User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Attack coatrack we discussed

I noticed while you recognized that the Carrie Prejean attack page was a coatrack, you didn't accept straight off that it was an attack page. The "encyclopedia article" was created when Miss Prejean, then 21, said that marriage was a man-woman thing. I quote the gay/ same-sex marriage advocate mob [1] editors:

• "Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today."[2]
• "Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto."[3]

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." -- Rico 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to insult people by calling them a 'mob'.

As to the content issue, I don't know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on whether this is a BLP1E situation, but I will say that there is at least very good reason to consider it, and my initial inclination would be to agree with you. As it currently stands, I re-iterate my opinion from before: the article is a fiasco and embarrassment. I'm dealing with several different issues at once these days, and so I'm not going to have time to personally get involved in this one, but I do hope I will be kept informed over time as to how it progresses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Rico, since I am the first quote above, I will note that I not a mob member. Even mice don't scurry from me. I followed the Prejean "controversy" closely at first and have cleaned up vandal edits on wikipedia to her article (as I have also done to James O'Keefe more recently). I also know that state pageant winners often do not get to have articles on wikipedia because they get deleted (not by me, but I'm more of an inclusionist if articles are verifiable). There is no question that Prejean's notability stems from her answer given in the pageant and Perez's subsequent baiting to increase the controversy. Since then she has had a very rocky road, and the article necessarily reflects what has been reported, and we need to avoid being too gratuitous--Jimbo's comment is not surprising because unless you've followed the controversy closely, you would be surprised to know the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative. But she's way too famous now not to have an article, imho. Its always fair to debate whether and how certain things should be worded, but those who may not agree with you aren't necessarily some cabal of gay marriage aficianados.--Milowent (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Milowent, I did look into this a couple of weeks ago when it was first brought to my attention, and I think the article is quite unfair as it stands. (And I agree with you that turning this into a "pro gay marriage cabal" argument is not likely to be useful.)

I think the things that disturbs me most right now is the close of the article - the article closes with an obvious enemy of hers (remember, she sued them for terminating her contract) calling her a liar, delusional, etc. The "hook" for that quote is that she apparently performed quite poorly on Larry King, storming off the set or whatever - is that incident actually worth including in the article? (Maybe it is, I'm just raising the question.) Surely she's done dozens of other interviews that went perfectly well - but we don't talk about those, we only talk about her failed interview with King.

What do you think of the BLP1E question? It does seem pretty much right that she wouldn't have an article had Perez Hilton not behaved as he did. (Seriously, I think were it not for his behavior, no one in the press would have even noted her answer - it is, as many have noted - not a completely outrageous answer even if you don't agree with it... it's the same answer that is fairly standard for a lot of people. Had she said "I think gay people should burn in hell" then that would have likely been notable in and of itself. But this only became notable because of something that someone else did.) Even the subsequent lawsuit might not have generated any particular notice - people sue people all the time, it's not that big a deal in most cases.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a BLP1E, but the article desperately needs to be rewritten. I edited it for awhile, but got fed up with partisans on either side of the issue and took it off my watchlist. Starting with the Miss USA 2009 controversy pretty much gets undue weight. I'm going to take a crack at it and see if I can get rid of some of the bias. AniMate 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you got rid of some of the bias.

However, you masked the coatrack by:

(A) Spliting sections for when Miss Prejean said marriage was between a man and a woman, and what happened as a consequence, into two separate sections.

(B) You added another section for the book she wrote, even though it's abundantly clear that her book's about what happened to her.

(C) You added the unencyclopedic fact that she got engaged to a football player.

The addition of her engagement and book, disguised her lack of notability.

The addition of multiple unrelated non-notable accomplishments took the focus away from the event that was the true purpose for creating the coatrack article.

Also, the way I remember it, you left because TharsHammar -- who had been fighting for casting Miss Prejean in a bad light (using a leaked email of hers, in violation of BLP's Presumption in favor of privacy) -- called you an "edit warrior"[4] -- Rico 05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit, that never was -- because it was withdrawn -- is in the article for two reasons:

(1) One of the causes of action was that the Miss California USA co-directors (both gay rights activists), said that Miss Prejean had had a boob job. She sued alleging disclosure of private facts. Without the lawsuit, that wasn't, it's hard to claim it's worthy of inclusion that a model and beauty pageant contestant had had a breast implant.

(2) TMZ, a decidedly unreliable source, published that the reason Prejean withdrew her lawsuit, was that there had been a "sex tape" that the defendants would make public if she continued with the suit. Without the lawsuit, that wasn't, they can't put it into the article that there was this "sex tape" that an anonymous person said existed.

All titillating claims about Miss Prejean's life, and everything derogatory, must be included in this sensationalistic attack page. The possibility of harm to Prejean has always been considered and, when that possibility has existed, the content has been included in the tabloid encyclopedia article. -- Rico 04:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Milowent wrote, "the article necessarily reflects what has been reported [...] the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative."

I have to disagree that:

(1) It is "necessary" that a Wikipedia article "reflects what has been reported."

(2) A biography of a living person should "necessarily reflect" an "exceedingly negative" "overall tenor" of coverage.

(1) BLP1E states, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."

(2) BLP Criticism and praise states, "Criticism [...] needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. [...] Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view," and there are a lot of motivated someones, give up. Wikipedia policies will prove to be not worth the media they're stored on.

This "encyclopedia article" has always been a smear file, and content was cherrypicked to use Wikipedia to establish that this college student was a s__t.

It has always been an attack page, a repository for all the dirt that was drudged up against her in gay/liberal media attacks, and it always will be.

What one editor wrote about one section applies to the entire attack page, and to Wikipedia: "I am not a fan of rightist 'Christian' Ms Carrie Prejean - I am rather quite the opposite," but the section/article "is all through biased and considers only Anti-Prejean statements, what makes this article sad and also make sometimes the state of wikipedia sad."[5] -- Rico 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it was that you wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot,"[6] or that you put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes,"[7] or that you substituted polling for a discussion[8] -- voting that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch."

You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but you can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that.[9] Then an admin comes along and declares, "Consensus seems to favor inclusion"[10], and restores the disputed content -- even though Wikipedia:HARM#For removal of sourced content states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article."[11] Luitgard thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat[ing] a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article."[12]

So please excuse me if I assumed you were just another one of the dozens of editors and admins that have not been editing to create an encyclopedia article, but to create an attack coatrack of a living person.

And Milowent, I struck out the word mob before you wrote this.[13][14] -- Rico 05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If she's "she's way too famous now not to have an article," why doesn't Encyclopedia Britannica have one? -- Rico 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote "mob", I only meant an overwhelming number of people -- that mobs you, with mobocracy (or "mob rule"). I wasn't thinking about an angry mob that goes after someone with pitchforks and torches, even though they have come after us many times -- with SLAPP suit-style abuses of process[15], Star Chamber activity[16] and WP:Harassment[17] -- with the predictable chilling effects.[18] Lumping the two editors I quoted, above, into that group was a mistake -- and not essential to my point.

I have already objectively proven the interest in homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage of the editors that wanted an attack page, here (skip down to the bullet points). It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival at the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack, that they were editing the article because Miss Prejean had stated that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. It's hard to apologize for stating the obvious, especially after I've proven it, but lumping individuals into this group may have been painting with overly broad strokes, and it was unnecessary. For that, I'm sorry.

Since Dictionary.com recognizes that one definition of a mob, is simply "any group or collection of persons or things," I hope we can focus on the (now masked) attack coatrack. -- Rico 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jimbo- I personally think the Larry King coverage is too much (ETA: and i said so at the time, Talk:Carrie_Prejean/Archive_2#larry_king), though it was covered widely at the time. What you can see is that the California pageant people were really vicious in this public drama - it would likely be fairer to say both sides made contentious public statements about other side. The lawsuit also didn't get major coverage until the sex tape claim came out. As for the BLP1E issue, I can't imagine consensus would favor her deletion, and we can't ignore the massive coverage she has received. Its a "famous for being famous" dilemma, and we are reflecting what the media has made notable. Thus, for John Edwards we have a massive John Edwards extramarital affair article.--Milowent (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming more and more of a problem that probably deserves some sort of RfC or other centralized discussion. Articles that should fail by BLP1E standards get legions of supporters at their AfDs because they cite "the massive coverage" out there. With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the tabloidish/sensationalist nature of even major media outlets these days, IMO the threshold for being "in the news" is far, far, far lower now than it was even 3-4 years ago. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed much of the contentious material. Like Milowent, there was far too much on the Larry King interview. People give weird interviews all the time, so I removed it. I also condensed everything about the post-Miss USA into a couple of paragraphs. I think the worst part of the article was a sly attempt to say that Prejean could have been convicted for distributing child pornography for her tape if she was underage when it was taken. She wasn't, but the statement was still in there with multiple sources. AniMate 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If Miss Prejean's masked coatrack were listed at AfD based on BLP1E, many supporters would vote to keep it, simply because they want the attack coatrack.

