User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Verifiability and truth - humor

Relevant to 'verifiable, and true'--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is way too close to the truth to be funny.. --Conti|✉ 14:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

More unfortunately, removing "not truth" from WP:V will not solve this. The good news is that WP:V already covers this in WP:CIRCULAR, so no change to the policy is needed for this situation! Fram (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Which makes it clear that "verifiability, not truth" is actually a lie. That isn't how we operate and never has been, because it's just silly and wrong. We want verifiability. And we want truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You want truth. I believe that in many cases, one man's truth is another man's falsehood, superstition, prejudice, error, ... Verifiability, not truth is not a lie, we just don't consider info taken from Wikipedia as being sufficient to meet our "verifiability" standards, even if it is true. Fram (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the example shows that we don't want information that is "verified" in reliable sources if we also know it to be false. Surely you aren't going to argue that we should have falsehoods that we know to be false in Wikipedia just because they appear in a reliable source. And if you concede that, then you concede that truth really does matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing that even if you (you personally, or the general "you") believe that something is true, you still don't get to include it in Wikipedia without solid sourcing; similarly, even if you believe that something is false, you still don't get to exclude it without solid sources to support your point of view. To show that something is a falsehood, you need stronger sources than the one supporting it, not just the say-so of someone or the opinion of unreliable or non-neutral sources. Many people "know" that evolution is "a falsehood that we know to be false", but still we don't exclude it from Wikipedia but present it as the most widely accepted theory. So no, I don't concede your first point, which makes the conclusion baseless. The example you (well, the comic) gives is one where you can show that source is in this case not reliable, since it got its information from us; that doesn't mean that the information is true or false, just that it is not reliably verifiable from that source. Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I want true facts which are verified. In addition, I want false facts (aka popular misconceptions) to be stated as such. 75.59.204.87 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Now that we have a reliable comic-strip source, finally we can write the article "Citogenesis" to clarify the verifiability-not-truth concept in Wikipedia; I always thought the concept sounded "funny"! ;-] –Wikid77 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This comic is certainly amusing, and an interesting idea, but I wonder if anyone can point to a real life example of this happening? NickCT (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The full name of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg in the German Wikipedia is such an example. It was picked up by Der Spiegel[1], which was then used to source "Wilhelm" in Wikipedia. It's also listed in our article circular reporting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Interesting example. Good discussion on this topic here. So, there's at least one good example of citogenesis; I gotta wonder how common this type of thing is though. I'd imagine most professional journalists realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Ronnie Hazlehurst#The SClub 7 Hoax for another example. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice example Thryduulf. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I've seen it. (N.B. NSFW topic.) In this paper, it turned out that much of the material ("Theory has it that in ancient Japan..." etc.) was taken, not just from Wikipedia, but from material posted in bad faith by a troll. Huge, long arguments about that spanning a couple of archive pages at Talk:Bukkake (sex act) even after this fact was established. Very long and tedious task removing that material. Took months. I'm sure there are still people muttering to themselves about how unfair it was to remove material that was in a scholarly paper. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

" I'd imagine most professional journalists realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Sadly, the evidence suugests that far too many don't, or don't care. There has been more than a suspicion of this regarding our Energy Catalyzer article, though at least one article on the subject had the decency to cite Wikipedia as a source. Sadly, this is all part of a wider trend amongst the media to merely paraphrase each other's articles, rather than actually engaging in journalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding ways that journalists use Wikipedia, I think some of them cruise some talk pages looking for ideas to use in their columns. On Jan 3, 2010 at Talk:Avatar (2009 film), I characterized the way the film was perceived by a reviewer as being akin to him taking a Rorschach Test.[2] A somewhat similar Rorschach Test idea popped up in a critic's review of the film four days later on Jan 7, 2010. (See last paragraph of this source.) Then the critic's remark in the reliable source was used in the film article three days after that.[3] If the talk page remark (original research) was actually the inspiration for the journalist's remark, that journalist's remark would be OK to use in Wikipedia, even though its basis may have originated on a Wikipedia talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just an aside. If you're looking for a source for some info in Wikipedia, try to find a source that predates the edit that first put the info into Wikipedia, when possible. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Remember reverse WP:COPYVIO of your own articles: Perhaps more surprising to editors was being accused of WP:COPYVIO, when creating a new article, because a mirror-website quickly posted a copy of their new writing, giving the appearance that the mirror-site was the source of "plagiarized" text, which editors had actually written earlier. I think it happened to me only once (but it would take me a while to find which article). I am not sure how they fixed the bot(s) which check for copy-vio text so that mirror-sites are not considered WP:RS reliable sources of original text. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Inventor of the hair straightener"

