User talk:Jimbo Wales

"Internationalists" aka globalization promoters effect on Wikipedia

I'm rebooting this discussion because although it is (somewhat) interesting, it appears to have virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia. If there is a Wikipedia angle to be discussed, then by all means let's do it, but if people want to discuss political theory generally, there are better places for it than here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, 2 questions. 1 What do you think about the importance of the self declaration of many important people as them being an "internationalist"? For example, David Rockefeller made a somewhat bizarre and defensive statement embracing the term: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Are these these self declarations important enough to be emphasized in a Blp? 2 There seems to be a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders who mostly identify as internationalists and the people/voters who prefer nationalism, as with the Brexit vote. I think national sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive, what do you think ? And how does this growing divide impact the reliable sources we use? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Not just Rockefeller. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Short answer to number 1. A person's politics should be reflected in an article about them to the same extent that the reliable sources mention it. Number 2 can be addressed from many different directions, but I'd say first that if you are looking for the meaning of life in an encyclopedia, you're looking in the wrong place. Second, very many Wikipedians are internationalists - after all on en:Wiki we have to deal with Brits, Irish, Americans, Canadians, Ozzies, Kiwis, Indians of at least 2 types, South Africans, all sort of Europeans who speak English as their language of education, work, homelife, or just as a useful 2nd language. Third, you seem to assume that the nation state is the natural way that the world works, but it really is only about 200 years old (as the major form of political organization). Four, you ignore that political, technological, and cultural integration has been bringing us all closer together for millenia. Sometimes it goes faster or slower, sometimes we get it wrong and have to back up and try again, but we are still coming closer together all the time. As an illustration consider the US political system over the last 150 years. In 1867, large railroad sytems were just coming into existence, farmers could drive their horse drawn wagons about 10 miles into the nearest city to bring their harvest to market, and return home the same day, and the county was the governmental unit that most affected most people. In 1917 the railroad networks were well established and automobiles (and paved roads) were just coming in. A farmer's harvest might travel a couple of hundred miles in one day. And the state was the political unit that most affected most people. In 1967, computerized communication systems were just coming in, harvests would travel several hundred miles in a day, and the national (federal government most affected most people. Do you see a pattern here? Finally Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for." Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Yanni says something similar to "Imagine" at his concerts. I see the pattern, but Brexit may have been the first of many tears in the pattern. I think the more nationalistic publications are likely to gain strength at the same time as the historically reliable main stream sources are, at least in my opinion, becoming much less reliable with their details and certainly less neutral. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Or maybe that first tear was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the split of Singapore from Malaysia, or even the dissolution of the Roman Empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Stephan Schulz, you provide a Non sequitur because the international expansions you refer to were all acquired by force; the current globalization effort is occurring through voluntary acquiescence by national political leaders who almost never put the exchange of political and economic sovereignty for promised security and increased global commercial opportunities to a vote of the people they represent(ed). I stand by my observation that Brexit was the first rebellion by the people from the current political and economic global empire creation project. Btw, you left out the Mongol Empire, the largest of them all, so far, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Just some short input on this from my side: Re 2: I strongly oppose the view that national sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive. However I'd rather speak of local sovereignty than of national sovereignty with the nation being just one scope. Respecting national identity and preserving local sovereignty at the current level of current nations is imo crucial to preserving peace and stability. Current political leaders don't do the former from what I can see and do not listen to their peoples. This is one of several reasons why I think that our current socioeconomic order and democracy are failing. And this, in turn, is a reason for why I think that it's so important that we, right now, make sure Wikipedia persists and is sufficiently resilient. For instance I think the Brexit was a very bad thing - however it could have been prevented if people saw their political leaders acting on behalf of them. I'm greatly in favor of globalization and self-identify as World citizen and still I oppose globalization in many ways that it's occurring now and also (at a level that's less important to me) identify as German and would like to have local spheres of decision-making scope. I think the view that we can simply abolish nations is naive (and I once had this view). Also, and most importantly, I think that there's not one nationalism and one globalism. Please have an open mind to these things. For instance a world citizen and probably Lennon aren't in favor of power simply shifting from politics to multinational corporations similar to pestilence over cholera. I don't have much trust in our current structures and personally think they'll fail rather soon − e.g. Trump is already deconstructing the US empire and the international order − I just hope we'll get out of this without a major war or chaos and potentially with improved structures at the other end (for the latter I think that Wikipedia is crucial). And lastly concerning the reliable sources we use: we need to incorporate all major view-points, not just the ones we agree with. A growing divide makes it our job to neutrally and appropriately inform about all aspects and sides of the divide. --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Fixuture, regarding your last 2 sentences directly above, I agree 100%. I also feel some Déjà vu back to the 60s, albeit from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, which feels exactly the same as what Dylan expressed in Ballad of a Thin Man "Something is happening here/ But you don't know what it is/ Do you, Mr. Jones?". Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Globalization only seems to be opposed to nationalism if you're in the developed world. The inflections showing so in that curve are due to taxation of those rich countries' working and middle classes exacerbating instead of compensating for self-interested, rational outsourcing which helps developing countries as much as it helps the first world's rich. Complaining about globalization instead of how developed countries tax their poor and middle class shows a lack of understanding of the facts. Who will join the call for solutions which support first world consumers instead of shouldering them with tariffs and limiting the freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @174.16.120.139: Complaining about globalization instead of how developed countries tax their poor and middle class shows a lack of understanding of the facts. No - that's just your point of view. Taxation, here, would just be attempts of artificially fixing underlying problems. Who will join the call for solutions which support first world consumers instead of shouldering them with tariffs and limiting the freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases? I'm not sure what solutions you are talking about. And for tariffs please have in mind that those don't just shoulder first world consumers but also stimulate local production which is important for sovereignty, control and autonomy as well as for the environment and potentially work conditions among other things. Also it's not (just at least) the "freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases" but also market pressures which aren't freedoms but are better described as necessities. Globalization is great but outsourcing work to wherever wages are lowest, work conditions seriously violating human rights and human health, on the long-term sustaining poor economies of less developed countries by depriving them of their intellectual basis and polluting the environment by unnecessary, excessive transportation around the globe among other things are not. --Fixuture (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC) My "point of view" happens to be an established mathematical and historical fact. Wealth is trickling down to foreign countries because rich people, including Donald Trump, will use foreign labor or suppliers to get the best deal. If they don't, consumers bear the brunt of increased prices. We have an article about what happens when countries try what you and Nocturnalnow are advocating: Import substitution industrialization, which in its "Results" section says, "import substitution was 'both unsustainable over time and produced high economic and social costs.,'" because, "lack of competition [and] reduced innovation and efficiency ... restrained the quality of [locally] produced goods, while protectionist policies kept prices high .... power concentrated in the hands of a few decreased the incentive for entrepreneurial development .... exacerbated inequality .... reduced the incentives for business risk, resulting in decreased efficiency .... large deficits and debts resulting from import substitution policies are largely credited for the resulting Latin American crisis of the 1980s." Real solutions would involve shifting the tax burden from the working and middle class in developed countries to their rich, including negative taxes if that is what it takes to make up the difference in what their rich are gaining from what their working and middle class are losing. Your complaints about human rights and health do not comport with the facts. