Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.
Big problem with 'Military of ?' articles
((I believe this belongs here, if not, please move it to the appropriate place.))
One thing about this series of articles seems dangerously non-NPOV to me (to put it friendly, 'a violation of human dignity' to be somewhat more polemic): the item about 'military manpower' gives us the estimated numbers of 'males age 15?49' 'available' and 'fit for military service' for the country in question.
This suggests that males and only males (of the given age) are universally predestined to serve in the military. Which is certainly a POV, and might be seen as degrading by many. Were these figures only given on pages on countries which do draft recruits along these criteria (which certainly holds for many, if not most countries) I might not be alarmed. However, I stumbled across it in the article Military of Iceland, which explicitly states that Iceland 'has never had a military'?ie never drafted, and a fortiori never drafted only males.
People, this is terrible. Please let's take our policies serious and get rid of it, quickly.
((By the way, just to pour some oil on the waters of the 'Americentric' debates: Why are the military expenditures given in Chilean pesos↑?))
? Anothername 21:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing POV about stating how many people are in the group that predominantly makes up members of militaries. You want the information gone, go convince the world that their military forces should include large numbers of 60 year old women with missing limbs. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It may not be POV, but it is foolish assume that all countries would be willing (sheer number of troops is unlikely to be a determining factor in a modern war) and or able (You try to draft me and I'll leave the country!) to recruit such a number of people. Equally it is foolish to assume that a modern counrty would ignore the resources of women. --Neo 23:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military The US CIA "World fact book" is persumably the source. It would be difficult to find the correct figures for 18-49 when the figures from the CIA can be reused without copyright problems (although with a little bit of work one could extrapolate them). The UK recruits from "16 years of age for voluntary military service" [1]. As for a modern country which would ignore the military resources of women and recruits all men, try Switzerland: "[all men] 19 years of age for compulsory military service; 17 years of age for voluntary military service; conscripts receive 15 weeks of compulsory training, followed by 10 intermittent recalls for training over the next 22 years"[2] (and any man who is not fit for military service, but is fit enought to work has to pay more taxes as their bit towards national defence!). Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Norway has the same scheme; men are drafted for compulsory military service of one year, with recurring excercises. Women have the choice to enter the military, and are given much incentive to do so; there are also large-scale advertising campaigns to make women enter voluntarily. Still, the Norwegian military is a male-dominated gang. Returning to the point: "males 15-49 available" is a pretty accurate term, as women are not drafted per se in most countries. It is misleading, aye, but if we want to show the full strength (both men and women 15-49) it's rather simple to multiply the current number by 2.05 or so, giving that there are slightly more females than males in most countries. --TVPR 09:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If the info comes from the CIA, the article should state that so people know we aren't just pulling those numbers out of thin air. To whomever added those numbers we should be saying document your source! —Mike 02:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
The point I try to make (possibly in poor English) is: Notwithstanding the fact that most countries (as I believe) draft men, not women, this is still nothing more than 'politics' (or tradition, whatever). There is no necessary link so to speak between the property of being male and the dispositional property of being 'draftable'. (And it is about 'draftability' here, not the factual drafting of men, as we have seen in the Iceland article.) Assuming that being male makes a citizen particularly fit (more so at least than being female does) for being drafted to the military is non-NPOV. As such I believe it should not be stated in the article series the way it is now. Even more so as some (men or women) might take offence in the presentation as a fact of some connexion 'male?military'. I, for one, do. Personally I'd like to see the info in question kicked out of the articles, but a clear indication of source (making clear that it is not Wikipedia's policy to establish that link, but eg the CIA's, for what reason ever) might do as well and perhaps better. ? Anothername 14:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I recently added NPOV tags to Military of Iceland and Military of France. In principle, my argument holds for all articles with the CIA databox. But the stupidness of the CIA data is most evident in articles like these two: for Iceland, see above; for France, I quote: in 2001, conscription was ended. However, young people must still register for possible conscription should the events call for it, with the change that now females must register as well.
? Anothername 13:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) (and yes, I did get my account just when I started this discussion, but I'm an anonymous contributor for quite some time)
Spamming Wikipdia with embedded URLs in images
Please see Talk:Sybian. The images at the bottom of the page were listed for deletion on the IfD page because they have embedded URLs which link to a commercial site. There was very little discussion about them on the IfD page, one person voting to delete, the person who spammed Wikipedia with them voting to keep. With no consensus, they're being kept. But do we really want to allow images on Wikipedia with URLs embedded in them? RickK 01:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Raising POV issues
Two things:
- I changed the lead text of Category:Articles which may be biased to say that you shouldn't slap the template on an artcile until after raising the matter on the talk page; the previous text only suggested that one ought to get around to raising the matter there eventually...
- WP:NPOV ought to have a section outlining how to go about raising a POV issue, and how to handle one that has been rasied. Currently the article has, nothing, not even a pointer to information on this. ---- Charles Stewart 09:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
POV and 'some' vs 'many'
On controversial pages, saying 'some people believe' vs. 'many people believe' can be a point of disagreement and the choice could appear to subtly push the POV of the article toward one of the sides. Has there ever been discussion on this?--Nectarflowed 09:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Best practise is to avoid both of those and any phrasing like it. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can we also use images under GNU policy?
Hi, I know we can copy text from here as long as we follow the GNU policies. But can we also copy images?
Please let me know, Thanks
- If the images are under the GFDL or a similar license, or are public domain, yes. Note, however, that many of the images are "copyrighted fair use", so using them yourself may not fall under the "fair use" doctrine. --Carnildo 20:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Each image has an image page describing the license it is under. Just click on the image to see it. We strive to use images under weak licenses wherever possible, but some are under stricter terms, for the sake of quality. If you wish to use all of our images, you would want to use some kind of filter based on the tags on the image pages. I've suggested creating a separate download of "safe" images, but this doesn't seem to have materialized. Deco 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Table syntax
Is there a Wikipedia policy on table syntax? Is the wiki syntax preferred, and am I thus justified in replacing the HTML coding with the wiki stuff? And, as a final question, is there a case for a wikiproject (à la User:Yann/Untagged Images) to sort out table syntax? Thanks. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 23:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wikimarkup is preferred whenever possible. If you want to replace HTML with it, feel free. There's no tables Wikiproject that I know of. --Slowking Man 06:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- You may be able to enlist the help of a bot (see Wikipedia:Bots for more info, and to find someone with experience building/running one.) This definitely should not be a fully automated task -- too much chance for article damage -- but if a bot could do the initial search-and-replace from HTML to wiki syntax, and then you could preview to find the inevitable errors, it would speed up the task a great deal. — Catherine\talk 01:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I use a text editor (Ultraedit) that supports macros, and recorded a macro with a whole bunch of search-and-replace commands that handle about 95% of the table tags I come across in my wiki travels and cleans up line breaks nicely as well. I don't usually hunt HTML tables to use it on, but whenever I'm editing an article with an HTML table in it I run it through my macro and then manually fix up the remaining bits, which is generally quite easy. Bryan 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles
I'd like to start a discussion and perhaps form a policy surrounding the inclusion of political slogans as their own articles.
I, for one, believe that slogans should be treated like songs in this respect. They should by all means be included in the relevant articles, but they do not each merit individual articles unless they have been particuliarly influencial. Of course more clear guidelines have to be developped to this end, but this is a starting point for discussion. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 01:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly believe this is outside of Wikipedia scope. Regardless, such things do have intellectual and cultural value. I would advocate another location (perhaps a Wikimedia project) for such material. This would include slogans (e.g. "Hey Hey LBJ..."), catchphrases ("I know you are but what am I"), mottos ("E pluribus unum"), popular quotes ("Ask not what your country can do for you"), entertainment references (e.g. "Do you feel lucky, punk?"), and other cultural references.
- Slogans (and etc.) in and of themselves are not encyclopedic. The encyclopedic topic lies in the source of the slogan, whether as a company (e.g. McDonald's), organization (e.g. PETA), movement (e.g. Women's suffrage), personality (e.g. John F. Kennedy), movie (e.g. The Matrix), etc., etc.
- But these things -- slogans, etc. -- do not in and of themselves belong in an encyclopedia. They are aspects of cultural literacy (though I don't just mean by E.D. Hirsch's antiquarian/canonist definition, but also that of contemporary and modern culture). They deserve a place, it's just not WP.
- - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 01:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that slogans definitely don't deserve their own articles. They may be well placed when they can add productively to an article. --Improv 01:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If we know the group they're associated with, I suggest a policy of merging any relevant information into the group's (or movement's, or whatever) article. Obviously if the group doesn't have an article we should consider that their slogan may just be non-notable. If we can work out who in specific actually said the phrase we can put it on WikiQuote, or even on the person's article. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I would also note that if someone wants to find out about something like JFK's "Ask not..." statement, a search engine would find it in his article (assuming that it is there). Making it the title of a new article really wouldn't help much, because no one would be able to type it exactly correctly (including spacing and punctuation) so they would have to use a search function anyway. Morris 13:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- My view is that they should normally be inlcuded within the relevant articles unless there is so much that can be said about them that they need to be spun off for page length, etc issues. Very notable slogans shoudld be set-up as redirects if they're needed. Thryduulf 17:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the opinions stated here. However, if a slogan is used for any other purpose (say as the title of a book or name of a web site), one could argue that it has separate merit. Currently, we have the articles List of slogans,List_of_advertising_slogans, McDonald's_TV_campaigns_and_slogans, and List_of_NBC_slogans, in addition to categories Category:Political_slogans and Category:Advertising_slogans. We also have slogan articles that aren't even words, like Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun. The current precedent says that slogans are encyclopedic only if the word "Slogan:" is added to the article's title for NPOV purposes. In any case, a clear policy should be set for what is notable for a separate article, and qualifying articles should be re-titled for NPOV.DanP 09:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'll put myself in the minority by saying that slogans are a perfectly good subject matter for Wikipedia articles, if the story of the slogan has enough substance to it. An example: there's a substantial litereature and an excellent Wikipedia article just on the documenting the use that Lenin made of Marx's slogan "From each according to his ability..." ---- Charles Stewart 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Edit count war?
Forgive me if this has been discussed ad infinitum, and also if this is the wrong place for such a question.
I am very new to Wikipedia, having lurked for awhile before making a login. During the lurk phase, I had occasion to look at a user page of a person who had reverted a minor change I'd made. I noticed he'd catalogued the dates upon which he had acheived certain numbers of edits, as if the primary reason to work on Wikipedia is to have more edits than the next guy.
That cannot possibly be the mindset of the majority of Wikiphiles, or the system wouldn't work. I've tried to find some info in the FAQ/wikiquette section about edit-count-inflation -- to no avail, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place.
Can an old hat please provide some insight on how Wikipedia deals with those who edit for the sakle of increasing their total number of edits?
Thanks,
Throbblefoot
In most communities, including Wikipedia, people who do things merely to seem like they merit status are visible as such, and said efforts are ignored. That being said, cataloguing numbers of edits, provided it isn't tossed around as evidence of quality contribution or status, seems harmless enough. For people who arn't out to glorify themselves, it's probably true that their number of edits provides a rough measure of the degree of their contributions, although it is certainly an abusable measure, and doesn't take into account the other ways someone can contribute. --Improv 01:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(via edit conflict) Mostly we laugh at these people and move on. Anyone who edits just to get a higher editcount is, to put it kindly, missing the point of editing here; anyone who cares about someone else's editcount really needs to find some more important things to care about. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If your only motivation is making your editcount bigger, humbug to you. Quality over quantity is always valued here on the 'pedia (as far as I've seen). That said, I smiled at my 100th and 200th edits, and will probably smile at my 1000th edit. It's kind of like celebrating a birthday - it doesn't make you a better person but it still gives people a rough estimate on your experience level. (of course there's always exceptions). [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 02:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was it me? I collect edit counts just as I collect everything else (but really - that stack of old newspapers will have to go at some time). Recording my milestones on my user page is just for me to chart my addiction. Probably half my edits are just vandalism or test rvs, and MoS corrections, so I accept that people like Mirv will just smile and shake their head. Whatever. Noisy | Talk 13:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have to say, I think Noisy's argument is exactly right. I actually have a link to my edit count in my signature (the (c) at the end). It is not a matter of bragging - I only have about 730 edits, so bragging would be pointless. It is a matter of feeling good about reaching a certain milestone (and I would lose the link to the tool if I didn't put it there). Take a sporting analogy: in soccer, Thierry Henry does not set out to be the top scorer in the season, but he still celebrates that he is. In cricket, a batsman gets a great feeling about reaching a century - but he didn't set out solely to score a century. If you don't like people doing it, ignore it. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 17:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very for your responses. Some seem to think I meant that keeping track of your post count is inherently bad, which isn't my point. I think Consequencefree said it best: "If your only motivation is making your editcount bigger, humbug to you." The question I meant to ask was "how does the community manage the problem?" It seems that the general answer is "the system works," which I never doubted. I suppose I'll just have to stick around to figure it out!