Here is another nice example: [4][5][6][7]. The result: [8][9][10]. Poor Madam Walker. --JN466 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability sometimes gets in the way of presenting the facts

I was interested to see the discussion about the wording of WP:V because it chimes with something I've been thinking about for a while, namely that there is a lot of verifiable but false information out there that gets in the way of writing good articles - especially when someone has an interest in publicising said false information. I've been working on and off for a while on an article about the Cyrus Cylinder, an important ancient artifact in the British Museum. There is a pretty clear mainstream perspective on it from historians which is reflected in the article. However, the artifact was also adopted as as symbol of Iranian national pride by the regime of the late Shah, which made all kinds of claims about it that historians have explicitly rejected. The current Iranian government has also latched on to it as a symbol of its own legitimacy. The cylinder has thus become something of a nationalist totem for Iranians, backed up by a fake translation of its text. The problem is that the claims and the fake translation have taken on a life of their own and are routinely trotted out in news reports and publicised by non-historians such as politicians, lawyers, and so on. The claims are eminently verifiable but, according to the historians, completely fake and false, anachronistic and tendentious. Note that this is not a "two schools of thought" issue with dissenting historians - it is a straight split between historians and non-historians. This has presented a real problem in writing and maintaining the article because it has repeatedly been disrupted by people (usually Iranian nationalists) demanding rewrites to present the claims as "the facts". After all, they're verifiable, so that's all we need, right? And so it goes. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just happened by, saw this catchy title. Question: how do you know that something is a "fact", let alone "true" (or "truth")? Well, you could do your Own Research – but (I love that word) that is one of the "Great NOTs" here. So you have to find where someone else said so; that is the essence of verification. But don't forget that verification does not stop at where someone else has said or claimed something; it must also be a published source (so that others have some chance of examining it), and a reliable source. Mere verification that someone has made a claim does not establish "truth", and definitely is not "all we need". Verification is only the basis from which truth-determination starts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that verifiability is necessary (because we are a reference work, so people need to be able to refer to the sources), but that it is not sufficient (because, when you put your mind to it, you can find sources to back any assertion and its opposite if it's contentious enough).

In other words, truth is not enough, it must be verifiable – and verifiable is not enough, it must also be true (or, at the very least not known to be false). — Coren ^(talk) 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Necessary, but not sufficient, yes. But, personally, I wouldn't say "must also be true", as an independent criterion. Rather, "truth" is what verifiability, etc., aim for. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider rewording the first footnote in WP:NOR [11] to limit or eliminate blah blah without any demonstrated sourcing on WP. That footnote seems to negate the effectiveness of WP:V. Thoughts?-MW ^ℳ 13:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the refutations appear in reliable sources, it's really not a problem; we just write it as e.g. FOO claims THIS<ref...>, but this has been disputed by BAA.<ref...>

Prioryman, please read WP:TIGER.  Chzz  ►  14:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Not only is this article an appalling mess of POV pushing, but it has stayed in almost this exact form for about 6 years, and through 4 AfDs. The Global warming deniers simply come out en masse, shout down all policy-driven arguments, then revert all changes.

Its structure is simple. Present the mainstream view while avoiding any mention of the evidence for the belief. Reduce it to a few bold assertions. Then have page after page of denialists arguing against it, without bothering to mention that these arguments have been dealt with by the mainstream.

Any attempts to fix it are shouted down, attempts to deal with it through Wikipedia processes attract so many POV-pushers that they just end up closed no consensus, allowing the problem to continue forever.