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @174.16.120.139: My "point of view" happens to be an established mathematical and historical fact. No it's not; it's your (and some others') point of view. Wealth is trickling down to foreign countries because rich people, including Donald Trump, will use foreign labor or suppliers to get the best deal Well that might be true within the current structures. But to what extend, to whom and in what ways? And why should the current ways of wealth trickling down to less developed countries be even remotely optimal? If they don't, consumers bear the brunt of increased prices. That's for sure (at least at the beginning and for most relevant products). I wasn't saying otherwise and it's why I explicitly said "those don't just shoulder first world consumers" We have an article about what happens when countries try what you and Nocturnalnow are advocating I never said that I'm advocating this and I don't think Nocturnalnow did so. For me: I just oppose the imo biased argumentation against tariffs that you made and think that there might be something good to it in certain ways / types / products / areas or in some of its end-results. Import substitution industrialization [...] Well, those are good points. As said I don't advocate tariffs per se, never said otherwise and only made counterarguments to what I think was a one-sided assessment of this. Yes, stimulating local production and disadvantaging foreign products can be deeply problematic within current structures in which e.g. collaboration isn't happening and knowledge isn't shared between countries, organizations and individuals the way it could. Real solutions would involve shifting the tax burden from the working and middle class in developed countries to their rich, including negative taxes if that is what it takes to make up the difference in what their rich are gaining from what their working and middle class are losing. Please see Wealth tax#Disadvantages. Some issues would be for instance wealthy simply leaving the country / moving their basis elsewhere. Plus it will never happen to a sufficient extend due to the influence of the wealthy. It's not a real solution but an infeasible suggestion of an artificial fix. Your complaints about human rights and health do not comport with the facts. This statistic is not related to my point and does not support your point. Please take a look at the facts, data and research on working conditions in e.g. India and China. And if you're wondering why the statistic is as it is: it's because of technology and science. --Fixuture (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC) But it is true that as countries become more developed and wealthier, their populations begin to demand improvements in their quality of life that comport with those found in the United States and other Western developed nations — worker rights protections, pollution controls and environmental regulations, improved safety standards, etc. Working conditions and pollution standards in India and China are surely not to that level *now* but they are surely improved over where they were 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago; even the Communist regime in the PRC has had to respond to public pressure from within and without and make strides toward cleaner, more sustainable economic development. The internationalist viewpoint is that the only sustainable way of lifting all boats is to raise those standards worldwide. On the other hand, it is precisely in the ethnonationalist movements that we see politicians ignoring and rejecting improvements in worker rights and environmental standards in the name of "economic competitiveness" — thus Trump's attempted dismantling of the EPA, nonsensical rhetoric about reopening coal mines, and ignoring the scientific proof of climate change in favor of dumping more and more carbon into the global ecosystem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Well said,NorthBySouthBaranof, however you can not be sure that "lifting all boats.... to raise those standards worldwide" is a good thing, e.g. there is an interesting movie Babies (film) which helped convince me that its presumptuous and, in the case of many lower standards countries and/or locations within those countries, downright wrongheaded to assume the actual people there are going to be better off with the higher standards. Also, the old expression "mind your own business" has extra validity when we actually look at the results when foreign military intruders, do-gooders, and various international organizations start meddling in countries to "help them out". The examples of this fucking up accomplished by outside interference are voluminous: Haiti=deadly cholera was imported from UN agency personnel after a hurricane The Middle East particularly has been fucked up totally (with maybe a million civilians blown up) by multi-national forces and do-gooders pouring in to "help" this or that country in some way. Afghanistan now produces 90% + of the worlds illicit opium, which finances al queda and their total production per year has gone up 3,000% from 185 tonnes in 2000 to about 5,500 tonnes now. (ironically this reference might be a good example of important stuff the DM sometimes highlights that others don't). In addition the number of heroin addicts within Afghanistan has soared. All the while, western countries, including Canada, are pouring many billions of dollars of "financial aid" into this narco-state officially named "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". And then there is the reality of the growth of the profits made by assorted do-gooder agencies, NGOs, and war profiteers. The internationalist viewpoint, as you say, may, in general, be altruistic for most internationalists, but their actual results for real people in countries where they have butted in have been atrocious, from any objective analysis, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC) as countries become more developed and wealthier, their populations begin to demand improvements in their quality of life [...] Indeed, but I don't see how that would be a point for the current state of things or the economic globalization as we know it. This is happening despite of it and often in direct conflict with it. For instance if one country raises its worker protections and rights their products and services become more expensive causing corporations to retrieve their goods and services from countries with lower protections and rights with that being a major deterrent of such improvements. In addition and in support of that governments and companies can crush, suppress and prevent such demands to be made or gain traction. The internationalist viewpoint is that the only sustainable way of lifting all boats is to raise those standards worldwide. Well it's a philosophy or narrative that doesn't have any real and effective ways of making that happen and is actually structurally in conflict with that goal. On the other hand, it is precisely in the ethnonationalist movements that we see politicians ignoring and rejecting improvements in worker rights and environmental standards in the name of "economic competitiveness" Yes, the ethnonationalist philosophy is even worse. From my point of view while what you're calling the "internationalist" worldview or narrative only inherently leads to pressures of structural violence, massive inequality, environmental pollution and potentially chaos and unrest the ethnonationalist philosophy in any of its popular variants can lead to said plus easily war. --Fixuture (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Real incomes change for top 1%, and each 20% 1979-2011. Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945-2009. The U.S. federal effective corporate income tax rate is lower than the highest nominal rate. Total tax revenue as share of GDP for OECD countries in 2009. The tax burden in the U.S. (black) is relatively small in comparison to other industrialised countries. When statements recount data from observations, they are facts, not merely points of view. Again, this graph shows exactly how wealth is trickling down to developing countries from the first world. It's not optimal at all, it's merely satisfying the law of supply and demand where the greatest supply of labor is available in developing countries who are therefore able to undercut first world workers who demand more money for their work. A wealth tax is a property tax, but we're talking about income effects, and the right way to address the issue is by adjusting income taxes, not imposing a wealth tax. Finally, if you think conditions in China and India are bad, I assure you they are worse in e.g. Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa, where they outsource, but they are uniformly improving everywhere. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Aside Globalisation basically means putting more power into the hands of transnational bodies, the vast majority of which are corporations. The idea that globalisation is a conspiracy of the political left, as Bannon seems to think, is perverse. To be an internationalist is not the same thing as supporting globalisation. To be an internationalist is to view oneself as a citizen fo the world, and one's country as a partner in the global community of nations. My understanding of old is that internationalism is a leftist or liberal position, based on equity and participation for people, and globalisation is a right or libertarian position based on the obvious extention of the idea of corporate personhood to the point of corporate nationhood. I may have bene wrong about this for my entire adult life. Or Bannon may be a deranged wingnut. Or indeed both. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC) ^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC) "On business taxes, it's really about making U.S. companies competitive. We need to create a level playing field for U.S. companies to be able to compete in the world. And they just haven't had that opportunity." --U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin It's a clear race to the bottom. The politicians don't really believe corporations will hire more domestic workers; in fact they would be vulnerable to shareholder lawsuits if they attempt to do so in any substantial way. The politicians are correct to expect, however, that they will be rewarded with more newly-unlimited corporate donations. The real international problem is that when a country as large and with as much output as the U.S. needlessly cuts corporate taxes, other countries are forced to follow suit or suffer a recession. The politicians know this, and are counting on it to maximize their corporate contribution reward. Literally everyone else loses. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC) You know what, I am absolutely and utterly sick to death of this horseshit. Thank god, I found something that I can comment back to it on like Wikipedia. I understand all the theoretic garble and labels like left and right which are being slapped about everywhere these days, not excluding this conversation. And I do not like to ever stifle objective debate however, you guys are talking about real people here… not graphs, not numbers, not your own life sucking and you not being as rich as you’d like, not moaning about how the world doesn’t seem to be right in your own vision, how YOU are a globalist, how you are an internationalist….  All this horse shit is meaningless when you do absolutely nothing but sit there and talk about it. As a child, I was abused, I did not have a choice in the matter, thus I went into care. It felts like society had left me, no one like you people had been around for me then. But you know what that experience told me something about the REAL world not just how to say big words but it taught me how to mean them. In later life, I fought tooth and nail to get into university and guess what, I got there. I had to not be so pessimistic and discerning about problems of the world and take my finger from my ass and do something, act on my beliefs. Eventually I graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) And a BSc … now I am a Lawyer who conducts and helps conduct research…. And guess what… I am still bloody young. Like I said, I don’t want to stifle debate but for god’s sake stop talking about people like me as if we are facts and figures behind a charade of academic vocabulary and speak of people like they are people. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC) How? I feel the same frustration but I don't know how to talk about what's happening in the world other than in abstract, inhuman terms. I'd love to learn what to do to make these concepts more accessible. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @174.16.120.139: Which concepts more accessible? Its not so much an issue of accessibility as it is promoting the idea of being genuinely decent to one another and understanding that education alone does not give one the key to the universe. There is an amount of personal intimate experience with real world problems required in order to deduct how to resolve them. Many people that I have seen are lost in their own never ending story of personal vanity which dampens their ability to be objective about issues in society because their main concerns are issues with themselves. When you have experienced certain things in life like I have you come to a realisation that pleasures are fickle things which can very easily be taken away. When you have to genuinely fight to overcome adversity in life rather than get lost in endless self-indulgence it becomes apparent that the need to collaborate and be good to one another is all the more vital for survival. I have depended on the kindness and humanity of other people and thus I understand the need for those things to exist in society. But you also come to the realisation that mere talk is cheap and action is absolutely essential in order to produce a quantifiable result. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Even highly educated people are oblivious to many of these issues. Every corporation on the planet has a vested interest in making people sure that lowering taxes on corporations is a good idea. Executives' bonuses are calculated based on how successful they ultimately become in pushing that agenda. The amount of money involved dwarfs that of tobacco or even fossil fuels, and we all know how much time, effort, and astroturf are pushed on those topics. So some of the most educated people on the planet are frequently on TV, in newspaper columns, and interviewed on respectable web sources explaining concepts which for all intents and purposes are deliberately false propaganda. How do people obtain personal intimate real world experience to produce quantifiable results against those campaigns? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC) I am the son of a teacher, and the first person in my branch of family to attend university. I went to a thousand-year-old school on a direct grant, and I worked my way through University. I have experienced at first hand the way the very rich view the not so rich. I have friends in India whose income and lifestyle are dramatically below what I would consider acceptable. I think the political and financial polarisation of the world is a major problem. I would like to see more consensus building, rather than less, which has been the trend recently. In the past decade or so we have seen the very wealthy wreck the world's economy, demand that the rest of society bail them out, then take the money as if it were their right and continue as before with no thought to repayment. The crash of 07-08 seems to me to have resulted in a massive net transfer of wealth upwards. I'd like to see consequences for lying to the public. No, an immigrant did not take your job, a robot took your job, and there will never be another job for you because you want your goods to be cheaper. That's a big conversation, and it's one politicians - left and right - seem very determined to avoid. It's like there are two warring parties in opposite corners of a room that's entirely full of elephants they won't acknowledge. And for me, it is all about people. 100%. Everything comes down to people. Lack of empathy is Trump's biggest fault, IMO, and the same applies for a host of other demagogues. They understand people only well enough to press their buttons, not to appreciate what makes them who they are. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Guy, I agree and I think that unnecessary wars are the worst thing that crappy and/or lying politicians cause. For that degree of wrong there is no consequence that can make up for such a deed. In Canada, there are lots of opportunities for people to start their own business. I don't know why more don't do it, especially now that working for companies has become so unrewarding and insecure. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) One thing that is obvious is that →ὦiki-Coffee is definitely not a phony, and that is partially the answer to 174.16.120.139's question "How do people obtain personal intimate real world experience to produce quantifiable results against those (propaganda) campaigns." In addition to the awful sources of experience that Wiki-Coffee endured, defining life experiences will also come to anyone who never, ever says or does anything phony, and who also engages with every person you meet as if he or she is a friend, from the McDonald's employee to the big shots....and then, with any extra time, get political...it does not matter on which side of the spectrum...just get political. And 1 person, any person, can have the effect of an earthquake for the power of good in any society, with the help of God; and God, as well as good souls, are all around to help. We all know this, but few of us take action, because action is work, and action is risky. But at the very least, anyone can choose to never say or do anything phony, even if they were brought up to be a phony and are in the habit of being a phony. This all ties into selection of reliable sources. There are lots of phony sources which are oozing phoniness. And there are a few really objective and reality based sources. So, as more and more of us choose to be real all the time, and phony none of the time, we'll be choosing the reality based sources, and ignoring the phony sources. And that will improve the encyclopedia et al., imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC) I would like to present a reasoned counter argument to the statements "just get political. And 1 person, any person, can have the effect of an earthquake for the power of good in any society" and "We all know this, but few of us take action, because action is work, and action is risky.": It is self evident that the ability of politicians and political organizations to deceive us is far greater than our ability to detect deception. This can be clearly seen by just thinking about the many times that a large group of educated and intelligent people have looked at the exact same data and come to completely different conclusions. Another glaring misconception is the belief that you can tell how well someone will run a country based on how well they give speeches or how well they do in debates. The one has almost nothing to do with the other. Instead of "get political" I say "get apolitical". Don't favor either side. In particular, make your Wikipedia editing apolitical no matter what your political position is. Instead of "take action" I say "stay inactive". In particular, consider not voting when your vote will not change the result. During the last election, Wyoming voted 174,248 (70.1%) for Trump, 55,949 (22.5%) for Clinton. Hawaii voted 266,827 (62.2%) for Clinton, 128,815 (30.0%) for Trump. If you live in one of those states, you could have stayed home and the result would have been the same. Instead of "One person, any person, can have the effect of an earthquake" I say "Usually, one person doesn't make any difference at all". You should only "take action" in those rare cases where taking sides has a chance of changing the outcome -- and none of us have the slightest clue as to which side to take to get a good outcome. Be apolitical. Edit Wikipedia according to WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC) @Guy Macon: I am slightly confused as to your narrative especially when you say that You should only "take action" in those rare cases where taking sides has a chance of changing the outcome. Firstly, that statement assumes that acting means taking sides, no it does not. Action does not mean political or at least not in the context I mentioned it. Maybe consider the view that society needs the individual and the individual needs the society. There is never one without the other so keeping them balanced seems important to me. Furthermore, I am unsure as to what your philosophy is given the information you just stated. It is quite all over the place to be honest, not sure if you are trying to say that collaboration is useless based on some notion you have or you’re just being pessimistic about the role of individuality in society. Either way, you seem to have an interesting view on the matter. I do agree with you that remaining strictly apolitical on Wikipedia is very important on ensuring objective content. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC) How is it possible to act in response to a deliberate campaign of persuasion without taking sides? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Profound question, 174.16.120.139. Just imagine you are standing in a field with a strong wind pushing you backwards. You have 3 choices; allow the wind to push you back, use all your strength to stand still in the face of the wind, or walk into the wind. Standing still is analogous to not taking sides and is probably the hardest of the 3. But the difference between the force of wind and the force of persuasion is that a wind is tangible/obvious, where a campaign of political persuasion is often stealthily applied, by intent, as in psychological operations. Which begs the question, do people who are being brainwashed realize they are being brainwashed? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) @Nocturnalnow: How about a concrete example? Suppose I try to persuade you that you should (A) smoke tobacco, or (B) eat a greater proportion of fruits and vegetables. Suppose you wanted to comment about my motives, and in particular whether or not I am acting in your interests. How can you do that while remaining neutral? I think most people who are successfully brainwashed remain certain that they have not been; otherwise they would be critical of what they had been persuaded. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Guy Macon, you brought back a very old memory which, being from Macon (no pun intended), was both shocking and funny. The first day I went out for a walk in Toronto, the city was covered with bright red posters showing a fist up in the air with the words in caps "DON'T VOTE, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!". And the posters, in small print at the bottom, said Marxist–Leninist Party of Canada. Guy, the thing to remember is that in most democracies the voters are not so predictable as you outline. Its not uncommon to see polls switch 20-30 points in Canada in just the last week of any election, municipal, provincial or even federal. Hell, just in the past 22 years we've had a socialist government, a liberal government and a conservative government here in Ontario. I sympathise with what you are saying, but for us in Canada and the U.K., I don't think its too relevant. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) A real choice? I can only imagine what that is like. Perhaps if we here in the USA say that we are sorry and ask really nice, Elizabeth II will agree to take us back... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) lol. a guy with a name like Macon was born to be cool (puns intended) Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) My late father used to joke that the US could take the UK over at any time: just revoke the Declaration of Independence and then as soon as the parliamentary constituencies were established the House of Commons would be run by either Republicans or Democrats! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) As one Guy to another, the UK is also melting down right now. It feels very much as if the world has collectively decided that being peaceful and tolerant and inclusive is much less fun than hurling shit at each other. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Even China's newest five-year plan wants to follow Europe in replacing the graduated income tax with a VAT. (Page 42: "We will complete across the board the reform to replace business tax with VAT." Page 63: "We will reduce taxes and fees for enterprises by lowering the proportion of their VAT.") When society's burden is shifted to the poor, they don't tend to blame the domestic officials who are doing it to them because that would mean taking responsibility for complicated politics. Instead they blame the "other," countries in this case. The concordant nationalism stokes racism and religious prejudices. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "rebooting" mean in this context? Do you want the discussion of how powerful interests shape public debate to achieve specific political ends in their favor refactored with more specific references to bias in articles? The sections you hatted already refer to articles several times, and the question about what it means to be neutral when writing about persuasion campaigns remains to be resolved. I'd be interested in your thoughts on those questions, Jimbo, and you never addressed the initial question in the first paragraph to you about BLPs, either. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Word of advice... Jimbo might take you more seriously if you identify which former/current User you really are, or are we to believe that your single-purpose account just joined Wikipedia for the first time a few days ago? I mean, really. Give the busy man a break. At least he identifies himself by name and leave an "open door". - 2001:558:1400:4:88F0:1C03:C016:9186 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I get a new IP address every time I power off my electronics when I leave the house for more than a few hours, and am apparently not the only one who finds the resulting editing experience more pleasant than the alternatives I've tried. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

