User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Transphobia on Wikipedia

Hello,

I realise that this may be construed as a violation of my current (and hopefully to be rescinded) topic ban, but as a trans editor, I cannot simply sit and watch as Talk:Chelsea Manning is used as a platform for transphobic statements. On my twitter, I've collected several quotes from Wikipedia editors, including one administrator. This sort of behaviour, and the current systemic bias against trans people, has to stop. Selected quotes include:

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it."
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it."
• "If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American??"
• "And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse, for all we care, but that don't make it so."
• "I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!"."
• "I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty."
• "It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact."
• "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda."
• "Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established?"
• "What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity"
• "If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness."
• "This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname."

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anti-transgender editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology allowed a tendentious fringe theorist who subscribes to the theory that lesbian trans women are men who are attracted to the thought of themselves as woman to continue editing. This is an encyclopedia which has had similar problems before, on Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace. We desperately need to do something about it, as the net result will drive prospective trans editors off. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't defend every quote, but bear in mind that I was astonished to see people saying that our policy is to change the entire article, beginning to end, to reference "she" in every regard, even using "sister" in descriptions of early childhood. If we are to be enlightened and not transphobic, we should respect there may be people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month. But would that respect extend to rewriting their Wikipedia articles, beginning to end, each time? There is a principle here, opposed to "WP:Recentism", that a fact that is true, or a historical perspective that is accurate, should continue to be so in the future. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example or three before thinking this apparent hypothetical was in fact likely to be a serious problem - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of Wendy Carlos there is a passage which uses "she" in reference to that person's early childhood. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think David was talking about examples of "people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month". Diego Moya (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost every comment of user User:Baseball Bugs on Talk:Chelsea Manning is blatant example of intentional and disruptive trolling.--В и к и T 07:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It really has been. Practically every comment he's made there (and in several other places where there are discussions going on) has been incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of these comments are quite funny when presented in an appropriate way (which he often doesn't). With a bit more work User:Baseball Bugs could become our resident Comedian. Count Iblis (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The project is not a practice field for comedian want a bees. We don't want or need a freaking resident comedian. Wasn't Bugs banned from ANI for his constant jokes and commentary? He has been doing this crap for years. If you want a good laugh, go to a comedy club, this isn't that. --Malerooster (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but we could use a bit more fun. The problem is fundamentally caused by BB presenting his comments in a way that makes people to take them seriously when they shouldn't (i.e. even if Wikipedia had different rules that would allow people making jokes at AN/I, BB's behavior would still be a problem). Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want more fun, you could say Julian Assange has a reputation for meeting "new young girls" (just kidding), but BB's many jokes at wp:ANI were more like wp:DE disruptive editing of a talk-page, as too much distraction. -Wikid77 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, Wikipedia:Article titles trumps a style guide or a particular wikiproject's desires. We can certainly make mention in the article that "Bradley Manning" wishes to be a girl and wants to be addressed as "Chelsea", as it is quite the notable topic. But being notable for wanting to be a girl doesn't actually make it so, and it sure as hell should not have led to a knee-jerk page move and a find-and-replace of "he" to "she" throughout the article. That's not reality; that's activism. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the move and change, but having said that it's worth acknowledging that "transphobia" (which clearly present in some comments, sadly) isn't the only possible grounds for opposing the change, or opposing some particular details of the change. By the nature of our language, it's tricky to figure out how to correctly refer to someone who identifies as female now, but who identified as male at the time of notable activity. That's just a hard editorial problem, and no cause for high levels of emotion.

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jimmy, that you recognize that disagreeing with someone is not enough to slap labels on them such as "transphobic." I have my reservations with the change, especially its speed, but if Manning keeps the identity long enough, it will probably lose its controversial nature. However, the discussion was/is valid because of conflicting policies.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the name change been done legally? I can't see how we can change the name if it isn't done in an official capacity off Wikipedia.--MONGO 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the legal name. See, for example, Cat Stevens or Peter Sutcliffe. GiantSnowman 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a discrepancy between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY in this case, which should probably be looked at when all this has died down. I suppose you could meet both by having the article at Bradley Manning, including that they self-identify as Chelsea Manning, and using female pronouns. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite - re "WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY" - Just as a point of order, I think MOS:IDENT says we should use the pronoun "she" if that's what the subject wants. I don't think MOS:IDENT says we have to change the article title. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that editor Sceptic was blocked (apparently for 12 hours) for making the post that opened this thread, and that there is discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_lift_of_topic_ban. I had the impression that posts like this, here, are sort of protected speech (and said so, there). Not meaning to change the topic of this discussion / comments about the topic ban should be made at the wp:AN thread. --doncram 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as the person who made the move request back to Bradley Manning so a proper discussion and consensus could ensue, I am frustrated you assume requests such as mine were made for "various pedantic reasons." Policy is absolutely essential; it is not "pedantic." The controversial move to Chelsea, with which many people disagreed for various reasons (some transphobic but many policy-based; personally I support the ultimate move to Chelsea so as to respect her wishes) was a clear violation of the need to seek consensus before making a controversial move. If you think a call to follow policy on controversial moves is "pedantic" that would make most of our other policies "pedantic" as well. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when to apply our policies and to what extent. Controversial move request need to be discussed, period. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Jimbo's statement supporting the move seems to be supporting the return of the article to "Bradley", from "Chelsea", where it had been moved. Maybe everyone understood this. --doncram 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Only for values of "seems" that are very similar to "can be misread as". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay i guess i was completely wrong. There is a current RM ongoing, but I gather now that Jimbo's statement about "I support the move and change" was about the previous move from Bradley to Chelsea. Sorry for my confusion. --doncram 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I highly commend you for being one of the few (the only?) persons in this mess who changes his or her opinion based on facts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your confusion is understandable because of the obtuse way a few admins handled the situation. The irony is that we should have had this kind of deliberate and thorough discussion the first time -- before a few admins took it in their hands to make the move despite overwhelming evidence that it would be controversial. I wish we didn't have to parse this situation after the fact. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only focussing on official name changes is problematic. It would mean that while we have to move Shaparova to Sugarpova during the US open if the Florida Supreme Court gives the green light for that, we can't call Manning the way she wants herself to be called. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents here, this issue has got too hopeless wrapped up in the "trans" debate for anyone to think rationally about it. My feeling is that we should try our best to treat trans BLPs exactly the same as we treat every darn other BLP. We should be careful not to give less deference to Manning than we normally would, but we should also be careful not to give him any more deference than usual. WP:COMMONNAME strikes me as the obvious policy to follow here. The core principle surrounding WP:V is that my opinion about what Manning should be called does not matter. Neither does Jimbo's or anyone else's. All that matters is what the sources are calling Manning. WP should try to reflect the majority of verifiable reliable sources (period). If that ends up "offending" anybody, tough cookies. That's life. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, while I'm very much sympathetic with the notion that what I/we (personally, as a matter of personal ethics) think someone should be called isn't a primary determinant, I think the issue is more complex than the simplistic mantras that often surround WP:V. One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux. While of course it is important to take into consideration that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it seems very likely that for the next few weeks there will be confusion and conflict in reliable sources. My guess is that some more socially conservative reliable sources may well refuse to ever recognize the name change, and some more socially liberal ones will recognize it and carry it into force completely with immediate effect. Our article should in some useful fashion convey to the reader the full context of that state of affairs, but ultimately by the design of the software, the article has to ultimately be at one particular name, with the other made into a redirect. When do we make the change? That's a judgment call where WP:V is going to offer very very little guidance.

Here's my ultimate philosophical point - we deliberately constrain ourselves to some extent with policies like WP:V. But we can also WP:IAR when in our thoughtful editorial judgment it is wise to do so. Since WP:V is going to give little guidance for the next couple of weeks, we can and should and must make a judgment (which may well end up mistaken) about how things will shake out. I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Sir. Very much appreciate the response. The care, consideration and personal attention you pay to these matters is a light and inspiration to us all.

re "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea" - I think you might very well be correct. So why not change the name to Chelsea in six months time? Changing it now just makes it look like WP is soapboxing.

You must forgive me sir, but I think at the end of the day, I am a "verifiability, not truth"er. Despite that, I am, and will remain, your most humble and obedient servant, NickCT (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux." I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but very much like we have an "ignore the rules if it improves the article" guideline, we changed WP:V for the very reason that it had been suggesting that truth is not important. Some things can only be verified through the subject themselves and we cannot be so wrapped up in our own policies, guidelines and procedures that we forget the fact that not all information that is accurate will be found documented in reliable sources, especially BLP information. The old way of thinking had always been: "If it isn't in a reliable source it cannot be mentioned". That is simply no longer the case and I'm not even sure if it was really ever the case. Some information should ignore the documentation, especially if the documentation is wrong. And we know documentation is wrong very often or just missing/destroyed. If we have an outright statement from the subject that we know is them, yes, we should add the information. Also, Baseball Bugs should reign in the humor if it is getting offensive to other editors. No offense to BB, but he shouldn't let all these discussion of this topic make them become insensitive to others. I know BB does not do anything intentionally. At least in discussions of this topic in the past, they have never demonstrated a clear lack of civility of the issue.--Mark 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. This is, unfortunately, a systemic problem and has little to do with transsexuals in particular. Often the easiest way to win an argument is to have a couple of dedicated editors ready to make the change and to prevent anyone from rolling it back. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably the underlying problem is that WP intends to be an encyclopaedia (timeless), but it is written at the pace of a newspaper (on the hour). Yes, in six months, or a year, or a couple weeks, it will be clear whether it should be "him", "her", or a given mix of both; in the mean time it is likely that mast amounts of energy will be spent (wasted?) discussing it... I have no idea for a reasonable and widely acceptable solution, though, and maybe many don't even agree there is a problem there. - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Google News often links to Wikipedia articles, so we have been promoted to a real news site. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another news site linking to us does not make us a news site. I can't wait for someone like Colbert to take advantage of this fiasco. What a joke. --Onorem (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Iblis, your suggestion that they link here out of a sense of journalistic recognition is either subtle sarcasm or charmingly naive. Google News links to the Wikipedia due to a much-documented close business relationship. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I wonder if you might clarify your remark here. You seem to be suggesting, although I may well be misunderstanding you, that Google News links to Wikipedia due to a business relationship between Google and Wikipedia - although there is absolutely no business relationship between Google and Wikipedia that led to their decision to link to us from Google News. You give a link, as if to substantiate the claim, but the link appears to perhaps be an accidental cut/paste error, as it has nothing to do with the matter at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• The idea that being accused of bigotry is worse than the bigotry itself isn't a new thing. Certainly, British editors will remember the Julie Bindel saga back in January, where she made horrifically transphobic comments in The Observer in response to her friend Suzanne Moore being criticised for LGBT activists for prejudiced language in one of her columns. It all comes down to the idea of privilege, really; as the majority of editors are white, male, straight, cisgender, etc, they have a privilege to look at things in this sort of dispassionate, by-the-book discussion that other people on this Earth don't have; indeed, that's why CSB exists in the first place. It's easier to leave your points of view at the door when the opposite point of view isn't "morally mandate them out of existence".