A clearer example of the utter failure of Wikipedia is hard to think of. Is there anything that can actually be done? 86.** IP (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What a load of garbage. The article survives AfDs because it is propped up by all the regular climate change editors like Kim D. Petersen and William M. Connolley - and plenty of others in their camp. Do you think they're climate change deniers? That's pretty funny. Skeptics in Wikipedia are vastly outnumbered and most have been arbitrarily banned by ArbCom. Sure, it's true, as I keep pointing out, that skeptics love the page because they rightly see that it's effectively a Wikipedia-hosted version of the Leipzig Declaration; but the only reason it continues to exist is that all the regular climate change editors continue to vote "keep". Alex Harvey (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I glanced it, and you can look at this from a different perspective: "List of delusional idiots"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Alex, User.86.**IP is a relatively new user. He (I think it's a he) came along first to raise concerns about poorly sourced claims in herbal medicine articles. He's brought issues up at FTN, and has been very quick to learn and implement policy. I, for one, have been glad to see his alerts and help out as far as I can, although he has much more biomedical knowledge than I do. So, if his impression of this list article is that it has problems, that's worth taking that seriously. He hasn't picked out correctly which editor is a global warming denier and who is a sceptic - so? Is the list article really good? No, it has issues: the quotes, the categorisation. I doubt if it is particularly useful for global warming deniers, for sceptics, for schoolkids, for anyone. I expect Jimbo will send the discussion back to the talk page, then let us engage there properly. How many higher degrees do we have between us? Is it not possible to drop the obsessions and momentarily engage brain? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, If you'll forgive my saying so, list of articles of this sort are generally 'sour grapes' articles, where editors on both sides can engage in a somewhat higher level of self-punditry and coat-racking than is generally tolerated in mainspace. IMO they are never good articles - can never be good articles, because they lack a credible theme aside from dissatisfaction with different articles - but they do act as pressure valves for contentious topics. That's something…

I've took a brief look at climate change articles a while ago and quickly gave up on them (which - if you know anything about me - tells you a whole lot about those pages; I'm not easily scared off). Too many people playing politics on both sides of the issue; too much hostility all around. It's one place on wikipedia where real-world conflicts have taken over everything, and I accept that the bulk of the climate change articles are as good as can be expected under the circumstances. I second Judith's call for a little reasoned reflection, but I expect that the earth will warm up by a considerable factor before this issue cools off. --Ludwigs2 08:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

86's position on this article, that it is propped up by deniers, is quite bizarre. Meanwhile, AH thinks it is propped up by whatever-the-opposite-of-a-denier-is. Being hated by both signs is reasonable evidence that the article itself is actually quite reasonable, which it is. It could be better, if folks could just settle down to try to improve it. What it mostly needs is the inclusion criteria tightened up - our definition of "scientist" is far too broad. But that is for the article talk page, and we could be having that discussion, if people like 86 weren't wasting all the bandwidth with deletion campaigns and appeals to higher authority William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm always happy to host philosophical discussions of this type, and since I'm not actually going to do anything, obviously, I think it's not fair to characterize it as an "appeal to higher authority". I agree that the article is reasonable, but I'd like to raise the additional idea that "being hated by both sides" might sometimes be evidence that something really is complete crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, my view is that all the "middle of the road" editors are at least OK with the article and would get on with improving it if they could William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