Listing the encyclopedia article for deletion has already discussed, among anti-Prejean editors, and they concluded that "Prejean is basically non-notable," but that "'Non-notable and stuck with it' pretty well covers it."[19]

Per Notability is not temporary, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E) [...] when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable; [...] where time allows a more dispassionate appraisal of enduring noteworthiness."

Attack coatrack supporters would not be able to truthfully argue that Miss Prejean was notable for anything more than for what happened to her when she said she believed marriage was between a man and a woman.

Miss Prejean was a low profile person, and is again.

Heterosexuals (most people) barely noticed that Miss California USA, not to be confused with Miss California, said that marriage is a man-woman thing. Lots of people have.

Anybody can set up an alert and have anything that's written about Carrie Prejean, anywhere on the Internet, emailed to them or made part of a news feed -- and then put anything that makes her look bad into the 'encyclopedia' article, and then claim "massive coverage."

I get Google News hits for "stuff nobody cares about."[20][21] Over time, I'm sure I could make a whole article about it and claim "massive coverage." -- Rico 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the lawsuit (that wasn't) got major coverage, why can't I find it -- or anything else about Carrie Prejean -- in the newspapers that Wikipedia considers reliable?[22]

Are there any peer-reviewed textbooks, published by university presses, when I can find the "massive coverage"?

I don't know what "famous for being famous" means, and while y'all have been "reflecting" what y'all have found in The Huffington Post and Gaslamp Ball, I'm not sure that 109 newspapers makes one notable -- perhaps the event, but there is already another article for that. -- Rico 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're actually trying to claim that Carrie Prejean and the controversy was not covered in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Takes guts to do that, man. Let's see...first, you apparently have no Google-fu -- try the Google archive search, such as [23] -- besides, searching the newspaper archives directly gives better results, such as [24], [25], [26], for instance. Second, there is still a perfectly good talk page for the article, why aren't you there? Third, if you want the article deleted, wouldn't WP:AFD be a much easier path? Think about it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an editor that argues for slagging, arguing that Miss Prejean's notability is for the same reason I've been saying, but who suggests merging the Miss USA 2009 controversy article into her BLP:

"This conflict is key to her being who see is, to the degree that she's a person of more note than, say, Raquel Beezley. Now if you want to argue that the controversy should not be a separate article, and should be merged into this one, I'd think that's something worth considering."[27]

I don't think there's a need for two articles. If Carrie Prejean was notable at all, it was for the Miss USA 2009 controversy. -- Rico 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote:

"Prejean's answer to the Hilton's question is most of why she is well known today. [...] And finally, this is a quote about her answer which is certainly one step removed from Prejean herself."[28]

Indeed. Delete everything from the pseudo-biography that isn't "material relevant to their notability," and the only thing left is the Miss USA 2009 controversy. -- Rico 07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions, that were just between anti Carrie Prejean editors, took the form of: 'how can we include this new slag in the article.'[29] Justifications ranged from simple opinions to a predilection for disparagement (veiled, of course, in standard Wikipedia fashion and shrouded in Wikipedia-speak) -- but the direction was always the same (tarnish Miss Prejean's reputation).

When people like me tried to suggest following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, throngs of Most Interested Persons swamped us with arguments that were often ridiculously unpersuasive.[30] Arguing with people that had no interest in building consensus was like trying to reverse the direction of a swarm of locusts with one's bare hands.[31]

Naturally, we gave up, withdrew, and left the attack coatrack of a living person to those that were running Google News searches for "Carrie Prejean," and copying whatever dirt was published by yellow journalists into her BLP. InaMaka wrote, "You got your way. You and your associates jammed completely inappropriate comments into the article which violate NPOV and BLP."[32] Caden wrote, "I see no point. That hateful mob owns and controls that attack page. Personally, I feel the article should be deleted."[33]

Baseball Bugs, who didn't hide disdain for Miss Prejean,[34] brought up deleting the attack coatrack.[35]

AniMate, who once wrote, "I don't think anyone would confuse me with a Prejean fan,"[36] was the principal opponent.

Frederick Douglass stated, "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

I suspect that the limits of what people will submit to, will be the exact amount of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon this "encyclopedia article." And the endurance of editors that want Wikipedia's policies and guidelines complied with, will again prove to be far short of what would be necessary.

What's happened now, is that AniMate -- and who has "DOWN WITH H8TE!," in a big box at the top of his/her user page, with H8TE pointing to California Proposition 8 (2008) -- has deleted some of the most egregious content and added that she's engaged to marry a football player, and that she wrote a book. AniMate also split her answer on gay marriage and the resulting fallout, into two sections, and the article looks less like a coatrack now.

But Miss Prejean's not notable for having gotten engaged to a football player, nor for having written a book. Lots of people write books these days, that don't sell. It would not make sense to report on the fallout, without putting why it occurred. Lots of women get engaged to football players. The BLP1E's still primarily about Miss Prejean's answer and the resulting fallout, and there is another article for that, entitled, "Miss USA 2009 controversy," classified as "within the scope of ... WikiProject LGBT studies."[37] -- Rico 21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rico, "people like you" aren't the only ones who follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I dare say that most of, if not all, of the main principals in this discussion follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and endeavor to edit according to those precepts. The problem is that part of the difference is in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The discussion at the talk page should be a discussion of the differing interpretations and how article proposals fit with one or the other, and attempts to persuade editors and gain consensus. Unfortunately, what the discussion is and what it should be are two different things -- far too often at the talk page, the "discussion" was nothing but repetitions of "That's censorship!", "Hilton's evil!", "Prejean's evil!", "You're all pro/anti gay marriage, why should I listen to you?", and repeated postings of quotes from policy pages with any arguments, even pathetic ones, at all. (Heck, to a large extent, many talk pages look like that.) (And, yeah, I've been guilty of that too.) Can we, at least, please discuss the ARTICLE rather than the EDITORS? Maybe the paras in the Prejean article dealing with the controversy can be shortened given the existence of the "Controversy" article - but can we talk about it over on the talk page, instead of at ANI, the BLP noticeboard, and Jimbo's talk page? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm still trying to figure out how this is a BLP1E and what exactly Jimbo is supposed to do about it. Is the one event winning Miss California USA? Is it the controversial answer she gave in the Miss USA pageant? Is it the fact that she is one of the few women in the Miss USA organization that had the title taken away? Is it the book she wrote for Regnery Publishing that was endorsed by a number of high profile conservative commentators? So confusing. Even more confusing is why Rico has chosen to complain about this here. Is Jimbo supposed to use his special "Jimbo powers" to make the article disappear? If it is such an obvious BLP1E coatrack attack article, why not just nominate it for deletion? It's also quite confusing that Rico has now declared me not-neutral enough to edit the article because I have a banner showing my disdain for Prop 8, when in a post he linked to above, it shows him quoting me in support of his position. AniMate 05:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why complain here???? Are you serious??? Rico's attempts to improve the article have been consistently removed and deleted. My attempts to improve the article have been removed and deleted. It is wrong for you to even question why he came here. Is there a Wikipedian rule that I am not aware of that states that no one should go to Jimbo's talk page with an important issue unless AniMate or ArgleBargleIV decide it is ok?? No there isn't. Arglebargle states above to to discuss the article and not the editors but you and bargle seem to think is it ok to discuss Rico. That is hypocritical. I have made a consistent argument from day one that as editors of Wikipedia we could get across Hilton's clear hatred of Prejean without having to quote him word for word, thus not repeating his hate speech of the phrase "db". I have stated over and over again on the talk page that if some blogger had called Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton a "db" there is NO way that any Wikipedian editor would have allowed that to be repeated in the article. NOR should we stoop to the level of childish comments such as Hilton's. I have not reviewed the edit history so at this time I don't know if you (AniMate) or Bargle were editors who kept quoting the highly offensive and unnecessary "db" comment of Hilton, but I do know that I was repeatedly overturned each and every time I attempted to remove the exact wording but keep the general gist of Hilton's rant. Not only were my edits reverted immediately I had to read over and over again that my attempt were nothing by "censorship" which is also flat out wrong. I will complain here about that article because it is nothing more than a hit piece on a living person. It is joke now, but it was a worse joke when the "db" wording could not be removed. I believe that the ONLY reason that the "db" wording has not reappear BECAUSE Rico and I are still right here at Jimbo's talk page. As soon as this talk page discussion gets archived I believe the editors who feel the need to repeat Hilton's hatred will return and bring the article back to it POV and BLP violating state. And one last thing, I will bring whatever reasonable discussion of an article to Jimbo's page and I will NOT ask either AniMate or Bargle for permission because I do not have to have it.--InaMaka (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since this is continuing here, I will respond here. Warning, a tl/dr block of text is ahead.

First, I prefer "Argle", if you don't mind. :-) (Although if you look in the history of my talk page for reverted revisions, I'm sure you'll find something both more "creative" and more worthy of Mr. Hilton.)