For what it's worth (approximately nothing), I took the liberty of looking up your numbers of edits, and none of you are even in the same ballpark as the person I mentioned, who is closer to 10,000 edits than he is to any of your totals. I'm going to chalk him up as an anomaly. Thanks again! -Throbblefoot
Policy on missing edit summaries
Do we have a policy on absent or misleading edit summaries, meaning, is there an accepted way to approach editors who consistently do not include proper summaries? This may involve the abuse of the "minor edit" feature, but the two also happen independently of each other. --Eddi (Talk) 13:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's no set-in-stone policy; one is encouraged, but not required, to summarize edits for the benefit of observers. If you think lack of edit summaries is a real problem, you can try posting a polite message to the editor's talk page explaining that edit summaries are considered beneficial and gently encouraging them to summarize their edits properly. If they're using misleading edit summaries, OTOH, a sterner warning is appropriate: misleading edit summaries are rude, when they're not a cover for malicious vandalism. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is, however, that approaching an editor without a policy might be considered rude or even harassing, which is not beneficial to any parties. I have seen several editors (i.e. more than 1) being asked to improve their behaviour with no avail. I would like to have a policy before critisising anyone. --Eddi (Talk) 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do we need a policy stick to beat people into providing edit summaries? If they're told that edit summaries are appreciated and that summarizing one's edits is the polite thing to do, and they still refuse to summarize their edits, then what's the big deal? Are unsummarized edits really so irritating? Do all edits, even trivial typo or formatting fixes, really need to be summarized? Some people summarize each edit in detail, some people don't summarize any edits, some (like yours truly) summarize edits that need to be summarized. (Others use edit summaries to argue or flame, and the policy on edit summaries explicitly discourages that.) Not summarizing one's edits is, in my opinion, no more than a minor bad habit. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I know that I often forget to put in the edit summary. Sorry. Personally, I would like a feature so that when I push the "Save page" button, a little box pops up that says "Edit summary? _______________" to give me a chance to fill in the edit summary right then. Morris 04:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Edit summary which advices Always fill the summary field. Referring to that when asking contributors to use edit summaries seems like the way to go. Thue | talk 14:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks – I'll see if the edit summary template can be used. By the way, I like the idea of a popup box prompting for missing edit summaries. Is it feasible?
Regarding encouragement of edit summaries: Yes, in my opinion, all edits should be summarised. How else can you distinguish minor edits from significant ones? Unless you virtually stalk editors there is no telling who leaves out summaries always or sometimes and why. The edit summary policy is there for a reason. --Eddi (Talk) 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks – I'll see if the edit summary template can be used. By the way, I like the idea of a popup box prompting for missing edit summaries. Is it feasible?
Song lyrics, translations of texts
There are many types of documents that could be quite important for an article to be clear. Is there a place for them on wikipedia? For instance, an article about a poet could include his works on seperate pages, as long as it's legally correct. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. Why? Maybe there should be (or already is) a seperate wiki for it?
- You're looking for Wikisource. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Suggestions to address the current bandwidth shortage
Managers of Wikipedia:
I'm a newcomer to Wikopedia. I have already become a registered contributor and have made a few such contributions to the Wikopedia encyclopedia. In so doing, I've come to realize that you suffer a bandwidth shortage that limits Wikopedia's value as an online reference. Pages often take anywhere from 15 to 60 seconds to appear, which often makes browsing or any serious research a rather frustrating endeavor. To that end, I have a few suggestions that might be considered, as follows:
-- REQUIRE ALL CONTRIBUTORS TO REGISTER. I don't think it would be asking too much to limit contributions to persons who register. With this change, people could browse the listings without registering but could not make edits. Requiring registration would also cut down on the instances of vandalism, since such fraudulent changes would be easier to trace if you had more information about the contributor than merely their IP address.
-- I'd be willing to contribute money to the Wikipedia Foundation if I knew more specifically how that money would be used. For instance, would it be used to help solve the current bandwidth shortage? If funding is a serious problem, perhaps you need to charge a small "contributor's fee" to support these much-needed upgrades. If you have as many contributors as I suspect, then asking each to contribute $5 or $10 per year may not be too much to ask. However, I believe that Wikipedia should always remain free to browsers who don't wish to edit its contents.
Thanks for letting me express my ideas. I think Wikipedia has a tremendous potential if these issues are addressed. I am very pleased that I stumbled upon this online resource, and I look forward to making additional contributions in the future.
Bart 18:06, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The speed problems are caused primarily by server response time issues, not bandwidth limitations. To put it simply, Wikipedia's servers aren't fast enough to keep up with demand. Mandatory user registration isn't going to happen. Another fundraising drive is planned to start before too long. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And just as a minor note: Because of the way the Wikipedia software works, viewing pages is *much* faster if you aren't logged in at the time. --Carnildo 21:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is kind of old, but I like this and its template. I would like people to comment on it, and hope to see it to be official policy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have placed this policy to official vote. Voting ends on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also this one. I would like this policy to be voted on and made official as well. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why were the pages I edited changed back?
I edited the pages Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Sandinista, Ian Smith, and others (and listed my sources), yet they were changed back to how they were. What's up with that?
- Your edits were didn't adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See the article histories for more detail: Ian Smith history, Sandinista National Liberation Front history, Ian Smith history. You will find reasons (in form of edit summaries) why other users reverted your edits. utcursch 03:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Your complete blanking of the Bill Stewart article was certainly a valid edit. </sarcasm> RickK 05:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Dictionary of National Biography ext links
Should wikipedia have a policy on citing the new online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? In many cases the new edition of the DNB will have the most up to date and comprehensive biog of UK people, esp of minor figures. However the online version is subscription only, so is it good policy to link a wiki article to a URL of the ODNB entry?
For a sample of the ODNB compare wiki on Matt Busby with the DNB page on Busby, Sir Matthew (1909-1994) (sub required, but currently viewable here as a "life of the day" free preview).
--mervyn 14:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
High/middle school IP vandalism proposal
Would it be completely against the wiki spirit to create a special status for high and middle school IP ranges which consistently vandalize/test Wikipedia articles? My proposal would be to make it so that the entire IP range could not edit articles anonymously (IP only). This would cut down considerably on certain recurrent vandalism problems (which are more "hey look I can edit this" problems than they are persistent vandalism attempts), while not reducing Wikipedia's functionality at all for students doing research, nor would it severely hinder their ability to edit pages (they'd just have to create an account). It would just cut down on the "opportunity" vandalism, and it would get rid of the problem we currently have in sending messages to users (user A uses a computer to vandalize, user B uses the same computer later, gets the message for user A). Thoughts? --Fastfission 18:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I would support "logged in editing only" ranges, but I don't know if the problem would go away. the kids will just create throw-away accounts... dab (ᛏ) 21:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They can, but there's a tremendous amount of good which can be done by even the mildest of deterrents. The main goal of this would be to solve the "we can't leave these people messages because they're doing this from a public computer." If they created throw-away accounts, at least one could have some confidence in that aspect of things, whether it really cut down much on vandalism in the long run. --Fastfission 23:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There is a possible solution that MIGHT help mentioned in the village pump's "proposals" section. It's in the archive now, under the subtittle "Power Users". Here a link there, if it's not deleted yet.... --SunTzu2 03:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Considering that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia vandalism comes from school IPs (check out the Vandalism in Progress page some time), I would support any proposal that limits the ability of these IPs to edit. If it was me, I would ban them entirely, but preventing anonymous editing seems like a decent solution. Kaldari 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Eventually planned Neonazi-Attack
Dear english Wikipedians, hope this is the right website for this:
On http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 Neonazis plan to "invade" Wikipedia and manipulate articles in their purposes.
Heaving read and analysed the whole thread, I think this has to be taken serious. Please distribute this warning in the right channels and manners, I´m not experienced in this. Greetings from Germany, and tell us how we can help if necessary! Benutzer:Jesusfreund on German Wikipedia, --217.95.54.218 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- scary. put some holocaust/nazism related articles on your watchlists, everybody! Some of them seem to be realistic about their chances for success, though:
- I'm curious to hear about succesful editing attempts, but I wouldn't be surprised if any attempt is futile. It might be a better idea to create our own wiki.
- (yes, do that, please!) :oP dab (ᛏ) 21:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This post is already known to much of the English Wikipedia, including Jimbo. Even so, the sentiment behind it is appreciated. Brotherhood and comradarie and stuff like that. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
- Their little plan has sparked a quite large discussion on WikiEN-l. Jimbo reminded everyone that we're writing an encyclopedia here. If they try to subvert that, then our response isn't going to be very nice. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Silsor has also set up a Neo-nazi watchlist which is a list of possible targets for neo-nazi activists. If you visit that page and click "related changes" in the toolbox, it will show you all recent changes to those articles. It's a good way to see if they're hitting anything. Rhobite 00:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- To quote a couple of prominent politicians: "Bring it on!" Those of us who've been keeping an eye on the articles on Holocaust denial and other warm and fuzzy topics are ready, willing, and maple to keep the peace. :) --Modemac 12:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, click here to find recent changes to articles on that list. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to what to do if you see someone new with a suspicious (but not quite Nazi) edit history? Is anyone monitoring them specifically?
- Let 'em be, like everyone else. If they cause trouble or engage in edit wars, we'll use the regular policy for handling edit wars and/or troublemakers. --Modemac 16:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What Modemac says. They're trying to manipulate Wikipedia? Just what is said about "liberals," "conservatives," "atheists," "homosexuals," "fundamentalists" and every other person who is recognized as being with a group, and, further, what is said about just about everyone who is recognized as having, to use a popular Wikipedia Talk Page term, "an agenda". It's a shame that there's people that don't care to contribute in an encyclopedic way, but the addition of neo-nazis to this group of people hardly lowers the signal to noise ratio, at least when you look at what the entire Wikipedia community calls "noise"(i.e., everything at one point or another). The Wikipedia must be constructed in a way that it can acheive its goal from a mixing and remixing of noise, or it has no hope whatsoever. You either have faith that it does have these proper constructs, or have faith in your efforts to create them, or have a pretty crumby Wikipedia existence because you won't be getting what you want. --Whoabot 20:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Sandinista article
I would like to question this page's neutrality. The way I saw it, it was blatantly pro-Sandinista, anti-Somoza. It could not have been more slanted if Ortega himself had written it.
- If you want to question the page's neutrality, please explain on Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front exactly why you think the article is not neutral. If you can, please also explain how you would go about fixing it. And don't forget to cite your sources, of course. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A fairly important poll is under way on Talk:Autofellatio concerning whether to link the image or keep it inline. Consensus level is set to 70% and the deadline is presently set to 20 March, 2005. Click the link in the heading of this section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- what happens in case of outcomes 31%...69%? Inclusionism by default? dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If a 31%-69% result is reached then the poll will have failed as a means of building consensus. It's by no means an endorsement of either alternative presented in the poll. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Posting Bias Notices
We have stated posting a "Bias" notice where we believe it to be very appropriate. It is despicable to find numerous articles created and added to by one or two contributors that go beyond NPOV and are filled with omissions, distortions, absolute falsehoods, and in several cases, racism.
