User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Ought a religion be described as "pseudoscience" in an article lead?

I rather think the paragraph in the lead of Christian Science might run afoul of WP:NPOV myself.

Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 Its precepts cause preventable death among its followers, and among the children of its followers upon whom those precepts are imposed; [6] it adversely affects public health: outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination; [7]:50 and the Christian science church actively attempts to control its public image and position in law through media manipulation and political lobbying.[8]

The rest of the article seems to be written in a quite similar vein:

Christian Science is a pseudoscience.[16][17][18] Christian Science is framed as being in opposition to science, but uses the appearance of being a science to give itself extra legitimacy. [19] It, traditionally, regards science as not important and an illusion, although they have recently started to base arguments on appeals to physics.[5]:317:557[20]:

Young (2001) relates how children that die from preventable disease suffer more than victims of "traditional" child abuse, yet in the United States the parents responsible can escape criminalization through being religiously motivated. He describes how this circumstance has arisen: the Christian Science church has successfully lobbied for favorable language in the Code of Federal Regulations, and the church's many "committees on publication" (COPs) monitor and influence media coverage and opinion though such activities as the coordinated writing of letters to the editor, and political lobbying.'

And so on ... as "miracles" from prayer are a fundamental tenet in most Christian groups (heck - also in Islamic and other religious groups), I wonder if we are well advised to label religions as "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly unencyclopedic writing. I recommend reverting back to the best version from the recent past.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Collect removed some of the really POV material from the intro, someone else put most of it back in, and I reverted to Collect's version. I do have to say, though, some of the material Collect took out can probably go back in, when this situation stabilizes. I am talking about some of the statements in the third paragraph. Obedience to the precepts of Christian Science DOES cause preventable deaths among its followers. That statement was sourced, and it is true. The same goes for some of the statements after that. Perhaps we should put those statements in the voice of "public health authorities" or whoever specifically provided the source material for those statements, but they should go back in. As an "emergency" measure, however, I simply reverted. It seems like an edit war is in progress, though, and the current semi-protection is probably not going to be enough. Neutron (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just "perhaps" - absolutely. It is not the job of Wikipedia to draw such conclusions. If there are reliable sources, let them draw the conclusions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

But it is the secondary/tertiary sources that are drawing the conclusions; and more than just the medical authorities. They specifically reject medicine and science in favour of "spirtual science" where they believe they can heal through positive thinking. The sources are pretty unequivocal that it is pseudoscientific and no secondary source that I have seen attempts to refute or counter this in any form. If the sources unequivocally and uncontroversially describe something, instead of saying "Medical practitioners, scientists, sceptics and scholars say X is pseudoscientific" why should it not be just "X is pseudoscientific" (I disagree with including material about lobbying in the lead). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is really important: Omitting the explanation of who says so is bad writing, it is unencyclopedic, and it weakens the article. I think this is true EVEN IF you are coming at this from a POV-pushing perspective that says that readers should be waved off from the religion. It is much stronger to explain to the reader that this isn't just some random Wikipedian saying something, but actual authorities. Wikipedia is not the place to simply write your own opinions, but to explain the world to people in an uncontroversial way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to "Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers, and their children since outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and treatment.[6] [7]:50". IRWolfie- (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wording is quite accurate as it implies the deaths were just due to disease outbreak, but reading the literature that is sourced in the Article that isn't always the case; other things cause death too (untreated bowel obstruction is mentioned, e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified it, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science is not like other Christian groups in that it specifically rejects science and medicine. The sources do not unequivocally describe Christianity as a pseudoscience, so it's a nonsensical comparison. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the weight of discussion here and at NPOVN seems to find it unencyclopedic in the lede and POV, I shall remove it once again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The text you were complaining about is not the text you removed. Those who have commented like Neutron and Binksternet have highlighted that there were issues with neutrality with the previous text, not that it the points should not be addressed in the lead, hence there is no reason to remove the modified text. i.e Neutron: " I do have to say, though, some of the material Collect took out can probably go back in, when this situation stabilizes. ", Binksternet: "It looks to me as if WP:LEAD strongly recommends that the third paragraph remain. Per LEAD, we summarize the main article points, and this paragraph does so effectively. " I can't help but be puzzled at citing a perceived consensus (I fail to see it) at NPOVN where you didn't inform any of the editors on the article talk page. It seems unfair; you bypassed any discussion on the talk page by trying to get consensus elsewhere without telling anyone. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The text you are edit warring to keep in is:

Christian science is pseudoscience because it claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory while attempting to present itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers and their children during outbreaks of preventable diseases, and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and other medical treatment.[6][7]:50