Second, neither Animate nor I have been talking about "rules". You, Rico, Animate, anybody have a perfect right to come to Talk:Jimbo Wales and present your case (unless Jimbo kicks us all off of here) -- and nowhere did I say you couldn't. NOWHERE. You don't have to ask me for permission for anything, and I wouldn't dream of either giving or denying permission. I just wonder why you're here instead of taking policy- and guideline-suggested actions such as a [WP:RFC|starting a Request for Comment]] or nominating the article for deletion. I don't know how you jumped from my questioning Rico's reasons to half of your rant above. It's far too common these days to assume immunity from questioning or criticism -- sorry, but freedom of speech (even Wikipedia's version) doesn't guarantee that. Reasonable responses to suggestions or questions as to why are usually of the forms "Here's why or why not" or "That's ridiculous", not "You're not MY boss!"

Third, earlier here, I presented some examples of suboptimal and disagreeable behavior, with the intent that I've seen it on BOTH sides of this debate, including in myself, but not specifying any editor in particular. My only specific discussion towards Rico was to ask him why. I haven't said anything about his editing style or his Wikipedia habits, nor have I accused him of trying to censor and shut down a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. BTW, when an editor throws around accusations of cabal-like behavior, shouldn't he or she be called on it? If you're going to call responding to personal attacks a personal attack in itself, you're effectively arguing for disarmament.

Fourth, I'm not going to discuss the "db" comment here -- there's a perfectly good, if underused, place for discussion already, except to note that I have moved to the position that the "db" quote probably doesn't need to be quoted.

If you and Rico are constantly being reverted, maybe it's because you don't have consensus for your edits? If you believe that there is a policy violation occurring that trumps consensus, there are roads to take that are likely to be more fruitful and more likely to give you the results you want than coming here -- although, as I said before, what you do is up to you, because I don't and won't give orders. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka and I (and others) are usually reverted because we've been vastly outnumbered, and editors and admins -- who have used the attack coatrack just to collect aspersions cast on Miss Prejean -- have always known it.[38]

I stated that tendentious editing[39][40][41][42][43], tag teaming and edit warring were the norm last spring.[44] This has not changed, and some editors have been quick to substitute polling for consensus,[45] and take advantage of this[46] -- in violation of WP:NOT#Dem -- but consensus is not numbers. We've never been able to come to a "consensus" on anything. -- Rico 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that the "dumb bitch" wording has not reappeared is that we are here on Jimbo's talk page. After this talk page discussion gets archived, the editors who simply see the article as a place to cast aspersions on Miss Prejean will return the pseudo-biography to its POV and BLP violating state.

The fact that this attack coatrack has been the first hit Google's search engine has always returned, is a black eye on Wikipedia's reputation, and an embarrassment.

What we have gone through, before and after having given up, is a testament to the mobocracy dynamic that dominates Wikipedia.

There is a big difference between the theory of Wikipedia, as expressed in its policies, guidelines and major essays, and the reality of Wikipedia, which is that POV warring is in great abundance throughout Wikipedia, and that the side with the most Most Interested Persons wins. -- Rico 07:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If Miss Prejean was notable for anything, it was for the way she was vilified by the liberal media, as a reaction to her answer to the question about what she thought about gay marriage. There is a content fork that has all that in it. Her BLP is also primarily about that -- with a few non-notable, trivial details that mask the coatrack. For example:

• AniMate added that she wrote a book.[47] We don't know how many copies she sold. She is not notable for having written a book. I wrote a book, and Wikipedia doesn't have a BLP about me. (The publisher is the source cited.)
• Someone added that she got engaged,[48] but she has not set a date. I tried to delete this trivia,[49] but AniMate reverted my deletion 18 minutes later, stating that it was "verified".[50] (This was the 'reliable' source.)

Adding her favorite color will not change the facts.

The media vilification has proven to be transient, and former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean is a low profile college student once again.

Wikipedia's reputation suffers when it is revealed that an large number of editors, most or all of which edit gay and same sex marriage articles,[51][52] can use Wikipedia to create a smear file -- just by copying vilification from yellow journalism into a so-called biography of a living person, just because she said marriage was between a man and a woman.

This BLP has always been primarily based on nasty, short-lived, little media flurries; most of its editors have had a predilection for disparagement (and just like to copy dirt into the article), and few of these have been restrained by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; and have often sought to use processes to shut more policy-minded editors up, presumably because of their numbers and interest level.

By simply copying things from media Internet sites -- even though "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (WP:NOT#NEWS) -- this BLP has been more like news than an encyclopedia article.

For almost a year, when googling "Carrie Prejean," the first hit has been an attack coatrack -- and there are indications that this fact is not lost on the editors.[53] That's a hell of a thing to do to a young college student.

It's pretty disgusting to see people's activism amounting to attacking a living person with every derogatory thing that appears in a newspaper somewhere, gossip website or on TV. -- Rico 07:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I never declared you not-neutral enough to edit the article. -- Rico 06:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "most of, if not all, of the main principals in this discussion follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines."

I can prove they don't.

You, Wikidemon and AniMate are principals in this discussion.

Last Thursday, I moved an untrue, disputed, contentious slag to the talk page.[54][55]

Caden agreed with me.[56]

You reverted my edit 18 minutes after I made it.[57]

I deleted the slag again.[58]

Wikidemon restored the slag stating, "no plausible BLP argument [...] no consensus to remove."[59]

Caden deleted the slag.[60]

Wikidemon restored the slag stating, "please discuss disputed changes on talk page."[61] (Caden had.)

InaMaka deleted the slag.[62]

Tarc restored the slag.[63]

I made another plausible BLP argument, disproving Wikidemon's contention that "there's no plausible BLP argument here."

WP:HARM states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and BLP policy states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

"The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material," yet "main principals in this discussion" did not even attempt to prove "there [was] a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so."

(Administrator AniMate, another of the "main principals in this discussion," repeatedly violates this policy.[64][65])

SlimVirgin protected the page, citing the "edit war,"[66] another policy "main principals in this discussion" had not been following, working together to circumvent the three revert rule instead.

Edit warring over the inclusion of slags in the pseudo-biography has been the rule, not the exception.[67] -- Rico 06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, since you're spreading your answers all over the place here, I'm just going to respond down here. If you think the article should be deleted, why are you complaining here (and spending more of your time complaining about editors than discussing the article)? Why haven't you tried an AFD on the article? Jimbo isn't likely to wave his magic wand and make it go away on your command. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear ArglebargleIV: Your comments above do not in anyway focus on how to make the Prejean article better. As a matter of fact, all your comments above are just an attempt to dictate to Rico what he actions as an editor should be. That is not helpful. Reading your comments you give the impression that taking an issue to Jimbo is a waste of time. Since you have decided to use this forum as an opportunity to dictate actions to Rico instead of fixing the obviously seriously faulted Prejean article and if it is a waste of time, which I do not believe it is, then why aren't you writing on each and every comment made on Jimbo's site concerning each and every article that is brought to Jimbo for his attention. We both know the answer to that question. You believe the Prejean article to be a mastery of insight and NPOV balance. But you are wrong. The Prejean article has been coatrack for over a year. It is just a place to go to bash Prejean by people who obviously do not agree with her position on gay marriage. It is not a fair article. I agree with all of Rico's comments concerning the article and I have attempted to edit the article myself and there are editors who simply overturned edit after edit moving the article back to its BLP violating state. I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not. Your attempts to question Rico's motives is an example of how badly written the article is. I will comment here and and Rico will comment here and that is just the way that it is going to be. Why don't you focus on improving the article which is what Rico and I have attempted to do. We are attempting to tone down article make it less of a BLP violating coatrack that it is. You comments just seem to designed to shut us up. That doesn't seem to be a very good use of time.--InaMaka (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bargle: I reviewed the edit history of the Prejean article. An editor named TharsHammar kept placing the "db" quote in the article over and over again and he would state that the removal of the phrase "db" was '"censorship"'. You can see an example of that unhelpful editing here: Example of jamming "db" quote in article. At one point Hilton's use of the words "db" was re-stated four and five times in the article--which is clearly unencyclopedic and unnecessary, not to mention that it violates various goals and requirements of Wikipedia such as NPOV and BLP. You can see in the following edit that the hate-filled phrase of Hilton's "db" quote was in the article several times: Example of four uses of "db" by the anti-Prejean editors. Now, you, Mr. Bargle did believe incorrectly that jamming the "db" quote in the article was absolutely necessary. You can see an example of repeating Hilton's quote by ABargle here: Exmple of where Arglebargle demanded that Wikipedia quote Hilton's hate speech directly, which is clearly a violation of NPOV and BLP. Yes, the editors of the article were dead set on quoting Hilton's hate speech and I will give one more example of the overbearing nature of their desire to see of the phrase "db" in the article. Please review this particular edit by TharsHammar: Another example that we must either quote Hilton's hate speech word for word or be charged with censorship. This is the extent of the debate. It was a my way or the highway type of debate. Once again, there is NO WAY under God's green earth would Wikipedian editors (and admin's at that) allow a low life blogger like Hilton to call Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc. a "db" and then re-quote the low life blogger on Wikipedia. Now, I attempted to make a compromise and move the direct quote of Hilton's hate speech (which of course is completely inappropriate) to a footnote so that the exact wording would remain in article to stop the bogus screams of "censorship" from TharsHammar. Then, Mr. ArgleBargle reverted me and stated that moving the direct quote to the footnote was inappropriate. You can review Mr. ABargle unhelpful reversion of my compromise here: Example of Bargle jamming the hate-filled, inappropriate, NPOV and BLP violating quote back in the Carrie Prejean article. Mr. Bargle is upset that Rico and I are here on Jimbo's talk page commenting in his particular attempts to violate NPOV and BLP policies by jamming Hilton's hate-filled speech into the Carrie Prejean article. Now I see why you are questioning why we are here. You don't want your work to be reviewed by folks you can't push around. You know that if Rico and I just stay on the Carrie Prejean talk page then you can with the assistance of like minded editors and admins jam those NPOV and BLP edits right there into the article without much work. I pointed that ArgleBargle was edit warring here: Example of ABargle and TharsHammar engaging in edit wars. I attempted to put something in the article that was NOT a direct attack on Carrie Prejean and something that was notable. I added information about her guest hosting Fox and Friends and of course that was removed by the anti-Prejean editors. The anti-Prejean editors were NOT going to allow any positive information about Prejean in the article. You can review that unhelpful edit here: Example of anti-Prejean edit willfully removing positive info about Prejean but somehow it was not censorship. I do not believe in censorship so I put the Fox & Friends material back in the article and AniMate--who is upset that Rico and I are commenting here--reverted the Fox & Friends material and removed it, but AniMate did not seem to be worried about censorship issues at that point. You can review AniMate's inappropriate removal of positive, on point, notable information about Carrie Prejean here: Example of AniMate removing positive information about Prejean. The edit history goes on and on. The article needs to be cleaned up. And Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict.--InaMaka (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The way editors and admins, that were simply using the article as an attack page -- included the "dumb bitch" quote five times -- elucidates the goal. Put anything that makes Miss Prejean look bad into the article; keep anything that makes her look good out of it.

