gathering of sources, for or against; secondly, insights on whether my notions about civility in presentation and especially avoidance of presentation issues is itself a bias issue. Thanks! Edwin Herdman (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a request for comment at Talk:Santorum Google problem, which basically asks the question what do we do about this? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey Invitation: Please Contribute Your Feelings on Systemic Bias

I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community, and am posting to invite you to participate in research exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

WPCSB Survey

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page.

This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or at livingst@uoregon.edu. My faculty advisor is [light@uoregon.edu Dr. Ryan Light]. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the [human_subjects@orc.uoregon.edu Office for Protection of Human Subjects].

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon - UOJComm (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: The survey will be open through the middle of August, so feel free to take it whenever you get a chance. You can begin the survey at anytime and return later to finish it. If the system gives you a hard time and starts you at the beginning (which it shouldn't), you can relaunch the survey and skip to where you think you left off. Just be sure to enter your username again on the first page; I can then match up your responses. As always, let me know if you have any questions, and I greatly appreciate your participation! UOJComm (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the survey and encourage other Wikipedians to do so. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Due to big (good) life events, interviews will now begin in mid-to-late September. Thank you for your interest and your patience. Meanwhile, the survey is still open to all WPCSB members, so please contribute your thoughts if you haven't yet, and thank you to all editors who have! - UOJComm (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: UPDATE: Thank you to all the editors who have completed the study's survey. Those who have not completed the survey but are interested in participating, or those who have started the survey and planned to return to it later, I encourage to complete the survey at your earliest convenience, as I am going to begin analysis of the survey responses in the the coming weeks. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, and thank you again for your participation. - UOJComm (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cambodia's increasing economic prosperity

Hi

CamGSM has neutrality, notability and advertisement issues I'm questioning the validity of.

Neutrality: the sole data potentially perceived as non-neutral is that "CamGSM operates Cambodia’s leading mobile telecommunications network". My dispute's that this is factual information supported by a sourced scientific report on the Telecom, Mobile & Internet elements of Cambodia's economy, and is objective fact not subjective conjecture.

Notability: That the content details what's indisputably the largest commercial contract dealt in Cambodia's history, I think makes the content noteworthy.

Advertisement: I fail to see the advertising, opposed to the historical, nature of the content.

Appreciate any & all feedback,

Thanks

Globalize tag abuse

If someone adds a {{notability}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate, you can resolve it at WP:AFD or WP:Notability/Noticeboard.

If someone adds a {{globalize}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate (oh, maybe he beleives that every "truly balanced" article must mention his home country by name), and normal discussion is not resolving the dispute, is there a central home for resolving this kind of problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment. 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:UrbanRenewal & Leopard Capital

Hi, I've had User:Urbanrenewal accuse of me of a conflict of interest where none exists, and in doing so he's accused my area of interest (Cambodia's private equity arena) as receiving 'an inordinate amount of focus', which I believe is evidently untrue. Any support would be welcome: below is a portion of my objection to User:Urbanrenewal, which is specifically relevant to the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, a Project who's idea I believe in passionately.

QUOTE

UR, you claim that "this small [Leopard Capital] group" has "received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia". However in consideration of the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, I object to your claim that LC has received an 'inordinate amount of focus' as potentially invalid. Considering Wikipedia’s list of private equity firms mentions 204 firms, only 53 of which are not headquartered in America, and 0 which are based in Cambodia...if anything, to aid the very serious and increasingly important Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, it follows that LC and its like actually require more focus, not less.

UNQUOTE

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

gender gap on WP

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Gender+disparity

Wikipedia has no information on gender gap, not even in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias or in Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Those don't even have the words "gender" or women"! There isn't even a red wikilink in Global_Gender_Gap_Report.