It still makes claims in the lead in Wikipedia's voice which are improper and a violation of NPOV. Noticeboards are basically intended to get new editors into the loop - I have seen far too many cases where the "usual gang of idiots<g>" keeps taking over all discussions on any given topic. As the notice did not refer to any specific editors, it clearly did not require notifying them to get everyone writing the same stuff on multiple pages. Meanwhile, you assert on the talk page that James Randi's opinions should be usable as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice in a lead because he makes his living writing about such things. I demur. Note that this has nothing to do with having discussions mentioned in the article, nor with stating opinions as being opinions - but with repeatedly edit warring to place a claim in Wikipedia's voice as being "fact." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a noticeboard is to provide fresh opinions, it is not intended as a place to bypass consensus. You are citing a discussion that you didn't allow anyone else to take part in as the consensus for your edit (there is no consensus there either). You appear unwilling to discuss specific issues I have raised on the article talk page. There is no current consensus to remove the paragraph out of the lead as you have done; you are expected to discuss the issue. You have highlighted no specific issues on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Your argument is reaching the level of bovine excrement at this point. I didn't allow anyone else to take part in the consensus??? Really? Try WP:NPA and WP:AGF please -- and note that using Wikipedia to make opinions into "facts" in Wikipedia's voice does not work. We only state what sources say, ascribing opinions properly as opinions to sources. And violations of NPOV are not "negotiable" as your argument seems to imply -- NPOV is an absolute on Wikipedia, and if we elide it here, we are damn well eliding it over the entire project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are speaking generically without looking at the actual text and the actual sources. As the sources show, Christian Science is pseudoscience in much the same way as astrology is pseudoscience (two of the sources even mention it alongside astrology). The article also clearly elaborates on what the issues are. If you object to calling it pseudoscience, why are you removing the rest of the material: "... it claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory while attempting to present itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred among its followers and their children because of a lack of medical treatment and avoidance of vaccination.[6][7]:50"? If your objection was that it should be attributed (although I'm not sure to who?), then why did you remove the paragraph? As an aside, often astrologers consider astrology to be a religion; does that make it not pseudoscience? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the statement "CS is pseudoscience" simply an uncontested factual assertion — when considered in a Western rational/scientific context, in much the same way that (say) Crystal healing is? Is the heat in this discussion really down to a difference of views about the frame of reference used? Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a mixture of sources that call it pseudoscience, not just skeptical/scientific sources (in fact the Evangelical Protestants, like Walter Martin, are very harsh). We would end up with a statement like "According to everyone who isn't a Christian Scientist, it's pseudoscience", which is effectively the same as "it's pseudoscience". There are also a mixture of sources that call it a pseudoreligion as well though we don't mention that in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect is taking issue with the use of Wikipedia's voice, and in that light I think the frame of reference is significant. Normally Wikipedia's voice wouldn't be used to assert facts evaluative statements in areas other than rational/scientific ones, so some topics like (maybe especially) religion would have text that was remote from any kind of bald statements. I think what Collect is saying (he will I am sure correct me if I'm wrong) is that saying CS is pseudoscience is like saying Jesus' miracles are pseudoscience, and that would never do. However, because CS obtrudes into the hard worlds of medicine and science it is a very unusual case (remember CS thinks Jesus' miracles are not supernatural, but the operations of its science). Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

IOW, opinions should be ascribed as opinions. Simple. And I would note that my insertion of the word "religion" as a descriptor was undone for some odd reason -- I would think calling "Christian Science" a "religion" was rational per NYT and 99% of the reliable sources out there <g>. And in one cse, a source was used which did not remotely support the claim to which it was attacked. I know that every single religion is a heresy to someone, but Wikipedia's job is to present articles in a neutral manner, not to shout "heresy!" at every turn, even though we know everything is a heresy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say it is an opinion. Have you read all of the relevant sources? It seems from your responses you disagree with calling it pseudoscience, no matter what the sources say? Is that a correct summary? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For now I want to leave aside the interesting question of whether CS is a "religion" or not, and focus on the pseudoscience issue. You say "opinions should be ascribed as opinions". Quite. But is the statement "CS is psuedoscience" an opinion or a fact? Wikipedia should not present facts as opinions of course. What is the qualitative different between this assertion about CS and the one that opens Crystal healing: "Crystal healing is a pseudoscientific[1] alternative medicine technique"? Or is that also NPOV in your view? Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unambiguous POV.  --My76Strat (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Which? (or both?) Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) "Crystal healing" is not called a "religion". "Phrenology" is not called a "religion." "Water dowsing" is not called a "religion" by anyone. I would note that we do not even call Scientology a pseudoscience! The case for calling Christian Science a religion is far stronger than that for Scientology, IMHO. Collect (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is your argument that it's a religion so it can't be pseudoscientific? Why are these mutually incompatible? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Note my suggestion at [1] where I put "religion" in. Note [2] rejecting such an outrageous change. And making the statement into an absolute statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Do you see that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning it's a religion should be in the first lead paragraph. it being a "religion or pseudoscience" isn't supported by the sources. According to the source it's a religion that makes pseudoscientific claims, it's not one or the other. (for example, you removed the sourced text that Christian Science acts as though it is science). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay (I'm not trying to bicker, but to understand positions) — Scientology certainly should be called a pseudoscience IMO; maybe one day when I'm feeling like a break from controversial editing I'll mosey over there and make that edit ;-))