This problem was well enunciated at:
- The problem is not vandals. Vandals don't stay that long . The problem is persistent POV pusher and trolls who are here for months/years without ever leaving.
- I am ok with trolls, but a POV pusher, if intelligent, keeps easily editing on at the WP. I see it (and read it a lot). 80.58.23.44 16:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Many articles related to Quebec are in this category where the bias and fraud perpetuated on Wikipedia is massive and pervasive. Wikipedia has come under sharp criticism and dismissed as unreliable by a number of sources precisely because of this type of thing. The very nature of Wikipedia opens the door to those with an agenda and a place where radicals can get there say that they can't get elsewhere. The many legitimate and dedicated article contributors to Wikipedia do not want to devote hours correcting deliberate NPOV and fabricated articles. We come here to enjoy the participation concept, not to spend our time protecting Wikipedia from those with an agenda.
If anyone has questions, please feel free to ask. However, we are not interested in having those who have been part of this biased input pretend innocence and ask questions. Those people will not be responded to under any circumstances. So far, we have posted "bias" notices on the following:
- Lower Canada Rebellion
- Chateau Clique
- Quebec sovereignty movement
- Médard des Groseilliers
- Pierre-Esprit Radisson
JillandJack 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As far as the mechanics of tagging go, we've already got the {{NPOV}} tag for this. The {{bias}} tag is has been nominated for deletion. As for the bias, {{sofixit}}. I'll remove the {{bias}} tag from any article you stick it on unless you put a reason that you think it's biased on the talk page. --Carnildo 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Am I to understand this is a little too strongly worded? It's confusing given the templates exist and are being used. So it's discouraging non-free images, but they are allowed right... I can upload them? - RoyBoy [∞] 01:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- They're being used on images that are already in Wikipedia. No new images should use them. --Carnildo 01:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, Roy, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We're trying to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can use, copy, download, fold, spindle and mutilate -- that means finding photographs that people are willing to "let go of" a little bit, by licensing under the GFDL and/or Creative Commons, or releasing to the public domain. (We hope to reduce our reliance on fair use as much as possible.) It's much harder to get a photographer to agree to "let go", than getting them to simply agree to have their works used in an educational encyclopedia. Our selection of photos has certainly suffered from this policy in the past, but little by little our collection grows in width, depth and quality, and the hope is that eventually people really will be able to use our work here without fear of either a) having to do massive amounts of work finding and filtering out non-free/special-use/questionable images or b) copyright liability issues.
- We do our best (indeed, we are obligated) to see that creators are credited for their work, but we can't control the downstream uses of photographs any more than we can control the many mirrors who are making Google Ad money off of our text. Not every photographer will be willing to do that, and that's okay -- we will still find the images we need over time. Explain the concept thoroughly and well, don't deceive anyone, and keep trying. — Catherine\talk 23:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3 revert rule and abuse by the moderators
hi, user 151.203.229.38 has broke the 3 revert rule in article about the dresden bombing. he has accused me of being a vandal whose edits were vandalism and said that justifies the brach of the rule. however, my edits were not vandalism as you can easily see - i merely added that some people think bombing was a war crime and restored a section about other bombings from the site itself (it was not marked as the vandalism at the time). this edit (adding a section) was reverted more than 3 times by that user. also, i suspect that rmherman, who is operator here, is the same as user 151.203.229.38, but have no way of knowing. Is it allowed for the operators to intimidate users in this way about the views that they disagree with? are there going to be any sanctions against user 151.203.229.38, or rmherman if he was indeed the same person - i find this behaviour extremelly upseting and abusive? (unsigned)
- Well that's very annoying behavior, and if all you're doing is editing of this kind he shouldn't call it vandalism. Your contention is easy enough to support--people as diverse as the German socialist writer Gunter Grass and the former editor of the Times, Simon Jenkins have referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime (as of course did Goebbels). The historian Joerg Friedrich, in his book The Fire, also suggests this. These aren't the views of cranks, Nazi apologists or neo-nazis (Friedrich, while calling himself a revisionist historian, is no holocaust denier), and you could probably make a good case that they should be represented in an article on the bombing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
possible right extremist abuse
- A bit of context may be in order here: the right-extremist NPD is making a big thing of the anniversary of the bombing this coming Sunday: their slogan is they don't see the holocaust as a big deal, but the bombing was a war crime: most folk I know regard this as code for Holocaust denial calculated to be just barely cryptic enough not to fall foul of the Holocaust denial law here in Germany. Reuters has some recent context. I'd advise being on the lookout for far right manipulation of this and related pages. ---- Charles Stewart 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The right-extremists' views are not relevant here. Moreover, Wikipedia is not an ideological battlefield. Many people outside the U.S. see the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse either a bad case of human rights violation or war crime. However, most of them also believe Saddam Hussein was a bad national leader but without the accused WMD. The fact that the POW abuse case was not trialed in an international criminal court, is because the U.S. refused to sign some treaties.
- There are well-educated and not-very-biased people who see that WW2 bombing a war crime. So were the mass killings of Native Americans during the 19th century. This is a valid viewpoint which may not be denied. -- Toytoy 09:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I am certainly not a right extremist, that is another insult that I have received here. In fact, my views are left-leaning. But that should certainly not be relevant, and there is nothing extremist in my original post. That sort of ad-hominem attack should have no place here, and branding me vandal and right extremist is just what that is, on the basis of disagreement of views. MarkSop Feb 11
- Postscript: User:151.203.229.38 has been blocked for 20 hours, and the plaintiff User:MarkSop, who wrote the text above, has been blocked for 24 hours [3]. User:MarkSop is a partial fit for the right extremist wiki warrior I painted above, complete with characterisations of the bombing as a real holocaust. I'd advise people to put Bombing of Dresden in World War II and be on the lookout for sockpuppets. ---- Charles Stewart 20:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What you write may all be true (and I haven't really checked to see what User:MarkSop actually wrote) but we must never remove something from Wikipedia simply because it may, if read in a particular light, give comfort to a holocaust denier. As early as the mid-sixties, the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut described his experiences as a prisoner of war during the bombardment of Dresden (Slaughterhouse Five). If the range of those reported killed in the bombing was as current version of the article (25,000 to more than 60,000), this is in the same range over two days as the total number of people killed in Britain during The Blitz in eight months during 1940-41 (42,000), and nearly comparable to the immediate deaths as a result of the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effectiveness, morality and lawfulness of the late bombing campaigns on the German cities have long been questioned in Britain by mainstream thinkers of all persuasions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The way I was treated here is completely unfair. I did not break the rule, or at least did not believe that I did, as comments with my posts clearly indicate. The post that was reverted 4 times was substantialy different from the other 2 posts which merely changed one sentence. What is counted as a revert? Also, it is not true that I posted text "war crimes" 6 times - I have made 6 posts and one does not have reference to the war crimes at all, while wording is different in the oters. So, if you want to interpret that way, I made 5 posts wich you consider equivalent, while user 151 has made 5 reverts to the same version. And does the first post count as a revert, or only further posts? Wikipedia clearly states that people who violate 3 revert rule should be treated equally in the same incident, and so if you want to interpret that I broke the rule too (and this can be questioned), then why did I get 24 h and he 20 h? All that while I have stated that I respect the policy, while 151 has stated that it does not apply since my edits are "vandalism" (does he believe that or was that an abuse, which I believe)? I think this is simply outrageous, and to be insulted here as a right extremist on top of all!!
-MarkSOp
- Do read the account at the Administrator's noticeboard (and User:MarkSop's actual edits if you care enough). Of course truth should trump political calculation, but if you know that what you are about to say will be music to the ears of the holocaust deniers, better make doubly sure that you are in the right, and are not being suckered into playing a role in piece of set theatre. ---- Charles Stewart 21:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, do read my posts. I firmly stand by them - are you suggesting there is something wrong or misrepresented here by me? The first post might be an ironic comment (which seems to apply more than I thought) but all other posts were perfectly serious and there is nothing wrong there - I believe I was abused here because of my views. And also, the way my complaint was handled is a violation of policies stated on this site.
-MarkSop
David Irvin as a court-approved holocaust denier
User Charles Stewart reverted my edit of Bombing of Dresden in World War II:
- Previous and reverted:
- There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer and prominent Holocaust denier David Irving, ...
- My edit:
- There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ...
When we talk about a number, we hire accountants, mathematicians, logicians, historians, witnesses, all kinds of experts to prove or disprove the validity of that number. The fact that Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah used to be a goddamn crazy liar or has some sort of bias is not a good reason to reject the number. That is POV. You don't reject someone's point just because he/she is a f**king: communist, atheist, idol-worshipper, cannibal, child-molester, Macintosh advocate, dog eater, drug-abuser, flat-earth believer, imperialist, feminist, tree-hugger, thief, PETA member, Pantagon employee, terrorist, anyone over 30 years old ... You reject it simply because it is proven wrong. -- Toytoy 09:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- As I have argued on the talk page, the fact that David Irving is a holocaust denier is cogent, because of the modern political context of the bombing of Dresden. ---- Charles Stewart 10:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Charles Stewart I cannot believe you're a logician. :) I did not use jargons because I did not want to make my point too difficult to understand. Now I am using them.
- David Irving as a holocaust denier -> appeal to authority
"Holocaust denier" is a political label. You can safely call Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah a Congolese, Harvard student, Pepsi stockholder, car owner, IEEE member, ex-convict, professional karate coach, Playboy centerfold photographer, because these titles are well-defined. The label "Holocaust denier" is not so.
I haven't reviewed the Irving v. Lipstadt cases. Based on my understanding of the law, I believe it was Irving's wrong litigation strategy (self-representation) and the hostile attitude towards him that cost his case. Details aside, it was Deborah Lipstadt who was the defendant. The court cannot sentence David Irving as a holocaust denier whatever the crime is. Irving's use of bad materials and methodology clears Lipstadt's libel accusation and that's all. You may call Irving a lousy researcher. Your label of "Holocaust denier" is only protected by the Freedom of Speech.
The U.S. case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell let Larry Flynt get away from tort damages. But the court did not sentence Jerry Falwell a mother fucker as a result of it. "Jerry Falwell fucks his mother" is not a logical conclusion here.
- Using Irving's political belief to reject his number -> ad hominem circumstantial
Your use of label is ad hominem and not logical.
My suggestion:
- There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ... but they are from disputed sources, such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ... . Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents. This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea. However, his claim has been disproved by SOMEONE using SOME FACT-BASED MEANS which was not based on his political belief.
If you think it is clumsy, it is. The possibility or fact of right-wing misuse of Irving's view is not relevant. You don't base your judgement on it. It is logically like "... because someone could rape my daughter on her way to school, I lock her in the basement." -- Toytoy 10:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to exclude Irving's estimate; his presumed bias should also be raised as of some relevance, but what is more important is that we should try to show as well as possible the actual basis of Irving's calculations (and, indeed, of everybody's calculations). Someone who is biased can still do useful work that can be examined and critiqued by a reader who is made aware of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My motivation for getting involved in the issue is that I want to counter manipulation of Wikipedia by right-extremists and their useful idiots. That is all personal, subjective, POV etc. and isn't appropriate either as content or an editing crieria for Wikipedia articles. My editing of Wikipedia articles and criticisms of other's edits on the talk pages is done according to my best understanding of Wikipedia policy (with the occasional lapses, which I will apologise for if they are brought to my attention), and will be done in accordance with NPOV standards. So: motivation for my edits: POV, standards of editing: NPOV. It is appropriate to bring the attention of other editors to the sensitive nature of the anniversary of the bombing, and the right-extremist campaign going on here in Dresden and elsewhere so that they pay particular attention to dubious editing.