An article "being hated by both sides" could indicate one side keeps deleting crucial information, and the other side(s) cannot get important NPOV information added into the text. A better sign is when several editors post compliments on the talk-page about how fair, balanced and comprehensive the article appears to them, rather than they "all" hate the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds lie you're insinuating something. Do you indeed think that any crucial info is being deleted, and if so, what? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What would a reader expect from an article called List-of-fringe-X-deniers? Of course, a list of people denying X, together with their fringe views. That's not POV but exactly what should be in that list. --Pgallert (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful though about a BLP problem here. If I'm a scientist, completely sensible and sane, and I disagree with some aspect of some contemporary scientific theory, I run the risk of being latched onto as a champion by some fringe nutcases. And then I run the risk of be tarred by a brush of "fringe X denier" by others. I remember reading, some years back, about Stephen Jay Gould in some pro-creationist screed. He was quoted approvingly because he had written something against Darwin. But of course his beef with Darwinism wasn't a beef with evolution per se, but concerned a much more narrow question of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. I don't know the current state of scientific consensus on Gould's views, but I do know that it would radically unfair to call him a "Darwin denialist". I hope that we aren't subject serious scientists to that same kind of unfairness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem that recurrs on that article, with the skeptic side being keen to "claim" people for the list. But the entry criteria get enforced, every proposed addition gets a lively debate if controversial, and there is, as far as I can see, no-one on the list who doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, FYI: "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals . . . is well documented. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium, which Gould and Eldredge . . . are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that [William Jennings] Bryan insisted on and which God has revealed to us in the Bible." " -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory, " Discover, May 1981. Prioryman (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

While I understand 86.**'s frustration, he does seem to have developed something of an obsession with eliminating this article (which has survived the AfD process five times). He has raised it (for the fifth time) as an AfD; he's raised it at Deletion Review (admittedly with some justification, the Keep was overturned to No consensus); he's raised it several times on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard; he's now raising it with the "ultimate authority". I have been trying to persuade him for some time to engage rather more on the article Talk page. This statement: "Any attempts to fix it are shouted down", is a gross distortion of the truth. If you compare the article now to how it was before the AfD nomination, I think there have been signficant, substantive edits. Most recently I have cut down the quotes which 86.** thought were excessive. Now, those cuts were somewhat controversial, and are now being discussed on the Talk page, as might be expected. But I think that argument is winnable, and the cuts will probably largely stand. To "appeal" here when that discussion has barely even started, strikes me as wasting everyone's time. The one way in which it might help is wth getting some fresh pairs of eyes to contribute to the discussion; but to be honest I don't think a better discussion is what 86.** wants. His actions don't seem particularly constructive. It seems clear to me that despite the failure to gain consensus to delete at the AfD, he's not interested in improving the article but rather wants it gone, and will keep appealing to authority until that happens. --Merlinme (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Jimbo. The list is also named much nicer than "fringe X deniers"---If no scientist had ever taken an opposite stand towards established theories, we would never have reached the Internet age. The problem, if any, might be a too low threshold to claim the title "scientist" and "scientific publication". But that is another matter. --Pgallert (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewed or not? Another serious problem, IMO, is that the article makes no effort to inform readers if the contrarian views expressed have been published merely in public media (greatly increasing their fringe quotient) or are part of the scientific peer reviewed literature (which doesnt necessarily make 'em right, but does mean they merit at least a moment's thought). Right now, it appears there are a bunch of scientists with serious claims. But only a small portion of the statements actually appear in the sci lit. Readers should be aware of this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point (and probably the first actually useful thing said here). Are 8any* of the statements sourced to PR literature? Certainly, because of the "sci" context, we should note in the lede that most statements are not from the sci literature. Would you do the honours of boldly doing so, and/or starting a discussion on the talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that fails into the same problematic territories of researching stuff ourselves. The better approach would be to find a source which comments on statements/work contrary to the mainstream viewpoint and where it tends to be published. Given the field, I doubt that will be hard to find. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject perhaps holds merit. The content there at the moment is a disaster. For example; the most critical problem is that the list has been defined as "people who disagree with one of these three views" - and quotes from scientists have been originally researched through primary source material (from the individuals) to build the list. Obviously this is problematical. Ideally we would need each entry to be sourced either to a third party whose view is that this scientist opposes that view or an explicit quote that mentions the IPCC and their opposition. And we can then back it up with a direct quote if appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

All done to death in the AFD's. Do you really want to turn this into yet another pointless re-hash of the same old arguments? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I read through several of the AFD's and found no clear explanation of why it is accepted to decide on inclusion by interpreting as to whether quotations from the scientists disagree with the IPCC viewpoint. Humour me with a quick explanation. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask on the article talk page if you really want to wade through it all, all over again. Not here William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

William; I'm not trying to be awkward and I did ask on the talk page. But this is classic evasion; it appears you are a proponent of this approach from your comments: please explain it - either here or on the talk page - to set my mind at rest. If you can't or won't, just say so, but don't muck me around, it's not helpful. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, with all the noise there I hadn't noticed. I'll answer there. If you could drop the bad-faith "muck me around" stuff, that would be helpful to a pleasand editing environment William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, if you wanted to see the accuracy level (or not!) in presentation of the scientists' views, open up two browser tabs and scroll down side by side: one on a July 2011 version using the prev link in revision history, another showing the current version. There was a trick of spreading out the changes over many edits, but that way shows the net result.