So, to be clear, your position is this: the fact that CS is religious stops the pseudoscience label being usable in WP's own voice (while for non-religious beliefs & practices like dowsing, etc, it's fine). Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of opinions qua opinions in the body of an article is one thing. Making it a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice in the lead is a teensy bit different - especially when an editor specifically undid a suggestion daring to use the word "religion" in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside editors and edits, and addressing the central point: have I summarised your position correctly? Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are so far off the mark, it would make better reading if you would post in another language.  --My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you, My76Strat, but I note you're not answering my (civil & plainly stated) question and instead using disparaging comments to be evasive. I just want to understand the reasoning editors are using before making any further arguments myself. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my words aggrieved you. Apparently I've missed my mark. I am practicing succinct candor. Your question was civil, straightforward, and easy enough to answer with few words. Your reply however, begs for more. Unfortunately I will have to decline. I do hope you find the understanding you seek.  --My76Strat (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that what it claims should matter. If it claims that medical conditions can be healed by miracles, but it otherwise accepts modern medicine and does not call the miracles scientific, then it's not a pseudoscience (or any sort of science). If the claims of miracles are accompanied by non-miraculous, inaccurate, scientific claims or if it claims that it is the true science and real science isn't, then it's a pseudoscience. My impression is that Christian Science falls in the latter category and is therefore a pseudoscience.

Whether it should be in the lead is a different question, but I would say that its claims to be scientific are so prominent that pointing out that it's a pseudoscience does belong in the lead. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued: civility and team spirit

Civility I asked some candidates for arbitrator the following question: how do you feel about applying the principles that we use for BLPs (Biographies of living persons) also to editors: "a high degree of sensitivity", "attributed to a reliable, published source", "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered"?

Team spirit I like to see in the Main page's (frequently discredited) DYK section 1950s American automobile culture, the result of admirable teamwork begun here (where some may not exactly expect civility) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Great collaboration from great editors. Something we should all look at and see the true sprit of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Now archived, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy the collaboration on my proposal of a new infobox template for a rather complex topic, to be considered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I joined a project now that applies the principles summarised above, Editor Retention. I feel that we are losing the best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP

At Wesley Snipes, an editor is attempting to insert the editor's personal opinion that Snipes is retired ("inactive") because he is in jail. This, while yet another editor (s?) is attempting to insert unsourced information tying the actor to multiple projects, also without sourcing. Two other editors (one an admin who should REALLY know better) have, in my opinion unwisely, warned me for firmly resisting, and stating that I would continue to remove the unsourced information in the future. This is appalling, and in my opinion this failure to support protection of wp:BLP articles is by far the largest threat to the project.

Now I am indeed unsociable, grumpy, unpleasant, and won't be changing. If that means I pose more of a threat by pushing out editors, then I should certainly not be part of the community.User talk:Unfriend12 15:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edited for typos.User talk:Unfriend12 15:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you want WP:BLPN or even WP:ANI for something like that, although maybe here is good enough. 70.59.11.186 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but sadly, anon friend, I simply don't care that much. There is a thread at wp:BLPN, also at the edit war page. None of that will help with the larger issue: BLP information is (obv my opinion) the greatest threat to WP. Even more than money, because if the site goes dark for lack of cash, people will cough it up. But if the site is shot dead by the governmental units, then it is ... dead. And the editors (especially admins, it seems to me) appear to be more concerned with their widdle feewings than with the survival of the project. *shrug*User talk:Unfriend12 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Who writes Wikipedia"? Still mostly logged-out people?