184.96.138.160, I think your question is a good one as well as your observations. Hopefully they will not be ignored. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but one of my questions was to you: if you're writing an article about powerful or wealthy groups trying to persuade people to support a proposal opposed to their own interests, how do you do write about that in a neutral way? Is it possible to write, for example, about the money spent to defend tobacco use after the 1964 Surgeon General's report without implicitly taking sides? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Great question, 184.96.138.160, quite profound actually; the answer is: "Yes, absolutely."

There is one tool that is helpful in a situation as you describe, that is critical thinking. Once you deploy critical thinking, all of the persuasion campaigns, advertising, propaganda et.al, melt away and then you can write about realities. For example, I believe there may be certain uses of smoking for weight loss or management and raw tobacco for healing a wound...I'm not sure but the point is, you can do your own research of reliably sourced info to construct a non-biased article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In terms of specifics, I mean. I'm sure everyone would accept that, "the tobacco industry spent $X billion trying to keep people from reducing their tobacco consumption," is neutral, but the moment you report accurate reliable sources which say the industry used psychological techniques trying to make smoking appear fashionable, or even that they were deceptive, are you still casting the issue in a neutral light? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tobacco products have been vilified since the 1970's so any article written now has a healthy dose of recentism. The main danger of tobacco smoke is the inhalation of burnt organic matter (i.e. marijuana smoke isn't healthy, nor is a forest fire). One of my favorite interviews I discovered was Mike Wallace interviewing Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger that has a live cigarette commercial right in the middle. Nothing like a journalist shilling for big tobacco. Abhored by recentism but acceptable when the interview] occurred. --DHeyward (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What was on the other channel when that interview ran? "Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s idea of a significant marginal rate cut was to push the top rate down to 91 percent from 92 percent. Corporate taxes hit 50 percent. Jobs proliferated, wages rose, and the economy prospered." Three generations later, Wikipedia's Economics article, read by 4,300 people each day, says, "Tax cuts allow consumers to increase their spending, which boosts aggregate demand." How would the 50s and 60s have been different if Wikipedia was available then? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Asked at Talk:Economics#Tax cut claim in Fiscal policy section. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia keep reliable sources/articles balanced when you, and most editors are "Internationalists"?

Hi Jimbo, here are 2 of the more obvious Wikipedia angles you demanded.

1: I believe that most Wikipedia editors self identify as Internationalists as opposed to sovereignty prioritizing nationalists. User:Smallbones confirmed that fact in the discussion you just shut down. In addition, many if not most so-called "main stream media" have a corporate affinity with internationalism and often express that affinity within their "news" content. I am thinking that maybe this lopsided predisposition of yourself and most editors in favour of Internationalism is having a seriously damaging effect upon the neutrality of Wikipedia and especially Blps and articles about western political leaders and issues. The censoring of the Daily Mail articles may be a recent example of a trend I worry is taking place. The trend is further obvious in the labeling of many non-establishment media as tabloid or unfit for consideration as reliable sources.

