Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

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.

Getting rid of fair use

I'm seeing this issue come up over and over again. Most wikipedias prohibit fair use. Although I can see legit reasons to include some truly fair use images on en, I've observed that in practice it just leads to a whole lot of problems. A lot of people are claiming fair use for any image that they want to include, regardless of the legitimacy of the claim. A lot of people are spending time arguing over what is/is not fair use. I'm beginning to think that it's really just not worth it and it's greatly reducing the freeness of the english wikipedia. I know that a lot of people will object to depreciating fair use on wikipedia, but I also know that I've heard a lot of people voicing similar concerns to mine. How can we move towards putting this bad idea behind us? Matt 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, with one exception: when the image itself is the subject of an article, such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. --Carnildo 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we remove all fair use images, we'll leave a great many articles with no illustrations (perhaps permanently):

• Almost all articles dealing with modern art. This includes basically all movies, TV shows, paintings and other graphic arts, etc.
• Almost all articles dealing with fictional subjects.
• Many articles dealing with aspects of modern history not witnessed by US government photographers. Note that this would probably include all situations where the exact copyright status is unclear (e.g. Nazi photographs).
• And various others.

Aggressively pushing for free content is very good, of course; but let's not forget that we also want to be an encyclopedia, and one that can be competetive with commercial ones. Decimating our image libraries isn't really going to help in this regard. —Kirill Lokshin 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the "baby" in this case is all that valuable. We might end up with articles without illustration, so what? It would be interesting to see what percent of EB's articles include illustration (I don't know the answer to this). EB's article on Salvador Dalí (from what I can see from [1]) has no images. To say that we need "fair use" to compete with non-free publishers seems to me to be an argument for why a free encyclopedia can't be done. But de.wikipedia.org is doing it, and by most measures has been more succesful than en (unless you measure an encyclopedia by the number of pokemon articles). Matt 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

EB gets less than 1% of Wikipedia's hits so it is really rather insignificant as a competitor. We are competing with the whole (very well illustrated) www. Osomec 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is so much abuse of the "fair use" that we need a stronger wording that currently exist to discourage uploaders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

NO! Getting rid of Fair Use will cripple Wikipedia. The IP laws are already restrictive enough, I don't see any reason not to take advantage of the little freedom we are given under law. We should encourage replacing Fair Use images where possible, but there are many instances where it is NOT possible ever (such as articles on video games and movies), where Fair Use is absolutely essential for a good article. Loom91 15:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is possible ever -- when the copyrights expire. Wikipedia would survive. It would also be more free, and more reproducable outside the US, both of which are healthy aims. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights only expire theoretically—no copyright has expired during the lifetime of Wikipedia. Passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998 (and its international counterparts), and the failure of legal challenge to it, virtually guarantees that another extension effort will occur before 2019 (the next time that copyrights might expire). Making policy decisions based on the assumption that copyrights will eventually expire seems overly credulous. I think we have to assume that nothing presently copyrighted will ever transfer into the public domain. --TreyHarris 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some intermediate choices. We could establish an arbitrary limit, like one-per-article (with some sort of special procedure for granting exceptions). Right now, there's no incentive to make free images, because so many articles are already crammed-full of non-free ones, which are usually "prettier" than the free ones. --Rob 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree getting stricter on fair use is a decent idea. i disagree with arbitary limits though. Screenshots and suchlike are essential to proper critical commentry on software products.

As for copyrights expiring yes that will happen eventually but for many things probablly not in our lifetimes. ALSO if we get rid of non-free images now then we still won't have them when thier copyrights expire unless someone else archived them! Plugwash 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose allowing fair use images only when the following conditions are all satisfied A) it is a genuine fair use claim; no legal problems for Wikipedia; B) there is a compelling argument that the image is necessary to illustrate the article, and C) there is a compelling argument that a free alternative is either impossible to obtain, or it is highly unlikely that we could ever obtain one through reasonable means (however you define that!) — Matt Crypto 23:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not use fair use where it is permisible, and there is no more open alternative? Why not take advantage of rights that are given under existing copyright law? Aggressive deletion of useful images for copyright-panic reasons only impoverishes us. For great justice. 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to keep fair use until technology makes long range digital camera a reality. --Masssiveego 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "long range digital camera"??? Arniep 12:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My main concern regarding this, although I oppose it as per Kirill Lokshin, is what it would do to the books included in Wikipedia. Right now, the WikiProject Novels template is to use an infobox on the page of articles relating to novels, and these infoboxes include a picture of the cover of the first edition of the novel. I am concerned regarding the complications the elimination of fair use would cause for this project. While getting stricter is a decent idea, anything that would eliminate illustrations from articles, book covers from articles on books, and other such truly legitimate, fair uses would, indeed, be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Users do not have the right to upload whatever they feel like, but the concept of fair use is an extremely important one. Abhorsen327 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to restrict Fair Use images beyond what the law will allow. There is no compelling argument in Matt's original post beyond "it's not worth the hassle". If this hassles anyone, I urge you to go do something else. There are tons of articles to write and proof and merge. Concentrate on something out of the modern era and you won't run up against as many image copyright problems.