Dumb bitch Carrie ("Dumb Bitch") Prejean, who is a dumb bitch -- dumb bitch that she is -- is a dumb bitch.

Editors and admins prevented inclusion of Miss Prejean's guest hosting of Fox and Friends,[68][69] but insisted on including the Larry King Live interview (in which King tried to humiliate her).

What's more worthy of inclusion -- her having been a guest, or her having been the host?

Miss Prejean once posted on the talk page asking, "Please put up my Official Website: www.officialcarrieprejeanwebsite.com"[70]. On most articles, this simply would be standard practice. It was put in and then taken out.

Sometimes it's not just what's in an article, but also what isn't (what's been kept out of it).

Put together, it kind of tells a story. -- Rico 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this the only place you'll discuss the article? AniMate 08:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You know I've been discussing it on the article talk page,[71][72] because you've replied, "I'm just going to ignore [it]."[73] -- Rico 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This BLP was created primarily to disparage a living person:

• Sunday Night, April 19: Miss Prejean is asked for her thoughts on gay marriage and she gives them.[74]
• April 20: Judge #8, the openly gay gossip blogger, contemptuously heaps disdain upon Miss Prejean, presumably to attract attention to himself. The gay/liberal press reports on this 'encyclopedic' fact.[75]
• April 20 (in the USA): This attack page created, consisting primarily of Miss USA 2009 controversy -- about half of which was attacks from three gay rights activists (and the other half, the question and answer they were reacting to).[76] -- Rico 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest does not equal dictate.

"I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not." Fine, I wouldn't stop you. I don't see what you're getting out of it, but go ahead.

Please cite where I questioned Rico's motives. (Note, there is a difference between asking for his motives and questioning his motives (an idiom). I don't care about his motives, I just don't think he's taking actions that will result in what he wants. And I can comment on that, and make suggestions, and you can't tell me not to! Nyah nyah to you! (See how childish that sounds?)

I do think taking things to Jimbo, unless they are truly large matters, is a waste of time. This isn't a slight on Jimbo by any means, I just think that he's got better things he'd rather do, and there are paths one could take that are more likely to give results.

I don't care about 99.99% of the articles or issues raised on Jimbo's page, nor should I. I'm not trying to clean up his talk page. The only reason I'm here at all (and it is a visit of mine that, without a very good reason, is going to end right after this post), is because an article I was warking on earlier was brought up here, and I wouldn't have known that a discussion has taken place here at all if it had nopt been mentioned at Prejean's talk page. (I hasn't watchlisted Jimbo's page until this came up, and I'm de-watchlisting it shortly.)

The Prejean article is not a "mastery of insight and NPOV balance" -- it still desperately needs work -- and I would prefer that you not ascribe such an over-the-top opinion to me. I haven't made any recent non-wikignome changes to it because I was waiting until AniMate finished his slicing and dicing on the article (and until I had an evening free to study it a bit) before possibly making changes. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above in between compiles and test runs -- and yet another block by InaMaka addressed to me has appeared. To respond quickly, I thought back then the quote should be used exactly instead of paraphrased, and although I still don't think the quote is a NPOV or BLP violation, I've come to the conclusion that editorially, it isn't needed. If there was a national furor over a blogger calling Ms. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Bachmann, or Ms. Palin a "db", and I thought that the text of the quote was needed rather than a paraphrase, I would want it included (and, btw, why just include liberals in your rant at me, unless you're trying to insinuate something about my politics?). Furthermore, I am not upset about anything here (nor is there any indication of that), so save the over-the-top rhetoric for somebody else. Hilton's calling Prejean a "db" was distasteful, but to call it "hate speech" diminishes the phrase when needed to describe real hate speech. If you think that you need to put in positive things in and article to make it NPOV (and similarly for those who think that negative things must be added to any article to provide balance and NPOV), then you misunderstand NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean balanced positive/negative -- sometimes there are more positive notable things than negative, and vice versa. Note the word "notable" -- if something isn't sufficently notable, putting it in just for balance is a bad editorial decision and is against NPOV itself.

This is important -- please explain what you mean by "Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict."

If you have anything further you wish for me to respond to, you can try my talk page or Talk:Carrie Prejean -- unless Jimbo asks me a question directly, I won't be responding further here, and I'm already deeply regretful that I've been here as long as I have.