2: Also, as part of the "Wikipedia angle", your rebooting feels like discussion stifling to me, especially since your talk page apparently has some sort of robot which automatically archives topics when interest dries up; something that other editors have complained about. It comes across, to me at least, that its kinda dictatorial (no offence)for you to use the robot and also a rebooting tool to end discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

1. I don't agree at all. And it is patently absurd to conflate editorial judgment with censorship.

I'm not conflating, I'm saying that when editorial judgment is in the hands of mostly internationalist minded editors it can veer off into a mild and/or even systemic form of censorship against sources which present content which is on the more nationalist minded spectrum. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

2. I don't agree at all. It is perfectly appropriate for me to ask that discussion not veer off into unrelated political matters and be firmly rooted in questions about how to improve Wikipedia. Hence the reboot of the discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure it was appropriate for you to ask, but not, I think, to archive when there was still ongoing discussion and unanswered questions to you. I think the political matters are related to how to improve Wikipedia, so maybe we just have a different opinion on that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Background for the 2 issues: In 2017, there is enormous friction between Internationalists and nationalists worldwide, particularly in Europe....exemplified by Brexit. In addition, there is a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders, who almost all identify as internationalists, and at least half of the people/voters, who prefer national political sovereignty, as shown in the Brexit vote. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I mean by veering off into unrelated political matters. You've got to stop doing that. (As a side note: it is absolutely wrong to suppose that the political leaders who identify as internationalist do not "prefer national political sovereignty". If people aren't responding well to your political rants, it may be because they don't make a lot of sense.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think people are responding well to questions I am raising here. Believe me I know a rant when I see one, and it has not been done here by me. Sometimes I do get a bit wordy, I'll admit, in trying to make a point or ask a question that others...you for example..can do in fewer words. I admit I do get energized about any issues I think are important...I am not dispassionate at all about any topics which create or increase conflicts between nations as I had a friend come home in a body bag from a truly senseless war which could have easily been avoided if more citizens/voters had been paying attention and been more passionate about standing up for their opinions. I definitely try to keep my passion in check when I edit here and by and large I do a good job of it....but, if its an issue, I'll try harder to be more concise and less verbose here on Wikipedia. Btw, my attempt with the Attawapiskat went nowhere but at least the suicides have stopped there, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm probably not the only person whose eyes glazed over, and who stopped reading, when you starting talking about "censoring" the Daily Mail. If you're going to use a politically charged, inflammatory term like "censoring", then you should have a basic understanding of what it means. Wikipedia isn't an online discussion forum, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. It's an attempt to create a serious, reputable, and accurate reference work. We therefore have a responsibility to exclude sources with poor reputations for truthfulness and accuracy, or with documented track records of printing fabrications, uncorrected errors, and lies. This practice is not "censorship"; it's a necessary editorial process, to ensure that we're not perpetuating errors and falsehoods, and to ensure that we're upholding our basic contract of honesty with the reader. And now back to our regularly scheduled anti-globalization screed.... MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I often use the wrong word here or there, but to be fair, I always try to ignore it when someone else uses the wrong or an inflammatory word or two and I try to recognise and respond to the substance and meaning of what they are saying. Regarding the DM, they published this story about the Afghan opium debacle which no other media held Blair accountable for and which may be crucially important to many Brits because over 450 Brits were killed in the Afghanistan mission, and 158 Canadians as well. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that Blair was 5 years out of power in 2012, how can he be responsible for that failure? As for the facts, the DM apparently references a report by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. I suspect the final version of the 2012 report is here - it took about 5 minutes to find. Versions for other years are also online. Of course, the DM does not clearly list its sources, so it's hard to tell. Putting the title into Google News shows plenty of articles discussing the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See Opium production in Afghanistan for earlier references, many of which received widespread press coverage before that 2012 DM article. Please provide references for the claim that no other media held Blair accountable, a claim which suggests utter unfamiliarity with the British press at best and failing that, deliberate misrepresentation. Please spare us the routine DM rhetoric about "crucially important to many Brits because <insert statistic here, preferably with 2 or more digits>" and remember that Wikipedia is not here to hold British prime ministers to account. Please do not distort the words of others as you did when converting Smallbones' "very many" to "most", let alone represent such words as factual confirmation. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If there was any other references that held Blair accountable for this particular reason of his ( to smash the opium trade ) for him sending 450 Brits to their death in Afghanistan, and spending 18 billion pounds there, I am sure you would have found it. Keep looking but there is none which holds Blair to account for this part of his mission. Not only did he not smash the trade, but conversely the opium production and consequential financing of al-quaida skyrocketed during his mission! Your reference to the other articles about opium production never once reminded the public that Blair was not fulfilling this particular war justification objective. If you are so familiar with the British press, then please produce a reference within the content of any of our articles which points out Blair's failure in this regard. Your Smallbones comment that "very many" is not "most" seems deflective from the substance of the matter to me, but if Smallbones asks for a clarification of those words, I will certainly provide it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I see you cannot justify your claim that no other media held Blair accountable over opium production and Afghanistan and instead try to deflect the burden of proof onto the person that asked you to provide it. This once, I'll give you a clue: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Blair+opium+Afghanistan&ie=UTF-8. Your new complaint that a Wikipedia article on opium production in Afghanistan "never once reminded the public that Blair was not fulfilling this particular war justification objective" suggests you regard Wikipedia as a platform for political campaigning. It is not, despite your unsubtle attempts to use this page for that purpose. Your evasive reponse when challenged on the distortion in your opening, "I believe that most Wikipedia editors self identify as Internationalists ... User:Smallbones confirmed that fact" does nothing to suggest such attempts should be treated with respect. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Does treating people with respect even when they are mistaken or have poor motivations result in better or worse outcomes than when respect is contingent on whether one agrees with another? How often on this very page do we see those who have no time for those with whom they disagree bemoan how their political climate has become exclusionary and insular? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How often on this very page have we recently seen persistent accusations of political bias, presented with evasive rhetoric and distortions of fact, framed as leading questions and followed with demands for answers and accusations of censorship? 79.73.246.67 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That happens all the time throughout Wikipedia, not just on this page. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

|

I'm a little confused about how the discussion over internationalist/nationalist bias veered off into Tony Blair and heroin, but getting back to the principle, here's my take:

The Wikipedia is an Age of Enlightenment institution (which is why our references typically are to peer-reviewed or fact-checked sources, rather than consisting mostly of "The Pope himself has said that this is true" or "The leader of our country himself has said that this is true" and so forth, as would have been done in former days -- and still is, in many places.)

Internationalization goes hand in hand with Enlightenment ideals to some degree. The modern system of international treaties and relations is to some extent an Enlightenment institution. The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop.

And you can't easily separate these things out. If you gather people who are on board with the scientific method, and objectively experienced reality as the measure of truth -- that is, us -- they are also like to be cosmopolitan in outlook generally.

OK so:

there is a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders, who almost all identify as internationalists, and at least half of the people/voters, who prefer national political sovereignty, as shown in the Brexit vote

But none of that matters. The Wikipedia is not run on votes, and is certainly is not run of votes of people who aren't editors. Enlightenment ideals have never been all that popular. Very many people are not comfortable with Enlightenment ideas such as letting other people practice weird religions, or say unpleasing things -- or indeed with humanism, of which internationalism is a manifestation.