  Indeed, the simultaneous proposed topic bans of Baseball Bugs and Josh Gorand are very worrying. On one hand, Baseball Bugs made statements that were almost certainly intended to provoke anger and, yes, were transphobic (there's no other way to see calling a trans person "it"). He seems to be about to let off the hook for this behaviour. On the other hand, Josh has been pointing out transphobic commentary on the talk page (the mandatory worship of COMMONNAME aside, there is a lot of resistance to the idea of gendering Manning correctly in article text too) and is facing a topic ban for it. We're even seeing Morwen (talk · contribs) receiving threats of blackmail from (since-banned) editors, and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is probably getting similar harassment. The end result is that it is creating a very hostile and unwelcoming environment for trans editors, and is definitely against the Foundation's aims. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Julie Bindel's comments have a rationale to them, and I don't think Wikipedians should be expected to all be to the left of a lesbian rights activist on the issue. Doctors may agree that trans surgeries are a necessary and useful intervention, but medical ethics is strictly synonymous with profit. Why can't the same emotional end be accomplished through simple societal recognition of a third sex? Why are trans surgeries highest in Iran, and what would the doctors say about their necessity? There is definitely a need for society to retain its skeptics of the need for cosmetic surgeries. If there is a sense of privilege here, there are a lot of people who feel that it also extends to prisoners who sue for extensive surgeries; of course, if the U.S. had universal health coverage much of that resentment would be removed, and if wishes were horses... Wnt (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: it was actually Julie Burchill, not Julie Bindel, who wrote the controversial Observer article User:Sceptre refers to. An understandable mistake (both are British feminist writers, with the same first name, who have both at times been accused of transphobia), but let's try to avoid violating BLP on Jimbo's talk page. Robofish (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• OP was blocked again, for 60 hours: Unfortunately, the OP of this thread, User:Sceptre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been blocked again for "topic ban violation" (this time by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: dif526) and not able to reply directly here for 60 hours (~3 days) from "09:17, 24 August 2013‎". However, comments can be read at bottom of User_talk:Sceptre. Dozens of users are discussing the issues at "wp:AN#Request for lift of topic ban" and Talk:Chelsea_Manning. -Wikid77 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think your judgement on this article-title issue is reliable and I'll explain why.

You wrote, "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. — With the use of the term "pedantic" you have unfairly stereotyped those who disagree with you.

You wrote, "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change. — You are basing your judgement on speculation instead of facts.

But hey, this just demonstrates that when it comes to discussions like this, you are just another Wikipedia editor with regard to personal strengths and weaknesses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am. But I do think you're missing my key point. Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time. There is no way, today, to settle the issue definitively by simply pointing to "what reliable sources say" - they say different things, and are likely to continue to do so for some time. If someone said "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call her Bradley" that'd be equally as speculative. (And, I think, false, given a look at the history of such things.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time." — There is no speculation that the vast majority of sources have used the name Bradley Manning. There is only speculation that the vast majority of sources will be using Chelsea Manning six months from now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources throughout all of history say that Pluto is a planet. The moment a celebrity dies, the vast majority of sources will say that the person is alive. The day a famous person (usually, a woman) changes her name due to marriage, the vast majority of sources will give her previous name. The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia. We often have to make judgment calls about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, that's a really persuasive point about the married name -- but (even if there is a ring of higher truth to it) we don't write that the celebrity's parents gave birth to a corpse. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious, because the pronoun shift is different from a name change in some important ways, so I don't think this proves anyone definitively one way or the other. How do we usually refer to women during the time in their life when they went by their maiden name? Here's one example: Margaret Thatcher in which we refer to her as 'Roberts' several times. Does this provide us with any guidance as to whether we ought to refer to Manning as 'he' when talking about a period in his life when he identified as male, and 'she' when talking about the present day? (Addendum: as a counter-example, I note we refer to Cheryl Cole as 'Cole' when she was 4 years old - even though Cole was not a name she or her parents would have recognized at that time.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, because I think the Manning article, now with "she", needs to specify Manning was in the U.S. Army as a man, lest people imagine military service as a woman. This issue is akin to not omitting facts which would lead people to "original conclusions" (as in non-true conclusion of woman in army). -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We change sentences about the person from the present tense to the past, though. Diego Moya (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." — When Manning expressed the desire to be called Chelsea, this new info was included in the article, presumably without dispute. But regarding the title, the new thing to happen would need to be a change to a prevalent use of Chelsea instead of Bradley in the sources that have come out since the announcement, which I don't think has happened so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has. But in any event, time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK press shifted entirely over in mere hours after the announcement, the US press has been shifting at an increasing rate over the past few days - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "I think it has. " — To find out, you can google Bradley Manning, and then google Chelsea Manning, and see for yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Making google searches does not prove anything and using these search results is a bad way of building an encyclopedia. There is overhwelming evidence that many reliable sources are using Chelsea so it is already a common usage term, we dont need google to tell us this. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The googling was just to find current articles to read to see how they use the two names. I suggested separate searches using each name to avoid any keyword-related bias in the result. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject to some natural caveats, I don't agree with Squeakbox. A naive and blind use of Google search counts is a bad idea, of course. But it can be a useful first tool for understanding the preponderance of the evidence. And a quick look at the relevant Google search (i.e. Google news) shows that I'm absolutely right. The vast majority of sources are using "Chelsea" in the headlines. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did a google news search here in Australia, just searching for "Manning". Of the top ten results, two articles had "Bradley" in the headline ([1][2]) and two had "Chelsea" ([3][4]). StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One teeny problem -- the "name qua name" is the topic of many articles - and that is not proof that the newspaper style guide now says to use that name -- vide the NYT [5] which carefully uses "Bradley" and "he" in its most recent article. "Google counts" which include articles primarily about the name are not sufficient to make much of a case for anything. As Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there is no deadline, I suggest that the NYT be considered as a reputable MOS guide here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I went to the google news site after reading Jimbo's message but I didn't see how to search just google news and not google in general, and I didn't know what keywords Jimbo used. In any case, Jimbo's criteria of "using 'Chelsea' in the headlines" is not useful because it includes cases where both Bradley and Chelsea are in the same headline and does not exclude cases where Manning is referred to as Bradley in the text of the article. The correct criterion for this discussion is how Manning is referred to in the text of the article, Chelsea or Bradley.

I also went to repeat the search that StAnselm did, but in the process I found an interesting article from The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) about how the media was affected. Here's an excerpt about Wikipedia from that CSM article.[6]

For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female.

Ms. Manning had barely finished his – oops, her – announcement last week when Wikipedia immediately redirected “Bradley Manning” searches to “Chelsea Manning” in an article peppered with feminine pronouns. One example:

“She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.”

It’s not been so quick or easy for others in the media, where what to call Manning is being hotly debated.

From what I've seen at the Wikipedia article, the issue is being hotly debated in Wikipedia too but the change in the title did not come from a consensus from the debate, but instead was the result of aggressive editing and maneuvering. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm not a particularly big fan of the sarcasm used in that article. Nor the way the post above seems to have some things a bit...tilted. Was the media really "effected" or was a single reporter from one source just agreeing with us...one that just happens to be one of, if not the top story coming up in Google news.

When you make a Google search there is an option below to choose "news". Just click it after you hit search. Bradley Manning Google News [7]. Chelsea manning google news [8].

Also, no this was not just something that popped up last week. This is an issue that has been simmering now for a month or two, at least. The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit. We still form consensus on Wikipedia through actual editing as well as discussion. It isn't a sin. I do resent the implication that editors who support this change have done so with "aggressive editing and maneuvering". No, they didn't. It got changed because it was finally confirmed to be accurate and real. Now that the bold edit has been made the community must decide if that is the right editorial judgment. I think it is. Strongly.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit." — It was a series of edits that restored the move to Chelsea Manning after it was reverted twice.[9][10][11][12][13] The series of edits occurred over just 2 hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the first revert was an error according to the reverting editor. So it wasn't the situation that I had thought. Sorry about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the second revert back to Bradley Manning was not an error according to that reverting administrator. Since Bradley Manning had been the stable article title, I don't think it should have been reverted back to Chelsea Manning without consensus. I think that the following two talk page messages succinctly convey each administrator's view at the time.[14]

Regarding revert to Chelsea Manning, which was final revert:

"Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Regarding revert to Bradley Manning, which was just before the final revert to Chelsea Manning:

"How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page for the MOS has this very problematic comment by the administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs):

*Oppose: If I decided to declare my gender as vegetable it wouldn't make it true nor would reporting such here be encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this conduct, which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP, what we should expect or even tolerate from a sysop? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, I think that this is the Foundation's NDP that Sceptre is referring to.[15]

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Re your comment "which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP" — Would you care to explain? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gender identity is explicitly legally protected in California, and implicitly protected federally as gender-based discrimination (Macy v. Holder). Todd's comments are clearly discriminatory speech against transgender persons, of which current and prospective users are a subset. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, In your response, I didn't see anything about how the Foundation's NDP quoted above applies to Todd's comment.

Jimbo, If you're following any of this, feel free to jump in if you would like to add anything regarding the Foundation's NDP and whether it applies to Todd's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, It looks like Macy v. Holder has to do with discrimination in hiring.[16] So it doesn't apply to Todd's remark. Since you weren't specific about what California laws you were referring to, it's difficult for me to address that remark. I think that laws which limit freedom of speech are very narrow, and I expect they don't apply to Todd's remark. Perhaps a calm dialogue with your fellow Wikipedia editor on his Talk page might help you understand each other better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Regarding understanding each other, I think that what you object to in Todd's remark is that it sounds to you like a joke about something that is too serious to joke about. Is that about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a clearly discriminatory remark, and I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. When statements such as these are made by administrators, they bring disrepute to the project, and a Foundation that prides itself on equal opportunity. What do you think would happen in a different California company if a supervisor said what Toddst1 said to a trans employee they supervise? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone has the same ...if not morality, perhaps the term scruples could be used, in determining a slight against another, but most clear thinking people understand mockery. We see it often enough here to recognize it. When you fight for equality, sometimes you have to be a part of a community whether they like it or not but you don't have to be in battle mode on Wikipedia. We all have different backgrounds, experiences and a unique understanding of the world. You can further a cause by helping build encyclopedic value or you can try to set it back by comparing it to an unthinking food item. I think that some people will never see the seriousness of the subject and if they don't want to be serious they probably wont be counted. Did Toddst1 say this as part of his administrative duties or actions, or was this something said while just contributing as an editor? I don't think its going unnoticed. But we still have to accept each other and some of the things we will have to accept is that not everyone will understand us, not every one will agree with us and not everyone will take us seriously. LGBT issues are not even easy for those within the community and part of the history is that the "t" in LGBT was added. It used to be LGB. I think the 'b" was even added. Everything takes time, but here we are. Talking about the name change of an LGBT person. And when I remember how it was when even mentioning gay rights was shocking and gay marriage.....almost a laughable a dream. Things take time, but they do change.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are, theoretically, held to a higher standard than regular editors as their possession of administrative tools (rightly or wrongly) confers authority upon them. See also User:Bedford, whose sexist comments regarding main page comments were seen as enough to revoke his administrator tools (although, I understand, that was five years ago). Sceptre ^(talk) 08:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to famous name changes