Is http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia still current on the proportion of logged out editors contributing the bulk of Wikipedia content? Where are the official statistics on this? 70.59.11.186 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In a very real sense, most of us are anon... my user id is Unfriend12. I work hard to keep a firm firewall between unfriend12 and all my non-WP online identities, as I edit *very inflamatory* articles, and support inclusion of text and images I personally find unpleasant, even objectionable, so long as they meet the policies, guidelines and wp:pilars. Further, IP logins, usually called anonymous logins, are in fact not anonymous at all. Creating a user id is far closer to "real" anonymity.User talk:Unfriend12 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) typofix User talk:Unfriend12 17:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The essay cited deals not with anonymity or "logged out people" but with the notion that there is a core group of Wikipedians who "write the encyclopedia" — a notion challenged by the essayist. To this I say, first, the core group at Wikipedia is not "a few hundred" or "five hundred" people, in the English Wikipedia it is something more like 3200 to 3400. HERE ARE THE NUMBERS. That includes vandal fighters, copy editors, people dealing with technical matters and administration, content creators, and a few drone bees that love the dramahs... That needs to be clear.

Second, this: Wikipedia is both a serious Encyclopedia and a Compendium of Popular Culture. The latter is much, much bigger than the former, as anyone hitting the RANDOM ARTICLE button a couple hundred times and keeping a tally will be able to observe. I would guess that the Compendium of Popular Culture is maybe 4 times larger than the Serious Encyclopedia. And the Compendium is written by a cast of tens of thousands. As for the Serious Encyclopedia, that is more or less written by a small group of content creators. The guess of 500 is really not a bad one, but I'm not aware of any formal studies on the topic, so it is just a guess. It could be twice that number. It could be half as many... That sort of writing is work and people have to be internally driven to do it. That doesn't sound like very many people until you look at the list of contributors to an old Encyclopedia Britannica and start counting. It's a substantial number to be seriously contributing to a literary project.

I think Jimbo is pretty much on the mark with his observation and his estimate, but he definitely needs to explain a little better exactly to what he refers. There's a small Encyclopedia by 500 inside a big Compendium by 50,000.... My two cents, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons range blocks

What is your opinion of this matter on Commons? I believe Pieter Kuiper has been discussed on your page before after he was indeffed on Commons. As I understand it, the people pushing for his block were largely contributors whose images he had nominated for deletion, typically because those images had copyright issues (see related discussions here: [3]). Since then he has been using IPs to file deletion requests on Commons to continue pointing out copyright issues. Commons admin Cirt, who is also a former en admin who was severely sanctioned by ArbCom and desysopped, imposed the range blocks that appear to target tens of thousands of IP addresses throughout the country of Sweden. Unfortunately, Commons apparently has no dispute resolution body akin to ArbCom so all contentious matters are handled by the community that also appear to have difficulty addressing this problem given a vocal group of editors and admins who seem to feel they have been wronged by Kuiper.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Kuiper was blocked for being persistently incapable of civil interaction with others. Part of that was his habit (still ongoing) of hounding certain users with often spurious deletion requests. This was the proverbial straw, there was a long history of abusive behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocks to keep an editor accused of incivility from socking?!?! That's pretty serious stupidity any way one looks at it... I don't think spurious deletion requests at commons are the problem — more like spurious keep rationales. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The range blocks issue of the thread title was resolved through discussion. Kuiper was blocked for persistently using pursuit of actual and alleged (often there's a commons:COM:PRP-grey area where things get deleted even though it's not definitely a copyvio...) copyright violations to pursue personal grudges. The oft-offered alternative of raising copyright concerns in alternative non-confrontational ways was consistently rejected. Rd232 ^talk 02:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to add some context. This episode started with a complaint about dynamic IPs being tagged as sockpuppets of User:Pieter Kuiper. User:Fæ (who has a history with Kuiper) then asked about the collateral damage of a range block. After some intervening discussion (about Kuiper, not about collateral damage), Cirt blocked three ranges comprising 44,000 IPs for a full year. In response to my query about whether Cirt had asked a checkuser to establish the amount of activity on those ranges, Cirt replied that they had not. User:Tiptoety, a checkuser on Commons, then checked and reported that there "there are a number of legitimate users editing from it". Cirt then reduced the block to 3 months. After some further discussion, Cirt reduced the blocks to two weeks. After even more discussion, User:Rd232 removed the range blocks entirely. Cirt has now declared themselves to be on a short wikibreak, presumably until this blows over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Being Canadian is notable, but not being Jewish