Matt goes on to say "We might end up with articles without illustration, so what?". Can Matt or anyone else make a case that an encyclopedia should be just words?? Images are not only snazzy, pretty, and make a fine looking article, but are absolutely essential for understanding some subjects (e.g. Modern Art). Period.

It is suicide to drop Fair Use images because "they aren't worth it". Sheesh Madman 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What about a preference tab for which class of licenses for images you want? Then someone wanting to browse for material not legal in their jurisdiction could just not see the ones they don't want. For great justice. 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

keep the fair use. It's a legal issue and the law is on our side. Giving up our rights does not help us--or any one else. Fair use is essential to every reference work. Rjensen 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a fair use right. Fair use is only a defense against copyright infringement. Almost no use is 'fair' until it is challenged in court and upheld as such. There is nothing that prevents content owners/distributors from taking away your supposed rights. DRM does precisely this when it restricts you from copying a song onto your iPod (the court-established fair use of 'space shifting'). It is precisely this legal ambiguity which is such a bane to the goal of creating a FREE encyclopedia. Anyone seeking to freely use en content has to weigh the costs of verifying the free status of such content. As Lessig points out in Free Culture, independently produced movies sometimes have to edit out scenes featuring use that would clearly be considered 'fair'. When they sign a distribution deal, the movie's creators are required to enumerate EVERY shot that could conceivably constitute any kind of copyright infringement risk. They are then forced to buy copyright insurance, in case claims were ever brought against the movie. In this case, the very risk that content MIGHT not constitute fair use renders it completely unusable. Audiodude 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

we give up fair use and Wiki is dead. Indeed, all reference works are dead. Giving up fair use means outsideres control what we are allowed to say about them. It is the oldest and most prized right regarding reference books and the courts have (nearly) always upheld us. The advantages of forfeiture? close to zero. Rjensen 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While I think we should retain fair use here, if I'm not mistaken, some of the other wikis don't allow fair use and are working just fine. For example (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Italian wiki doesn't allow fair use images. There isn't any need for hyperbole. JoshuaZ 05:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Most foreign language wikis attempt to conform both to the laws of the US (where the servers live), and the laws of the most prominent country or countries speaking that language, so that wiki content can be easily reused there. Most countries outside the US don't have a fair use provision; instead, many European countries rely on the more stringent notion of fair dealing. Also, I think some wikis may, like Commons, allow neither fair use nor fair dealing, so that only truly copyright free content is allowed. Dragons flight 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottomline of this discussion is that we should exercise tight control over the fair use claims (such as only allowing a fixed set of fair use templates, screenshots, Nazis, etc., with strict patrolling for misplaced templates) and attempt to minimize the fair use images used. Maybe it should be policy that if there is a free/copyleft image and a fair use image both illustrating the same subject, we will discard the unfree image even if it is of superior quality. We should aim at having articles that would still be good if they were stripped of nonfree images (for example for the purpose of a derivative product, future "purist" fork, WP 1.0 on CD, etc.) dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in copyright terms?

According to Wikipedia:Copyrights "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."

Alternately, whenever someone adds content to Wikipedia, it says underneath "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

The issue is that the people are agreeing to release their entries under the full GPL GFDL while the Copyrights page says that Wikipedia texts are available under a restricted version of the GFDL, .

To further muddy the waters, the release statement links to the Copyright page (which includes the information that a restricted version of the GFDL is used) but in a different context ie. in the "do not violate copyright" context rather than the "this is the licence you're releasing under" context, making it arguably not required/expected reading before release like the GFDL link. Irrevenant 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