The most-obvious example I remembered was the name change of world-famous boxer Cassius Clay, as a rising star in the sports world, and then Clay defeated Sonny Liston in a major upset, so the "whole world" then knew the name "Cassius Clay" was the greatest boxer of the time, at a time when boxing was not widely considered such a "politically questionable" violent sport. Then Clay joined the Nation of Islam, and changed his name to "Muhammad Ali" and to my shock, within weeks, the "whole world" started continually referring to Clay as "Ali", I mean it was like the world just did not understand he was the great "Cassius Clay" and everyone kept saying "Ali" (or for a short while some added "formerly Clay"). Hence, it is important to understand the way the world has really worked during the past 50 years, and remember how a famous person who changes names for a crucial reason is almost instantly renamed in reporting future famous events. Perhaps the key issues are the public announcement of the name change, plus the impact of the underlying reasons. And the world media immediately responds. It is amazing how quickly people around the world can react, learn and adapt. Update: Even though polite TV might have accepted "Ali" there is a report that other reporters and TV commentators "openly mocked his new name, treating it as a bizarre affectation" which perhaps was not broadcast as much (see: Salon.com, "What's in a name? Chelsea Manning and Muhammad Ali", Aug. 24, 2013), and Clay had secretly become a member of the Nation of Islam before the Liston fight, but promoters suppressed the story, and Clay did not announce name "Ali" until after he won the fight. Hence, the behind-the-scenes bickering might have been similar, with the Times deciding to use historic name "Cassius Clay" as tied to pre-Ali notability. There were related issues of racism or fear about Black Muslim activities. -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August, 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So why does Wikipedia still have an article on Cat Stevens, who hasn't used that name for 35 years? Mogism (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems Yusuf still mentions his former name "Cat Stevens" (see website YusufIslam.com), and perhaps his views of Allah encourage use of both names. See: Talk:Cat_Stevens to discuss use of both names in recent sources. -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You're both right, and you're both wrong. WP:COMMONNAME already has it covered. Muhammad Ali is the most common name for Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens is the most common name for Yusuf. There is no need to argue or change policy. WP:COMMONNAME is already correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor comes to mind as well. Albacore (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a direct comparison, though. The majority of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's notable achievements were under that name, the majority of Margaret Thatcher's achievements were as Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Roberts or Baroness Grantham, and Talk:Cat Stevens is full of explanations that the page hasn't been moved as most of his notable activity was under that name. Everything for which Manning is notable was done under the name Bradley. While I personally agree that Wikipedia should respect the subject's wishes and use whatever name they want to be known by, we should at least admit that Cat Stevens, Alan Sugar and hundreds of other pages are at "subject's former name" on the grounds that that is the name by which their most notable activity took place, even though that's not the name the subject currently goes by. Mogism (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so, Manning is unquestionably notable for her statement that she is now a female called Chelsea, indeed that is arguably the most notable thing this notable human being has done. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You think the primary reason for her being notable is her gender identity? I don't just find that ridiculous, I find it insulting that you appear to be saying that people with gender identity issues are so unusual that they're automatically of public interest. (I really can't see any other way to parse your comment.) Mogism (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didnt say it was the primary reason for her being notable, that was clearly the wikileaks episode, I said it was the most notable (just as Gary Glitter was primarily notable as a pop star but the most notable things he has done are his pedophile activities). Are you claiming Chelsea's recent statement isnt notable? In which case why are you here discussing it at all?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, nobody would care that Manning considers themselves female if it wasn't for the security breach. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "transphobic" should not be used in these discussions, in my opinion. A phobia is a mental illness, an irrational fear. It is uncivil name-calling and an attempt to shut down discussion by applying a label to those who do not agree with you. I don't see all of those comments at the start of this thread as being evidence of a phobia, some of them are just discussing the question from a different point of view than the OP.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As our article puts it, "usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the 'phobia'." It's not a nice thing to say, regardless of whether the etymology is accurate. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I formerly thought the word was a "-phobia" mental condition, but it has been defined as a "strong dislike" or use of discrimination, as a statement of fact rather than a direct personal insult, or an attempt to ascribe a medical diagnosis to another user. Comparisons to mental phobias are a source of conflicts, as someone imagines being called crazy, rather than stating a dislike of transgender. -Wikid77 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

.......or a polemic structure used in an effort to capture the moral high ground and to shift the focus of debate in a politically advantageous manner. It's a way to demean those with whom one disagrees. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's usually apparent from context whether it's meant as a dispassionate description or as an accusation intended to attack another editor. There's no reason to block editors for years, even just an hour block would send the clear message "this is not acceptable behavior." As was stated on the AN/I thread, the warnings were openly ignored. The users violating WP:CIVIL were proud that they'd been arrogant and combative and believed it was appropriate behavior. The message that was sent was that incivility is welcome and accepted on Wikipedia, and that isn't what we were supposed to be doing. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, attempts to censor people in mid-debate, such as discussing transgender issues, are likely to escalate similar comments, rather than defusing them. Perhaps it would be good for Wikipedia to have some terminology forums, to shift the hostile debate into other pages, to allow the original issue to be decided without meta-debating the proper use of dictionary words "transphobia" or "transphobic". -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

People can discuss why it's offensive without labeling other editors as bigoted (which is the most likely understanding of the word). The seven dirty words are all in the dictionary, and that does not make them acceptable for use on TV. Transphobic is widely interpreted as an accusation of bigotry, and that's a personal attack, an argument ad hominem, and has no place in a civil debate, especially one where the personal opinions of the editors are supposed to be marginally relevant at best. The hostile debate should not be shifted into other pages, it should be shifted off Wikipedia - this is not a forum and not a battleground. If it's not about the article, it should be removed with extreme prejudice and the editor should shortly follow if they have no intention of talking about articles. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT/AP switch to Chelsea

Now 4 days later, "New York Times to Call Chelsea Manning by Her Preferred Name" at Huffingtonpost.com, 26 August 2013. There have been reports that the New York Times (NYT) refused to use the name "Muhammad Ali" when world-famous boxer Cassius Clay changed his name after 1964. Also, Associated Press (AP) has announced intent to use "Chelsea" and will immediately affect hundreds/thousands of sources, as news feed to influence each newspaper or broadcaster (within days, the vast majority of recent sources will have: Chelsea). Keeping the WP title as "Chelsea Manning" allows that to appear in "Category:Transgender and transsexual women" as a female name. The first 7 other-language wikipedias which also renamed, for title with Chelsea, are: Swedish Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Turkish WP, Dutch WP, Danish WP, Catalan WP and Finnish Wikipedia, all renamed on 22/23 August 2013. -Wikid77 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy

I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced. The blog post I'm asked about is utterly dishonest it its portrayal of the facts. There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. His long block log tells the story better than I can. He should have been permanently banned a very long time ago for disruption. To suddenly cast him as a hero in the service of children is beyond mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Jimbo, Have you read this blog yet? What is your opinion about the problems described there? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo, on the case page you can see what prompted the case and the result. The "whistle-blowing" referred to in the blog post (one should use that term lightly here) concerns an unrelated editor and is not what prompted the case, nor was it the primary driver of the decision.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Of course the whistle-blowing was the primary driver of the decision. Just a few days before the decision was made Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for 48 hours over this comment. Of course Kiefer.Wolfowitz is blocked for the whistle-blowing. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Actually it was the block for this comment (admins only) that immediately preceded the case. Then again, there's so much to choose from in KW's block log (including two more blocks for unrelated matters during the case!) that your line of argument would support his ban being for just about anything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That comment is more nasty innuendo than whistle-blowing and there is a great deal of dishonesty in Kiefer's framing of those situations. Also, while such an incident may have influenced the decision (there was talk of a site-ban well before that incident) it was just one of many things he did over the duration of the case. Several comments about the actual opposing party in that case, where there were no real issues of child protection, likely played just as much of a role in how Arbitrators acted and there were many egregious comments he made about other people during the case with some additional taunting of the Arbs on the case talk page. Kiefer regrettably decided to go out shooting. For people to then whimper and whine that he is just being silenced for raising legitimate issues about da childrens is dishonest and exploitative. I expressed my opposition to a site ban several times, as well as expressing opposition to the very idea of a case, but I am not so foolish as to suggest there was not very good reason given for the ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipediocracy spam, check! Posted by someone lacking the courage to use their regular account, check! (Curious also that the blog criticizes anon editing, yet this person won't put their name - either real life or regular account - to it). Attempts to pass an editor who exhibited serious, extreme and unrepentant behavioural issues off as a martyr, check! Nicely done! Resolute 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Spam? Okay, then maybe you could provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? I mean he wants to mentor them, fine, but why to do it off-wiki? Please tell me, I'm all ears.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Please give me a break. What it has to do with homophobia? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You seem to be adept at trying to knock down strawmen while avoiding the key point. Perhaps this might help: This is the organization whose child protection policies you trumpet. Stellar journalism, guys. Really. The kind of stuff that will land you a job with Fox News or the Daily Mail. Resolute 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You will get no break from me, so I will be more succinct: The BSA is a deeply homophobic organization with a long record of covering up child abuse. Why do you promote their failed "child protection policy"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I do not not promote anybody's child protection policy. This post isn't about the Boy Scouts of America, and this post isn't about homophobia. This post is about kids who edit Wikipedia, and I still haven't gotten a response to my question which is: could you please provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Neither your question nor the blog post provide reliable information that would enable any of us to answer that question. Perhaps this hypothetical adult user is a pedophile, and perhaps they are someone sincerely mentoring younger editors. Just like pre-1985 scout leaders. But innuendo is an addictive drug to many. Several things are certain, though, regarding this blog post. No broad context is provided regarding the edit history of the "hero" of the tale, since that would take air out of the balloon. And also, the blog post promotes the failed child protection policies of a homophobic organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) you mean the one where the adults are never supposed to be one-on-one with any youth, at least 2 adults must be present, all adults go through background checks, etcetera? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) We are not talking about whether a one paragraph summary of their standards "sounds good", but whether it is actually effective. Lawsuits have forced them to release old records which show their old failures. They refuse to release newer records, though lawsuits are bearing down on them. Until those records are released, I am extremely skeptical that they have solved their problems. Until this year, they routinely ousted innocent gay Scouts. They continue to oust innocent gay Scout leaders. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) the homophobia is an entirely different matter, or, at least, it should be. anyways, this discussion is wandering away from whatever focus it should have. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Putting homophobia aside boy-scouts are entirely different kettle of fish than wikipedia editors. Boy-scouts have direct physical contact with their adult supervisors, the adults are often in position of authority to the children, etc. Underaged wikipedians are forbidden to identify themselves as such, their physical whereabouts are hidden, all on-wiki activities are constantly monitored and opened for scrutiny. The different risks dictates diffeent level of precautions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Are you really claiming that either the blog post or the original question had "focus"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I dunno, if not, then maybe WP:NOTFORUM applies here... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo has repeatedly made it clear that this talk page is a forum, a place to blow off steam and a place to discuss "edge" issues. So this is probably the page where that link applies least. If Jimmy Wales wants to end this discussion, I will comply. I think Wikipedia needs responsible criticism. I think Wikipedia needs to address contact and conduct between minors who edit and adults who edit. That being said, the hidden story behind this blog post is really the story of a talented editor going off the rails very catastrophically, and the post fails to contribute, in my opinion, to that necessary conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If my post fails to contribute, it's only because the kids' privacy is involved, but I could provide some specifics. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys came to a strange conclusion. The boy said that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". Do you believe it is a matter to be concerned about? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Well, thanks for at least admitting you are Peter, Mr. Anon. That being said, given your history, you'll have to forgive me if I put zero stock in your good word. If you have actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, take it to the police. Otherwise, I have found that "Won't someone please think of the children?" is often a phrase used to try and mask ulterior motives. Resolute 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC) problem sherlock PD is in London, this IP is near San Fransico. It is more likely to be a WMF employee than PD. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Don't really care either way, but the IP could be a proxy and the above exchange does read like an acknowledgment of authorship. Of course, the IP user could also be lying. Again, don't really care.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) typical of this site bitching about the messenger rather than the message. Oops that is what the WO post was about, so no surprises that the wiki cultists would all do the same here. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If we consider IRC not to be a part of Wikipedia then it is way safer for children than play on public playground, walk down the streets, attend schools or borrow books from a library (there might be an offensive graffiti or an indecent letter in the book. I do not have much of a positive experience with the Wiki-IRC and other Wikipedia-related internet forums like wikipediocracy but I am under impression that they are not ruled by Jimbo or Wikimedia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia;Child discipline;Corporal punishment;Corporal punishment in the home;List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't conflate two separate issues. The blocked editor was very much guilty of "a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection". So I'm not lamenting his block, as I think he should have been permanently blocked a long time ago. (Check his block log.) The entirely separate issue of another editor's behavior is an entirely separate issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the block log. All of this year has been various episodes related to the "spanker/caner" and the boys. Around xmas last year there was an issue concerning "inappropriate/creepy" comments made by someone towards women on IRC. You're an intelligent fellow does it not seem to you a "blame the messenger" ethos that has developed here which needs addressing? John lilburne (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not about "blaming the messenger". It's about not giving someone a free pass to abuse other people repeatedly just because they are making accusations of a serious nature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it not? When I looked I didn't see a whole load of abuse as such. But it is no surprise if someone who reports suspicious or inappropriate behaviour gets forceful in a public forum. The problem here is that there is no effective communications channel where issues can be reported and timely feedback given. Emails to ArbCom may take weeks before being acknowledged (if at all) same with the WMF. Feedback/response should not be dependent on whether a group of people like the reporter or not. Whether the reporter is a pain in the arse or insulting is of no matter. Similar reports on flickr get a response back within 24hrs. There is no need for statements or drama being propagated into the public forums, no escalating name calling, etc etc. John lilburne (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any details about it, and other than dripping with innuendo, your description doesn't tell me anything useful. Why do you put the word 'mentor' in scare quotes? In general, I think it can be perfectly appropriate for people to help teenagers learn to edit Wikipedia, and that's often going to take place via email. So if you are asking an abstract question is it ok for someone to mentor teens and communicate with them by email, well, yes of course, there's nothing inherently problematic about that. I assume though, that you're (as usual) trying to catch me in some kind of "gotcha" and you're withholding something you think is damaging. What is it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for your response! My description is absolutely honest, and there are on-wiki links to prove my words, and I haven't told you everything yet, but I cannot post the links to your talk page because the 14-years old privacy is at stake. The boy provided his first and his last name on wiki, as well as the city he lives in. He has also uploaded an image of himself.50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use email instead of a very public forum.--MONGO 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention whores don't like email because it doesn't give them the ego hit that using a very public forum does. Resolute 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See what happens when someone uses a public forum to highlight another WP governance failing? Some WP hero hiding behind an anonymous account name insults them. No Jimbo, I wasn't trying to "gotcha", just trying to remind you that you're making it very obvious that you and the WMF aren't doing anything more than paying lip service to the child protection policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The child protection policy is strictly enforced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, check your email. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger, especially if this stranger states something like that on his user page: "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy"? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd need more information than that to make a decision. You've asked, implicitly, two questions here: "You mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger" and then another question about "especially if". First, no I don't mind if my teen gets emails from an anonymous stranger. That's what happens on the Internet all the time. People meet other people in online forums, mailing lists, wikis, blogs, etc. Any parent who thinks that their teenager isn't going to have contact with strangers online is really confused. Now, what if someone has that on their talk page - I think that's certainly weird, but I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the person is a pedophile. What is the content of the email? But a more important question for us is not "what does Jimbo think, as a parent" but rather "what should we do about protecting children". And my view is that we should do what we already do: vigorously enforce the child protection policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The 14-years old boy states that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" makes any significant edit to any article related to caning and before his mentor adds the weird user box to his user page. Do we need to know anything more about the content of the emails? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps both accounts are controlled by the same user (or some group of users) in order to make a point about our child protection policy? Count Iblis (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Far-fetched, but not impossible. Both would have to be controlled by the then 14 year-old since their real-life identity is easily confirmed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To really protect underage Wikipedia editors, we could set up a large number of fake accounts pretending to be underage children. Since there aren't all that many real child editors here, the number of fake child accounts could easily vastly outnumber the number of real child accounts. Then a pedophile attempting to groom a child here, would almost always end up contacting a fake child, triggering an alert. Of course, it won't be long before it becomes widely known that most accounts pretending to be child editors are fake accounts, but then that would deter a pedophile from even trying to make improper contact with a child here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Internet! Where the men are boys, the women are men and the boys are FBI agents - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think about this