My case for rving your deletion of the label holocaust denier to the person David Irving in that article is that:
- The issue over whether David Irving is a holocaust denier has been raised and workled out on the David Irving page, and the consensus view is that it is NPOV to call David Irving a Holocuats denier. Hence calling him what he is on the bombing page is also NPOV, especially when the link to the case is right there on the word David Irving. If you want to reopen the issue of whether of David Irving is a holocaust denier, go right ahead there on the David Irving page. If you succeed in moving the consensus to agree that this is, after all, a POV view (winning all your arguments in the RfC process), then I will happily change the text to alleged holocaust denier.
- You have made no objection to the cogency of holocaust denial to the modern political context of the Dresden bombing.
Since I understand the application of that label to that person to be (i) accurate according to policy and (ii) cogent, any edit that removes the label I infer to be a bad edit, and as an interested editor, I am obliged to repair the damage. ---- Charles Stewart 12:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have made my suggestion:
- ... such as the ... controversial self-taught historical writer David Irving, ... . Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents. This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea. However, his claim has been disproved by SOMEONE using SOME FACT-BASED MEANS which was not based on his political belief.
- I think it's you the Irving opponents who bear the burden of proof here. As a 3rd party, I don't want to waste my time on it. So far I can only say your logic is miserable. -- Toytoy 12:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, this is one point I don't think is politically correct to make. Whatever the figure is, you have to show people how SOMEONE arrives THAT NUMBER. I mean data and methodology. You may call Irving a crackpot neo-Nazi holocaust denier, that's your freedom of speech. But this is encyclopedia, you need to present proof to justify your rightness and his wrongness. This is not Hollywood, Nazi-bashing is not a valid logical argument here. -- Toytoy 12:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it is appropriate to describe Irving as a holocaust denier; it is more important, however, to put as much information as possible about his assumptions in arriving at his figure. We should not dismiss his figures if he, as it were "shows us his working out" so that any factual errors can be spotted and corrected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See Irving's own website for proof of how he arrived at the wrong number http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/TheTimes070766.html The link is included in the references on the wikipedia page "Bombing of Dresden in World War II". The trouble is, as noted in the footnote on the same wikipedia page, that since the letter to the Times, he has continued to state numbers in excess of 100,000 for the dead in Dresden raids. Philip Baird Shearer
For further details see http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans006.asp as presented in court by by Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge. Here is quote from Paragraph 21:
- Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.
Given the drubbing that Irving received from Evans and others in court, it is not surprising that the trial judge, Justice Charles Gray said:
- Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.
To call Irving a Holocaust denier is not "only protected by the Freedom of Speech" By which I presume Toytoy means the US first amendment. Most people do not live by or under the US constitution. It is also protected by the findings of a court of law in Britain. Where there was so much evidence supporting this view that it is difficult to see any court anywhere disagreeing with the judges conclusions.
All of this has already been discussed (several times) on the Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II and Talk:David Irving and their archives which are available to anyone who wishes to modify the parent articles. Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Toytoy: I don't have a problem with a critical presentation of Irving's estimate, though I think it is a sideshow, and I think would best be dealt with in a more specialised article,, say David Irving's estimate of causualies of the Dresden bombing. There is ample material to draw from on the Irving talk page. Why not add the edits, and we can figure out what to do with the material.
I do have issues with the following parts of your proposed wording:
- Irving has been called as a Holocaust denier by many of his opponents is a weaselly violation of POV. The evidence for his holocaust denial is plain, and is presented on the David Irving. If you think you can change the consensus, be my guest, but do so face on, on the David Irving page.
- This may lead to some people's rejection of his idea I would say is against the policies Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:Spoon feeding. If you present concrete, cogent examples of people making these inferences, fine, but vague speculation about the possibility of inferences is not cogent.
---- Charles Stewart 13:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there a policy of future fate of mediation results?
At Open Directory Project, on each new attempt to enhance the article and finally get rid of the neutrality problems and tag, User:Netesq reverts at least some of the changes with the argument:
The content of this article was the result of mediation. It cannot be overruled by a simple vote of two to one, and it cannot be overruled by a doctrine of laches.
Is this backed up by policy? And if yes, what is the procedure to change this result. (And there are more than two editors who want to see changes, see the extensive talk page). --Pjacobi 17:36, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the only binding decisions on article content are those made as a result of a vote for deletion; "delete" decisions are binding on a specific version of a specific article. Beyond that, everything is open to change. --Carnildo 19:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Category:Ashlee Simpson
Why is Category:Ashlee Simpson onb the Categories for deletion page? It was deleted once on February 4, and seems to have been recreated, and people are still voting on it, even though the vote deadline has passed. Why was it recreated? RickK 23:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
"donating" material
I had a conversation yesterday with a friend, a respected academic, who remarked that he tried putting into Wikipedia some material that he had already published elsewhere; his intent was to "donate" it. He wasn't very experienced with Wikipedia, probably didn't make it clear what he was up to and, unsurprisingly, it ended up deleted as a copyvio. I've seen similar things happen a few other times; I've occasionally been able to intervene to reach the relevant party by email and sort things out, but not always.
I was wondering: is there somewhere in Wikipedia or Meta space a page discussing:
- How to "donate" your already-published materials to Wikipedia?
- How best to facilitate when one believes a misunderstanding about something like this may be occurring?
If not, I'd like to create one, but I don't want to duplicate effort. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless Wikipedia is the first place a certain media was published, it should always have specific information on its source. If you think about it, whether or not you are the original author makes no difference - you have to go through the exact same steps to classify it as fair use, or whatever status it takes on. The biggest issue with using a substantial amount of material on Wikipedia that has been published elsewhere stands regardless of ownership - we have to be able to prove that the person who created it is the person giving the text away, and proving that it is actually the owner who did it and not some crank pretending to be them. Our informal policy is probably to get their permission via an e-mail or the like and paste it into the discussion page, removing it in the instance of a crank. A formal policy would require something more than that, though. --Alterego 00:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I had this sort of hassle with the article on Sharon Lee. She and her husband Steve Miller sent me their standard package which contained long and short biographies, which have been used on a bunch of websites describing their work. I condensed a reasonable-looking article out of the shorter ones and got hit by a copy-vio notice. Even putting a copy of the email up on the talk page wasn't enough, and the article got deleted. --Phil | Talk 08:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
One thought is that for work published in academic journals and conference proceedings, the copyright holder is almost invariably the publisher not the author. I agree that there should be some procedure for the case that you really do have permission from the copywrite holder to publish something under the GFDL (not likely is the copywrite holder is Springer Verlag). Morris 12:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've put a draft together at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Comments, edits, etc., would be greatly appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't read your notes yet, but I got a query from a user who is a relative of Irving Langmuir and has some unpublished letters. This would be relevant information should he want to contribute and/or cite those letters. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This has come together nicely, but there is one loose end. Do we already have a page or pages in Wikipedia space to list sources that are not public domain but which Wikipedia may freely use? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Think I just answered my own question: Wikipedia:Free or semi-free non-Public-Domain information resources, Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources
Unless someone speaks up in the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to remove the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials that says it's only a draft, and start looking for appropriate Project Pages from which to link it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Consistency
In the recent VfD discussion on the St. Thomas Tommies, I raised a concern about consistent treatment of Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams. The VfD consensus was to merge it into the article on Saint Thomas University. As things now stand, Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams now contains 56 articles on teams, and one article on a university.
A person who comes to Wikipedia isn't going to see this and think there must be a notability cutoff; they're going to see this and think we're a bunch of sloppy idiots who are too careless to make sure that we present the information in a consistent manner. The teams are by definition of equal notability to each other, since they all compete on an equal footing in the same sporting body, and therefore by definition, they need to either all have articles of their own, or all be merged into their respective universities. It's like saying that some National Hockey League teams deserve their own articles, while others should be merged into their home city. NHL teams can't be divided into notable vs. non-notable when they're all in the same sporting league; CIS teams have to be given the same "all or none" treatment. And they can't be treated as less notable than an equivalent university sports league in another country, either, so we can't say that Canadian university sports teams get merged but American university sports teams get articles. Which is why, thus, I really have to insist on a clear policy that either university sports teams are encyclopedic or they're not.
Sporting teams are but one example; my concern also applies to any group of related things that are essentially equivalent to each other. I think there are some categories where we need to have a clearer policy on notability as a group, because there isn't a meaningful or legitimate way to divide them into "notable" vs. "non-notable" individual topics.
My other concern is that when these divisions are applied, Canadian examples are disproportionately singled out for VfD nominations and for subsequent deletion. Just in the past couple of weeks alone, each of the following category areas has had one or more Canadian examples singled out as a priori less notable than American or European examples in the same categories: university sports teams, university newspapers, murder victims, military-related deaths, university student unions, high schools, city mayors.
I recognize that some of these topics are of debated encyclopedic value in general, but as things stand right now, two articles of identical notability to each other frequently end up with opposite results in a VfD vote just because of who happens to show up to express an opinion. As a result, I just don't think that a case-by-case approach works for some groupings of articles. Even decisions that get taken as precedents aren't consistently applied -- as we've seen with high schools, a concerted group of voters can still shift a particular vote one way or the other and lead to conflicting precedents. There have actually been high school articles deleted that were more notable than other high schools that survived VfD.
I'm not asking for anything unprecedented. For politicians, the general agreement already exists that anybody who's held elected office at the national or provincial/state level can have an article. And certainly, there are categories where a legitimate notability cutoff exists. But I really believe that some groups of topics require a consistent policy on their notability or lack thereof as a group, which is then actually applied to all relevant articles, because there are categories (sports teams within a single league, etc.) where inconsistency only makes Wikipedia look bad to an outside user. Bearcat 01:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are right it should be consistent. Categories apply to articles. There shouldn't be a mix of "team" articles, and "school" articles in the category, especially since the title of the Category refers to teams. That means.
- If all the teams have sufficient notability for an article, then there is no problem.
- If none of the teams have sufficient notability for an article, then the category should just be deleted, since it is equivalent to a category for Canadian universities (assuming they all have teams).
- If some of the teams have articles, and some do not, then the category will be inconsistent. The category should be deleted.
We currently have case 3). Case 2) can possibly be brought about by submitting the other 55 teams to VfD, based on the precedent of the Tommies. VfD being not very consistent or respectful of precedents, it is probable that some of the teams will be deleted and some won't be, leaving us in case 3). Either way, best to delete or rename the category. --BM 01:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moving tags to talk pages?
[4][5] - User:Maveric149 is going through articles and moving tags like {{POV check}} to the talk pages. I've already protested, and he didn't say anything; if this is in fact a bad thing to do, can someone else do so? --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Saying that I did not respond before you left the above Village pump message is an outright lie (also another string of responses after your above post). [6] Since the message is directed at writers instead of readers I'm replacing the template with an HTML comment that says the same thing and then I'm moving the actual template to the talk page. This de-clutters the article for readers, makes it more useful to third parties, and directs the message directly to the intended audience. --mav 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It reads: "This article may require editing to conform to the neutral point of view policy." The articles I fixed say the same thing, both on their talk pages and via an HTML comment wherever I found the tag. --mav 03:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it is such a "biased piece of crap" then a {{POV}} tag would be in order - along with a good explanation on the talk page (which is required for that tag). I was not moving the POV tag. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem particularly inappropriate to me. Anything short of an actual dispute seems more appropriate for the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it's been discussed on Wikipedia, but I've seen the idea or something like it raised recently on the WikiEN-L mailing list.