It could teach volumes about what sometimes goes on in Wikipedia these days.

Or glance within reference link #2 to learn what the Wikipedia article implies to be 97.4% consensus on "mainstream" (catastrophic) global warming is actually based on 75 of 77 respondents in a 2-question web poll agreeing that temperatures now are warmer than in the Little Ice Age (the "pre-1800s") and that human activity has a non-zero effect (which, to a scientist, means not 0.00000). Most didn't respond at all to the transparently dishonest slanted web poll.

Continued ensuring of dishonesty is unfortunately what can happen when those most likely to make enough edits to gain admin powers are deletionists, far easier for someone to make thousands of deletions than that many constructive additions, resulting sometimes in the very opposite of the best people rising high in power. Wikipedia is an excellent source of info on some topics where nobody has tendency for bias, but breaks down utterly on those which get a core of activists of the worst kind.

If there was a system where Wikipedia polled a sample of a couple dozen people randomly chosen from the whole moderate-edit-number user base of ordinary people, on some controversial matters, it wouldn't be so just a matter of who has one or more hardcore political-activist admins on their side on articles like this. This is an article in one of the worst spots: major enough to attract the activist team but minor enough that Wikipedia's mainstream on it is just enforced by several editors and one or more admins. 12.74.177.6 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, the previous contribution surely disproves 86.**'s assertion that "Any attempts to fix it are shouted down". The page has changed a lot in the last few months, especially since the AfD. --Merlinme (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Beware a potential hit-list of stereotyped entries: As with other lists (or categories), there is the danger that a concocted list could be viewed as a "hit list" of dissidents to be ridiculed or otherwise targeted. I am not convinced that keeping a list is needed, as perhaps instead, mention a few related notable people in other articles, with various alternative ideas about the subject. Consider rethinking the concerns about the list for WP:Notability. I always remember the joke, "There are 2 categories of people: those who put people in 2 categories, and those who don't". -Wikid77 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

12.74: As I'm sure Jimbo Wales knows, you can view diffs even over a period of months. It's particularly trivial if you want to compare two revisions that show in a single edit history page e.g. [12]. But of course even if they don't show in a single edit history page, is still doable [13]. One issue is the nature of our diff engine, it's not really capable of properly showing how things have changed very well when stuff has been moved around etc a lot. But of course there is ultimately a limit to whether any diff engine will produce meaningful or understandable results if the content has changed very extensively, so sometimes simply reading stuff side by side or one after the other comparison is the best way to get an idea of how things have changed. In other words, the problem is not the number of edits. It would make no difference if all those edits between July and now happened in one go. (Well they would likely be reverted because having such a large number of edits in one go makes working out why some change was made almost impossible.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

86** may be new, and inexperienced, even lacking in basic awareness of WP practices, but that does not excuse plain bad argumentation and disruptive behavior. E.g., his characterisation of "an appalling mess of POV pushing" is hardly useful to any temperate discussion, and seems more applicable to his own continued efforts. And: most recently it was he that reverted some moderate attempts to improve the article. As to being shouted down: having repeatedly claimed that there is an OR problem, having added, and then restored, an OR tag, he was expressly asked (here) to provide an example, yet has failed to do. He may indeed be frustrated, but that is not because of some "denier" conspiracy, but his own failure to convince. Indeed, he seems to entirely misaprehend the situation, as many (all?) of the editors opposing him are not "deniers", and the opposition is not on grounds of POV but on failure of process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

86 is unlikely to be new [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to get in to the long arguments, but I concur what a few others have said about there being a diversity of reasons for people wanting the article being kept. Greatly simplifying, in both AFDs and general discussion we get

1) Those who think the article is a smear on good scientists by those supporting the consensus view (and so the article probably should be deleted or at least massively cut down).