The disambiguation page "gender gap" needs to be made into an article, and the redirects Gender disparity and Gender differences need to be made into disambigs or redirects to the new article on gender gap. --Espoo (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The is gender pay gap (which I have added to the gender gap dab page) and an extensive Male–female income disparity in the United States article. Gender pay gap is the contentious issue and I don't see a need for an actual gender gap article. The disambiguation sums up the issues nicely. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to recruit help at WP:WikiProject Women's history. Also, the gender skew among Wikipedia editors is documented at WP:Wikipedians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

German FAs

Of the 1987 FAs on de.wiki we don't have even a substub for 324 of them. I haven't gone through any of them but I thought it quite interesting. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template informing users about systemic bias and suggesting ways to counter it

I notice that various Wikiprojects have devised various types of welcome templates informing new users about their Wikiproject and inviting them to join the project Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Topic-specific messages. Should we devise a project specific welcome template for this project too?-MW ^ℳ 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. However, I think we'd need to make a big effort to word it positively, rather than plaintively. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's correct. We should be using positive wording. The Welcoming committee already has some great looking templates. Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. We may just need to come up with some suitable wording, choose one of those templates, modify some parts to include this project, and create a new template.-MW ^ℳ 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I would also suggest that we word it in a way whereby it can be used for all types of users. I mean, for registered users, IPs, users who have made contributions, users who have not made contributions, etc. One important consideration in making the template widely deployable is to not to thank the users for their contributions. If we include a sentence thanking them for their contributions, we have to make sure that their contributions are constructive. What is/is not constructive can be contentious and can be cumbersome to check out. Secondly, we may also want to use the template to welcome users who have made few or no edits so far. I have found that most welcome templates become unusable for new users because the template is thanking them for their contributions. Now, most new users get their first edits reverted. We can't thank them for edits that were reverted. So the "thank you" templates become unusable due to this reason.-MW ^ℳ 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. When would the template be used? For any new editor, including those who haven't made any edits?

Personally, I'd prefer something a little more specific which is targeted at new editors who have at least a faint hint of interest in areas which overlap with CSB. In other words, a welcome template you'd give to a new editor on Amadou & Mariam which you wouldn't give to a new editor on Lady Gaga. In that case it should be OK to mention contributions. Also, many people wanting to edit CSB areas may be facing big technical (or language) barriers compared to the average slightly-geeky anglophone editor, so maybe we need to take extra care to use clear language and cut through tech jargon. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred that it should be of such type which makes it usable on all newbies. However, if it is felt that it is necessary that the template be used only on users who have made edits and whose edits show some clue that they may be interested in this project, I am happy with that too :-)MW ^ℳ 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Ham

There is a question over correct article WP:SCOPE of Curse of Ham being used to completely exclude African positions on the so-called "curse of Ham", in favor of western opinions on a Bible passage that has been used for centuries to justify racism and slavery. Please see Talk:Curse_of_Ham#Request_for_further_comment Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Canaan,son of Ham

The above dispute has now spread to another one regarding the WP:SCOPE of Canaan, son of Ham. The same editor with whom I am disputing argues that al-Tabari's assertion that Canaan's wife was named "Arsal", a granddaughter of Tiras, is off-topic to the subject, for a variety of shifting reasons, and repeatedly blanks the info, but definite hostility to mentioning pertinent information he is for whatever reason uncomfortable with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates: Higher education by region vs. Higher Education by country

I created the Template:Higher education by region to replace the Template:Higher Education by country. The speedy deletion is being contested. I would like help from an expert in Countering systemic bias. I believe that the regional approach is more comprehensive and more consistent with the long range goals of this project. Am I right? ...wrong? or ...? See discussion Thanks for your attention. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a systemic bias issue. You're organizing countries by continent. While nice, I'm not sure in what way that specifically counters underrepresentation. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Change The Ratio Logo.jpg

Wikipedia has this new file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg.