- There's a lot to be said for putting these tags on talk pages, in my opinion. It might encourage more people to look on the talk page prior to editing, which in itself would be a great improvement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- One of his edits (the first diff), which I'm currently arguing with him about at User talk:Maveric149#Conrail was to move a {{expand list}} tag from an incomplete list. This gives the impression that the list is complete. The other one, the removal of POV check, means that someone reading the article might think the opinions in the article are simple facts, or that Wikipedia is biased. --SPUI (talk) 00:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then in the article say it is a partial list. --mav 02:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Again, I don't have an issue with the template - just its placement. Templates and associated categories are very useful in keeping track of things. But mixing meta data with content should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Oh and a I see the wording "partial list" all over the place. Simply using that wording will be all the notice readers and writers need. All without having to pollute article content with alarming-looking tags. --mav 03:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it has no place, then it should be deleted as redundant. Just say it is a partial list if that is that case but take your graffiti elsewhere. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He shouldn't be moving tags without a community-wide consensus. The neutrality and disputed tags are particularly important on the articles themselves, so that readers can see there's an acknowledged problem that is being addressed. SlimVirgin 00:21, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm confused, too. The user moved an "expand" tag to the talk page (Sergei Korolev), but the policies spelled out for this tag say "place it on article page". I have the impression, this was not fully discussed on WP or it is at the least being done very incoherently. Awolf002 00:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It was discused way back when the project was started when we decided to put comments about articles on talk pages. --mav 02:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The mere existance of a whole class of pages that are specifically designed for this type of meta info. The talk page. --mav
I see he's still doing it. What's the next step? WP:RFC? --SPUI (talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's funny. I'm the one who created the RFC process along with the original drafts of the dispute resolution process we use. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I left a note on his talk page asking him to stop, but I don't think it made any difference. Regarding the "expand" tag, someone pointed out to him that it said in the guidelines that the tag should go on the article. Mav then went and changed the guidelines. I changed it back, and he reverted, so it doesn't look like he's going to stop. I suggested he set up a subpage for a discussion about it to try to reach a community-wide consensus. SlimVirgin 01:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- And I have stopped and we are discussing it. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Too POV={{POV}}, factually disputed={{disputed}}, or too short={{stub}} (and variants). I'm not moving any of those tags, because they are useful to readers as well as editors. The tags I'm moving and/or replacing with HTML comments, are primarily useful to writers, not readers. That is what talk pages are for.
Also, if any of these messages were made by just inserting in the actual text vs a template, then those messages would be moved to the talk page. Just because it it done via a template, does not excuse things. These types of self-referential tags must be kept to a bare minimum to keep Wikipedia maximally useful to third parties - none of which are called Wikipedia and very, very few of which are editable. Use the talk page. That said, I'll let things settle down a bit for now. I need to concentate on other things right now. --mav 02:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The template 'excuses' things BECAUSE it can be easily replaced by other users. Anyway, is there an easy way to rollback his recent edits (assuming we decide to do so)? --SPUI (talk) 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See below. I made other edits as well. --mav 03:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Moving Template:POV check to Talk everywhere is wholly inappropriate given that we've just had a discussion and a week-long vote on WP:TFD about it, and this action was most definitely not the consensus. Please stop and revert. --Joy [shallot] 02:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I did stop. But before so I added HTML comments that said the same thing. I also fixed formatting in many articles at the same time. --mav 03:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And this is completely appropriate when the message is directed toward writers. --mav 03:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then the current wording needs to be fixed stat. See the template's talk page for a compromise plan. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree fully with mav. — Catherine\talk 03:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that he should decide unilaterally to make such changes. He needs to seek consensus first and not only from the editors of each page that's affected but from the community as a whole. Some of these tags would make no sense on a talk page e.g. the expand tag, which is there to encourage people to work on it, and also to signal to the reader that we're not content with the current state of the page. Readers aren't necessarily going to check the talk pages of tiny stubs, or indeed of any article. SlimVirgin 03:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- There is already a very wide-based consensus that meta comments go on talk pages - that is why they were created. Any lack of relevant info will be the motivating force for people to expand. Not some tag. --mav 03:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The NPOV and factual dispute tags do seem to encourage people to work on the article. People who have created or worked hard on something don't like to see a tag on it, so the issues tend to get cleared up fast. The stub tag is useful because it shows that Wikipedia understands this isn't a complete article, and it's important to signal that to the reader, as well as inviting them to expand it. There'd be no point putting that on the talk page. SlimVirgin 05:23, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- There is every point in putting that on the talk page since the stub tags already exist to indicate what articles are sub par content-wise. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure be bold is wikipedia policy. If you feel the tags do not make sense in their new position edit the templateGeni 05:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See above. It is inherent in the system. Bad practice on a few hundred pages does not mean there is anything. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Specifically, the {{expand list}} tag has no place at all on the talk page; it is to be used when a list is incomplete. It has been used for that purpose for a long time, which indicates at least partial consensus. It also lets people know that it is our goal to have a full list. Saying "here is a partial list" could mean that there is no intent for a full list, like on toll bridge where the listing only gives examples. --SPUI (talk) 04:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Already refuted above. Here is a reminder: If a list is not complete, then say that in the article. No need for a tag. --mav
- I feel strongly that the tags belong on the article page, particularly subs and ones like the {{pov-check}} and {{cleanup-tone}} tags that user:Maveric149 moved to the talk page at Rebuttals to the cosmological argument at 02:00 after he was told to stop on his talk page (not for the first time). I have reverted this. I do a lot of casual reading of wikipedia and this is often where I come accross articles that require editing. I am not in the habit of reading the talk page for every article I read, and so if an article needs work I want to know about it on the article - indeed the pov-check template specifically directs you to the talk page. There are not that many people who frequently browse through looking for NPOV or cleanup tags. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to encourage participation by new users, and these tags do that. I understand the arguments about it not being that useful to third-party users, but surely that should be a secondary consideration to what is useful to us. Thryduulf 06:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was not moving any stub tags - nor do I plan to (along with any other tag which is more than marginally useful to readers or is very temporary in nature). The trouble is, and you indirectly point this out, is that the proliferation of these types of tags has made some people start to use talk pages less. This is a trend that needs to be stopped before it becomes a general one. By having an HTML comment that says the same thing and by having a message on talk pages, then we can best balance the needs of readers, third parties, and writers. This is a compromise - I'm not advocating that the POV check or expand templates be deleted, or that their message be scrubbed clean from articles. I'm just saying we should step back and consider the needs of people beyond those that edit on Wikipedia. --mav 10:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maveric149. I apologize if this is not the right place to take this, but no one has mentioned another way. --SPUI (talk) 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Moving templates to talk pages for continued discussion.
"List of..." page entries
What standard, if any, is there for entries on "List of x people" pages?
In early January, the article on Marco of Alexandria was deleted as being non-notable, after a contentous VfD: 20 "delete" from longstanding editors, 5 "keep" from longstanding editors, 10 "keep" from IP addresses and brand-new accounts. Links to that article were removed from List of Egyptians.
Since then, Omar Filini has added entries for Marco several times: as a redlink to the deleted article, as an external link to Marco of Alexandria's website, and as an unlinked name. After each addition, I've removed it, on the grounds that the person is non-notable as established in the VfD page, and thus shouldn't be in the list. Am I correct in assuming this?
On a larger scale, most of the entries on List of Egyptians are redlinks. What standards are there for establishing who should be on one of these lists? Should it just be people who already have articles? People who should have articles, and if so, how should notability be indicated?
Thanks, Carnildo 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've always considered these lists to mean "has or deserves an article". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson 01:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- To make the question more specific: Should I keep removing the entry and enduring this guy's increasingly personal attacks, or should I give up? --Carnildo 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It hasn't reached that level yet, but if someone could drop a note on User talk:Omar Filini about the "no personal attacks" policy, that would be nice. --Carnildo 21:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Section headings asking questions
I just noticed on Bombing of Dresden in World War II that one of the sections is titled "Was the Dresden bombing justified?". Personally I don't think that as an encyclopaedia we should be posing questions in articles in this way. I've seen this use of a question as a section heading in other articles and I was wondering whether anybody else thinks as I do that it is inappropriate. Jooler 02:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Maurreen 05:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Would the alternative here be something along the lines of 'Debate over the military validity of the bombing'? That makes more sense to me in this case. I think phrasing it as "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" pushes the POV toward the view that it was not justified. In another instance of this issue, at the stem cell article we have a section titled 'what is a blastocyst?' which I think works better than if it were titled something along the lines of 'blastocysts defined.'--Nectarflowed 06:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why not simply 'Blastocyst'. Jooler 12:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The section in question is a subsection of the section "Embryonic stem cell ethical debate." I think to title the subsection simply 'Blastocyst' as opposed to 'blastocyst defined' or 'what is a blastocyst?' would tell the reader less how it fits into the larger section.
- Also, in this instance, since the topic is a controversial one in which people generally have preconceived notions, I think inviting the reader to regard new definitions (e.g. with the title of a controversial section phrased as a question) is preferable to telling the reader what their definitions should be. --Nectarflowed 11:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No section titles should be posed as a question in my opinion - there is always a better way. violet/riga (t) 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can we try to make this a policy then? Jooler 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not taking a side on this, but I'd like to point out that we've long had even article titles such as "Who is a Jew?" that are posed as questions. This would be a change of policy. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Does a new edit store only the changes?
If I make an edit to a 50k page, does the wiki software only store the changes, as we see in a history comparison, or does it save a new 50k file? (I assume the former but wanted to make sure)--Nectarflowed 02:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It saves a new file; the diff is generated by comparing the two files. This is one reason why we have the show preview button. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For older articles, a compression scheme has been implemented that combines the old revisions, allowing for the similar bits to be compressed out easily. The only users who actually see the effects of this are admins, as it causes the "cannot delete due to block compressed revisions" error. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Additionally, this is a technical question, why is it being asked in the policy section? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Mirv and Cyrius. Then, if a user edits just a section does it still generate a new 50k file instead of just a new file for the smaller section? Regarding policy then, is editing a large page just to correct a trivial typo seen as a burden on storage?--Nectarflowed 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, editing sections creates a new revision of the whole page. No, this is generally not seen as a problem: the database servers have enough storage space. Nobody will yell at you for copyediting and proofreading. Let common sense rule; if a large page has numerous small errors, fixing them all in one edit is better than making a dozen minor edits: it's easier on the servers, it uses less bandwidth, and it keeps the edit history clearer. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Mirv and Cyrius. Then, if a user edits just a section does it still generate a new 50k file instead of just a new file for the smaller section? Regarding policy then, is editing a large page just to correct a trivial typo seen as a burden on storage?--Nectarflowed 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Additionally, this is a technical question, why is it being asked in the policy section? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For older articles, a compression scheme has been implemented that combines the old revisions, allowing for the similar bits to be compressed out easily. The only users who actually see the effects of this are admins, as it causes the "cannot delete due to block compressed revisions" error. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What constitutes a revert - violations of stated 3RR policy and possible abuse
A two days ago I made some edits in the dresden bombing article, and was imediately attacked by ananimous user 151.... and accused of being a vandal. My edits were clearly not the case of vandalism, and I have made further edits using some of the older stuff from the page (which was stable for 2 years, until an edit war apparently enused this october). This was reverted 4 times with insulting and misleading comments that it was vandalism, by the same user. I have clearly stated in my edits that I was reverting this thing for 3 times, like the rules say, and each time 151 has reverted, breaking his revert limit. Then I have stopped and complained on the 3RR page (as I have indicated in my last edit, which clearly said "3rd and last revert to a version of 16:09 Feb 9 ").
What happened was that I was banned for 24 hours, while user 151 was banned for 20 hours. The explanation given was that 151 has made 4 reverts while I have made 6 insertions of a "war crime" claim. First thing is that this count was wrong: out of 6 edits only 5 had words "war crime" added, and not all in the same version (nothing to say that the substantional difference was only in the edit of 16:09 Feb 9 to which I was referring, and to which I have been counting the reverts). Also, 151 has made 5 reverts, not 4 (which the person who put the ban clearly should have realised, since 151 was reverting everything that I did). Also, the first edit can hardly count as a "revert", so it seems that even with the interpretation of entering the "war crime" I had 4 reverts and 151 had 5, yet he received 20 hours ban and I have received 24 hours. This is clearly not treating people equally in such a dispute. I was the one who clearly stated the count and said that I will follow the rules, after which I have complained. Yet, despite this I was treated more harshly. I believe that moderator wanted to intimidate me in this way for complaining. Is this how you encourage your own policies? If a situation like this should happen, shouldn't the course of action be like mine: respect the limit, and point out when it is broken?
There are several issues to be rised here
- How are reverts counted? If A makes an edit, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A refrains and complains, what do you do? did A make 3 reverts or 4 (which would be strange, since the first edit is hardly a revert). And if he did make 3 reverts while B made 4, overriding him, then should they both be punished?