2) Those convinced we are trying to hide the truth about how poorly accepted the consensus view is and that's why we want to delete the article, when what we need to do is be a lot less strict and massively expand the article, perhaps even including people who (allegedly) signed various petition.

3) Those convinced the the article is an attempt by those supporting the 'fringe' view to make the 'fringe' view seem like it's not a fringe view and/or to give unnecessary and unmerited space to the 'fringe' view and/or an attempt to mislead people in to thinking that there is widespread opposition to the consensus view; i.e. the article should be deleted.

4) Those convinced that attempts to delete the article are to try and protect 'fringe scientists' or denialists against people knowing that they have fringe views or to try and make the consensus view seem less like a consensus.

This doesn't of course prove the article is good, balanced or that there is any merit in it, but I think it does demonstrate the are reasons on 'both sides' on why we should keep or delete and expand or restrict the article so trying to say the problem is on one side sort of falls flat.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The tactic being successfully enforced now by the activist team (cunning I admit) is to delete any quotes expressing the real basis of the scientists' views, to show only repetitive content-free out-of-context remarks, to effectively strawman them all. Presumably they figure such is more effective than deleting the article entirely, as its mere existence provides a pseudo-convincing impression of balance to the naive, although really a trashed version making it look like the scientists have no basis for their views. Again, a comparison of the July 2011 versus current versions provides an example; the former also had nice quote box formatting since deleted.

Incidentally, for one of many examples of doubleplusungood info nobody is ever supposed to see from the perspective of the activist team here, read Dr. Shaviv:

http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I

The preceding is a convenient link to a general discussion including for laymen, but the topics within it are covered by papers such as:

http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf Svensmark, Henrik (2007). "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges". Astronomy & Geophysics 48 (1): 1.18-1.24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf Shaviv, Nir J (2005). "On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (A08105). doi:10.1029/2004JA010866.

And much, much more, the above just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, non-PC temperature history, for 100 years (not the politically correct 30-40 year cutoff) of the top of the Northern Hemisphere where temperature changes most:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif (compare recent history versus 1930s)

The actual history of the warm Minoan Warm Period, Minoiske Warm Period, Holocene Climate Optimum, etc.: http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif which is a graph of U.S. government NOAA data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/paleoclimate/climates.html (vastly contrary to what is enforced on Wikipedia climate articles by one or more admins and several supporting political-activist editors, the same handful of names over and over again)

I casually discussed such a bit more at http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=193102&page=6#post6202383 That includes many links to peer-reviewed, university, and government sources with non-PC info.

Et cetera. Et cetera.

I don't bother wasting my time adding non-politically-correct content to Wikipedia articles, however, when it just would as usual be eliminated soon afterwards by the dishonest activist team. But, Jimbo Wales, if you read this, your site -- which could be far better -- is crippled on topics like all the climate articles by the dominance of the bias-enforcing deletionists discussed in my last remark. You alone, if you have honor and willingness to spend a little time investigating, are the about only one left who could have much chance of improving the situation here; ordinary users soon realize there is no point in fighting an admin personally. 12.74.176.214 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um..... You do realise we link to Dr. Shaviv blog right in the article you're complaing about right? We do know and did on 00:04, 14 November 2011. Not that specific post but it seems odd to say we're trying to stop people from reading Dr. Shaviv when we link to the same blog you're so fond of in the article you're complaining about Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW about the point about the basis for the views, first the article has gone thru a lot of changes over time over how we cover things. I'm not simply referring since July, I've been minorly involved for several years. The fact of the matter is the title simply suggests a list of people who oppose the mainstream consensus. It's resonable to suggest we need sufficient evidence in the article to establish their view is against the mainstream consensus but whether we need to spend a lot of space actually explaining their stated reasons for their views is another matter. It's resonable to suggest that's undue weight considering the topic of the article and instead we should simply mention the views and all the readers to check the refs to get a proper understanding of the views if they're interested. And the fact of the matter even when we try to explain their view, if all we have is a 1-3 shortish paragraphs which is realisticly all we can dedicate to each personm people are still going to be saying we don't properly explain their view, and I would say they have a point. The fact of the matter is whether someone reads the July version or the current version I don't think they're going to going to be particularly convinced. The only possibility is they may be more likely to read the refs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply amazing: "The tactic being successfully enforced now by the activist team (cunning I admit) is to delete any quotes expressing the real basis of the scientists' views, ...." Nah, what is "cunning" is to first complain of too many quotes (and too lengthy), and then complain of too much trimming. I think we should have a vote, and everyone voting either "too long" or "too short" is required to collaboratively (that will be fun to watch) write an alternative article. Which we then diff against the current article. With any luck the diff will be trivial. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have started an RfC on the quotes. Jimbo, if you do read any of this discussion, would be glad for feedback on whether the RfC was a) premature and b) badly expressed. Of course any comments you might want to make would be very welcome, but also of course you can't comment on everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Turn off the donation ads Jimbo!