• 

—Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rampant pro-Western and anti-Eastern view enforced in Wikipedia

There is rampant pro-western views enforced by users in Wikipedia articles. One simple example is the removal of contents from articles that are not western in nature. Take the case of military pages or that concerning eastern nations. Anything that's being said good in terms of facts or figures are being removed to and fudged facts and figures are enforced to ensure a pro-western point of view. This is not only done by a bunch of British users and admins but also by others from the western world. There is no discussion or arguement as such, just misuse of Admin powers to support vandals to vandalize the pages. One example is removal of Russia from the list of blue water navies, even though the consensus was to have it. It has not been reverted by the Admins who are in cahoots with vandals. Similar vandalism has been noticed in pages with regard to Indian armed forces, in which many information being removed. Take the case of the page of India. The GDP figures will always be from 2010. How many time you change it to 2011. This will get reverted but no Admins will correct it to the standard that's 2011 which is used in every other page of western nations. Take any military article, it starts with western viewpoint and ends with it. It do have images from western nations. Any attempt to change it to bring equality will get the user blocked. Then in British armed forces pages there are fudged facts and figures along with projection of Britain as a great power and a blue water Navy while the sources say otherwise. No one will be allowed to discuss this in a fair manner and the Admins misuse their powers to block those who try to make proper edits. No Consensus is the first and last weapon used by these people to block any edits even though they cannot defense their arguments with proper sources. To hide their acts, they even remove the discussion or talk page of the blocked user thereby saving themselves from scrutiny at a later time. All these kinds of dirty things are being played in Wikipedia.Coverauto (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Coverauto (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please, giving links? I went to Talk:India and don't see any discussion of the 2010/2011 GDP figures. I went to Talk:British Armed Forces, and don't see any discussion of "blue water". I went to your editing history, and this is a new account. --GRuban (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the GDP figures. Mistook the Economy of India page figure (which is mentioning 2010 and all the articles about the economies of countries show the same) with that in the India page. So that's o.k. I would rather discuss about military pages. First i would like to point out that my account may get blocked before this discussion is completed and may have to create another one to post here. I would like to point out certain pages, that may give you an idea of how difficult it's to edit pages that do have info on anything British. I'm not saying that i'm against Britain or something. But I would like to put the fact as such rather than say otherwise. But this is not allowed in Wikipedia by some vandals (I have noticed large number of them from Britain itself) vandalizing pages and preventing users from making edits or changes. Not only that they vandalize other pages as well with fudged figures and push other editors to the corner. Finally the Admins may block the other editor. This has been going on for a long time. Rather than me telling you the problem, it's better you check the discussions etc and reach your own conclusions. May be at some places, i may have got angry and used harsh words. But it was not meant to be, but that's how things are. And for the final info about my user id, i'm a user who has been banned for Wikipedia from editing. Either valid or invalid,they will remove it. But i'm very much concerned about this kind of stupidity happening in Wikipedia. SOmething need to be done to prevent this kind of things. I may contribute or may not, It's left for me. But this problem must stop.

Let me provide the pages that may provide you an insight into the problem.[2][3][4]See the Not FOrum part of discussion.[5]Coverauto (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mohamed Bouazizi in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Wrad (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

 — Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Date pages

This has probably been discussed here before, but I notice that the date pages (January 1, January 2, etc.) are absolutely loaded with Yanks and Brits, with very few birth dates and death dates for non-EuroAmerican figures. If these were regular pages, I'd slap them with a globalization tag, but that seems too aggressive to do here.

For example, I just went through the list of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Mali, and not one had been logged into the date pages (though they are now). It seems to a shame to let those hub pages be so Eurocentric when they're meant to sum up the world. I don't know that it's worth investing a lot of effort in fixing all at once, but perhaps the editors here could start making it a point to include birth, death, and event dates on the date pages when writing about non-EuroAmerican topics? That way the problem might start to balance out over time. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Adopt a Press Hero redlink

As some of you know, I've been working for a while to try to increase WP's coverage of world journalists, as a part of both this project and WP:WikiProject Journalism. While the US, UK, and Australia seem well-covered, up until last week, we still didn't even have articles on Steven Gan (Malaysia) and Aboubakr Jamai (Morocco), for example, each of whom is widely recognized as a leading journalist of his country, and whose struggles for press freedom have been regularly covered in world media. I'm glad to say that we now have at least a stub for each of the 100 or so CPJ International Press Freedom Award laureates, which has been a pet project of mine for a while, but working through these has also shown me how much is still missing.