- What does treating equally mean? If two engage in consecutive reverts, and someone third intervenes, than clearly both should be punished if they both broke the rule. But if one refrained in the end and complained, should he be punished? Should he be punished if he made more than 3 reverts in interpretation of moderator, yet had thought that he had respected the rule, and let the B had last revert, choosing to complain instead? Should he be punished more for doing this??
- How do you count different versions. If someone changes the versions, or has substantially different edits, do you count those as reverts? How does that encourage the succesive attempts of coming with the better version (more NPOV, removing wording which my offend the other side). If one side does this, and the other just reverts back shouting "vandal", do you count his reverts the same as all the different edits of the firts user?
- What happens if both users act in good faith? For instance, one user really believes edits are simple vandalism and breaks the 3RR rule, while the other thinks that only his reverts to a substantially different edit count and does not try to do more than 3 reverts in this way (while that is what happened in my case, I doubt that 151 really thought my edits were simple vandalism, as I belive his intent was to abuse this label to intimidate someone whose views he dissaproves of, yet I do not know for sure). Does the user have more responsibility if policy is more clear in his case. For instance, if there is an explanation what simple vandalism means, and any person of average (or even modest) intelligence can figure out that it is not the case, and there is no explanation what counts as a revert, do these people have the same responsibility?
- Should a moderator punish people as he pleases, giving his arbitrary interpretation and in fact punishing the person who complains more harshly? Does moderator have responsibility to determine the facts or can he just make a sloppy count and make a decision based on first impression? What is the consequence for the moderator who makes a mistake due to sloppiness? Does "treating equally" mean giving even punisments when both persons are somehow breaking the rules, or should moderator step in to interpret who did more break the rules, and act arbitrarily, when the situation is not clear cut?
- What happens if moderator deliberately abuses his powers, choosing to act on his personal views, preferences or taste, rather than by applying the rules? Is there in fact any procedure of making moderators accountable for what they do?
- If a moderator makes a mistake, which is later proved and pointed to him, does he have the responsibility to appologize to the abused side?
-MarkSOp, Feb 12
- Why should anyone care? This strikes me as like being ticketed for for going 71 mph in a 55 mph zone and complaining
- "The cops are supposed to give you 15 miles over the limit"
- "71 mph is really only 15 miles over 55 mph"
- "Lots of people going just as fast didn't get stopped"
- Just stop reverting more than once. Then you'll never need to know that the 3RR even exists, let alone what the precise borders of its enforcement are. You are not entitled to three reverts. Three reverts is extreme behavior that is way over any reasonable line. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Costs of vandalism
Having just read the post here where it was explained that each edit is a completely new text file, isn't the current method of combating vandalism pretty costly in terms of storage space and all the associated overhead? I know I should search for this, but what are people's thought on this? It seems to me to threaten the future of Wikipedia when a good part of what is stored is vandalism junk. But I see the quandary of not wanting to threaten free expression. Spalding 14:44, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- How many edits are vandalism? How does the amount of vandalism, and reversion of vandalism, compare to ordinary editing? Despite all the flap about it, it's really not all that common. Try this: Examine the edit histories of 100 random articles. Count up the number of vandal edits and reverts of those edits, and compare that number to the number of useful edits. I think you'll find that the latter far outnumber the former. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki templates
I just found:
What are they used for and when are they used? RJFJR 17:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe they only should be used to indicate the upshot of a WP:VFD discussion, before the actual transwiki has been accomplished. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am proposing a new policy to be implemented, regarding stub templates and stub categories. I have placed it for voting, and whether it will be official will be determined by March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have moved Wikipedia:Assume good faith for official voting, to be concluded on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. This is to make the policy official. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Policy re: day-of-the-year articles?
is there somewhere in wikipedia a written set of guidelines about what and not what to include on the individual day-of-the-year articles? or are we just using gut instinct to discern what should and shouldn't be there?
please respond on my talk page, thanks! Kingturtle 22:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Birth and death listings should be limited to people with articles in Wikipedia (or likely to get an article some day).
- As for event listings, this is different. --05 22:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unless the dates are wrong as such, I suggest we restore the mass deletions of birth and death listings by Kingturtle, e.g. on January 9. --05 06:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reverted them. Somebody considered them notable, or they would not have added them. It's no more inappropriate than having red links on List pages. RickK 06:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
in regards to articles on individual dates, editors should be discriminating in their choices of historic events, births and deaths. This idea is to list the more siginficant events and names - not all possible names. The Recent deaths list is a more appropriate place to chronicle the less significant names. reserve for the individual-date-articles the more historically important names.
an article about a particular day is not meant to be a complete compendium or complete list. It is a summary of the most and more important events of that day. Kingturtle 12:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
THat is, of course, your opinion. RickK 22:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Is that all you have to say? how about helping us figure out what to do here? :) Kingturtle 02:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the actual date of birth or death is rarely a historic event, the criteria that may work well for events don't help that much for birth and death listings on day pages.
Besides, it's a bit complicated to consult different year pages for specific dates.--05 02:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, the day-articles are almanac-like, and are more of a quick reference than a complete listing. Kingturtle 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This conversation/thread has been restarted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the Year. please take your thoughts there. Kingturtle 06:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Boston
I am having an argument with User:Mel Etitis at my talk page about whether Boston should re-direct to Boston, Massachusetts or to Boston (disambiguation). I think the former and Mel thinks the latter.
It seems clear to me that Boston Mass is the primary meaning of the word, and as nearly all of the links to "Boston" go to the city, it should re-direct there, that would make it consistant with other major American cities such as Chicago, San Francisco etc.
What does everyone else think. G-Man 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely Boston, Massachusetts. I'm sure that is at least 98% of uses. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Boston, Massachusetts. Which has a line at the top directing to the disambiguation page. I am now going to the disambiguation page to see what the other meanings are. I'll bet very few people could name ONE off the top of their heads. I think there's a small town in England named Boston, or is it St. Botolph's? (click, click) Ah. Yes to both. But there are also a buncha little miniBostons in other states, like the buncha miniPortlands and miniSpringfields and so forth. Assume 90% of the people who type Boston want the hub of the universe. If it redirects to Boston, Massachusetts then 90% of users have to click once; 10% have to click once, read first line, then click again, then pick a meaning and click a third time. If it redirects to dab page, then 90% of users have to click once, scan down to the fifth item on a list and click again, while 10% have to click once, pick and meaning and click a second time. You do the math. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Boston in Lincolnshire is, as Boston (disambiguation) says, the town to which other Bostons owe their name. Admittedly, most Americans will think of Boston, Massachusetts, but not so on this side of the pond. Is this a case for primary meaning disambiguation? Do Americans actually call Boston, Massachusetts "Boston" or only "Boston, Massachusetts"? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is just called "Boston." Banned in Boston, Boston baked beans, Boston Tea Party, Boston Red Sox, Boston Brahmin. But it's extremely rare to use the state name with a city name in any context these days. In the fifties, speaking formally, one might actually have said "I'm taking the train to Chicago, Illinois" and some will recall a 1952 Guy Mitchell hit about "A pawnshop on the corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." I think the song "New York, New York, a wonderful town/The Bronx is up and the Battery's down" is a reference to a custom of actually saying "New York, New York" to indicate the city rather than the state. And I can remember people talking about "Paris, France" and "Rome, Italy." Even then it may have just been Boston. Yeah... try this search on Project Gutenberg to pick up innumerable literary references to Boston, one word. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "I suppose there is no question but our literary centre was then in Boston, wherever it is, or is not, at present."—William Dean Howells, "Literary Friends and acquaintances."
- "'But wait,' said Perrot, with a slow, tantalising smile; "it is not wise to hurry. I have a mind to know; so while I am at New York I go to Boston. It makes a man's mind great to travel."—Gilbert Parker, The Trail of the Sword
- It is just called "Boston." Banned in Boston, Boston baked beans, Boston Tea Party, Boston Red Sox, Boston Brahmin. But it's extremely rare to use the state name with a city name in any context these days. In the fifties, speaking formally, one might actually have said "I'm taking the train to Chicago, Illinois" and some will recall a 1952 Guy Mitchell hit about "A pawnshop on the corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." I think the song "New York, New York, a wonderful town/The Bronx is up and the Battery's down" is a reference to a custom of actually saying "New York, New York" to indicate the city rather than the state. And I can remember people talking about "Paris, France" and "Rome, Italy." Even then it may have just been Boston. Yeah... try this search on Project Gutenberg to pick up innumerable literary references to Boston, one word. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most Americans will think of the American Boston, probably because of the sports teams and having the Boston Tea Party drilled into their heads during history classes. I have no idea what Britons, on average, think. Probably a sensible test would be to try to imagine what third parties would think, e.g. someone in Germany, Russia, or Japan, when they think of Boston. The reason I suggest this is that you're almost always going to have locals prefer the city that's closest to them, but the page redirection should reflect a global perspective. For example, where I am there's a town called Versailles nearby, but of course outside of the western Pennsylvania area, it would seem very odd to insist that the Pennsylvania town be placed on anything at all like equal footing with the city in France (As an aside, the locals pronounce the name Vur-sails, which is both hilarious and sad. Correcting them results in much hilarity). There are also little towns called Berlin and Washington sprinkled all over the United States that shouldn't distract from the main ones. If we do have some non-American, non-Brits who show substantial disagreement over if there is a THE Boston, then we should redirect to disambig. --Improv 13:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like "Des Moines"! - As a person who lives just down the road from Boston in Lincolnshire, and someone who has visited it many times, I'd have to say that even though the English Boston was the first, the big city in Massacheusetts, home of Cheers and an International airport has long surpassed the importance of the original small market town in England, of only regional importance. I reckon having "Boston" redirect to the large American city is the best choice. PaulHammond 13:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there are also small villages in England called "California", "New York" and other such examples... PaulHammond 13:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
As a non-American (albeit one who grew up in the Caribbean, where we are bombarded by American tv & culture) I would think of Boston, Massachusetts if I were to say "Boston". I may not be a good candidate, since I have lived in the US a long time (7 of the last 10 years), but I ever really thought about there being other Bostons until I read this. Wasn't surprised that there were, it just wasn't something I had thought about. Guettarda 15:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not endorse U.S.-centrism. But there has been too many things such as the Boston Strangler, Boston cream pie, Boston Market, Boston terrier, Boston Tea Party, Boston lettuce that are named after Boston, Mass. It is simply not economical not to provide a direct redirect from Boston to Boston, Mass. -- Toytoy 00:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- There are more than 500 articles that has at least one Boston link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Boston). I don't want to waste my time counting how many links are going to a place other than Boston, Mass. I can safely bet more than 95% of them shall point at Boston, Mass. By the way, there's a small Chinese city called "de zhou" (德州; 德: moral; 州: (obsolete) county) that's the same as the State of Texas written in Chinese (literally "De State" in Chinese language). I will not request you to point Texas to that small but older-than-Christopher-Columbus city. -- Toytoy 00:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well this UK based editor think it should definetly point at Boston, MassachusettsGeni 02:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lack of identification of page-posters
As an educator we teach our students (graduate level) that on the web you need to know the source of data. You need to know who is posting to check for accuracy. I think Wikipedia is great but am concerned that I have no idea how to vet for accuracy. I wish some form of author ID was available.
MarianneHandler
- Marianne, if you click on the 'history' link on each article, you can see who has edited the article and what their revision is. From there you can also reach the user page of any registered user. All users have a talk page, which will notify them if a question is asked on that page.