The admin who will be closing the Manning page-title debate has listed you as voting to support the current title, even though you never actually voted. This is fine in and of itself, as everyone's opinions should count in discussions like these. The problem is that while 3 other users have voiced support for moving the page back, the same admin who counted your user-talk-page opinion as a full-fledged vote has listed these other 3 as "out of process supports" and said that since they didn't actually vote, they will not be taken into consideration when it comes to the final result of the page-name. It seems clear to me that you wish your opinion to be given equal, rather than extra, weight here. Do you find this fair? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because !voting is, well, not voting, I think it's fine to include my views - the actual count doesn't really determine the answer. I don't know what the other 3 users said, so I'm not sure how their comments should be treated. I suppose it would make more sense to me to move me to "out of process oppose" since I didn't really join the process. But it doesn't seem like it really matters all that much, so I'd mostly like there to be more focus on the content of the debate rather than proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have commented in response to this concern on my talk page, it is premature. I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, and when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412 T 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are the other two administrators? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BOZ and User:Kww. Their names were presented to me as options when a three-admin panel was suggest on the WP:ANI closure page; so I asked, and they agreed to help. bd2412 T 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, In that discussion that you linked to, you wrote "I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected." — Which title is "the one that existed yesterday"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww is quite experienced at closing RfC's, and judging consensus, and the three-admin panel is really the way to go with large RfC's... it's pretty much standard actually... as far as the title goes, the status quo is whatever the title was before the editor boldly changed it. I feel the system of BRD is working as intended, an editor boldly changed something, and now, we are discussing whether or not to keep the change, thereby preventing any possible edit warring or other disputes over it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Please note that I would still like to hear from you regarding my last message since you are a closing administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is just that, a sandbox; it is a collection of notes sketching out issues that I have not fully thought through. If I fail to immediately notice an editor having switched their !vote, it is helpful to bring that to my attention (although I will certainly review the count very closely once the discussion closes), but otherwise the contents of that page are of no moment to the discussion. Bear in mind, in most instances, the closing administrator does not even look at the discussion being closed until the discussion is complete. In this case, the number of participants and the number of issues being raised makes it worth taking some broad notes in advance of the more intense deliberation which will occur after closure. bd2412 T 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Since your above message doesn't seem to fit here, did you mistakenly post it here instead of somewhere else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My above message is in answer to your question. I'm afraid it's all the answer I can give you. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps BD2412 has misunderstood Bob K31416's question. It's clear from the timestamps that "the one that existed yesterday" is "Bradley Manning". – Smyth\^talk 20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, This is starting to look like there's going to be a closing fiasco like the one that occurred with the "verifiability, not truth" RfC. I hope not. As you pointed out back then, there was a super majority consensus for removing "verifiability, not truth" that the three closers interpreted as no consensus. In this case, it would be a matter of the closers deciding what title should be kept if there is no consensus, the new one Chelsea Manning, or the previous long-standing one Bradley Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the trick, though - the term majority, in this context, has no relevance. The number of editors on one side of the issue or another is relevant, certainly, but the side with fewer editors will prevail if the strength of their arguments is the greater. And that's why we have three admins, experienced and respected all, who will read the comments and the discussions, judge their merit, and determine where consensus lies. As for a no consensus close - obviously, a no consensus close will default to the wrong title. And editors will shout from the hills that there was indeed consensus for their preferred version, and lots of good people will have their feelings hurt, and then we will move on. If we can't trust these admins to close, then who? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "no consensus" would default to "Bradley Manning", rather than the wrong title. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to The Wrong Version. Which name is the wrong version is precisely what is under debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That went right over my head (certainly not difficult to do). I regretted that post almost instantly, but I had just gotten fed up with a handful of editors (the ones declaring "case closed", "we will absolutely not be moving it back", ect.). It seemed to me that you were using Jimbo's page to grandstand for a title-change. Had I realized that you meant the proverbial wrong version rather than the actual wrong version, I wouldn't have responded in that fashion. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gotcha" update

Jimbo, I hope you won't dismiss this as a "gotcha" attempt. Many of us readers of JimboTalk are actually interested in what you have to say about some of the issues that have been raised, but seem to quietly fade away without any real resolution. So, here goes!

1. Do you still stand behind your statement that "Socialtext no longer exists"? If so, what do you make of this impostor website?
2. Were you able to chat with Richard Stromback about how it appears he (or an agent acting on his behalf) has managed to manipulate Wikipedia content to serve his messaging goals? If so, what did he have to say?
3. Did you contact Wikibilim to find out why a portrait of Karim Massimov appears on all of their site's pages? If so, what did they have to say?
4. This is a new one, not a follow-up. You serve as an outside advisor to Sunlight Foundation. Many of the financial supporters of the Sunlight Foundation are also financial supporters of the Wikimedia Foundation. Do you have any comment about the following Wikipedia editors: User:Paulblumenthal, User:Stereogab, User:Ebankey, User:96.231.127.110, User:71.191.1.8, User:68.50.74.96, or User:69.244.92.218? Do you think it might be useful to "advise" the Sunlight Foundation about your "bright line rule"?

Looking forward to your responses. Promise, no "gotcha" here. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Socialtext no longer exists as a company because it was acquired.

Rich Stromback said that he knew nothing about it. Perhaps you'd better ask him directly yourself if you'd like more information than that.

I haven't contacted Wikibilim yet. My wife, as you may know, just had a baby.

I have no comment about those editors, have not reviewed their contributions, and know nothing about it. I have never advised Sunlight Foundation about Wikipedia editing at all, nor do I intend to start now. If you think there's a problem, then please take it up in the appropriate venues.

You say there is no 'gotcha' here but now it's your turn to answer some questions. Who are you? Why are you going through news reports looking for anyone I happen to know and looking for conflict of interest editing and asking me about it here? What is your motive? Why don't you just get the point. If you are hoping to show that I condone conflict of interest editing if it is done by someone I know, that's total bullshit. I never condone it under any circumstances. I also don't make it the first thing that I say when I meet people. Indeed, I don't bring it up at all in social settings or professional settings unless I'm specifically asked for advice about it. And when I'm asked for advice, I'm 100% firm and consistent. Is that answer the one you were hoping for? Of course not. You're looking to smear me, as usual.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"You're looking to smear me, as usual." Mr Wales: there is more than one person who is interested in your answers. 62.74.128.2 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"There is more than one person who is interested in your answers." Yes, probably a few IP hopping malcontents who refuse to give their names and congregate off-wiki. Time to drop the stick here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username..." I don't want to speak for 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF, but it appears that the motive is to try to resolve the cognitive dissonance that some of your seemingly contradictory beliefs and actions are causing for him or her. You have to admit, if we had such a "quacks like a duck" scenario similar to the editing related to Mr. Stromback, but the subject was not a drinking buddy of the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, it's likely that more would have been done to restrict and roll back the editing, to preserve Wikipedia's NPOV. I don't know if others believe that Rich Stromback knew nothing about this or this or this, but given what we all know about the patterns of COI editors on Wikipedia, it defies all conceivable logic to think that Stromback didn't know anything at all about those edits. You seem to accept Stromback at his word, but you publicly criticized Bell Pottinger's "ethical blindness". That's why there are so many questions based on your mixed signals. - 2001:558:1400:10:F92D:8ADF:AE1E:8DD8 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to flog those dead horses again I see...--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can answer two of those questions. Socialtext no longer exists as a company, which is clearly what Jimbo meant when he said "Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them". Karim Massimov is the patron of Wikibilim, which is not news. Formerip (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you can answer one of those questions incorrectly, given that the California Secretary of State's list of business entities shows that Entity C2505424 (Socialtext, Inc.) is marked as "ACTIVE" through Tuesday, August 27, 2013. As for Massimov being the patron of Wikibilim, we know! We're curious why Jimbo said "we totally reject the possibility of state control over the content of Wikipedia in any language", yet promised $5,000 of his own money to a program dedicated to the content of Wikipedia, that is primarily run with state-controlled money. That may not strike you as a matter of concern, but other intelligent people are most definitely concerned about it. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Crikey, it didn't take you long to break your "no gotcha" promise.

On the first point, my guess is that either that either that database doesn't get updated on a daily cycle or Jimbo has revealed his shocking ignorance of California companies law. Either way, I don't see any reason to suppose it's a big deal.