But so what? A lot of people are morons. What does that have to do with us here? We are not going to start taking the approach "Well, to be fair, we need to balance the non-moronic material with some moronic material". Not likely to gain much traction here; I'd give it up. Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you Herostratus, I agree with every single word you say. Toronto is the most cosmopolitan city in the world, I think, and I love it. But I think you erred when you equated moronic material with material sourced from non-enlightened publications. If you don't mind I'll substitute "dumb" for "moronic". Just as a person needs some dumb muscles to keep his brain alive and functioning, the age of enlightenment needs the dumb energy from the masses to provide enough fuel for the Age of Enlightenment to carry along with it the masses....because if it doesn't then we're left with an old fashioned caste system or a revolution wherein the masses kick the Age of Enlightenment back to the dark ages. So, there does exist simple and not enlightened information which comes out of places like DM or Breitbart or Daily Caller which adds some of the muscle I'm talking about and which will make the encyclopedia more comfortable for that 50% plus of the population who are not internationalists or enlightened. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Yup, in real world the relationship between enlightened government and democracy is fraught and complicated (although generally complementary in the long run). Operating a functioning democracy in a world where a significant fraction of the population is stupid and credulous has always been a problem. One thing that has worked in the past (but is not working so well at present) is to make being ignorant and credulous something to be ashamed of and quiet about, rather than proud of. I think that's the best approach, rather than pandering -- generally, and certainly for us here. Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I once again agree with your logic. However, I read something recently which turned my own valuation of logic inside out: 17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." So that's 42 generations and since Christ that's another 80 generations for a total of 132 generations which impressed upon me the silliness of thinking that what any of us do in our physical lives is of anything more than zero importance. But maybe what we do acting from a spiritual perspective possibly has some importance as our spirits may not have an end to them. So, at least if we make decisions that are spiritually comfortable they may have some degree of importance whereas anything we do based upon logic and practicality is of such temporary effect as to be meaningless. In my mind, it is much more comfortable spiritually to intellectually hold hands with all those who are stupid and/or credulous and/or ignorant as well as those who are genius and gifted and that we all move together intellectually while driven by our spiritual responsibility for each other.

So, I am soooo glad that we have come to the agreement that the encyclopedia is restricted to a path which is internationalism which is a manifestation of humanism. That is the most important first step; to clearly see the reality of where we are.

Now, you present as if you know where Wikipedia goes from this point forward, and my experience with this project and with other contributors is much less so I must defer to your opinion in that regard. I am simply saying its a big mistake to stay on this path of exclusion of reading material which you might find moronic. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course -- 42 generations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• That is truly interesting to me....the binary code thingy..I must research that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the obvious hero (or rather heroine) in the 42-generation mythology is pre-Abraham Eve, who had the audacity to perform an experiment that helped mankind to escape from the most boring zoo ever imagined. Which, of course, shows that what we do can have quite fundamental importance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, great point, but that event is a spiritual event, as Satan is a purely spiritual being. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

News media have bicker bias

(split from "/Archive_217#News articles about Wikipedia rarely flattering"). Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As for unflattering news coverage of Wikipedia, the news media seem to have a "bicker bias" for which issues to headline, and so the press complains in July 2009 about lack of WP photos: "Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos" (pages have poor or no photos). Likewise, when W~leaks released purported emails of John Podesta (campaign of H. Clinton), the shocking revelation should have been how the private emails noted former Secretary Hillary Clinton was discussing the concerns of many so-called "disaffected voters" for years before other candidates were lauded as better because they talked about concerns of left-out voters "overlooked" by Clinton, I mean really. But no, instead the Podesta emails were reported for bickering among campaign officials, as if shocking news that personnel in a campaign could have disagreements. Nowadays, the shocking news about the Mike Pence email controversy is that he has complained about Hillary Clinton's emails as worse, by falsely claiming that she deleted emails when requested, rather than the actual results of the extensive FBI investigation(s) which concluded the routine purging of old Clinton emails was a periodic cleanup, and not evasion, nor evidence tampering, nor obstruction of justice because the computer techs had wiped the servers long before email requests and without knowledge by Clinton. Instead, the Pence email controversy should have been reported for maintaining private Indiana emails, for 2 years[!] after the Clinton email news began, by the very act of Mike Pence, as then Indiana Governor, to use a non-secured AOL account for Indiana government, beyond the official email system, and outside the Indiana laws to preserve or archive official emails for later public inspection. It was like Clinton-redux-anyway for 2 more years, except instead of Clinton's secured private email server inside her New York home, Mike Pence used an open, public AOL account to discuss governor's security with no private storage of data, which of course was hacked, with evidence of hacking. However, the news media have a bicker bias, and so the headlines now are Pence complains (again) about Clinton emails, not Pence violated Indiana's public-access laws for years, storing emails in a private, hacked AOL account, even 2 years after Clinton controversy. Let's hear, "Lock him up! Lock him up!" -Wikid77 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• (also see: "#Another unflattering news article"). Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Undocumented immigrants" versus "Illegal immigrants"

Jimbo, I noticed where the term "illegal immigrants" was changed to "undocumented immigrants" in Marine Le Pen's Blp. I'm thinking that for an encyclopedia, "undocumented" is too vague as it could mean a legal immigrant who has lost their documents. Also, the term "undocumented immigrants" is a whitewashing Weasel word as it implies, by its vagueness and benignity, that no crime has been committed. It would be easy to just use whatever term is in the source, but, I think the traditional "illegal immigrant" is necessary for an encyclopedia for factual clarity purposes and to differentiate the group from legal immigrants. What do you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Try discussing it on the article talk page. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am only using the Le Pen article as an example. I am asking whether we need to have one phrase to use consisdently in our editing, unless its a quote, and I am suggesting we should and that that term should be "illegal immigrants" for clarity and neutrality puroposes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The technically correct term is probably illicit, not illegal, as it's not a criminal offence in France as far as I can tell. The largest single group of "illegal immigrants" in the UK is American students overstaying their visas, according to an article I read last year. Is that "illegal" as in big-scary-Muslamic illegal? Guy (Help!) 11:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy, you have formed an insulting, to me, false opinion. We took in 50,000 legal Syrian refugees in Canada last year and aim for another 40,000 this year. All under our Liberal Justin Trudeau led government. I am proud to say I am a LONG time member of the Liberal Party of Canada and I support everything we do to help any refugees, including muslims. I actually do not think I have ever seen a scary muslim. Your inference is offensive and you owe me a huge apology ! I simply feel that here on Wikipedia we can be the most useful by being reality grounded and not fall onto either side of the current polarization, which I think is largely an internationalism/nationalism polarization. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We should follow the common usage of reliable sources, as it is not our job to take a position on such matters. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And I second the suggestion that this be discussed on the article talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Great! What is the common usage ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I should use a yahoo exact phrase search...hold on. 2,500,000 "illegal immigrants" and 1,320,000 "undocumented immigrants". So does that settle it Jimbo ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo WalesYou misunderstand. I am only using the Le Pen article as an example. I am asking whether we need to have one phrase to use consisdently in our editing, unless its a quote, and I am suggesting we should and that that term should be "illegal immigrants" for clarity and neutrality puroposes.Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a misnomer as undocumented and illegal are not the same thing; one can enter a country legally and overstay, making one illegal but not undocumented, such as a British perosn entering the US on a tourist visa and staying beyond its expiry date but still having a legal passport. An undocumented immigrants implies having entered the country illegally without documentation such a Honduran person entering Mexico illegally. Which makes what Jimbo says entirely correct. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point; both examples fit the "illegal" word but both do not fit the "undocumented" word. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably the neutral way would be to use the term relevant to the statement or conversation using it. If it is about presence of immigrants which is in violation of the laws of that country, the term "illegal" is probably most appropriate for that statement / conversation. If it not and about lack of documentation, undocumented would seem more appropriate. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what view you think I have formed, I was merely pointing out that the last article I read on the subject said that the largest single group of illegal immigrants in the UK is American students overstaying visas. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Some opinions may be based on a single out-of-context experience and may not be accurate. Other opnions may be based on extended patterns of behavior and are likely to be very accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And some may be based on official statistics. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In French, the common term is "sans-papiers", which literally translates to undocumented people. The term is used extensively in French media, and it shouldn't be surprising that English press translating from French news outlets would use "undocumented immigrants" in this context. An article about a French politician is exactly the wrong Reichstag to pick for climbing here. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The correct term is what the sources use. "Undocumented immigrants" is a slightly broader term, since after all an immigrant could be 100% legal and legitimately not have documents - lost in a fire, six years old and can't find her mommy. It is up to the individual news reporter or study author to use that term correctly... and if they don't, that's not our fault nor our fix. Wikipedia can't actually do better than the sources it relies on. But we can and should use both terms in an article when there are some sources for one and some for the other and when it is possible to reliably source "illegal immigrant" the narrower term should be able to take precedence. We should not be banning words for political correctness. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Another unflattering news article