- Furthermore, if an article is inaccurate or if the accuracy is questioned, anyone, including unregistered users, can edit it, or raise objections on the talk page (through the 'discussion' link). User:Anárion/sig 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wonder about this too, because on the history pages, one does not (generally) find the actual name of the person, just some pseudonym. Why is that? I know it is customary on web logs and the like, but one would never pay attention to a journal article by an anonymous author. Paper encyclopedias have the real names of their contributors, why is wikipedia different? Morris 17:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Mostauthors choose to use a pseudonym, but it's neither here no there. A person's username or ip address can in fact be traced back to that person unless they are using an anonymous proxy. I feel there is a bigger point to be made here, though: it's not about the author, it's about the content. What does a person's name have to do with the validity of the information? We find errancys in Britannica all the time. What it comes down to is that we need to cite sources in all cases. A cite comes with an author's name, but its principle concern is that you are able to locate the information with the data provided in the citation. At that point you can choose to trust that information based on the name given, or based on how well they in turn cited their sources. --Alterego 18:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:researching with Wikipedia; and you may have some comments to add to that or to its talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Dealing with controversial sections
I have the impression that there is a policy that says something along these lines:
- Controversial sections of articles (e.g. ==Criticism of X== in the article X) should not usually be moved out into separate articles (e.g. Criticism of X) as an attempt to avoid POV wars, since, although it may bring peace to the main article X, the new article Criticism of X is likely to have even graver POV problems. Such sections are best dealt with in the main article in most cases.
I seem to remember people saying that this sort of thing is policy, but I can't actually find any policy page saying this sort of thing. Do we have one or not? Chamaeleon 16:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There are people who would do anything to discredit you or defame you if you're not following their order. There are people on the Internet who would do nothing except for guarding their own special interests 24 hours a day. I feel equally helpless but c'est la vie. In case of a possible conflict, I'll quitely leave and work on another safe harbor article where no one is goinig to paint me black. Hate to say so, but there are some very focused and self-righteous special interest groups that the silent majority cannot say anything with. I am a coward. -- Toytoy 17:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it was vaguely relevant in that I was looking for a policy to quote at certain POV warriors. Now, does anyone know of such a policy? I seem to remember that it was decided to delete Criticism of FOX News on this basis. Am I imagining this? If so, then who thinks that we should start such a policy? Chamaeleon 19:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In this case, the issue is twofold; both the controversial nature of the material, and the fact that it would inevitably be too long and have to be hived-off anyway, as have been many other parts of that main article. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Overweight articles
What is the policy on overweight articles (like this one). Should they all be compulsorily split? Or not? Apparently it is Macs using Internet Explorer that cannot handle texts of greater than 32KB: Is this true? Does wikipedia have a policy about this issue or not? Sites like cannabis,George W. Bush and Yasser Arafat take splitting very seriously whereas sites such as Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler have a strong resistance to being split. Should a split be imposed. Squiquifox 00:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Articles ought not to get terribly long. But 33K (like Margaret Thatcher, which created the issue) is fine. A further note: if an article is long, tangential matters ought to be split off into their own article, particularly if they are taking up disproportionate space. All kinds of ephemeral scandals involving Bush get split off, because discussing them in the detail that the people writing that shit want to discuss them would heavily imabalance the whole article. Beyond that, I'm not sure. But, essentially, I think these things should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If the article can be made better by trimming it or splitting off material, that should be done. If an article is perfectly good, but slightly longer than 32K, absolutely nothing should be done. So, no to "compulsory splits," whatever that means. Consensus should be arrived at on the talk page. Bringing up the length there is obviously a valid thing to do, but something being a few words too long shouldn't compel drastic changes to a perfectly good article. john k 05:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, they may "take splitting very seriously", but the George W. Bush article I am look at right now is still 72 KB. Also, featured articles are frequently way over 32 KB. I propose that people use common sense and understand the 32 KB warning as a hint that they should consider splitting the article if they can agree on a good way to do that. Sometimes something emerges only after the article has grown further. It should certainly not be understood as a hard limit, or a requirement to take action immediately. Rl 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this is not a issue at the technical level. The concept of section editing allow uses of old browsers to edit longer articles. It is purely an editorial decision, where the historical consensus has been to judge things on on a case-by-case basis. Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 10:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not offending religious sensibilities
Should we avoid offending religious sensibilities? especially in an article about a particular religion. Rastafarians consider Rastafarianism to be an offensive word. There were a series of non-user name attempts to change the use of this word within the article but they were reverted. Now the article is at Wikipedia:Requested moves to try to move it to Rastafari in order to avoid offending the religious sensibility of Rastas, and to turn them away from using wikipedia. I strongly feel we should respect the religious sensibilities of the Rastas by changing the title, but there is a dispute. I wonder what Christianity and Islam do about this issue. And how people think about this as a wider issue.Squiquifox 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. People know it as Rastafarianism. RickK 07:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Compare Mormonism: Mormons tend to prefer Latter Day Saint theology for their religion (and Latter Day Saints instead of Mormons), but since Mormon is the better known term the article is there. User:Anárion/sig 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oops... it is. I have some very good LDS friends, and certainly do not think they're in any way intellectually challenged. User:Anárion/sig 09:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that rastafarianism is the term people use, but that is a separate debate. Sure the Mormons don't call themselves mormonist but they (presumably?) don't object to the word whereas Rastas (and some of those generally supportive of and open to Rastafari) strongly object to the word rastafarianism which creates problems on the site and will likely continue to do so if the name is not changed. Rick seems to be saying we should not worry about offending religious sensibilities, something I cannot agree with for an encyclopedia. Will see if I can find anything on Islam, which I imagine may also face this religious sensibilities problem. I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible.
I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox 15:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Squiquifox has slapped a NPOV tag on the article in question and is now lobbying for the move on WP:RM. (I think. It's hard to tell, at this point.) A.D.H. (t&m) 15:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the idea (as I said on the RM page). I realise that "Rastafarianism" is a widely used term, but it's an outside observer's term, not their term for themselves. If this term is indeed offensive (although I have never discussed that issue with a member of the religion, I have interacted with enough rastas that this sounded very likely), I think it is a disingenuous title for the article. Who wants to be called by the name the anthropologists made up for you? I grew up very middle class and "high colour" (bonus points if you know what that means), but even I would not use the word "Rastafarianism". And Trinidad isn't Jamaica. We don't use offensive terms to describe people. Maybe there are people who feel that's part of the problem with Wikipedia (not implying that of the current discussion), but frankly, I wouldn't be here if policy was to do so. While in the grand scheme of things there are far more objectionable words, that doesn't mean that people should be so dismissive of the idea.
More importantly, I don't see this as a free speech issue, or "endorsement of religion". We wouldn't put the main article at Mohammedan - it hasn't been in common usage for a while, but you are comparing a (relatively) empowered group (Muslims) with a highly disempowered group (Rastas). Guettarda 16:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have written this paragraph and put it in the doctrine section.
Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). The use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict.
The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia.
I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.
Speaking of protecting religious sensibilities, i'm glad we now include a photo of Baha'u'llah. We aren't in the practice of practicing religion here :) --Alterego 18:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I note that there is still no picture of Mohammed. But if we're going to talk about people's sensitivities, aren't we going to have to move all of the Native American tribe names, since most of them are some variation of "the enemy" or "sh*t eaters" or whatever, given to them by other people?" RickK 20:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- While many of them are, in most cases the tribes have accepted/embraced the names that they are known by...and Sioux redirects to Lakota. Quite frankly, if a names was raised as being offensive by a tribe, I feel that we should move the article - after all, redirects don't work too badly. Of course, I don't really know know offensive Rastafarianism actually is, but it is an ism, and I have no reason to doubt what Squiquifox is saying - it fits with what I know. Guettarda 20:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The thing I really don't want to have happen is for us to set a precedent for a certain kind of thing that evangelical (xian) groups are starting to do now. Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah". They thus play word games to shield themselves from all the other religions and attempt to set themselves as apart and different. Of course, as other religions catch on, and if we respect their term redefinitions, then there won't be any religions left, just "personal relationships with ..", "belief of the forefathers", "obedience to god", and other terms designed to make it hard to talk about religion. There need to be limits to how much definitional weight we give to perspectives. Fortunately, in this case, I don't think it applies (or if it does, only weakly), so I don't care so much what name the article takes. --Improv 21:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah" - does this mean they would give up their tax exempt status and all the other rights that go with it? Might not be a bad trade off - might fix the US budget deficit. :) Guettarda 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But doesn't providing tax exempt status to churches violate "Congress Shall Make no Law ..."? Ben.
- We may be straying a bit off-topic, but as I understand, no it does not. The reason is that religious organizations arn't the only type of legal organization to have tax-exempt status. In fact, they typically fit well into the categories for nonprofits, as they don't have a profit motive, and meet certain other criteria that I'm not deeply familiar with. --Improv 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But doesn't providing tax exempt status to churches violate "Congress Shall Make no Law ..."? Ben.
- Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah" - does this mean they would give up their tax exempt status and all the other rights that go with it? Might not be a bad trade off - might fix the US budget deficit. :) Guettarda 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The thing I really don't want to have happen is for us to set a precedent for a certain kind of thing that evangelical (xian) groups are starting to do now. Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah". They thus play word games to shield themselves from all the other religions and attempt to set themselves as apart and different. Of course, as other religions catch on, and if we respect their term redefinitions, then there won't be any religions left, just "personal relationships with ..", "belief of the forefathers", "obedience to god", and other terms designed to make it hard to talk about religion. There need to be limits to how much definitional weight we give to perspectives. Fortunately, in this case, I don't think it applies (or if it does, only weakly), so I don't care so much what name the article takes. --Improv 21:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mecca has similar title problems, because to some Muslims the word spelt this way in English in refernce to the Muslim holy city is considered offensive. They write Makkah. The argument to use the spelling Mecca is that most English speaking people know the city as Mecca. There has been lots of argument at Talk:Mecca. So obviously the religious sensibilities are not taken into account here. I still think rastafarianism is not the word most english speakers would use to search for the article. --Squiquifox 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I fear that the religious angle is clouding this a bit. I certainly wouldn't endorse the view that we should 'avoid offending religious sensibilities' in some general, abstract way. No-one ever goes out of their way to avoid causing offence to my deeply held political convictions, do they? No. And we'd be a pretty poor encyclopedia if we never said anything that might offend someone's beliefs and convictions. I can certainly see why some editors above have reacted to this as though it offered a license for religous POV warriors to stamp their prejudices all over wikipedia, without any opposing criticism. That's a definite danger to avoid.
- But I'm not sure that's what this issue is about. It seems to me more akin to Red Indian or Aborigine, which you'll note redirect to Native American and Indigenous peoples respectively. The problem with calling this article Rastafarianism is that it just isn't used by the people to whom it applies. Our choice of term runs the risk of saying "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of educated white guys in North America and Britain. You call it Rastafari? How quaint. But tough. We're calling it by the tern WE choose."
- Now, I'm not suggesting that the original creator of the article meant to convey this impression - but I do think it's likely to give that impression. It's an impression that would be reinforced by some of the reactions to the proposed move. We don't want to seem exclusive, arrogant, ignorant and Western-centred when we could so easily avoid it, do we? Mattley 14:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please look at this excellent article in the Jamaican Observewr about Rastafari. {http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20010820t210000-0500_12939_obs_rastafari_and_politics.asp]
Nowhere does it talk about rastafarianism, yet this is very knowledgeable, good quality article from a balanced, academic point of view. So the name is not common, another bit of evidence.--SqueakBox 21:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
User:Aloan has unilaterally decided to close this debate at requeasted moves, claiming there is no consensus to move the article in face of a 4-1 vote in favour of doing so. Can a sysop ignore consensus and make their own decisions, even going against consensus. If so, why. --SqueakBox 16:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- My bad. Please see Talk:Rastafarianism for further discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see a secular society,and a secular reference work,as to some extent having the obligation to offend religious sensibilities.Religions tend to define themselves in an exclusivist fashion that one must take exception to unless one is a believer of that religion.Allowing the various religions to define how they are referred to is a path that one must take any step of reluctantly.Equally right is equally wrong,too.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Permission to use and translate in Arabic a Wikipedia article
Hello, My name is Caroline Hatem, I'm an Editor at SEED (www.seed.slb.com), a non-profit organization that provides scientific articles on the web in 7 languages, and focuses particularly on developing countries by providing computers and internet connections. We have a new system which allows students from all over the world to ask questions to the SEED "experts". A Saudi young man asked about the bi-dimensional magnetic resonance spectrum and before sending the question to the experts I checked out the web to see what was available. Your website gave a long and thorough answer which I thought I could edit and translate into Arabic, while quoting the source, of course. The point is that Arabic speakers do not have access to non-Arabic articles, and are thus limited in their access to knowledge. Can I have the permission to use and translate your article to the strict attention of the Arabic speakers? If it is ever translated to other languages as FAQ, Wikipedia would be quoted as source as well. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully, Caroline Hatem SEED editor.