On the second, I'll confess to not being very concerned about Wikibilim, based on what I know. But why are you asking questions if you already know the answers? You're concerned? Fine. Set a reminder on your phone and state your case here every time it goes off. Just do it without the innuendo and nonsense. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Formerip, you seem to be the one desperate to turn this into a "gotcha" opportunity, given your really hare-brained explanations for how Socialtext just might not exist as a company, even though they have a fully operational website, it's labeled in the footer as "© 2013 Socialtext, Inc.", it's listed in the California database of business entities, in which data is updated every Wednesday and Saturday morning, and that all Dissolutions and Surrenders filed prior to August 19 have been processed. Why are you so frantically clinging to the notion that Socialtext doesn't exist as a company? What sort of "gotcha" are you hoping will be sprung on us? If Socialtext does still exist as a company, then "it's a big deal" because Jimmy Wales served on its board of directors. One would hope that would give him at least a modicum of understanding of California companies law. It also becomes a "big deal" to consider the fact that Wales sits on the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is situated in California. If Wales is so easily wrong about the very existence of a company on whose board of directors he recently served, can we reliably trust in anything he says about organizations which he leads? I can assure you, if I were ever asked about any entity on which I've served its board of directors, I could tell you with 100% confidence whether or not that entity still "exists". Jimmy Wales said that "Socialtext no longer exists". It is a completely bizarre and erroneous statement to make, unless there is some (probably convoluted) explanation for what he meant to say. Maybe we can wait for him to answer, before his supporters try to jump in and deflect for him? - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Columbo, you can keep your cool better than that.

I don't really care whether Socialtext exists as a company. It isn't interesting. It was subject to an acquisition last year, according to its WP article. I don't see how its bizarre to think of it as no longer existing. It may be wrong, but I'm not a company lawyer. What I do think is bizarre is caring so much. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Socialtext no longer exists as a separate company under the ordinary understanding of the term. It was acquired by another company. It might also be worthwhile to note that it was acquired *years* after I left the board of directors. (I left in 2008. The company was acquired in 2012.) Is the new company keeping the company registration up for some reason? I have no idea, nor is it in any way important. Nor does me not knowing suggest that I'm somehow deficient in the understanding of corporate law necessary to serve as a member of a board of directors. Those looking for a conflict of interest may find it amusing to note that the total value of my stock options earned as a board member netted me a grand total of around a dollar. This was not a particularly successful exit for the company. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the attempt at a "gotcha" transparent, but the gotcha used is absurd. I should step back and say I have no experience with California's system, but in New York, which I imagine is not so very different, the Secretary of State is not some all-knowing automatic updater of a company's actual status. Rather, if you want to go "inactive", you either have to affirmatively file a certificate of dissolution under BCL §1003 and pay a $60 fee to file it, or simply stop paying your corporate franchise taxes, some time after which your active status will lapse. Ridiculous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down the trolls on this page?

Jimbo, I know you've had an open-door policy on this page for a long time, but I think it's obvious to everyone that it's being routinely abused by the banned users who congregate at Wikipediocracy. Right now there are three threads on this page that were started by sockpuppets or IP addresses on topics that are quite obviously related to posts on Wikipediocracy. I'm sure I don't need to point out that they are not here in good faith – as you've rightly said, they're trying to create "gotcha" moments so that they can attack and embarrass you and Wikipedia. It's borderline harassment at the very least. But you know what they say about not feeding the trolls – they thrive on the reaction they cause. If you shut down troll threads as soon as they appear, they'll lose that satisfaction. Right now, unfortunately, you're playing into their hands by letting them reopen threads you've closed (as in the case of the #Child protection policy thread above). It also doesn't send a very good message when you tolerate banned users – who have been banned for very good reasons – posting here. Prioryman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is his own talk page and he has the right to do what he wants with it. Some people on that site make a record of everything he deletes and call it "censorship", echoing better arguments by spammers who claim a right to be represented in your email inbox, but we do recognize the right of any user to clear out unwanted junk from their own page. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipediocracy denizens make good points, and sometimes they make bad ones, that is the nature of any grouping of people. Just check the bylines of the blog-of-the-week in question and skip over any that list "Peter Damian", an editor who never met a fact that couldn't be twisted into a pretzel for his own needs. The rest are pretty decent. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could leave Jimbo's talk page forever, take it off your watchlist and assume that the co-founder of wikipedia is a big enough boy to deal with questions all on his own. Here's an odd thought (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my initial thought upon seeing the thread title and thread creator was "but where will you go?" Tarc (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very funny, especially considering you've just followed up to yet another trolling sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably just Vigilant, who, like Earth, can be classified as "mostly harmless". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You spend too much time worrying about this. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He spends too much time creating high quality articles for Wikipedia. I guess occasionally he takes fifteen minutes out to look at some of the opposition that some of those articles have provoked from certain quarters. And can't resist commenting. Understandable, really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, what does Scientology have to do with any of this? Tarc (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the denizens mentioned is an avowed Scientologist, several more are proponents of ridiculous fringe science (and banned from Wikipedia for their methods of pushing it here, right?), and looking at some of the material prepared and promoted there (for example, the ridiculous incoherent attack on Mathsci for being too successful in getting disruptive fringe-science POV-pushers banned from Wikipedia, in between the forum being laced with alternating posts decrying Wikipedia not respecting subject area experts while simultaneously excoriating Mathsci for being a subject area expert)... where to even start? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with it. The "avowed Scientologist", if it's who I'm thinking of, was an single-purpose contributor here who got topic-banned and promptly went over to Wikipediocracy, the home of the butthurt, to whine about it – presumably after someone pointed him in that direction. No, it's more about the way that the nutjobs from there are persistently targeting people here for lulz. I'm sure Jimbo is fed up with the obsessive way that these people are hounding him. God knows it's irritating enough seeing the same crap coming up over and over again here. As I said at the start of this thread, I think it would be much better all round if he simply refused to engage with them at all and cut off the oxygen supply to their mutual masturbation society. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, I've pointed several people to Wikipediocracy over the last year or two. Might not have been the people they wanted, though ;) But they manage to recruit much more "nutjob", as you put it, people on their own. Not suggesting they try to, it just... happens. Maybe it's self-perpetuating for any Wikipedia "criticism site" that reaches a certain % of users that are already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be trying to project your feelings about Wikipediocracy onto Jimbo. You aren't trying to do this, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Scientology goes, there was precisely one proponent, one whom I particularly enjoyed taking down a notch or two (he didn't really like it when I pointed to list of disappearances and deaths), and pretty much everyone else at the site ridiculed as well. The website does have flaws but don't paint it as some sort of haven for fringe science, since it isn't. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the staff (moderators) and such there are banned from Wikipedia due to their behaviour pushing fringe science here? Or do I misunderstand that? And those same people are involved in writing these "blog posts" (including one attacking a rather widely respected academic) that are Wikipediocracy's public face? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Demiurge. You in particular have got plenty of room to complain about your personal treatment at Wikipediocracy without trying to frame reality in this way. You must surely be aware that it is flat wrong to intimate that the WPO/Prioryman foodfight has anything whatsoever to do with his well-known editorial proclivities towards one particular so-called "new religious movement." It's beyond disingenuous, bordering on intellectually dishonest, to point out that if one WP topic-banned Scientologist has posted there this somehow indicates a pro-Scientology "community standard" at WPO. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the relevant threads knows that quite the opposite is true. The heavy and ongoing criticism of Gibraltarpedia and the general issue of quasi-commercial Did You Know abuse is not a stalking horse for anything. It is unadulterated criticism of what it professes to criticize. Take it at face value. By the same token, the fact that a partisan of the Lyndon LaRouche "new political movement," shall we say, is a moderator at WPO doesn't reflect community standards there about that movement either. It reflects the personal views of one person, a person who is sometimes right about things, and sometimes wrong — as are we all. The "critics of the critics" tend to see Wikipediocracy as a monolithic entity. In reality, it is a message board with participants who run the gamut from ArbCom members to the most bitter and intractable enemies of The Project. There is nuance and there is debate and there is disagreement. And the community standard there on the issues you raise at are quite the opposite of what you intimate. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. Wales, my post above is not about Wikipediocracy, and not about Peter Damian, and not about the blog, and not even about the whistleblower. My post above is about the 14-years old boy who said that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" added "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy" to his user page. I was called an "attention whore" and a "troll", but so far I haven't heard an explanation of the described behavior. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely you aren't asking me to explain that behavior? If not, then what are you asking me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "I'd need more information than that to make a decision." I provided more information, and now I'm expecting you to make a decision.50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided insufficient information. Can you link me to the ArbCom case on this matter?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Link you to the ArbCom case on this matter? I don't think there was one.

I believe I did provide the sufficient information. We know that the "mentor" and the boy exchanged private emails and that the content of at least some of them had nothing to do with Wikipedia, and was inappropriate. It also looks likely that at some point the boy got emotionally involved with his "mentor". What else do we need to know? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You may know those things; I do not. Do you have any actual evidence? Links I can read? Popping up on my talk page with vague allegations with no substantiation is not very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you gotten the email from Delicious carbuncle?50.174.76.70 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Van Wilkins, rampage killer of zero persons

Nathan Van Wilkins is currently in jail awaiting trial on charges of shooting 18 people in Alabama just over a year ago. Nathan Van Wilkins is currently a red link (but posting this here may change that). If someone were to write Nathan Van Wilkins, I would probably nominate it for deletion on the basis that he is known only for that single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E). Note that none of the people alleged to have been shot by Wilkins died. This has not prevented Wilkins from being added to List of rampage killers: Americas.