Howie Mandel is Jewish, yet the article mentions alot about him being Canadian and one line mentions that his family is of Jewish descent. But yet he attended Hebrew School in Canada, and therefore there is more than his "family is of Jewish descent", obviously his family (and him at least as a child) were actually observant. I understand if some people dont like to classify Jews as anything but religion, but why is Canadian more notable? Plenty of sources talk about Howie being Jewish, isnt that all that matters? Lots of articles fail to mention a Jewish connection even though plenty of sources mention the Jewish connection, if sources are found that talk about Jewishness of a person or theme then shouldnt that be mentioned instead of simply a consensus that Jewishness isnt encyclopedic, I thought sources trump !rules in Wikipedia.97.85.211.124 (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an ethnoreligious database. Canadian citizenship is a matter of legal status. 'Jewishness' isn't. If there are good grounds for discussing Mandel's Jewish heritage, in relation to his notability, I suggest you raise it on the article talk page - but 'he is Jewish', even if sourced, isn't in itself necessarily particularly relevant to an article otherwise. It is also worth remembering that 'Jewishness' is a highly contested issue - and it isn't up to Wikipedia to decide who is or isn't a Jew. Does Mandel himself consider his Jewish roots relevant to his career? If he does (and we have the sources to verify this), it may well merit further discussion in the article. Otherwise, there seem to be no obvious grounds to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. Furthermore a biography is more than that which is strictly relevant to notability. The reader understandably wants to know peripheral information too. Bus stop (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky has asked this same question three times on this page alone, including at /Archive 79#Should we say someone is gay, Jewish, African-American, Australian, or Antarctican? in 2011, and at /Archive 109#Is there a bias against calling people who were born Jewish as such? in 2012. Then there was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 26#2 sources to support that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? in 2011 where Camelbinky, AndyTheGrump, and Bus stop all had the same "notable for being Canadian" argument. Is this some sort of biannual ritual for all of you? Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be a biannual ritual for this IP - much the same question was asked in July, and responded to by Jimbo. [4] Does the IP expect Jimbo to have changed his mind in the meantime? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy oh boy, let's gear up for yet another exciting "who's a jew" debate. Or not..... I know I've said this before, but we've really got to put some effort into revamping policies towards race/ethnicity/religion issues. Frankly, I don't understand why we can't just agree that there's an inherent degree of subjectiveness to things like race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual persuasion, and sometimes even gender. We've got to call out that WP shouldn't be using these classifications unless they're truly unambiguous, relevant to notability, or self-identified with. There's a sad contingent of editors on WP who seem to love racially categorizing biography article subjects on WP, similar to how the Belgians categorized folks in Rwanda (and we all know how that turned out). Those editors ought stop. We ought write policy to make them stop. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This. — Coren ^(talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cute donation video

I think you'll enjoy the video at the bottom of this page: [5]. GabrielF (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's such a brilliant idea! :D So creative and so generous. The guy trying to get the letter back from the mailbox made me lol. If anything we should try to learn how they pulled the campaign off so we can make the money directly.... :P --Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this recently and tweeted about it. It's awesome. This may be of interest to those interested in the game.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a trolling an opportunity

Jimbo, I was not trolling. Just the opposite, I provided you with an opportunity to publicly explain yourself, and to do it in the environment that is very friendly to you - your own Wikipedia talk page. Many victims of Wikipedia have no such opportunity, Jimbo. OK, if you'd rather miss on this opportunity, that's fine, but could you please explain why there are so many spelling errors in your emails to WND? Thanks.67.169.11.52 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Square Enix is back

Today our fine featured ad for the Christmas shopping season is Final Fantasy. It is one of many featured articles from the prolific and dedicated editors of WP:WikiProject Square Enix, devoted to the fine products of Square Enix and its European division. Though less than half of Square Enix's fine products that have reached FA status have actually been displayed on the Main Page so far, they still have appeared about once every 212 days since 2006:

• Final Fantasy X - July 19, 2006
• Final Fantasy VI - June 20, 2007
• Kingdom Hearts - October 4, 2007
• Chrono Trigger - April 10, 2008
• Mana (series) - December 12, 2008
• Vagrant Story - August 10, 2009
• The World Ends with You - September 25, 2009
• Chrono Cross - August 15, 2010
• Kingdom Hearts (video game) - February 7, 2011
• Final Fantasy XII - March 16, 2011
• Final Fantasy - December 18, 2012

The Square Enix WikiProject doesn't include works of the wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos in its lists, so I didn't count Taito's Space Invaders (April 24, 2010) and I'm not sure how many more of those there are, but their articles don't seem like they've seen anywhere near as much attention - there are even lots of redlinks.

It looks like some folks at Square Enix have a lot to be proud of on their resumes, and I'm sure they have a bright future ahead of them in Wikipedia advertising. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)