I'm now setting my sights on a new list, the 50 International Press Institute World Press Freedom Heroes of the 20th century. Sadly, even on this one, we still have 14 redlinks, and many more articles in need of cleanup. (There's still some CPJ winners badly in need of cleanup, but I'm trying to prioritize the completely missing first.) I'm hoping to start filling in a few of these a week... would anyone like to pitch in on this project by adopting a redlink?

Thanks all! Khazar (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll adopt Grémah Boukar Koura, and should be able to turn it blue in a few days. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be the same person as Grémah Boucar, which you redirected to his radio station last May. Does he still "count" for purposes of this project? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely counts; just looking here [6] suggests he deserves an article in his own right. I didn't realize I still had a redirect in the CPJ template. I'll have to go back over it and see if I missed any others. Thanks! Khazar (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Next Nizar Nayouf (or Nizar Nayyouf). Except that I see you've left. :-(. So, you're encouraging other people to write about these heroic journalists who face torture and death from governments or organized crime figures and don't quit. And you yourself are quitting because of what? Because a well meaning volunteer accused you of not paraphrasing enough? Please, reconsider. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias vs. West Asian countries/Middle East??

I find it a bit strange that the template under the "Asia" region calls the Middle East (which has an article) "West Asia" which does not. Considering the rather rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia, it seems strange we're making it so difficult to even FIND the Middle East on this project. I'd fix the template if I could figure out where the heck it is, but I can't. Thoughts on fixing this?? CarolMooreDC 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Both terms have articles. If you enter West Asia into the search box it takes you to Western Asia. Cloveapple (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess didn't do a good enough search. Anyway, I do see the page reads: The terms are partly coterminous with the Middle East, which describes a geographical position in relation to Western Europe rather than its location within Asia. Due to this perceived Eurocentrism, international organizations such as the United Nations,[1] have replaced Middle East and Near East with Western Asia.

Fair enough. In fact I just added a short version of this definition to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Asia since it repeatedly refers to Middle East without defining it. But I still think that the section on "West Asian countries" needs at least to mention it includes what's called "Middle East" and at very least needs to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Asia, which it does not currently. But that mystery template makes it difficult to make any such corrections. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no "rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia". Please stop making these kinds of wild assertions, they aren't helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I really have to list all the dozens of articles where an absurd anti-Muslim/Arab agenda is pushed in one way or another? Maybe I'm oversensitive because I kept reverting a sock puppet who kept trying to turn Gender apartheid into a Sex segregation in Islam article, even though latter article already exists. He then sent me 80 plus email death threats when his sock kept getting squashed. (All through wikipedia so it's on file and at least one admin said he knows who it is.) And also because I see the article Honor killing and a bunch of other related articles have WP:Undue emphasis on the very customary/tribal (not religious) oriented honor killings by Arabs/Muslims, while not bothering to detail similar many such abuses in other cultures. And of course when I added one Arab Palestinian who denounced it - perhaps in the wrong section - Jayjg deleted it. I do intend to find a few more Arabs/Muslims who also denounce honor killing and put in proper section. We'll see if that gets reverted. Anyway, that misuse of legitimate articles of concern to women that just happens to support the agenda of those who excuse bombing Muslim/Arab nations by their support for women's right (even if such bombings kill far more women) is rampant bias by my definition. And that's just two articles where this sort of thing happens. CarolMooreDC 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All sorts of absurd anti and pro everything propaganda is pushed in one way or another on just about every topic on Wikipedia - that it no way means that there is "rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia". Please recognize that your personal viewpoints on this may be skewed, to the extent, for example, that you might even bring up my quite proper removal of non-notable trivia from an article as some sort of example of God knows what (and by the way, that individual didn't denounce "honor killing", he said the term should be made illegal, which is obviously something entirely different). In the future, please make more factual and relevant statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe making the term "Honor killing" illegal is a way of "redefining it" to the world. As a libertarian I don't support that, but found it interesting. And like I said, getting more relevant opinions from more people (as well as more examples of individuals who have murdered others for honor who are NOT Muslim/Arab) and sticking them in the appropriate part of the article IS on my list of WIKI things to do and we can discuss details then. Per the description of this project, that's about adding material that's omitted. (And I can see that deleting WP:Undue is more an NPOV noticeboard issue, if not dealt with on talk page of an article.)