I will agree with you in part though -- I'm coming to see that arguing with you here is a waste of time. Unless something changes, g'bye. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand exactly where you are coming from. On the Carrie Prejean talk page and in the Carrie Prejean edit summary comments it is clear that you have to have the "db" comments quoted word for word. The use of the quote word for word is inappropriate and it violates NPOV and BLP, as I have been stating for about one year. It is also what Rico has been saying. Why is it ok for Rico and I to comment on the Prejean talk page, but not here? The answer is simple. We get over-run over there by editors and admins who believe wrongly that it is ok for Wikipedia to quote word for word from the critics of living people. Hilton's speech is hate speech. It is offensive and as you say "over-the-top." It is NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia. We can simply point out the essence of Hilton's hatred and move on. Wikipedia does NOT have to stoop to the level of a distasteful, hate-filled blogger--who is looking to libel Ms. Prejean. So Hilton hates Prejean. We get it. We don't need to quote him word for word and as I pointed out above and you chose to ignore, the article quoted the phrase, at one point in time, "db" five times. That is the epitome of a coatrack. Now, the anti-Prejean editors, which you were part of at that time, felt the need to railroad the two or three editors that were attempting to enforce the BLP and NPOV rules. It was and has been a horrible article dedicated to bringing up everything negative about Ms. Prejean--rumours, lies, falsehoods and everything else. Wikipedia is supposed to treat living people with intelligence and respect. Simply removing the phrase "db" from the article was NOT censorship and Rico and I have been accused of censorship over and over again by the editors who only seemed intent on looking over for the viewpoint of Hilton. Is Hilton the only person in the world who has an opinion on Carrie Prejean? No. Why do Hilton's comments about Prejean dominate the article? I suggest that you don't understand NPOV. Carrie Prejean is a young woman who is many things and it is insulting and not encyclopedic to argue that the whole life history of Ms. Prejean has to be summed up according to the viewpoint of Hilton. That is like having President Obama's story presented on Wikipedia from the viewpoint of Hugo Chávez or President Bush's story presented from the viewpoint of Osama bin Laden. Hilton obviously do not like Prejean and his comments have dominated the article for about a year and each and every time that Rico or I have attempted to edit the comments to tone them down (I tried the words "derogatory" "prejorative") or move them (I attempted to the exact quote--even though I did not agree upon its use at all--to the footnote section) you and the other anti-Prejean editors reverted us--in a highly argumentative and rude manner I might add. Only now, while we are on Jimbo's talk page are we getting anywhere with a reasonable compromises to tone the language and bring in in compliance with NPOV and BLP--hopefully your newfound desire to compromise will continue long after we leave Jimbo's talk page. However, I did notice that while we were having this discussion there has been an anon editor who has attempted to re-instate the inappropriate "db" language.--InaMaka (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) this discussion seems to reflect a content dispute, and the statements, frankly, have gotten rather ridiculous. First of all, there isn't any reasonable dispute as to Prejean's notability. Even without the scandal she's notable for her beauty pageant award. But she's more notable for a series of enduring public scandals. Next, for a gossip blogger to call someone a "dumb bitch" is not hate speech as such, but it is crude, misogynistic, and arguably sexist. It isn't POV to report that Perez Hilton said it because Wikipedia is not endorsing the epithet. He had every reason to be upset at Prejean, and as subsequent events unfolded, Prejean turned out to be a problematic figure whose notability is largely related to her embarrassing public deeds - outlandish proclamations, becoming a spokesperson for intolerant groups, threatened lawsuits, claiming things that were clearly untrue, and so on. To call it "libel" to repeat this stuff is nonsense. If Wikipedia is going to report on what happened, this is what happened. Indeed, Wikipedia is not censored, so reporting that he called her a db is the way to do it, not beating around the bush to say he used an epithet. However, Hilton's outburst isn't terribly relevant or noteworthy with respect to Prejean's biography, so the problem (you can call it a BLP issue if you want) isn't the wording, but rather including this in the first place. Anyway, that is all a content issue, something well within the community's ability to deal with. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. That is simply not true. The article grew and grew with every piece of negative information that could be found by the anti-Prejean editors--to the point that "db" was quoted five times, anti-Prejean editors were calling Prejean a "child pornographer", etc. Dear Wikidemon: please do not re-write history. There was a point where the "db" wording was inserted into the article in FIVE different places. If you want to ignore that fact that is your choice but it does represent the situation accurately. There was one editor that wanted call her a "child pornographer". Also, once again, I will repeat that the biographies of living people ("BLP") need to be treated in a manner that Wikipedia is not libeling a living person and placing Wikipedia at legal risk. The anti-Prejean editors did not take BLP into consideration when they jammed the phrase "db" in the article in FIVE different places. Oh, by the way, "db" phrase is hate speech whether you want to acknowledge it or not. (What do you call it? "Love Speech"? Of course not.) There is no way that Wikipedia editors would repeat the comments of a blogger that called Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, Angelina Jolie, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Atwood, Angela Merkel, or Jane Goodall (and the list is endless) a "db". Basically, your argument is that since Ms. Prejean is not a woman of substance equal to the women mentioned above then Wikipedia editors can write an encyclopedia article about her that uses the "db" phrase five times because, well, Hilton said it. Basically you are arguing that since Prejean has engaged in less than admirable behaviour you and the other anti-Prejean editors can just pile on the article as many quotes from Hilton (someone who hates Prejean) and you can repeat the "db" phrase as many times as you want because it happened. Once again, it is unfair to write a biography about one person (Prejean) that is dominated by opinion of someone (Hilton) who obviously hates that person. A Wikipedia article that is used to repeat negative information about one person is called a coatrack and if that person is living then by definition it violates BLP. Let's say that there is 400 anti-Prejean editors and there are only two editors (myself and Rico) that are focused on the BLP issue. No, let's say that there are 4,000, no, 40,000 anti-Prejean editors working on the article and there is just one editor focused on BLP. Your argument is that the sheer number of editors wanting to jam the article with the "db" phrase and long repeats of Hilton's rant makes it perfectly fine to ignore BLP because so many editors want to quote Hilton and his hate speech extensively. Dear Wikidemon: I believe that Alexis de Tocqueville outlined a this delicate balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority in free society many, many years ago. To quote the Wikipedia Tocqueville article: Tocqueville wrote of "Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans" by saying "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom" in Volumes One, Part I, Chapter 3. He further comments on equality by saying "Furthermore, when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power. As none of them is strong enough to fight alone with advantage, the only guarantee of liberty is for everyone to combine forces. But such a combination is not always in evidence.". To sum up, just because a large number of Wikipedia editors, and it does not matter if that large number is three or 300,000, want to jam a biography of a living person with negative, libelous material does not trump the rules of BLP.--InaMaka (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an outburst. It's unhelpful to look at things in terms of "pro-" and "anti-" editors, and your eagerness to assign me to a category suggests you've become far too close to the situation. You're throwing around accusations of libel and BLP violations without backing it up, and also putting lots of words in other people's mouths - basically caricaturing other people's statements in order to criticize them. Let's stick to article content (which should be discussed on the article talk page). If there are behavioral issues there are forums for that too, but either way here on Jimbo's talk page? Are we expecting Jimbo to jump in to arbiter the Prejean article as an exception to normal process? This is just a run-of-the-mill article about a minor public figure who got herself in trouble by her actions, it happens all the time. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Tocqueville in defense of Carrie Prejean? Wow. Yes this article grew as every piece of negative information came out about Prejean, because almost everything that came out was negative. It was a bloodbath outside Wikipedia. Some editors exercised less restraint that I would have preferred.--Milowent (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Milowent. You unwittingly made my point above. Basically, your point is "how dare you quote Tocqueville to defend a living person of Prejean low status. Don't you know that she is a peasant? We can treat peasant however we want, BLP can be ignored."--InaMaka (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wittingly made my comment, and it was that quoting Tocqueville isn't going to persuade wikipedia editors about anything, but that your passion is evident from it.--Milowent (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I made a proposal on the talk page Talk:Carrie Prejean to shorten the lead of the article, which I'd ask people to weigh in on. Its typical in cases like this that the lead grows too long as events occur, and can be made shorter once the events are passed and the prime notable facts become discernable.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the Carrie Prejean article is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page

Many a editor that wants quote Prez Hilton's hate speech directly in the Carrie Prejean article believes it is ok to repeat Hilton's hate speech toward Prejean. They do not see the violation of BLP or NPOV or the dictate that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Now, Rico brought the discussion over here because there was five different direct quotes of the hate speech for about a year. A group of editors refused to edit out the offensive, unnecessary quote. As a matter of fact the editors not only wanted to keep the five redundant quotes but wanted to add claims of child porn, etc.--even larger violations of NPOV and BLP. However, since Rico brought the discuss here the editors (which includes admins I might add) they have been cooperative in their discussion. However, today the madness has started again. An Admin named Nat Gertler has decided that he does not like me expressing my opinion that Hilton's comments amount to hate speech and he has decided to edit out my comments from the talk page. Now, this behaviour is amazing in that Gertler believes that Wikipedia MUST quote every hate-filled comment of Hilton but calling it hate is terribly unacceptable. Now, keep in mind that Hilton calls Prejean a "db" over one hundred times on his own page. Hilton is not embarrassed by his comments, but Admin NatGertler believes that I, as a Wikipedia editor, do not have a right to call Hilton's speech hate-filled--even though that is exactly what it is. Is it "love speech"? Of course not. You can review Admin Nat Gertler's attempt to shut me up here: Example of Admin Nat Gertler abusing his powers as an admin. It is truly the best argument for why the discussion is here in Jimbo's talk page. This type of bullying tactic has been prevalent for over a year.--InaMaka (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that accusation is false on several levels: I am not an admin, I was not using the powers of an admin, and I was not abusing that power or any power, but rather following Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. You may think that the term you used just means someone saying something about someone they hate, but it has specific meaning particularly under the law. As for "Gertler believes that Wikipedia MUST quote every hate-filled comment of Hilton", no, that's something you made up. I beleive we should quote the specific two-word phrase that generated a lot of the response, because it's clear and well-sourced and gives context to explaining the strength of the response, which aided giving Ms. Prejean her visibility, and it is no longer than the vaguer descriptions of the insult that people have been replacing it with. But apparently, having this believe in clarity and precision makes me to blame for every other edit that you didn't like ever put on that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I misread your profile page. I was wrong. You are not an admin, HOWEVER you did remove valid, reliable sourced information. The famous columnist Liz Smith has called Hilton's rant against Prejean "hate speech" and I have been calling it that for over one year. --InaMaka (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is columnist Liz Smith a legal expert? Otherwise, by the logic that some famous columnist made an accusation therefore we should treat it as true, we'd be using the "db" term to describe Prejean without attributing it. I have raised the issue over at WP:BLPN, which is probably the best place to raise your concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. It does not matter if Liz Smith is a legal expert or not. Also, this is the absolutely best place to raise these concerns. Once again, I will state again the basic rules of Wikipedia and I quote Wikipedia's BLP policy directly below:

Subjects who are borderline notable

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

Clearly Wikipedia makes it clear that we must use caution when Wikipedia repeats material that is defamatory. Hilton's comments are hate speech and we must use caution in repeating them.--InaMaka (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We should also feel the need for caution before censoring and misrepresenting a topic. If Wikipedia or its contributors are sued for repeating allegations in reliable media sources, it may be distressing but it would not be embarrassing. Even the people of the UK are slowly making progress in repealing unjust libel laws.[77]

But consider an article like the recently featured Insane Clown Posse, which scrupulously keeps mention of Juggalos to a minimum; with even the sub-article giving only a brief mention that police gang units all over the country have been describing "Juggalo gangs". I actually suspect the censored version is right on the topic, because face painting is probably just rather convenient for criminals - but we shouldn't be choosing the "right" side, we should be presenting both sides. The point is: what are we going to do when a grieving mother and her fancy lawyer show up, and she points at the Wikipedia page and says, "Johnnie showed me this and said there was nothing to worry about, so I let him go...<sob>...and that was the last time I saw him alive." I understand of course that all disclaimers apply, but if there is a deliberate and systematic effort throughout the organization to suppress all mention of unflattering media reports about people, Wikipedia will have neither moral nor legal ground to stand on. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with virtually everything you said here. You are wrong about the meaning of 'censorship', you are wrong about the law, and you are wrong about our ethical obligations. We have a very strong need for a sense of responsibility about biographies, and this includes being extremely careful about repeating irresponsible allegations uncritically, and in cases like this one, pretending to ourselves that a random smattering of negative media reports gives us sufficient information to be able to write a proper and ethically responsible biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to advocate straight reporting of the sources available to us, but apparently the consensus really is against me. On Sarah Palin there will be no discussion of the idea that a mayor can be responsible for the rape kit policy of her appointed official. On Johnny Weir the GLBT WikiProject will not be allowed to place their tag because it is "negative", despite an RFC that apparently supported it. A user who did nothing more than things like highlight which parts of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service record form were faked for uploads to Wikicommons will remain topic-banned for life. So suppose I surrender. It is our responsibility to do the original research of comparing the sources and second-guessing which are true and which aren't and discard all but the ones that make sense to us.