Turn off the infernal damned donation ads Jimbo! I only need to see them once, not constantly. PumpkinSky talk 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just have paid advertising like virtually every other web site in the world? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is that paid advertising is anathema to m:Neutral point of view. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

With animations, commercial ads tend to become 95% (or more?) of a webpage transmission. If Wikipedia response were slowed 20x by more ads, how many people would continue to update articles, despite even slower results? -Wikid77 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not "every other website". And that's a good thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The goal of wiki is noble, but the reality is a disaster. PumpkinSky talk 04:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source for your 'reality'? :P AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of asking Jimbo to turn off the ads, just go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets and tick the "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" box in the browsing section to turn them off yourself. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish sites with paid advertising had a gadget like that! Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Try to sex-up the banners. Change the models. If you absolutely need to be there yourself, shave. --92.106.228.219 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, please see Wikipedia:PEREN#Advertising.  Chzz  ►  14:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Wikipedia is the fifth most popular site on the entire Internet.[15] I'm not sure what ads are going for these days, but there's a good chance that we could afford faster servers and then the site won't be as slow as it is now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what The Register says about the ads today: [16].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Did someone vandalize the Register's page once upon a time and since then they've been on a crusade to rid the world of the evil that is Wikipedia, or something? Jeez. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And on another part of that Register webpage,

MOST READ
Swedish college girls now twice as slutty as in 2001
'Morons! Zuckerberg, are you listening?'
US nuclear aircraft carrier George Bush crippled by toilet outages
Southampton hampton vice shocker: Exclusive snap
Ghanaian she-devil chews off bloke's 'nad sack

Is this vandalism? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's The Register - that's the kind of news they report. It's... "quirky".  Chzz  ►  21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

[17] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• - Some editors do not support the Register to be used at wiki as a reliable source, especially for anything disputed or contensious about living people. Here's a better article from a different writer at the register. - 18 Nov 2011 - The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit publisher of Wikipedia and its affiliate sites, has received a $500,000 grant from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, a philanthropic organization set up by Google cofounder Sergey Brin and his wife Anne Wojcicki, cofounder of "personal genetic information" website 23andMe. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Look after yourself

I've known that this campaign in India was brewing for a few hours but now have English language confirmation. The man behind it has tried and tried here, and is now going the direct route. Be careful out there, Jimbo: yet another riot or even bomb is not out of the question. I wish the conference well, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems the friendly law enforcement people have matters well under control - first ever arrests over a Wikipedia content dispute? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people really need to get over themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your conspiracy theories in check. What evidence do you have to suggest that Yogesh Khandke has anything to do with it? [18] And what is the basis for this sensationalist "bomb" talk? People are already thinking that some Wikipedians' content dispute has some relation with this.-MW ^ℳ 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply because you have content disputes with Yogesh Khandke does not mean you can stoop to this level of insinuations.MW ^ℳ 13:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whom Sitush is referring to by saying "the man behind it has tried and tried here, and is now going the direct route" but if it is Amit Satam, the politician mentioned in the artilce, I am unaware that he is an editor here. Also I'm hoping this does not set a precedent for settling India related content disputes in the real world with the aid of political parties. If it does, then there are Template:External link who can take up one of the many India related disputes (there's one for each article except for the one that I have not yet created), to represent someone from the 4300 communities, the rich, the poor, the urban, the rural, etc. Enjoy your stay in Mumbai, Jimmy! Zuggernaut (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've created that article at Wikipedia-BJP India map dispute. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not Atam (as far as I am aware), although he acted as mouthpiece outside & was using the "we've tried" phrase about attempts here. It doesn't matter, if it doesn't escalate. 50 arrests, I've been told, so it looks like they hyped it up quite a lot to the press. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good to know you didn't mean Satam (assuming you made a typo). Are you then implying, as MangoWong pointed out, that Yogesh Khandke is behind this? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