Out this morning but I cannot link to it (a) as the outlet in question is now an 'unreliable source' and (b) it outs one of our editors. Notwithstanding, it raises many points that I have been concerned about over the years. For example

• the supposed exercise in democracy [to ban the source] took place in virtual secrecy, and was supported by a mere 53 of WP editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five administrators.
• Yet WP remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. 'Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today'. (They didn't mention the Kazakhstan affair, though).
• the ban raises troubling questions about free speech and censorship in the online era.
• 90 per cent of editors are men, and most are white. Only a tiny proportion come from outside the developed world.
• WMF refused to answer questions.
• WMF has huge cash reserves, average salary of employees estimated at £90k, yet WP calls itself a 'small nonprofit'.

Peter Damian (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is always good to take concerns over Wikipedia seriously. That is important for our public image and to prevent discreditation.

was supported by a mere 53 of WP editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five administrators.

Well, that's the fault of users who prefer passivity over participation. And note that this passivity can be a good thing if you are mostly neutral on a topic or aren't knowledgeable in that area. But it's not a fault of Wikipedia.

the supposed exercise in democracy [to ban the source] took place in virtual secrecy

Didn't it take place at the very visible reliable sources noticeboard? But if that's what some got from it we should now think about how to make such discussions known to editors to whom it matters. For instance should or was a note added to the DailyMail article? What more could we do here?

Yet WP remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. 'Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today'. (They didn't mention the Kazakhstan affair, though).

Well if they're reliable they should be allowed to be used. If they continuously make false claims and the like we should have the same discussions about them. They don't necessarily need to be "banned" - discouraging their use or establishing ways to and groups that track their usages would be other, potentially more constructive, ways to deal with them.

the ban raises troubling questions about free speech and censorship in the online era.

Let them cry. If that puts pressure on journalists and news agencies to actually do their job that is good. It's not censorship but simply the recognition of the state of unreliability of a specific source.

90 per cent of editors are men, and most are white. Only a tiny proportion come from outside the developed world.

Well that's largely not Wikipedia's fault but of female and non-white people as well as those not coming from the developed world. Of course the social structures around them need to be considered (such as education systems) and hence we can't really say that it's (at least mostly) their fault. But that indeed means potential bias. Here we should probably continue making Wikipedia easier to contribute to.

WMF refused to answer questions.

We, the community, need ways to answer these questions. They shouldn't be reaching out to WMF but Wikipedia which is us editors (and admins & WMF people). I already suggested pages and ways for said here.

WMF has huge cash reserves, average salary of employees estimated at £90k, yet WP calls itself a 'small nonprofit'.

Good point. Relevant to this is this Signpost Op-ed: "Wikipedia has cancer". Per m:Wikimedia Foundation salaries Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov are getting ~$300.000 per year. What the heck? One could say that executive directors should probably earn more and that they could work in other positions where they could earn much more. However this is far too much considering that it's donated money that could be used for improvements of Wikipedia. It's not enough to make salaries transparent if they're too high (and the last ones are from 2014). If I would work for WMF if I'd totally suffice with under $20.000 to leave all the rest to Wikipedia so that development projects can be funded. I don't think that the job of executive directors can't be carried out properly by other people who are also taking up less financial resources. I think we need ways for the community to dismiss WMF workers and decide on new ones.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider how you are thinking about salaries. The average php developer salary in San Francisco, California, is nearly $120,000. The idea that the WMF should pay a maximum of $20,000 is basically saying that in exchange for the privilege of working at WMF, people should give up 5/6th of their earning potential. Instead, I think that the WMF should pay fair market salaries taking into account the fact that we are a nonprofit and can never really fully compete with the kind of earnings people can get with stock options, etc. at other organizations. The Daily Mail acts like our salaries are out of line - but they are absolutely clearly not out of line at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

30 million users is wrong. That's the number of registered accounts. According to Special:Statistics, only 141k of those have been active in the past month, and many of them will be vandals and sockpuppets. Moreover, from sampling Special:ListUsers, many if not the majority of accounts never edit. BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a funny article and probably quite accurate - I will not link to it as it seems to name a wikipedia editor - anyways, you edit here and you take your chances - don't think you are incognito and free to spout whatever you want without any comeback or retaliation, the mail has a lot more resources to defend itself than you have as a not for profit volunteer wikipedia editor. The Daily Mail is a decent enough source for simple basic details as are hundreds of others that we use - the new york post for example - stronger multiple sources are better for controversial details. I disagree with the total rejection of the Daily Mail- that was unnecessary - it is no worse than many other sources that are regularly used here. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Btw the policy is WP:OUTING - the url can't be added here due to that.

I disagree with the total rejection of the Daily Mail- that was unnecessary - it is no worse than many other sources that are regularly used here.