- Dear Caroline - All text on Wikipedia, as well as many of the pictures, is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation license. You may copy anything so licensed, provided that you give attribution to the author (we consider a hyperlink back to the wikipedia article suffecient) and if you modify it (such as translating/transliterating it), you agree to license your modified version under the same license (eg, you must allow people to copy your translation freely). →Raul654 08:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Caroline - also, have you seen the arabic-language wikipedia? (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/) --Nectarflowed 09:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my slightly more comprehensive answer where you asked the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Manual of Style
Does anyone know whether the Manual of Style is policy or a guideline, and if it's policy, what the procedure for changing it is? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 12:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
You can bring up your proposed change on the Talk page. The MoS is referenced in several templates as a policy, so I would think so. RickK 00:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Rick, sorry I just saw your reply. Apparently, it's not policy, but a guideline according to the policy and guideline page. SlimVirgin 01:56, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Horizontal Scrolling
One should be able to view the main page of the Wikipedia without resorting the use of horizontal scrolling with IE at 1024x768 screensize. Malloc 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- One can, assuming he has a large enough monitor. I'm running 1024x768 on a 19 inch monitor, and I can see the whole width of the page without scrolling. Throbblefoot 18:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the size of the monitor has anything to do with it, 1024x768 is 1024x768. I think the CSS is forcing a width wider than a user's browser is set to display, at least it is on this setup here. I'm sure it's probably font related, etc, but that's why we have CSS, to handle things like this. Malloc 18:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If you and I are using the same software and resolution to view the same page and CSS, and you must scroll and I don't (as seems to be the case), what accounts for the discrepancy other than monitor size? Throbblefoot 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Default font size, perhaps? On most systems, physical monitor size has nothing to do with font sizes, and even on those systems where it does, a larger monitor means a larger font. --Carnildo 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. I didn't know the CSS relied on default font size. Thanks for the info! Throbblefoot 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Default font size, perhaps? On most systems, physical monitor size has nothing to do with font sizes, and even on those systems where it does, a larger monitor means a larger font. --Carnildo 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If you and I are using the same software and resolution to view the same page and CSS, and you must scroll and I don't (as seems to be the case), what accounts for the discrepancy other than monitor size? Throbblefoot 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the size of the monitor has anything to do with it, 1024x768 is 1024x768. I think the CSS is forcing a width wider than a user's browser is set to display, at least it is on this setup here. I'm sure it's probably font related, etc, but that's why we have CSS, to handle things like this. Malloc 18:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the British Dictionary of National Biography? RickK 09:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like it's under normal copyright rules, so it depends on just how old the particular volume it was copied from is. It was published from 1884-1990, so it's completely unclear whether it's PD or not. The so-called article is awful on its face and needs a complete rewrite anyway. -- Cyrius|✎ 10:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nofollow
If anyone here hasn't pitched in on the vote on whether to remove the nofollow attribute from our external links, please do so now! Voting ends in mere hours. You can find it at Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote. Deco 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
categorizing sectional disambig pages
spent a while trying to find a policy that dealt with this, and a while longer trying to find/think of a page that would fit the problem and give me an example to work from, but failed. apologies if i wasnt thorough enough...
in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, three methods are suggested for dealing with naming conflicts. nothing is stated about how categories are meant to work with these types of pages, i assume because categories are a newer feature (?). for two of the solutions, the categorization process is obvious.
if we are using an equal disambiguation, no category should be applied to the disambiguation page, and categories should be applied to each of the topic specific and disambiguated pages. there are many examples of this type of setup.
if we are using primary topic disambiguation, it is acceptable to categorize this primary page, and obviously also to categorize the secondary/tertiary pages it disambiguates.
my question involves the third method. what are we to do with categorization for a page that uses sectional disambiguation? it seems very ugly to categorize that page itself, as it contains information on more than one topic. the disambig manpage does seem to imply that the sectional method should be seen as somewhat temporary, ie "But as each section grows, there comes a point where each meaning must have a page of its own." does the wish to categorize one of the meanings in a sectional page mean that it should be broken out, even if it is going to be stubbified?
more confusingly, what about pages that dont fit in the three categories? some pages call themselves disambiguation pages even while using solely sectional disambiguation (eg Crew) which is rejected by my reading of policy. a lot of disambig pages dont fit cleanly into either category 1 (sectional) or category 2 (equal). try Buffalo, which of course links to the various localities by that name, but does not link to any page about the general animal word 'buffalo' -- rather, it gives a three bullet list of types of buffalo, for which each has a page, thereby bringing in a little of sectional disambig. try Magnitude.
i would like to learn what the general consensus is about the stub/section dichotomy here, whether there is really a problem with mixing the two on one disambig page, and whether the advent of categories makes a difference in these decisions.
the specific pages that caused me to start looking into this are Deacon and Journeyman, both of which would like to be categorised as Sounding rockets, but which currently cannot be as they are sectional stubs on disambig pages. since Deacon has only two meanings, it seems an obvious candidate for splitting/stubbing. Journeyman is the difficult one: it is already thoroughly sectionalized, including some meanings which have no article referenced. breaking out the section on the rocket simply to categorize it seems yucky to this noob.
Burgher 21:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to answer your question; I've encountered it too. I think eventually people are going to push for one-subject-per-page, eliminating sectional disambiguation, just because the ambiguity throws machine-reading of various types for a loop. (I personally think that undermines one of the strengths of the wiki way -- we HAVE the flexibility to be ambiguous, inconsistent, and customizable, precisely because a human can come up with an innovative presentation that doesn't fit in tidy lists or categories -- but that's just me.)
- However, I have run across a few similar problems with "partner pages" like Godley & Creme, where two people are encyclopedic because of their partnership, and telling their story on two separate pages would be redundant. It does lead to anomalies like two separate categories for birth years, and so on. I'm inclined to leave it be, but if the community has opinions on how to handle this, I'd like to hear it. — Catherine\talk 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Categorization proposal with examples
I've posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Categorization proposal with examples. It is partially about policy, so I thought I'd mention it here also. It is also at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. This is the first time Im trying to change something major, and the process is confusing. Is there a page that describes how changes happen and talks about what types of changes get decided, where they get decided, and by who? Is my proposal in the correct place?
(BTW, At times in my life I have had facilitator training and have facilitated meetings. There were clear rules for consensus. Wikipedia talks about consensus quite a bit without describing the process all that clearly (perhaps it is there and I haven't found it). It often seems that the formal version of concensus decision making that I learned and practiced does not really apply to Wikipedia. The process here is more of a straw poll of interested parties. Most discussions seem to peter out unresolved with people expressing strong opinions. The status quo rules. I think this all needs some thought!) -- Samuel Wantman 11:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- More precisely, is there an existing page that explains Wikipedia's approach to consensus methods? And if not, let's start one. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
amswers.com and advertising
I just noticed this, with answers.com
They are using wikipedia articles in their own format, and placing advertising over the articles.
does anyone know about this? and is wikipedia getting money from this?
- The GNU Free Documentation License allows others to reuse Wikipedia content, for profit if they so desire. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Last I checked, answers.com was doing everything properly with respect to re-using Wikipedia content: they mention and link to the GFDL, they name Wikipedia as the source, and they have a link back to the original article.
Abuse of Votes for Deletion
Is what user GRider doing considered to be within wikiquette ? Look at the user profile and the number of VfD postings that the user is making. A large number of VfD entries seem to be without substantiation, and therefore could appear random and rather subjective, even qualifying as vandalism. Am I being not accomodating enough in my approach to Wikipedia, or is this user just annoying ? Any advice welcome ! Thanks
- As far as I can tell, he's going through the list of stub biography articles and listing those that don't establish notability. It's part of an informal effort by a number of users to clean up the article space. --Carnildo 06:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it is was too difficult to fix the "notability" criterion by formal arguments, perhaps this VfD drive will give criteria by precedent. --Pjacobi 15:16, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- Sorry, I probably wasn't being clear. The precedent established was that many (a majority at least) didn't want to use notability at all as a criterion. Using verifiability as the main criterion was much better supported. Seems to make sense to me, as in practice people who still dare to frequent vfd end up introducing systemic bias by using notability. Pcb21| Pete 19:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, ignoring the notability criterion in an encyclopedia just feels incredibly wrong to me. Bur perhpa it's all too late for the English Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 22:12, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- I personally wonder whether GRider's recent flood of VfD nominations is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Are these good-faith nominations of articles he genuinely thinks should be deleted, or are they invitations to debate policy? The latter would be inappropriate because VfD is for implementing policy, not debating it. It needn't bother anyone much. Plenty of people do annoying things in VfD and I don't think there's any call to do anything particular about this, other than cast votes for any articles that you feel need your vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Policy on incitement to revert
What is Wikipedia policy on user's that post open letters on their web sites that give specific instructions to readers to create accounts on Wikipedia and auto-revert edits for a specific page? In other words, is there such a thing as incitement to revert/edit war. What could be done about such a user? Should something be done about such a user? --Axon 19:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Based on the precedent established in enforcing ArbCom decisions, I think this is considered proxy editing, and all edits done at the direction of the person posting the letter are considered edits by that person. --Carnildo 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no specific policy, but votes by anons and by people who created accounts after the filing of the VfD are generally discounted. RickK 22:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Rick, I don't see anything about VfD in Axon's question. Axon, am I right in guessing that Rick's answer is basically unrelated to your question? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
External links to deleted pages
Classical definition of republic was recently deleted as being POV and original research. The creator of that article has moved it to Wikinfo, as is his right, but he has also gone through replacing internal links with links to the Wikinfo page [7] and adding it to the external links section of other articles [8]. I feel that if an article was poor enough to be deleted it is also not worth being linked to. The author of the piece disagrees and my removal of the links have been removed. As there is no official policy in this area what do others think? - SimonP 21:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Community Portal
The Community Portal is currently being heavily vandalised. Perhaps a new policy could be introduced to allow earlier blocking for vandalising pages in the Wikipedia: and Template: namspaces (e.g. block on third offense)? Bart133 (t) 23:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A user doesn't have to get all four warnings before they are blocked. For someone vandalising many pages, or the same page repeatedly, I'll often skip warning levels. I do make sure that a user gets at least one warning (and time to react to it) before I block them, unless they're a particularly nasty vandal or a repeat offender on a new username or IP, such as Willy.
- The community portal does seem to get more than its share of vandalism. The one beating on it for the last few hours had an AOL address; eventually I gave them a 15-minute timeout as a "warning shot between the eyes", and while they came back as an new IP address shortly afterwards, they seem to have gotten bored and moved on.-gadfium 00:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
policy
Hi,
I recently edited a page for the date of January 18th. I posted my mother's date of death. It's been removed, somewhat expectedly. Does this mean my mother is not as important as all of the other people listed? What criteria is used to determine if a person is notable enough to be commemorated? I'm pretty educated (master's degree, Geography) and I read every newspaper I can get my hands on ,but somehow I have never heard of many of the people listed. I'm sure many of the people that are listed are important to a very small number of people, but unknown to much of the world. Why are they allowed? My mom was an important person to me and many other people. I realize that if everybody did what I did, then there would be many more entries. Is that such a bad thing?
- Thanks,
- Alex Mazarakos
- esquilax@tmail.com
- To ask your question is to answer it. If everyone's mother was listed, January 18th and all the other dates would have millions of entries. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not... Wikipedia is not a memorial page. -- Curps 01:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)