By the way, I notice you followed me here after I brought up the issue of Countering systemic bias on another article where we may have some different perspectives over bias. Just doing you administrator duty again?? :-) CarolMooreDC 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "followed" - are you referring to the fact that earlier this week you suddenly showed up on the Talk: page of Anti-Defamation League to yet again oppose whatever I was saying, despite not having edited the article in the last year and a half, and not having made a Talk: page comment there in almost 4 years? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone asked me to comment since I had been there before. Israel-Palestine related lobbies are one of my many interests. What's your explanation for coming here? Anyway, obviously there are disputes among editors on what is and isn't systematic bias in ALL areas and we have more than adequately expressed ourselves here, don't you think? CarolMooreDC 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying some points on the Wikiproject main page

Things that jump out from a quick review:

• Lead reads: Create or edit one of the articles listed on the CSB template. If you don't particularly like any of the subjects on the template, our open tasks list has a wide array of articles in need of attention. and also
• Category:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias has a blue box that reads: This is a tracking category, a category intended to build and maintain a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Rather than being part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme, these categories are used to track, for example, pages using deprecated syntaxes, to maintain a list of pages that may need to be edited en masse later, or to aggregate the members of several sub-categories by other classifications into one larger list.

It's a bit unclear if there's some hidden template to be added to some articles and who can do so; and if you just manually add things to the CSB template or the open tasks. More explicit explanation would help for those new to wikiprojects or this one.

• Tasks needs a bit of clean up and reorganization
• And for any obvious errors, necessary additions, etc. it would be nice if it was clear how to change those hidden templates that list regions/countries (as I asked above) so people don't have to go to Village Pump to find out.

Just some preliminary thoughts/suggestions. CarolMooreDC 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

EPA redir

Currently EPA redirects to United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA is a commonly used abbreviation so it should be a dab page (which is at EPA (disambiguation). This is a bias towards the US and against all other uses of the term. Admitedly the US EPA is the most notable use of the abbreviation but this can be reflected by having United States Environmental Protection Agency near the top of the dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for either support or non-support.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've tried this before! Talk:EPA (disambiguation) - in 2009 and 2011 yet! You may have a stronger case now, though. Searching for EPA on google brings up different things at different times. I just searched and got Protection Agency Ireland in position 3, Environment Protection Authority, Victoria, Australia in position 4, ENGLISH POOL ASSOCIATION in position 6, european press photo agency in position 8 and Environment Protection Authority South Australia in position 9. Searching on Bing and Yahoo I get mostly USEPA, though our article on Eicosapentaenoic acid is in position 4 and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in position. Usage for our articles (Jan, 2012) has

• http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/United%20States%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency: 37611 times in 201201
• http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Eicosapentaenoic%20acid: 10960 times in 201201.

That's not a blowout, and considering that EPA_(disambiguation) has been viewed 1242 times in 201201 we can assume that a number of the former were actually looking for something else. Drop a link here, and we can hold another RFC. It won't necessarily succeed, but I'll support you. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)