In that case, let's at least not be bigoted or politically biased about it. It's time to fix the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989#number of deaths and take out all of the unconfirmed allegations that make it sound like the living persons of the 27th Army conducted a mass murder. The various guesstimates from 6,000 to 10,000 dead by foreign intelligence agencies and commentators who say "no one really knows", out. The 2600 from the unidentified Chinese Red Cross official later denied by the agency - out. The Amnesty International figure of thousands then hundreds - out. Any such sources are unsubstantiated allegations we shouldn't be repeating. The only figure that matters is the 241 dead including soldiers, according to the Chinese government, the only source we should be citing. All others should be deleted, and 3RR does not apply.

And the Chinese deserve your apology, for trying to demand that they tolerate a level of free speech you would never try to uphold at home. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Open an RFC if necessary

Quite simply, this is not the right forum for this discussion. Please move it somewhere more... appropriate. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, you don't like what is being discussed and you want to move the discussion, to control the debate. Free debate is a good thing and it will continue. Take care.--InaMaka (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not exactly. You can discuss this on an RFC, just don't spam Jimbo's talk page because of this discussion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Spamming is exactly what's happening here. In lieu of actual conversations or dispute resolution, RicoCorinth is coming to this talk page and leaving a message per day so this isn't archived. It would almost be funny, if the messages weren't full of bad faith accusations against editors who disagreed with him. AniMate 17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we please shut this down? The tone of this discussion is becoming somewhat offensive, homophobia-wise. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Although there may be a reasonable debate to be had about the extent to which Wikipedia should cover events of a tabloid nature, if someone wants to propound theories about the so-called gay / liberal press, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re to Jimbo from WeaponBB7's talkpage

Sorry Jimbo idk How i missed it But i saw you posted on my talkpage today. Here is what i got, i only selected the most pivitol and voltiale sections of the archives. But its alot still the same. Brief history:

Lisa and Pico got into a Dispute over content which drew in more attention to the page This is first part where the creation myth gets suggested

This is where things start getting a little heated This where the present battle lines get drawn

First Disputed claim of Consensus

first move to Genesis Creation Myth (note closed in four days instead of full week)

First note of negative connotation by a previously uninvolved editor

First "Battle" later confirmed Sock puppet Temple Knight Gets involved

Some one suggest moving it back

Gets ugly with warning on indivisual talk page removing for disputed content

First RFC

Very Ugly Page move With all sorts of Violation Of NPA, AGF among others

First suggestion of higher Level involvement at ANI(Note EGMicheals was Canvassing Both Sides To hash Thing out on his talk page for a new name that every on could agree on)

Four sections closed for their uglyness

EGMicheals Moved above mentioned discusion from his page to talk page with very nice summary of arguments

User says this needs to end

ANI opened closed because too many editors involved and should be an RFC

really long discussion that ends with ani (IMHO this was a Badfaith Ani to get rid of the editor) ANI here

just one example of an editor stubling upon the title and having a group of editors slam him/her with replys. shunting off any discussion (Just one example of ownership by a group)

more conflict, Two Editors in the dissenting (we should be careful of using myth party) get hit with a SPI (never confirmed) i thought it was total bull crap then, but then one of these editors acused mentions i have not seen "x" in while and then X pops back uphere is the SPI

Current Page move

In short its a big mess, at this point no editors hands are clean except for those who gave thier opinion and left the page. My own hands are not completley clean during the first time i stepped on the page i felt attacked by another user and opened RFCU a group of editors who were in the opposite camp came and astroturfed the comments section making it look like consenus found it to be POV push campaign. Personally i feel every one involved has dirty hand. neither do i think you direct invention will do much good; as the hostile responseshere when i inserted your observation into the thread. I have seen just about every policy used to support both camps postions. I detest this Battleground; i fear it will not be end. I make a humble request that you Refer This To Arbcom. As this battle ground will not end until arbcom nukes a fair number on both sides (Possibly including me) with topic bans. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• As a practising Christian I find this very puzzling. It has never caused me a moment's anguish to refer to the Genesis creation myth as such. The only people I think are genuinely offended by it are the homeschoolers, and they only let their kids use Conservapedia anyway. Robert Hooke had no problem with the idea that fossils were the petrified remains of long extinct creatures, that was in 1690, before the concept of extinction was even understood - I don't think they even had a name for it - and we've become a lot more accepting of theological grey areas since. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I never understood why some people could possibly object to the word "myth". If they would just take a dictionary and look it up, they would read: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.". I think it is clear that anyone who cannot live with this definition, is someone with an agenda of imposing (i.e. POV-pushing) their own private personal deity unto the rest of the world, in other words, someone who definitely does not belong here. Continuing to make a fuss about this should be a sufficient reason for getting topic-banned. DVdm (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• And in academic studies the creation myths of various religions are discussed in precisely those terms. The issue here is probably that some people believe it to be literally true and consider that any education system that describes it in terms other than literal historical truth are therefore unreliable and seditious. I don't think this is Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quite. Those who think the myth is to be taken literally, can take def #1 (with with), while those who think it is a metaphor or just a story, can take def #1 (with without), or def #5 or whatever. When we write about data tables, nobody jumps up complaining that a list of data cannot possibly be a piece of furniture. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• frankly, This has never been about whether it nessicarily needs to be in the title, out of all the terms in the Wikitionary we choose these three word with heavily implied meaning to average joe over alternativew like "Biblical Creation" or "Creation in Genesis", Whether or not the term Creation myth is used academically here.(IMHO it is not) This is large issue, with 25 or so editors been Arguing and Edit Warring for 4 months time. This is not a few editors having disagreements this is full scale WP:BATTLE. Jimbo Approached me on my talk page wanting to know more, i am giving him more. No one has has even tried saying that this creationism is fact or spoken much of Creationism, this is not bible thumpers oppressing free speech and freedom of knowledge. This is 20+ editors who have dug in deep and refuse to have practical reasonable conversations. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, last time I read the article it was a discussion of the Genesis creation myth, not a discussion of creation in genesis (which would likely fail WP:NPOV by being in-universe). It's about comparative religion versus Christian Studies. One is a neutral study of religions, the other is a study designed to confirm religious belief. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Creation Myth Cat only uses "Ancient Culture+Creation Myth" Not "Holy Scipture+Creation Myth" Like We use Incident instead of "scadal" or Suffix "-Gate" we use term "incedent" Like "Cult" its a sociliogical Term, But becuase of its popular usage as "Religoin I dont like" or "Religoin that is differnt" we avoid it at all times in an Enclypoedia becuase the average laymen is going to intepret it differntly than what a Professor of Religion at NYU is. If anything this is not About group of biblethumpers Asking for special Treatment than a group another group looking to Define judeo Christian belifs as myth while leaving a number other faiths in the Cat alone. No one has disputed it is "Creation Myth" but Rather... Does it Make it easier for People to find? Does it harm the article to not have "Creation myth" in the title? Is there a better Way to describe it that does not Pass judgement? The Answer are no, No and yes Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the dictionnary: "Myth" does not pass judgment. It leaves the choice for everyone on this planet. You cannot possibly want more from a word -- it is perfect. Every Average Joe can (and actually does) make that choice. That should be all there is to say about this matter -- don't underestimate Average Joe. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Average Joe IPs confirm that it is misunderstood [78][79][80][81][82] These are all just since the 3-22-10, Makes it clear it is being misunderstood... and dictionary defintions dont always equate to poular defintion which is the issue Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you have a handful of anonymous IPs with a problem. Well, I guess it's a matter of standpoint. I tend to identify Average Joe with a few thousand readers (--conservative estimate--) who never complained. This must be one of those varying mileage things. No problem. DVdm (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you have a number of people being encouraged to come over here and remedy the Really Terrible Problem that [WP:TRUTH|Revealed Truth]] is being misrepresented as mythology. I always think of it as Gastroturfing. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But surely it wouldn't be polite to identify these people with A. Joe. Let's keep it decent and avoid going that way. DVdm (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See Perfect example focusing on the editors and Dismissing the problem instead of working through the problem to compromise. Basically your argument is

"There Is not NPOV Problem, these are just Politically Conservative Religious Fundamentalist Who should not be listened to because their views are backword and ignorant and thus should not be considered becuase this is not Conservopedia"

Your Ad-hominen arguments have frankly shown my point of the battle ground mentality then anything i could have put here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I also note your commentary in the above set of links, when it's against your position it's "ugly" or a "battle", but when it comes to editors in favour of your position it's "very nice". You weren't even honest about the first Requested Move: it was closed after a week of discussion, not 4 days. But even if everything you wrote was true, you never seem to address reliable sources given to you: that reliable sources (all the way down to generally accessible reference works like Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopedia Britannica and countless others given over the course of the last few months) consider the article's topic a creation myth should not be ignored but incorporated into the article. In choosing a suitable title for the article, many things need to be and have been considered since the very first RM was listed. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not one of those things.