Jimbo, it is nearly to impossible to keep track of all the places where living people can be maligned on WP, but articles like this are almost attractive nuisances. Many of WP's articles on mass murder and serial killers border on glorifying the details of these horrific crimes. There is a list of rampage killers for each of five regions, sortable by number of people killed or injured. Each of them includes at least one entry where no persons were killed. I am not suggesting that we do not have articles on significant events, but can we show a little bit of editorial discretion and decide at least that we do not need to have lists of rampage killers on WP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See also List of familicides in the United States and related articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that someone who didn't kill anyone shouldn't be on any list of killers. The desciption "rampage" killer seems less neutral than perhaps "mass" applied to those who killed more than five people. And perhaps there is a useful distinction between people who kill lots of other people in a single day, and those who do so over time, who are commonly called "serial" killers. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone who shot 18 people might be notable. BLP1E is a good tool, but some people are truly notable for essentially a single event. Sara Jane Moore is a good example. She didn't kill anyone either, although she tried. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, there will be some people in those lists who are notable, but my issue is with the lists themselves. You won't be surprised to learn that someone removed Nathan Van Wilkins and other non-killers from the list of "rampage killers" after I started this topic, but you should be surprised to learn that the removal was reverted. Despite being "the sum of human knowledge" there is much that we deliberately exclude with our notability guidelines, BLP policy, and other editorial considerations. I think we can live without these lists. Let's leave this for actual scholars of these types of crimes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'List of rampage killers: Americas' is yet another example of the way that WP:BLP policy is routinely grossly violated by list-obsessed contributors. 12 of the 120 individuals named are listed as 'arrested' - which is to say that the article describes non-convicted individuals as 'rampage killers'. Can anyone give a legitimate reason why the article shouldn't simply be blanked until such time as it complies with policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can live without these lists. - I think not, instead. What we should push is for such content to be semiprotected permanently and well watchlisted. I'll add it to my watchlist. If you want the list deleted, DC, anyway AfD is that-a-way. Dancing the drama dance every week on Jimbo talk page helps your ego, no doubt, and possibly keeps the WO forums bubbly: but it doesn't really help your cause. Andy: Blanking may be a last-resort, but just trimming the problematic entries should be enough. Thank you for doing that. --cyclopia^speak! 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"trimming the problematic entries should be enough". Nope. Not while the endless crass violations of WP:BLP policy (and libel/sub judice laws etc) go on. It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to have to endlessly monitor articles for such violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC is smart enough to know that there is no chance of a deletion, so creating drama is his only real avenue. That said, there are points worthy of consideration here. First off, if consensus is to retain shootings where nobody died, then the article needs renaming to something like List of rampage shooters. Second, I certainly agree with Andy that non-convicted people should be removed. I vehemently disagree with blanking as a viable option. Especially given the number of citations. As to the "glorification" of crimes, that is a societal problem DC, not just Wikipedia. Follow along with the Luka Magnotta case here in Canada for an example. Resolute 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to have to endlessly monitor articles for such violations. - How? Even if tomorrow we forbid every BLP-related entry on WP, we should still endlessly monitor for such violations. Constant monitoring is what watchlists and NPP are for. It's in the nature of WP to require such monitoring. Granted, default pending changes on such articles would help a lot. --cyclopia^speak! 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of those lists - IP editors are not the real issue. Pending changes doesn't restrict established users from violating policy or making poor editorial decisions (although it should be enabled for every BLP and for any list article that has BLP implications). Take this as a request for any passing admin to turn on pending changes for these articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have strongly opposed Pending Changes because it creates a class of privileged editors based on admin politics, and effectively prohibits even longstanding editors from getting changes through whenever an IP happens to edit first. We don't need it for every BLP article; we've gotten along fine without them. Critics of Wikipedia have focused on a tiny number of incidents in which, once anyone noticed, the problem was soon fixed. It slows and confuses article editing, rightfully deters new editors from becoming interested, undermines the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia anyone can edit and contributes to the corruption of its administration as a means of enforcing POV. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will never understand why people think it does my ego good to propose things on Jimbo's page only to be met with insults, accusations, and inaction. Very occasionally enough people get the point and things change a just little tiny bit for the better, but I'm not doing this because I enjoy being berated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the only thing you do is run to Jimbo. Tell me, why haven't you started a fresh discussion on the relevant article talk pages? Why not start an RFC? Nothing you argue about here will change absent those actions, so why is it that you always seek to sidestep process? You should know as well as anyone that posting on Jimbo's talk page is often little more effective than making loud screaming noises. The real discussions are held elsewhere. Resolute 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will never understand why people think it does my ego good to propose things on Jimbo's page only to be met with insults, accusations, and inaction. See martyr complex. The more you lament here (a completely useless venue for this aim, but watched by many), the more you can feel nemo propheta in patria and tell your friends "I told the leader of Wikipedia, but he won't listen!" --cyclopia^speak! 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If we're done talking about me, perhaps my fan club can cede the floor to editors interested in discussing the issue raised? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) He may have a point that the list has a pretty arbitrary definition: 6 dead or 10 dead+injured or 12 injured, provided that four of the deaths (or in the last of these, presumably four of the attempted murders?) occurred in a 'rather short period'. Now there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who believe in editorial judgment, but I tend to be skeptical: when dealing with crowdsourced text, it's hard to agree on that sort of judgment for long. Still, it isn't really unreasonable to list attempted rampage killers in the list... with a different title. But what? You could say "rampage killers and attempted rampage killers", but that would include the 'testicle bomber' since he tried to blow up a plane. Maybe "rampage attempted killers"? It's just tough English. I went through something very similar recently writing List of jailbreaks by al-Qaida affiliates, in which it makes sense to list major attacks even if no one got away, but fortunately the common English usage of "jailbreak" doesn't firmly exclude attempts. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

perhaps my fan club can cede the floor to editors interested in discussing the issue raised? - Given that it is totally pointless to discuss the issue you raised here, I feel the real issue is your eternal badgering on this talk page. You're free to show us your good faith and prove us wrong by actually raising an AfD and/or starting a discussion on an appropriate venue where a real decision can be taken. --cyclopia^speak! 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new thread, then, instead of derailing this one. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For someone who is used to dissect and criticize at length editors on and off wiki, you have a peculiarly thin skin when you are subject to some criticism. No derailing here: you started a discussion, I and others argue this discussion shouldn't be here, and that is just drama mongering. It's excellently on topic.--cyclopia^speak! 15:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thin-skinned, just tired of you, Wnt, Resolute, and Count Iblis polluting my attempts to have serious discussions with your accusations, weird Scientology conspiracy theories, and other nonsense. I've made a new subthread for editors who want to discuss the message instead of the messenger. Please keep your comments about the appropriateness of this discussion up here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. If you're only response is to come here, then you aren't trying to have a serious discussion. However, if you started the discussion on that article that Neutron did, then came here asking for input, that would be a different case. My problem with your style is not so much what you say as it is the fact that your entire schtick is to scream into the wind as loud as you can and hope someone else does the work for you. It is a great system for you, I'll admit. Either you get the rare instance (such as here) where people who do try to maintain the 'pedia start that discussion, or nothing happens and you get to run back and play with that aforementioned martyr complex. Resolute 17:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Do the work for me? I'm here to suggest that the lists are deleted en masse through an act of editorial discretion. I'm not asking people to fix them - I'm pointing out the problems that will continue so long as they exist. "More people watchlisting them" is a worthless platitude and everyone knows that by now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If deletion is your aim, then you most certainly are not interested in serious discussion. Resolute 22:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you mentioned me on your list above, D.C., because as I said, you have something of a point, and I thought I gave a constructive response on this issue. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Slightly surprised (but not that surprised given the drama fairies that frequent this page) that this has been "brought to Jimbo's attention". We have plenty of guidelines and policies in place to stop this kind of rubbish, we just need to enforce them. I suggest editors who spend too much time lurking here actually do something about the BLP issues at the various crap articles rather than waste time here. If you feel something violates WP:BLP, delete it, start a discussion on the talk page, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC, if you think these lists should be deleted, there's a place to request that. If you think they should be under pending changes, there's a place to request that, too. If you think there are BLP violations in them that need addressing, there's a place to bring that up too, even aside from the article talk pages! Have those discussions in the proper venues, and we'll see what the community thinks. Keep running "straight to Jimbo", without even any attempt to do so, and yes, you'll keep irritating people. A mass deletion of articles is not at "editorial discretion", it needs consensus. There are places to gauge whether there is consensus to do so. This isn't the place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between discussing the need for a type of article (lists of killers) versus putting individual articles up for deletion, you will probably be one of the people that I will continue to annoy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One of very many it would appear. And quite what Jimbo has to do with any of this is beyond most of us. Why not try to be pro-active and start an RFC or similar, instead of asking Jimbo his personal opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I respect Jimbo's judgment in these areas. I'd like to know what he thinks before I take this any further. That's why I posted on his talk page. Also I have some kind of martyr complex, apparently, even though I didn't know I was supposed to feel like a martyr. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you could have emailed him I suppose. This way it looks like his opinion would be important than anyone else's, which, obviously, it isn't. Try getting a community discussion and some consensus, sounds odd I know, but probably the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is for actual discussion of "Rampage killers" lists

The zero-death "killers" have been re-reverted out of List of rampage killers: Americas (not by me, though I support the removal.) I have started a discussion at the talk page there. I also agree there are other problems with this series of articles, but this one is easiest to fix, especially if there are an increased number of "eyes" on this article. There really seems to be only one editor who believes that people who didn't kill anyone should be listed as "killers." Neutron (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one issue addressed on one list. There is also the issue of people appearing in these lists that have not been convicted of these crimes (i.e., they may be killers, but that has yet to be proven in court). There are four more lists with the same problems for other regions of the world. Then we have List of rampage killers: Workplace killings, List of rampage killers: School massacres, and three lists of familicides. I don't think we need these lists. If they are to remain here, they need to be put under pending changes and monitored closely by editors with knowledge of BLP policy. That obviously hasn't been happening, so we would anyone think that it would happen in the future? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed List of rampage killers: Home intruders and the portal-like List of rampage killers. Here's a funny thing - did you know that we don't have an article called "Rampage killer"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the most obvious WP:BLP violations from 'List of rampage killers: Americas' - though without checking every source, I can't guarantee that there aren't more. I'm getting heartily sick of having to clear up the mess left by such violations though, and frankly see little point in doing so as long as those responsible aren't held accountable. Maybe it is time for the WMF to step in, and make it clear that adding such material is contrary to the Wikipedia Terms of Use, and that those violating WP:BLP in such a manner will be blocked from editing. It seems self-evident that the WMF's pleas for more responsibility concerning BLP policy has had little effect so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC, I think it's better to directly address one issue on one page (on the article and/or its talk page) than to directly address no issues on no pages. But thank you for calling the issue(s) to the attention of those editors who have decided to actually do something about it, however limited that has been in the first few hours after the issue appeared here. Neutron (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's a BLP issue, deal with it promptly, cite it or delete it. Don't come whinging at Jimbo's page. It's very straightforward. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing environment

Jimbo, What are your thoughts regarding the current editing environment on Wikipedia, i.e. how editors interact with each other and how productive that interaction is? And where do you think it is heading? Also, is it what you expected it to be when Wikipedia began? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's about the same as ever. Not as nice as it could be in parts, but nicer than one would expect from looking at other communities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, I think initiatives like the Teahouse have improved the quality and the productiveness of interactions on Wikipedia. But you don't have to take my word for it; is a metrics report on meta describing the overwhelmingly positive results of new editors using this resource. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The pipe in your link should be a space. The bare URL is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse/Phase_2_report/Metrics.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That was some very informative research. Teahouse is clearly working and the bottom line seems to be that Teahouse guests edit more and interact more with others. an average 30 minute response time is nothing to sneeze at either.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, re "nicer than one would expect from looking at other communities" — That might be due in part to WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

NPA is not very effectively enforced, unfortunately. There are some discussions here that are outright nasty, e.g. the recent Manning debacle. Despite all of the nasty things said, only two editors were referred to AN/I and in both cases the net effect was a convoluted mess where there was no consensus in one case and the other was kicked around until the proposed sanction became a moot point. WP:CIVIL is often seen as a selectively enforced bludgeon that is primarily used to WP:BITE newbies and is rarely used to control the behavior of vested contributors. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and subject welfare

Somebody said recently that our only BLP concern is that we protect ourselves from being sued; that how a Wikipedia BLP affects its subject is of no concern to Wikipedia, except that we shouldn't publish anything that puts editors or the project at risk. I've heard this said before.

I've also recently heard others say we may not allow a BLP subject's (or their family's) feelings to influence our editorial choices. And I've heard this before too.

I haven't followed the discussions around the creation and development of WP:BLP, so I was wondering if you can tell me whether the above views accurately reflect the spirit of WP:BLP? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• "[O]ur only BLP concern is that we protect ourselves from being sued" Liability is important, but it is absolutely not our only concern or we wouldn't be writing biographies of living persons at all. The living persons themselves is also very important.

• "[H]ow a Wikipedia BLP affects a subject is of no concern to Wikipedia". There is a history of why we have a BLP policy. Part of the reason for our policy is exactly out of concern for "how a Wikipedia BLP affects a subject".

• "[E]xcept that we shouldn't publish anything that puts editors or the project at risk." We shouldn't publish anything that puts anyone at all at risk. Information need not be positive to be included but encyclopedic value is not investigative journalism and speculation is only included if it is notable and sourced per standards and is not undue weight.