bounding

jimmy a bounding am a simple user in a place in this beautiful world and use your regular page, page of which I am grateful ...... case is so like me or if there are many rather most of the usurious not have a credit card but would like to donate .... happens to them? Also your site is the first to appear in gogle if looking for something .... even nonprofit donations because you ask not to the same institutions that appear on this website as without them you want your advertising also are benefited with the information they deliver to the Board Index. I hope I have made ​​my contribution as I can not cash. and if you need something from Chile and I can help just ask. Leticia ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.242.172 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Leticia, Jimmy has been very busy lately, but meanwhile, you might wish to read about other ways to donate, other than by credit-card:
     • http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en - English language
     • http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/es - Español idioma
For people who cannot afford much, then updating articles about subjects they know (such as towns and culture in Chile) is also welcomed, by the readers who donate as thanks for the detailed information they find on Wikipedia. -Wikid77 22:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Facebook / Twitter links for easy posting of your donation appeal

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, in case you don't know, Jimbo, the link above is to the specific thread; ie Wikipedia:Help_desk#Facebook / Twitter links for easy posting of your donation appeal?. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For creating the greatest center for knowledge in the entire world. Alexroller (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your user page at portuguese Wikipedia

Hello! Your user page in portuguese Wikipedia was edited by another user after your latest contribuition in 2010-november-12. Is better updating the page with your current version of user page in english Wikipedia (translated) or reverting to your last edit, that says that's better visiting your user page here? --MisterSanderson (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED and illustrations

Jimbo, there is a discussion at WT:NOT#Objectionable content that examines the following question: Should the use of illustrations (images, audiovisual media) in Wikipedia be a matter for community consensus, or should we aim for a presentation that is in line with presentations in reputable secondary sources? In other words, should the project create its own editorial standards with respect to article illustration, or should we strive to have editorial standards that are broadly consistent with and informed by editorial standards in the relevant literature? What is your view? Cheers, --JN466 11:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Diacrtics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise

Jimbo, I wanted to draw your attention to something. A relatively new editor created Wikipedia:WikiProject English. The stated purpose there is to “Ensure that article names conform to English Wikipedia policies”. The user behind that has objected to certain articles on hockey players, such as Marek Zidlicky. Notwithstanding that RSs like Sports Illustrated and The New York Times (and even the NHL themselves) spelled it “Marek Zidlicky”, our article had the title (and body text) spelled “Marek Židlický”.

Well, the user behind getting the Marek Židlický moved (and who started Wikipedia:WikiProject English) has found himself the lightning rod of attention from editors active on those hockey articles and they started this MfD in an effort to muzzle discussion of this.

Perhaps the WikProject’s stated goals aren’t being well articulated and need to be massaged. Whatever its teething problems, it seems quite unfair to try to shut down a WikProject when it is still in its infancy (just a couple of weeks old) before it can prove that it can develop a following. I suspect that given the hyperbole at the MfD, the message point of the WikiProject will live on even if project itself is closed down for running contrary to the wishes of a cabal of editors who, in my humble opinion, are putting Wikipedia in the position of flouting the RSs.

All in all, this issue of flouting the RSs for some sports-related articles strikes me as an instance where a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time is overriding the community consensus on a wider scale. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that isn’t allowable on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)