Yes you're allowed to be offended by some knowledge, but as a reader of this project's articles I likely won't care what knowledge you personally find offensive. Instead I care that what I'm reading is an accurate reflection of reliable sources on the topic (this is to be neutral). I presume most people think similarly. The place to argue over a change in terminology in the literature is in academia, not on a Wikipedia talk page. At this point it's worth pointing out we're not relying on tabloids for our terminology here (like your incident/scandal/*-gate example above likely would). Not all is lost though, if you can show that the term creation myth when associated with Genesis is notably offensive, via reliable sources, then by all means include that information in the article - The Mohammed article does the same with respect to images of Mohammed, and in this case readers likely will be interested. Ben (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

eyeroll, Attack my motives, That Its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is no NPOV problem.... yada yada yada... you again use the straw man argument that i want it censored from the article. Nice catch i read the opinion date on the bottom, mistaken it for closing date my apologies. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the problem, I am simply identifying a different problem from the one you are. You seem to think the article title is a problem, I think the wall-of-text argumentation in favour of renaming to all sorts of names including some plucked out of nowhere is a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, what you mean yes i agree, i merely focused on the match that lit the fire as opposed to all the embers that blew away and sparked all these other fires. really I am at my wits end in the two months i have hung around and watch this page of this is in this fourth month. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered working somewhere that causes you less angst? Guy (Help!) 20:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be wise, but me leaving wont exactly fix the edit war, it just means one party has decided to drop out, happened several times already.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, all the gaming has run a number of people off. I've never seen a simple content or wording dispute spawn bogus ANI and Sockpuppet accusaton attacks like this one did (none of which have been taken up by an administrator as meriting notice, but all of which were way too distracting for the editors who were targeted). JzG's "invitation" to Weapon to go elsewhere is an invitation I've been given repeatedly by this same camp, which seeks consenus through conquest rather than collaboration. This basically boils down to a POV confinement of the article, so that 1 notable and reliable view (i.e. "creation myth") is used to suppress all others by being embedded in the title. While I do regard the Genesis creation narrative to actually be a "creation myth" I'm aware that this is only one of many POVs and totally inappropriate in a title. I would equally oppose such POV titles as "Genesis creation facts" or "Genesis creation truth" or "Genesis creation history." A title should be open to all notable and reliable POVs. It should not presume one. EGMichaels (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary and compare myth with fact, truth and history. In the dictionary you will find that "myth" is open to all notable and reliable POVs. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm well aware that there is an academic use for myth as "symbolic narrative" (and in fact on those grounds initially supported the title of "Genesis creation myth"), I was very quickly made aware that the editors promoting the title "myth" were doing so not because they believed the narrative was "symbolic" but rather because they believed it was not "fact." While they continued to claim academic use, they were unable to give ANY example on ANY subject in which they could use the term in an academic way, and in fact complained that my request was unreasonable. Yes, academically "myth" can be used in a neutral (and even positive) way. Unfortunately, that is not the purpose of the title in question. Again, I believe that Genesis contains a "creation myth" and in fact as a theist I'm very approving of that "creation myth" as a symbolic narrative affirming our role in the world. Alastair Haines also seems quite capable of using the term in that way. But we are not the only two editors, and the editors insisting on the term with no openness to other equally academic terms are doing so in violation of NPOV policy. I could use all sorts of neutral or even positive terms, but if my stated reasons on the talk page are not neutral, and if I am not open to other neutral terms which cannot be "mistaken" as POV, then I would simply be pushing a POV. That's a no no for editors.EGMichaels (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"...academic..." (5 times). You can safely stop referring to that term. The Academic Only Argument is a straw-man argument. I was referring to dictionaries. Dictionaries are meant to be used by everyone. If we see someone who is confused by the term "myth", we (and that includes you) can --and should-- point them to the dictionary and educate them. DVdm (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that "academic" can be a straw man. I've been forced to spell it out because it is being used by the "nothing but myth" POV to hammer it into the title. That said, the dictionary isn't always the limit of meaning. This is an ecyclopedia, and we try to include more than is just in a dictionary. However, "fable" or "fiction" is a known meaning for "myth."EGMichaels (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The title is perfect. Look at the dictionary. DVdm (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia -- look at ALL notable and reliable POVs, and not just one. The Genesis creation account is alternatively myth, legend, symbolic narrative, false history, allegorical narrative, demythologizing polemic, or (to young earthers) historic account. No title that is not inclusive of all notable and reliably sourced POVs would be appropriate. "Myth" should neither be disallowed, nor should it exclude other POVs.EGMichaels (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the dictionaries the Genesis creation myth is alternatively an account, legend, symbolic narrative, false history, allegorical narrative, demythologizing polemic, or (to young earthers) historic account. So the title is inclusive of all notable and reliably sourced POVs. So it is appropriate. DVdm (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing a characterization of the text with the text itself. An alternate title such as "Genesis creation narrative" would accord equally well to ALL characterizations of that narrative, without imposing one within the title. Again, I do hold this narrative to be a creation myth, but it is wrong to make that the title. It would be like a title of "Star Wars (science fiction / fantasy)" -- such a title is unnecessary. "Star Wars (movie)" is all that's needed. The rest can go into the article.EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Don't worry, I'm not confusing anything. The title accords equally well to ALL characterizations, without imposing one. According to the dictionaries the title is okay. DVdm (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- that's even worse: someone confusing something and not even being able to see it when pointed out. This is a document for a living religion, and as such there are multiple POVs, some of which actively oppose the characterization of "myth". Surely you would object to the notable and reliably attested view by peer reviewed biblical scholarship that this is the "Genesis creation demythologizing polemic" (so Wenham and others). Is it? Sure. It's both "myth" and "demythologizing polemic". Why? Because multiple notable reliable sources say so. Our job is to get our tiny little selves out of the way and leave the title open to note real scholars hashing it out.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Our (and your) job is to point those who actively oppose the characterization of "myth" to the dictionary. DVdm (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, OUR job is to report all notable and reliable PsOV from appropriate sources, and leave titles open to those notable and reliable PsOV. Please understand that I hold the Genesis creation narrative to be myth in ALL meanings of the term in the dictionary, including 3. "fictitious story." My objection to the title is not in my disagreement with its characterization, but instead with the fact that it violates Wikipedia NPOV policy. I do not come here to impose my own view of ultimate reality, including my view that this is a "creation myth." I encourage you to do the same. Wikipedia is a good resource. Let's keep it that way and stop evangelizing people to a worldview that you and I apparently share -- but have no right to impose.EGMichaels (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to dictionary, Wikipedia NPOV policy is not violated. You have nothing to worry about. DVdm (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you or I worry about something, but only what the notable and reliable sources say. While there are plenty of sources that say this is myth, there are other notable and reliable sources that say it is not. You and I don't need to worry -- we just need to follow the sources. Some notable and reliable sources reject "myth" so it's not an option for the title. Fortunately, we ALSO have no need to "worry" about a title such as "Genesis creation history" because there are notable and reliable sources that reject that term as well. Let's agree to not worry, and leave that to the sources.EGMichaels (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Where some sources choose to reject dictionaries, these sources stop being reliable. Indeed, let's agree not to worry, just like dictionaries don't worry. They list the meanings of words. DVdm (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure they do, and these notable and reliable sources intentionally, with full knowledge and understanding of the term, reject it. As I said, we are writing an encyclopedia using sources. We aren't writing a dictionary.EGMichaels (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But we are writing a dictionary using reliable sources. Those who reject dictionaries are clearly not reliable, so we are not supposed to use them. DVdm (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you are passing over the point, which is that there really are notable and reliable sources which fully understand the dictionary term, use the term per that dictionary, and reject the application of that term to the Genesis creation narrative. These are peer reviewed academics in the field specific to this subject (that is, they are biblical scholars). Now, it sounds very much like you are either assuming that no one can possibly understand the term and reject its application to Genesis, or else no one who rejects that application is a scholar. Maybe they shouldn't be -- but they are, working in reliably peer reviewed academic careers specific to the subject matter you wish to define. But they define it differently from you. That's fine, because you can find plenty of academics who DO agree with you. So, while you can be comforted that your view (and mine) will be ALLOWED in the article, you cannot be so comforted that it will be there EXCLUSIVELY. That's the world we live in, and we don't say what is "so", but merely report what others say is "so." Relax! That's what makes this site so useful -- to EVERYONE.EGMichaels (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If indeed they fully understand the dictionary term and choose to reject it, they obviously are far less reliable that you choose to think. DVdm (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the following articles also have to be renamed to fix POV problems in their titles?