• "[W]e may not allow a BLP subject's (or their family's) feelings to influence our editorial choices." Why not? We are aren't transcription monkeys or computer programs that can't think, feel or understand. A subjects wishes may actually have more weight in some cases, that is why we use OTRS for verification. The subject or families feelings may unclude a number of legal rights that they retain so, we should never blindly ignore them. I recently did some looking through the BLP talk page archive and I think the main spirit of the project and the policies that arose from it are about respecting individual in more ways than just their legal rights. This really is the encyclopedia that everyone can write, but if they don't want to write in the article space itself, the subject may still ( and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it) contact an editor and make requests to them for assistance in understanding the article and how it can be fixed in the best possible way. Sometimes editors forget that articles about living persons change. They should change. People change. They do. They may not change their heart (there is a whole philosophical discussion we can just avoid there) but their clothing style changes. Their appearance changes. They gain more living and therefore more pertinent information to expand the article etc.. The fine line between a COI editor and their BLP article on Wikipedia is wide enough for a casual stroll. Don't panic. Anthonyhcole, what are your own perceptions of BLP policy?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree, at least on the matter of concern for our subjects' welfare, beyond how their welfare affects our welfare. I'm not sure how common our view is, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So long as what we are saying is verifiable and neutral, I don't think extraordinary measures are needed. We don't want to be overtly friendly to the subjects of our BLPs, because in many cases their notability is due to things they would rather we not mention, e.g. Michael Vick and his animal welfare issues. Being very strict about sourcing prevents most of the problems, and watching NPOV with a close eye is clearly important, but we don't want to be building shrines or Facebook pages. 166.147.88.39 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we be friendly to the subject? I don't know what you perceive as "overly" but we're not social scientists. We don't have to be neutral with the person. We can tell them what we can do, what they can do and listen to what they want. Even information that can't be verified can be taken directly from the source if its simple and straight forward like name, DOB or sexual preference, but if the subject has issue with something we don't have to be stand offish. We can treat them like real people. 166.147.88.39, I think you miss the point in that you see a subject by a singular notoriety and the subject you refer to is actually a notable figure without that controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So the Chelsea Manning RM discussion has been closed and the article renamed Bradley Manning. The closing admins conclude that we don't need to apply WP:BLP to avoid harming the subject because Manning knows that some media will continue to call her "Bradley".

We have chosen to name the article incorrectly (it is undeniable that Manning has changed her name) and to insult Manning. Leaving aside the factual accuracy issue, returning to my initial point Jimbo, does the fact that calling Manning "Bradley" is an insult matter? Should the fact the title insults a BLP subject influence our naming choice in any way? A great many of the people who swarmed to that article when it was changed to Chelsea Manning think insulting our subject is of no concern. I'd very much Like to hear your thoughts on the question. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Might need to extend thread to Monday: I am not sure Jimbo has time to answer this complex issue over the weekend. The renaming as "Bradley Manning" will appease the angry mob, now that the lawyer announced how Manning is expecting the name "Bradley" to appear in historical texts about the trial and related incidents. I think it lets Wikipedia reduce a very contentious debate, when the word "transphobia" was just added to the Oxford English Dictionary within the past 3 months. It makes we wonder if Manning was wise enough to see a "compromise" in allowing some use of "Bradley" would reduce quarrels about the case. You never know who might be an "old soul" in the world. A wise friend once reminded me, "The veneer of civilization is very thin" and an angry mob can distract our user attention from numerous other important issues. -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Where does Project Qworty stand these days?

Project Qworty looks to have been abandoned before all the necessary work has been completed.

The people who were trashed on wikipedia by Robert Clark Young deserve to have their articles checked for accuracy, don't you think? Project Qworty Update (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Resolute 22:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I violating BLP?

It is always going to be acceptable to, at a very minimum, discuss on the talk page a criminal allegation that is being clearly reported on by a New York Times blog.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I left the following talk page comment at Talk:Asaram Bapu. Surprisingly, when I checked the page a few hours later, I saw that my comment had been partly redacted as violating BLP. I say surprisingly, because as an active editor (and admin in good standing) a few years back I would not have suspected so, and as a supporter and past enforcer of BLP policies I definitely would not intend to cross that line. So can experienced editors here review my comment (esp the redacted portion) and let me know if my understanding is outdated and perhaps I should simply stay away from biographies as an occasional IP editor? Note: I understand that inclusion of the allegations on the article is something to be discussed in light of WP:DUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM (a discussion I'll leave to other regular editors since I have limited time and minimal interest in the article subject); my question here is simply whether even raising the issue on talk page as I did (referencing NYT and in what I would consider measured language) is now verboten. Thanks. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC) No it's not a BLP violation considering this is all over the news: [17], IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Please don't encourage them. Much text added to Asaram Bapu (or various talk pages, now the article is protected) has consisted of poorly written and off-the-wall attacks. Of course a moderate mention of significant events can occur, but no one with a grasp of how articles are written cares sufficiently to work on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Bah. Poorly-written off-the-wall attacks are never a good thing, of course. But it seems like the subject of the article has a citation (if that's the correct legal term) for rape and that information, which probably ought to belong in the article, is being refactored from the talk page (?). Formerip (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) BLP applies everywhere including talkpages. But the information was not redacted completely. The external link was still left to the NYT blog so that the allegations could still be seen. That information could later be added to the article space if consensus developed under BLP and RS to allow its use on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC) So your alternative is, instead of weighing in yourself to ensure neutral coverage is to quietly suppress information about the very serious criminal allegations against this person and actively discourage other editors from working on it (remember now that what 50.* has said is not a BLP violation)? 50.* has raised a reasonable point, and there is no reason he should not be treated reasonably so that the actual article can be improved, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC) too bad it's under goldlock... I like PC becuase it can allow somne productive edits, but still, the edit rate was too high for pc/2 anyways.-- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Call me an idiot, but I fail to see how noting that an individual has been accused of or alleged to rape someone (with a somewhat reliable, mainstream source) is a BLP violation on the part of the IP. For article use I'd hold off on it until he was tried (in which case it would be hard to miss), but if main stream source publish these accusations and the IP points to them in a good faith attempt to help improve the article, it might be worth noticing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Considering this is so much in the public sphere, what are we achieving by not mentioning it? Here is a parallel case with very similar effects but perhaps more notable in the west: [18], IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 50.x.x.x is wrong, the police has not made any allegations against him, the allegations are being made by the parents of the girl. The judge just wants to make him a few little questions about what he did in a certain day at a certain hour, to clear up the matter and take a decision. He is being arrested only because he failed to show at the court after being required by a judge. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC) IP 50 is reporting exactly what the source reports. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Unrelated topic, but... why the police can't enter his ashram? Is police forbidden from entering ashrams, like European universities? Our article doesn't say anything about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Create subarticle "Police investigation of Asaram Bapu": So that will allow coverage of months/years of police work in regard to Asaram Bapu and his prior actions in other towns, without mentioning "rape" in title, nor overwhelming the main BLP article with massive wp:UNDUE detailed text about the related incidents which have been reported for months but with questionable evidence and not decided in court. -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable. Discussion is still being removed. Even my comment about the low reliability of the blog! I hope this changes when he is questioned and the judge issues an official statement. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Thanks for your, and other editors', feedback, which broadly matches what I would have thought. And yet... my original post, pertinent analysis by Enric, proposed article text by Irwolfie etc have again been refactored as violating BLP. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia wish list

(alternative headings: "Wikipedia desiderata", "Wikipedia problems causing retirement", "Wikipedia conditions for return")

Any editor who is contemplating retirement from Wikipedia may wish to post on his or her user page a clear, concise message about the reason(s) for retirement and the condition(s) desired before recommencement of editing. Clear communication is especially important when absence prevents replies to requests for clarification. Conciseness is important for encouraging others to read the message, but there can be links to elaborations and to past discussions. The retiree might state how frequently he or she intends to check his or her talk page for messages.
Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians has a list of retired Wikipedians and the reasons of some of them for leaving. A related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Reaching out to the past (version of 15:18, 30 August 2013). If some concerns are later deemed to be valid, then there might be improvements to Wikipedia as a consequence.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC) and 02:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) and 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The invitation still seems to encourage retirement, although with balanced wording. Perhaps if worded as, "Instead of retiring, consider discussing issues at...". Anyway, I have updated wp:Missing Wikipedians to add User:SMcCandlish (2 July 2013) and User:Neotarf (20 July 2013) over ArbCom warning by Sandstein, and noted User:Uncle_G has 4-month wikibreaks (to avoid getting re-added/removed from list). -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More BLP... errrr, BDP, stuff and DYK related

This one may seem a bit paranoid, but it deals with a paranoid topic area:

Hyon Song-wol

Popular North Korean singer (to the extent there is such a thing), who, apparently, just got executed (by machine guns) for "making sex tapes" and having "bibles" in her house (if that doesn't make sense to you, it's because you live in one of those lucky countries where things usually make some sort of sense and you got a very narrow view of the world, which you probably learned from the internet)

Most news reports out there more or less speculate that of course it didn't have anything to do with any "sex tapes" or "bibles" but the jealousy of Kim Jong-un's wife, Ri Sol-ju, because according to Wikipedia the North Korean leader "had been romantically involved" with Hyon Song-wol in the past. And chances are that these news reports probably got it right.

Bad regimes being bad, right? Still Hyon Song-wol was until recently a "living person" and her Wikipedia article was a "biography of a living person".

So WHY THE FUCK did her article get featured on the main page on July 2012 as a DYK with the tantalizing hook of "Did you know that North Korean singer Hyon Song-wol ... is said to have been romantically linked with leader Kim Jong-un?"".

Am I saying that's she is (was) a BLP of insufficient notability? No. She was a famous North Korean singer. Deserved a decent encyclopedic article on Wikipedia and all that.

Am I saying that the DYK hook about her played a role in her execution? No Maybe. Who knows? It got 22k views when it appeared. And hey, credit where credit is due, Wikipedia is still like the, what, #7th site on the web?

The point is that the people who nominated this article for appearance on the main page where 1) completely oblivious (or didn't give a flip) to any issues that may be relevant in regard to BLPs of people who live in repressive regimes and 2) chose the most kind of sensationalist "hook" about this person - exactly the thing that could've gotten her into trouble - in order to maximize their page views. If this was a BLP of a person who lived in US or England, Australia, etc. that'd be bad enough, but here it just shows that the nominators and DYK approvers are unthinking mindless ignorant schmucks (I also have a hard time finding anything about LPs who live under repressive regimes in WP:BLP - apparently it's not something worth thinking about. Contrast that with all the inane and idiotic time spent on deciding whether Wikipedia should use a hyphen or a dash).

So Wikipedia editors rack up their "DYK counts" while people in the real world potentially suffer. That's sort of the recurring theme in most of the messages about BLP that have appeared here recently. Wikipedia treats people, living and recently executed, as objects. They're "stuff" to be written about, gossiped about, turned into DYKs or page views (when the BLPs are not straight up promos) or cute little barnstars. There's no empathy or even any slight semblance of journalistic/encyclopedic sensitivity. There is a complete disconnect with the world outside the Wikipedia and how it actually works. Honestly, there is nothing even encyclopedic about it.

Why does it happen? Well, there are actually a lot of good articles on Wikipedia, written about important subjects and with a sense of responsibility. And it is those (usually written long time ago by editors who've subsequently left the project in disgust) quality articles which give Wikipedia any kind of credibility as an encyclopedia, or at least as a useful internet site. On the other hand, these sensationalistic, tabloid-y, sophomoric, "6 o'clock action news!" articles (never mind the inane articles about some dirt road in Gibraltar written and featured because someone somewhere is getting paid for it) are free riding on the existing quality content. When it's done to non-human "objects", like all free riding, it's just dragging the over all quality down bit by bit. When it's done to living, or recently executed people, well... that's a bit more fucked up.Volunteer Marek 04:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A shocking story for sure, Marek. Your point about editors' general lack of concern for BLP subjects is certainly valid, but for good or ill, various media outlets had already reported the story using similarly sensationalist hooks:

• (9 July 2012) "Is Hyon the new first lady of NK?". Korea JoongAng Daily
• (10 July 2012) "Is Kim Jong Un's Mystery Woman The 'Excellent Horse-Like Lady'?" NPR.
• (11 July 2012) "Is Kim Jong-un's mystery woman a long-lost love?". The Independent.

What I find extremely worrying, is that for the first fourteen hours the article looked like this:

Hyon Song-wol is a North-Korean pop music artist rumoured to be romantically involved with the North-Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

With only one citation.. to the Daily Mail.

• (10 July 2012) "Kim Jong-un's mystery woman revealed: Dictator's companion is married pop star whom his father banned him from seeing 10 years ago". Daily Mail.