But it wasn't "totally rejected". The ban said that it's "generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist" which means that it under some circumstances, and when exercising common sense it could still be used if no other sources exist and other editors of the article are okay with it. Potentially the {{Better source}} template could be used in these rare cases. --Fixuture (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Funny" is indeed for me too the first thing that came to mind when I read it. With some indignation they declare "The Mail is the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored" – Well, they forget of course that Wikipedia has declared itself even more unreliable than the Mail (I don't even know whether we needed a vote for that). By the time I came to the paragraph that reads "It should be noted here that, ironically enough, the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Wikipedia as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy" I was of course LOL. Sorry to see their gutter-journalism approach to the topic (which prevents us to link to it for the obvious and at least intentionally offensive OUTing). Otherwise I can't imagine a comedian that could have done a better job at producing something for people to laugh with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, seems a lot like a comedian promising to shoot in their own foot in their next show – and does so, with a real gun. Since the show was such a huge box-office success, they do the same with their other foot in the next show. Should one not rather take pity than laugh? So I end up feeling morally conflicted whether it isn't a bit too perverse to laugh with it. Let them shoot in their own foot as much as they like. If they think that is a decent way to make a living, who are we to comment on it? Deny recognition seems a more reasonable approach, maybe they would, in the end, stop maiming their own limbs? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Organizations that are non-profit and built upon pursuing a good cause are the ones that can have the most intractable problems because they tend to lack needed structures and checks-and balances. This is because, for those types of organizations it seemed like such "weren't needed". A few of the common issues for these are too much power in ivory towers, making ivory towers hard to penetrate and too removed from scrutiny, overpayment of the top 1 or 2 persons, defacto control of the board by the top 1-2 persons, bad binding decisions coming from places that are too isolated and less expert at making them, and using the imprimatur and instruments of the organization to pursue the political or other off-mission ends of certain groups. Getting more of these instruments in place would do much good. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest point here is the danger of outing. If you upset a major corporation, especially a news outlet, they will come after you if they so wish. And proceed to libel you. Anybody with an online profile that is in any way recognizable is at risk. Editors who are in any way recognizable should steer clear of these sort of debates. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In my post I had Wikipedia in mind. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry North8000 I wasn't really replying to your post, just making a general statement.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It was indented under mine but fixing that clarified that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is ironic that the Daily Mail objects to Wikipedia calling the Daily Mail, only a little more reliable than Wikipedia calls itself (which is, not at all). I previously noted that the Daily Mail's having to tell it's reporters not to use Wikipedia as a source (as late as 2014!), shows just how unreliable the Daily Mail would have to be, with such foolish reporters that they have to be told that. I cross-posted some of this this at AN: In addition to the Daily Mail's false name calling, that Slatersteven notes, Five closed the discussion, but no they were not all administrators, and it's probable that more than five administrators participated in the discussion. Another falsehood in the Daily Mail article is the suggestion that the month long discussion was secret, and that only those who "haunt" the Reliable Source Noticeboard (that's decidedly not secret) participated -- all false. I don't even watch the page, and I found out about it in public, while it was on-going. Now, of course, its not an absolute "ban" anyway, see, The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia. Further, it looks like the Daily Mail is the only one who is anti-free speech and anti-free thought - sorry, in a free world, people are more than allowed to determine the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", but perhaps the Daily Mail does not like free speech. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Where does the article say that the discussion was 'secret'? Of course it is hard to tell which article we are talking about because Wikipedia does not allow us to link to it. user:Peter Damian —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • On what basis did you conclude that Wikipedia does not allow us to link to The Daily Mail? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Well let's test that hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Peter Damien, you're the one who called it "secrecy" and you specifically based that on the false suggestion made by the Daily Mail article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the exact words of the article were 'this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy'. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Unless, you and the Daily Mail also falsely claim people including the Daily Mail, itself, puts stuff on the public internet in secrecy, there is nothing "in virtual secrecy" about it (at, get this, a page called, "WIKIPEDIA:Reliable Sources Noticeboard" -- posted for a month -- it's hard to get more not secret) - just bad reporting by the Daily Mail. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• The Daily Heil responds to criticism by doxxing. But it's not alt-right, absolutely, definitely not, even though that's what the alt-right do. On the plus side, it is always good to have a Wikipedia decision confirmed by the subject. And that's basically what the Heil have done here: printed an article perfectly exemplifying the reasons why they are not reliable. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Let's start by linking the news story, because it makes some significant points that we would do well to consider. If it also incidentally names a Wikipedia editor, I am not convinced this is a relevant policy issue. The Mail claims this was already public on a Facebook profile, and they've sure as hell made it so. The relevant issue, as is nearly always the case, is not "WP:OUTING" (coming up with some kind of secret personal information) but actually "WP:Opposition research" (we may not have a link but the issue is described somewhat sanely in the policy) - I don't care who Hillbillyholiday is or if he's ever posted something some narrow-minded person might look at askance; this debate should be about the issues, not the person. We can do that - but we only do that if we are willing to read the article. Pulling down the windowshade does not actually stop the oncoming train. And making a holy fetish, complete with chicken bones and muttered spells, out of the act of "linking" a page rather than typing daily mail wikipedia into Google and taking the first hit (as I did, and hopefully everyone else weighing in) is an affront to the internet, to html, and to all things sane and good that died during the money-grubber takeover of the internet in the early 2000s. When I think of all the grave sins and blasphemies committed by Tim Berners-Lee when he first suggested putting references in angle brackets with strategic "a"s, I wonder if burning his entire country at the stake would be sufficient to propitiate Huitzlopochtli for his wicked thoughts. And in fact, I'm not reinventing the wheel here - what Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment actually says is Web sites that do not routinely harass have in the past become engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor. It is not normally necessary to remove such links. Removing links to the official website of an article subject due to side-effects of a single dispute is rarely necessary and may be unwise.

Now the Daily Mail deserves proper ridicule for resorting to ad hominem about the person who proposed a vote when fifty-odd misguided people did thoroughly win the discussion. They also go wrong in suggesting PressTV has no such "black mark" when in fact it simply was so derided that nobody bothered to hold a vote. (Amazing how much easier it is to refute a story if you read it) But that doesn't change the core issue that Daily Mail has a point when they say that they are being condemned for a small number of remarkable articles, by a very small proportion of the Wikipedia community. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WMF response?

This should be something that the WMF takes very high interest in, and it is imperative they do something about it. Here we have a major news agency doxxing editors, send reporters to harass family members of editors, and damaging Wikipedia's reputation. We cannot allow chilling effects by angry third parties, because, as someone points out at AN, the DM now has an email address for people to report that they've been "wronged" by Wikipedia, and there's a lot of people with vendettas out there. The WMF issued a statement clarifying what it means to "ban" a source, but what now about the fallout from the incident? If I had no reservations about editing Daily Mail articles or articles on other subjects that would stoop so low as to dox people, I certainly do now, and many people likely feel the same, so I think it is important the WMF take some action or make a statement of some sort. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that a WMF response would be in any way productive on this particular point. I can say personally: yes, they are horrible and bullies and what they said to attack a charity volunteer is appalling. But even me saying this much risks further attacks from them, or picking up the specific insults by other media outlets. (Though I hope that any journalists reading this will have the good sense to realize that the most dignified thing to do is not further the damage to a private individual by repeating the attacks.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are fair game for doxing. Editors here think they add all sorts of attacking personal content to the www with total impunity, well, great, they get feedback - If that fear of personal retribution helps them stop adding undue and attacking content about living people - good. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And of course, it's totally fair when accurate, balanced, correctly weighted information that's also highly embarrassing or unpopular with the subject gets them harrassed. Yup! Of course! Editors here should only add positive and subject approved information. Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Scientology tax status history redux

Jimbo (also pinging @Xaosflux:, @JzG:, @Wnt:, @Panyd:, @Only in death:, @Anthonyhcole: and @John Carter: as you all commented too), you said on this page a couple of months ago that you'd "got curious about the history of Scientology and their tax status with the IRS". I'd written about this about 20 years ago but hadn't touched it since, so I thought I'd give it the Wikipedia treatment. Here it is: Tax status of Scientology in the United States. Hope you find it informative! Prioryman (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I listened to a very interesting podcast interview with Ron Miscavige recently. If the IRS ever investigates their use of "church" funds for stalking and harassment, they could be in real trouble. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the IRS would have any motivation to do this, but in any case unless the CoS is very stupid I doubt that they use tax-exempt money to pay for the stalking and harassment activities. They collect donations from members for the "defense" of Scientology, which I would guess are not considered tax-exempt funds. One member alone, Bob Duggan, says he's donated more than a third of a billion dollars, so they have no shortage of money. Paying a couple of private investigators $20,000 a month to surveil Ron Miscavige is peanuts. (The PI they hired to go after IRS officials was paid $1 million for 18 months' work.) Prioryman (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, reading now. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy Moly! There is obviously a lot I don't know about this group... I nominate Prioryman for the Sacred Order of the Adamantium Cojon. Is it unanimous? Wnt (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Amazing! Now let's hope the IRS jumps on them for violating enurement clauses... Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you have special permissions although you are not elected?!

The title says it all. Many people wonder: are you Wikipedias benevolent dictator? Please answer the question. 78.52.216.224 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales has a community write up on this topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! That would answer my question: Jimmy is Wikipedias benevolent dictator! 78.52.216.224 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not the benevolent dictator of anything. I do have a special constitutional role in the governance of English Wikipedia, and I consider that an important set of "checks and balances" on our governance. But I have only very seldom taken specific action, and not at all for many years now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)