Ancient Egyptian creation myths → Ancient Egyptian creation narratives

Chinese creation myth → Chinese creation narrative

Mesoamerican creation myths → Mesoamerican creation narratives

Earth-maker myth → Earth-maker narrative

Pelasgian creation myth → Pelasgian creation narrative

Sumerian creation myth → Sumerian creation narrative

Hans Adler 15:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are leaving out Völuspá and Enûma_Eliš and Ainulindalë -- none of which have "creation myth" applied to them. To draw a pure parallel with what you intend would require Jewish creation myth. Additionally, you are not drawing appropriate parallels with LIVING religions. While DEAD religions are universally characterized as "myth" in notable and reliable sources, LIVING religions are not universally characterized as myth by their very nature as a living religion. Wikipedia is neither here to promote or demote a living religion. We merely step back and report all notable and reliable PsOV from appropriate sources and let the sources hash it out. Too many editors are trying to impose their own worldview as ultimate reality. We do not determine ultimate reality here, nor do we presume it in titles. We merely report all notable and reliable PsOV. When those PsOV do not disagree (as in a DEAD religion), the term "myth" could apply. When those PsOV do disagree (as in a LIVING religion), it is not our place to convert or de-convert anyone to or from said religion. We are agnostics, not evangelists.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my question was finding out what exactly you are objecting to. Is the following a fair description of your position?

While "myth", used in a technical sense, is appropriate within an article (per WP:AVOID#Myth and legend), use in a title is more problematic per WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism and should generally be avoided in the context of living religions?

I disagree with this, but before I explain why I would like to know if that is in fact your reasoning. Hans Adler 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While that is one application of my reasoning, my core reasoning is far more basic: we may use terms in titles which are not explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources. There are plenty of notable and reliable sources that view this narrative as myth -- and I personally agree with them. This narrative is a creation myth. That is my personal view, and I believe that view is correct. However, I am not a source, and I am aware that there are notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject this narrative as myth. Wenham is but one notable and reliable example, and there are others quoted on the article talk page. Well, I've agreed to edit on this site following a NPOV policy bound by notable and reliable sources. While I am obligated to cite those sources, I am also obligated to not intentionally contradict those sources. I can list alternate sources and points of view, but I cannot as an editor make a final presumptive decree.

No source explicitly rejects that this is a narrative, or a story, or that it is Genesis, or about creation, etc. But there are plenty of notable and reliable sources that reject your favorite word (and mine) -- myth. That's bad news for the two of us, but thankfully our view is in the article (though not allowed to be imposed on the title). I'll also add the good news that "Genesis creation truth" or "Genesis creation history" are also (thankfully) explicitly rejected by some notable and reliable sources. So while you and I may be disappointed that we cannot impose our preferred view of reality on the planet, we can at least be safe that an alternate view cannot be imposed on us. Let's be content with that, be good yeomen, and let the sources be the content of this grand resource.EGMichaels (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My humble applause to EGMichaels who has, in this statement, expressed what for me is the essence of what it means to me to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Colourising wiki-tables

Jimbo, I'd like to know how to go about colourising wiki-tables like User:Discographer did for The Beatles discography, and making them a Feature. Help me. Thank you very much. --Wiki-Nanu-Tabu (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Try the Help Desk or Help:Table. – ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the balance.

Jimbo, back in Jan you commended admins who helped prevent community deadlock on BLPs with bold out of process deletion sprees. Whatever the merits of that, and personally I think you were right, there seems to have been a possibly unintended knock on effect. The delicate balance between deletion and inclusion seems to have been disturbed, and months on its showing no signs of returning to equilibrium. Its like its open season out there, both for attacking articles and leading inclusionists. I guess my point is that because you came out strongly on the pro deletion side on one particular issue, this seems to have encouraged those who support the deletion of less rigorously sourced articles across our whole range of topics, thus tipping the balance for the entire community.

As I understand it you've historically favoured an inclusive and friendly project , where new editors are given time to grow and learn as well as contribute to the sum of all knowledge. If thats still your view? I think if you were able to re-affirm support for the original beautiful and inclusive vision of your project it might tip the balance back in favour of those who prefer to preserve improvable content and welcome new editors. Alternatively, if you've came to believe stricter exclusion criteria best serves the project, maybe you can arrange for the vision statement and associated marketing to reflect the practical reality that while anyone can editor one can only make lasting contributions if they buy into elite academic standards, even for work on the most low impact articles such as fictional characters or bus routes. Aligning the highest expression of what the project stands for and the reality at the coal face would help prevent disappointment for new editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At the margins again

• Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This subject is a school board supervisor who failed to act on claims of harassment against a school facilities supervisor. On whom we don't have an article. we also don't have an article on the case, which suggests that it, too, is not actually considered notable to pass the Warhol 15 minute test. The article was created in good faith and has lots of sources, of which most read to me as hysterical tabloids. I really do not like this "biography" of someone whose biography will likely never be published anywhere in print. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, Ely's been a bigwig in upstate New York for years, but has been "below the radar" for that time. He only garnered national attention when he applied for jobs as the controversy was breaking. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that he has ever been a "bigwig". Schenectady has a population of 61,821 people. (The metro area is bigger, but the number of students in the school district, 10,400, is consistent with his remit being restricted to just the schools in the district.) His name is not even mentioned in the Schenectady article. His school district is not mentioned in the Schenectady article. He's not the mayor, even. I don't think small town school superintendents are "bigwigs" really.

Having said that, I don't think that automatically precludes someone in such a job from being the subject of an article - if there's any actual reason beyond a scandal. This is what WP:BLP1E is for, really. To prevent someone who is otherwise not notable (and there's no offense intended by saying he's not notable) being ratcheted up for an article based on what appears to be a minor local controversy. He may not have handled the situation with this employee who later turned out to be a criminal as well as we would have hoped, but it is worth noting that we don't (correctly!) have an article about the employee or his crime!

Bearian, you may not be arguing that we should have an article on him because he's a local bigwig, so I don't necessarily mean to be contradicting you. It is absolutely true that he only garnered national attention when he applied for jobs as the controversy was breaking. Still more reason that he's not a suitable subject for Wikipedia, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The interesting question, of course, is "Do our content guidelines allow for inclusion of that person's biography?" Quickly followed by "If they do, how do we fix them so that they do not." — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone so minor, there are lots of sources, but I'd say he's not notable enough for wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "do they" versus "should they". WP:TABLOID kind of covers it but not quite. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Any superintendent in New York will likely get more press coverage than a minister in a third-world country. Sole Soul (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The creator asserts that his controlling a budget of $160m makes him notable; if that's the case then we should have an article on my finance director. I Googled him and got 21 unique hits including LinkedIn. People seem to be confused about notability guidelines: they are indications of the kind of person who might well be notable, not a guarantee that if you check two of five boxes you get an article even if the only sources are about the thing you did wrong one day. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the usage of "Turkmen" and "Turkmenistani" on categories and templates

Heya, you may want to participate in this discussion regarding to the term should be used to describe Turkmenistan people. Thanks. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Schenectady, New York

I know you meant no harm nor insult with your words calling Schenectady a "small town, not a big city", but on behalf of the City of Schenectady, New York I'd like to point out that, yes at around 70,000 people it can be considered a small city (in NY towns are distinct political units similar but separate from cities), but historically it has been considered of national importance as the headquarters of General Electric from its foundation to the 1960s and of American Locomotive Company, and as the city from which numerous patents have come from including important advances from the use of tungsten in incandecent light bulbs to nuclear technology and the invention of television (the oldest tv station in the world still airs from Schenectady), it is still the home to much of GE's turbine and clean energy divisions (and is the site of where the turbines for China's Three Gorges Dam were constructed), two presidents of the USA have attended college here at Union College (founded in 1795). Schenectady is also one of the three core cities of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan Statistical Area with over 800,000 people; the city was even featured in US News & World Report as a prime example of urban decay as a result of the loss of manufactoring jobs from the Northeast. I hope one day you may wish to visit, we would all be very honored to show you around and help you have a better image our "small town" which has had quite a revival recently. I believe it would make national news if presented right. Thank you for your time, sir.Camelbinky (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Aside: The City of St Davids is the smallest in the UK at 1,700 population, Milton Keynes, with a population of 192,250, is officially a town and not a city. The term can be elastic or it can be nigglingly precise :-) 70,000 is not big. Even in the UK a a large town is of the order of 100,000 people or more. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - I did not mean disparagement. It is not a bad thing to be a small town, indeed, it can be quite lovely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new

I have recently removed an abusive message by a vandalism only account. Anyway, have a good day! Minimac (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)