This is something that I find truly unacceptable. A BLP consisting of just one sentence, sourced to a particularly crappy tabloid should be never be allowed to appear in the mainspace. Unfortunately, the use of such a piss-poor source in a BLP is all too common, and the Mail is one of several publications that really should be restricted so that it is simply not possible to add them to any BLP-related article without some sort of prior review. -- Tabloid Terminator (Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

That's sort of the point, ain't it? Is this an encyclopedia or a half-assed tabloid/gutter-rag/Daily-Maily-news-feed? Like I said, there's a ton of quality stuff here. But not on (most) of the main page. Which is where a good chunk of page views or entrance-views come from.Volunteer Marek 06:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that DYK is in a real state at the moment as regards BLPs. For those that haven't seen it, there have been serious problems with several recent submissions: Did you know#Removed hook, Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• This DYK was several years ago, so it's not quite tied in with the current issues. I agree that sourcing was under par here, although I don't think most people would have foreseen a reaction like this by North Korea (and I question how Wikipedia would be considered the one to blame here, if Western media was indeed partially responsible at all) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer 1: Ban all BLPs from DYK. Simple answer 2: Scrap DYK completely, it's (often) a worthless embarrassment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Simple answer 3: Dismantle Wikipedia. Overreacting does not help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's rant above has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on this talk page, and that's saying something. You seriously think that someone in North Korea was executed because of a DYK hook that appeared for 8 hours, 13 months ago? Seriously?

In the real world, the topic of the DYK hook was widely reported in the international media back in July 2012 [19]. There's no suggestion from anywhere that Hyon Song-wol suffered any harm from having a Wikipedia article or a DYK appearance. That is pure fantasy; Volunteer Marek is simply making it up. She's been photographed performing in public as recently as August 8 this year.[20] That would hardly have been the case if she was in disgrace then. Her fall appears to have taken place between then and August 17, when she was arrested. What do we see in the article history? No editing at all between March 26 and August 29, when the news of her reported execution broke.

As for the article being a poorly sourced stub for its first 14 hours, so what? Plenty of articles start that way. It was very soon turned into a properly sourced article of a decent length with high-quality sources. By the time it appeared on DYK, this is how it looked - not a stub at all.

There is also nothing wrong with the DYK hook. It was thought at the time that Kim Jong-un had secretly married the subject of the article, and this was widely reported by reliable sources: "Is Kim Jong-un's mystery woman a long-lost love?" (The Independent), "Is Kim Jong Un's Mystery Woman The 'Excellent Horse-Like Lady'?" (NPR), "Is Hyon the new first lady of NK?" (Korea JoongAng Daily), etc. It turned out that he had secretly married but that it was a different person, Ri Sol-ju. This shows the major difficulty in writing about anything to do with North Korean politics – because the place is so secretive, it's hard to report things reliably. Every media outlet has that problem, and here on Wikipedia, we're only as good as our sources. Volunteer Marek shows absolutely no awareness of that.

Bottom line: this is not a BLP problem or a DYK problem, it's a "Volunteer Marek making a fool of himself in public" problem. Blaming the recent demise of an apparent victim of North Korean internal politics on a brief appearance on DYK over a year ago is utterly moronic. Prioryman (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Let's repeat that key insight "we're only as good as our sources". There's hope for Wikipedia when even Prioryman has taken that in. Now key question - what should we do when there are no good sources for something (like, say, current speculation about someone's love life)? 92.39.207.86 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Are we discussing multiple different hooks relating to Hyon Song-wol? The hook discussed at the start of this thread is from July 2012, as confirmed by both the link in the first post and the article talk page, which is quite a while ago but not by any token "several years ago". Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The hook is too tantalizingly put, but this version is based on an actual source. The source cites "intelligence officials" speaking about her affair. Now the question here is, what exactly passes the standard of "presented as true" for BLP? Is saying that intelligence officials say there was a relationship, say there are rumors in North Korea about a relationship, the same as saying there's a relationship? On scrutiny it may not have been up to our standards. But as to whether we killed her - no chance. That would be her psycho boyfriend. On her BDP tombstone we can chisel an epitaph: "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas!" Wnt (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing the appearance of the top of the page

Jimmy, I think this page/the community would benefit from a notice that there are other community-based ways to contact the WMF board. Do you mind if someone adds something along the lines of, "I am one of the current WMF Board of Trustees (founders seat). Other board members who are elected as community representatives until July 2015 include SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm"? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting on whether we recognise a transgendered person's gender transition

I find it extremely problematic that we need to have a vote on whether we recognise a transgendered person's gender transition, especially when it results in debates riddled with degrading commentary eg. comparing transgendered people to dogs and other commentary that the outside world would largely consider to be hate speech on the talk page of the biography.

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia contains one single article that is titled using a name that the subject of that BLP explicitly does not identify with, and has explicitly, in clear terms asked not to be used. Whereas other articles are always moved instantly when they announce they want to be known under a different name or title (eg. Kate Middleton to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge").

I find the name and gender identity of a transgendered person, when there is no reason to doubt the person's transition, is primarily a matter of factual accuracy, that needs to be reported accurately in order to comply with BLP (regardless of the fact that the transition was widely reported and accepted by the media[21]). In the outside world, deliberately misgendering a transgendered person, using a male name that the person has requested not be used in this case, is generally considered a form of violence against that person. I believe Wikipedia urgently needs better procedures to ensure that transgendered people are treated in accordance with the spirit of BLP and NPOV. What do you think? Josh Gorand (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, you really aren't doing your case any favours with statements like that. A significant part of the 'real world' (quite possibly the majority) clearly has difficulties accepting transgendered people, and is highly unlikely to 'generally' consider misgendering a form of 'violence'. Mostly because that isn't what the word 'violence' means. I suggest you cut out the hyperbole, and stick to the facts - which seem to be that an increasing proportion of the mass media are recognising Manning's preferred identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not hyperbole, it's the mainstream opinion in this part of the world (western Europe) and probably in most developed countries at the very least. Numerous scholarly and other sources can be found for this. This discussion was specifically about the broader problem of even voting on someone's gender identity. "Difficulties accepting transgendered people" is not something Wikipedia should take into consideration, just like "difficulties accepting gay people", "difficulties accepting black people" and so forth. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, seriously. I don't think there's any significant portion of the population in Western Europe who would argue that calling Manning by the wrong name is a violent act. That's just wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than a vote (or, more properly a !vote) what do you recommend? I think that in general better decisions are made in a spirit of open and thoughtful dialogue rather than top-down decree. I think it worthwhile to separate two issues - the issue of a community decision by consensus (which requires discussion and poll-taking) and hate speech that may emerge as a part of that process. We wouldn't actually improve things if we shut down open discussion, just to stop a few people from being obnoxious. Better to simply stop the few people from being obnoxious by banning them from the discussion, refactoring their comments, or other such measures as appropriate.

On a more personal note, not relating to the discussion within Wikipedia per se, I'd like to suggest that rhetoric that using the name 'Bradley' rather than 'Chelsea' is a "form of violence" against that person is completely false, and it not something that is even remotely "generally considered" to be violence. This is a really important thing to keep clear because wild accusations of violence in the form of using the wrong name tends to undermine genuine concerns about actual violence against transgendered people, or indeed, Reuters reporters and so on (I am making reference here to what Manning is famous for).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think you're actually wrong here. Deliberately using the old name is, like deliberate misgendering, pretty much always a personal attack, and one that comes with a serious threat of implicit violence. As Leveson put it, "The use of 'before' names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk." This is actually a thing and a consideration. Other trans people will also see such behaviour as carrying the implicit threat of violence, by bitter experience of said violence, and make the editing environment feel unsafe. That this is not generally considered to be the case by people of good will is due to being uninformed of trans issues, but try saying that.

I think a lot of the controversy over the move to Chelsea Manning was that people seriously expected the justification of the move and BLP lock to (a) convince them that transgender was even a thing (b) that the issues were actually real. This is, of course, a book-length request. Morwen and I tried, but of course it didn't convince anyone who wasn't already convinced, particularly not people who were deeply insulted at the notion they were merely ignorant of trans issues while they came out with jawdroppingly transphobic statements. In all innocence.

It's a tricky one, but there is, no fooling, a serious problem here - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a serious problem, but again - and we are far outside discussion of Wikipedia policy here and into a more general philosophical discussion, I think it is harmful to stretch from "using the wrong name" (or "using the wrong pronoun") to "serious threat of implicit violence". Why? Because there are serious threats of implicit violence out there that need to be dealt with, there is hate speech out there that needs to be dealt with, and yet a great many people who are saying sensible things (that I don't agree with for multiple reasons) like "Until most reliable sources reflect the name change we should not" risk being tarred with the brush of *actually committing a violent act*. That's what I'm objecting to. Here's another way to put it: if using the wrong name is as bad as committing a violent act, then logically, committing a violent act is no worse than using the wrong name. That just doesn't strike me as a sensible position either philosophically, nor as a practical route to reducing violence and threats of violence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, this person is notorious as "Bradley Manning", for reasons completely unconnected to transgenderism. Lost in the last week are facts of being a convicted criminal, about to serve 35 years at a very harsh military prison for violating the Espionage Act. This person's actions endangered the lives of American servicemen and women as well as our allies and their soldiers, second only to Snowden's alleged (we have to be technical since he hasn't been tried and convicted) transgressions. Bradley Manning is a spy, folks; convicted spies aren't a routine media event. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main point here was not the term violence, but that it is commonly deemed to be very offensive and degrading (I could have said that instead), although the term violence can also mean non-physical violence including psychological harm. According to the Transgender Law Center, "it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates ones identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide."[22] In scholarly contexts, the word violence is employed broadly in the sense I used it above (see eg. [23]) Josh Gorand (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you say "it is commonly deemed to be very offensive and degrading" then depending on exactly what you mean by 'it' then I don't mind agreeing with. Equating using the wrong name with an act of violence is one step too far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By "it", I meant the deliberate use of former names (as primary means of identification), pronouns contrary to the person's expressed gender identification and in some cases unnecessary use of old photographs, per David Gerard above. I in no way meant to compare this sort of thing to physical violence, but the term violence is also used in regard to concepts such as structural violence, psychological violence and so forth in many academic settings, inter alia relating to transgender topic; what I meant in this regard was actions that are deeply hurtful and degrading to and often affecting the well-being and sometimes health of transgendered people. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I would compare it to physical violence, because they correlate depressingly often - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • That's really not a concern of this project though, any more than when the community decided that the desire to provide information about Muhammad outweighed the offense to some Muslims by displaying the pictures. Here, the need of the project to keep the Manning article in line with our policies and with a dash of common sense outweighs potential offense by the subject or by actual transgendered people. At the end of the day, places like transgenderlaw.org and the like do not dictate or guide Wikipedia content. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The policy here is WP: BLP, stating that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written [...] with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Using a masculine name for a person who identifies as female causes harm to that subject of a BLP per above. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "Using a masculine name for a person who identifies as female causes harm.." is a claim that was rejected by e Wikipedia community. This isn't a debate on whether the person actually in real life feels offended though; people day in and day out are offended by a wide variety of things, but being unoffended is not a right. We have to determine whether the level of harm is sufficient to warrant a WP:BLP invocation; in this case, a consensus of Wikipedia editors felt that it was not. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus that this does not cause harm, many people agreed that it did. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody has mentioned it so far, the article Wendy Carlos has managed to address this issue without any problems. Some of the early Carlos albums were released under the name of Walter Carlos, which is the name on the birth certificate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Finding sources for music or others

A while ago I wrote essay "WP:Suggested sources" (aka "wp:Find sources") to suggest some major wp:RS reliable sources, for various specific topics. Let's discuss sources for music or rock bands (etc.) to expand the list. Currently, there are 3 related essays:

• "wp:Identifying reliable sources (history)"
• "wp:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"
• "wp:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)"

So I am thinking we need:

• "wp:Identifying reliable sources (music)"

Or perhaps that topic of "music" is too broad. Do any WikiProjects have a recommended list of music sources? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See the search results for music sources in the Wikipedia namespace.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)