About the second problem: perhaps "copyright" should link to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ instead of Wikipedia:Copyrights? Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ starts with the "do not violate copyright" context, and it's easier to read. Melchoir 07:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Copyright FAQ appears not to say anything about invariant sections et. al. either; only Wikipedia:Copyrights. As I see it there are basically two issues: (a) update the release statement to release under the restricted GFDL (probably by pointing at a new disclaimer page rather than directly at the GFDL) and (b) figure out what to do about the stuff already released under the standard GFDL. Irrevenant 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, GFDL is by no way the same as "full GPL". Is that perhaps the origin of your misunderstanding (in fact I don't understand what you misunderstand... the wording you use to explain your alleged problem are anyway self-contradictory - that doesn't help others to understand what you think is going wrong)? Note also that both GPL and GFDL currently use the copyright mechanism. Without copyright... no GPL, nor GFDL. And that's also a copyright you're not allowed to violate when adding content to wikipedia. Copyrights of GFDL'ed or GPL'ed content can be violated when adding them to wikipedia (typically, e.g., by not mentioning the source of such copylefted sources, or other abuses of the license conditions of the original source). Wikipedia's copyright conditions include not to allow invariant sections et.al. to be imported in wikipedia (which is Wikipedia's copyright conditions). You have a problem with that? In that case: don't contribute. The copyright terms are explained in wikipedia:copyrights, which is linked from every content page, including in edit mode (so never say of a wikipedia content page that it doesn't link to its copyright terms, or that different pages link to different copyright conditions). Also, if the following would have been your problem: "full GFDL" implies that the publisher of the source indicates if there are invariant sections et. al.: "full GFDL" assumes there to be none of such sections if not mentioned... adding invariant sections etc. is a restriction of the full GFDL conditions. --Francis Schonken 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I never meant "GPL". That was an (unfortunately very misleading) typo; it should have read "GFDL" all the way through. The problem as I understand it is this:

(a) When you submit text to Wikipedia, you agree to do it under the complete text of the GFDL ie. you automatically agree to allow invariant sections in derivative works.

(b) The Copyrights page states that Wikipedia Texts are released under the GFDL excluding invariant sections and cover texts. This is arguably freer (and IMO the best option for Wikipedia), but it adds conditions to the licence that contributors didn't agree to when they submitted the text. Irrevenant 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you still appear somewhat confused to me...

• Section 4 of the GFDL says (among other things):

  If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant.

• If you don't comply to that, you don't comply to GFDL (the permission for derived works to add their own invariant sections is not something for which any type of exception is possible, as long as you say that you publish under GFDL).
• But you can say whether the original version has invariant et al. sections. You can even use the standard formulation for that, which is given in the "appendix" of the GFDL (How to use this License for your documents): "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. [...]" - this is exactly the formulation wikipedia uses.

Note that there is a difference (and for all that I can see that is what your confusion stems from) between saying that your original document (in this instance wikipedia) "has no invariant sections", and forbidding derived documents to add their own invariant sections (which one can't forbid under GFDL, neither do the wikipedia copyright terms attempt that, by sticking rigorously to the copyright terms formulation advised in the GFDL document). --Francis Schonken 06:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Wikipedia:Copyrights is illegal, since it forbids adding invariant sections. If you are correct about that (and I don't know enough legalese to confirm or deny), it should be changed, which will fix the inconsistency.

OTOH, we presumably still want text to be submitted under the conditions described at Wikipedia:Copyrights; otherwise people could conceivably declare their submissions to be invariant. Irrevenant 08:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I only implied you were kinda clueless. Wikipedia:Copyrights uses the standard formulation advised in the GFDL, I even made a link to that part of the GFDL text above (repeating that link, non-piped: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#How to use this License for your documents). You still seem unable to make the difference between not having invariant sections in the original document (which is true for wikipedia and which is the most generic implementation of GFDL), and, on the other hand, not being allowed to forbid invariant sections being inserted in derived aka modified works that are published elsewhere (which the wikipedia:copyrights text doesn't forbid, nor would it be allowed to do so). So you can download the full wikipedia content, or as many separate pages you like (as laid down in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks), and publish such content under GFDL applying invariant sections et al. where you like, according to the general GFDL provisions I quoted above (for clarity: here also the unpiped link: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#4. MODIFICATIONS). --Francis Schonken 10:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have still misunderstood my point, so I'll clarify. Firstly: The issue is purely internal to Wikipedia and has nothing to do with publishing Wikipedia documents elsewhere. Secondly: The GFDL allows both verbatim copying and distribution of modified versions. The GFDL does not grant any right to modify the original document; only to distribute modified copies. As such, commiting a change to Wikipedia cannot be modifying the original, it must be releasing a derivative work (that wikipedia.org is graciously distributing for you). To restate: Current Wikipedia is a derived work built upon derived work many levels down to the original work. Thirdly: Wikipedia is stating that Wikipedia is free of invariant sections et. al. however, the derivative work (the commited change) was released under broader terms. Fourthly: This is an inconsistency. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how much legal hassle this inconsistency causes (hopefully none) but it is an inconsistency and should be corrected. Irrevenant 11:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

oops, I'll restate: as far as I can see you're completely clueless. No offense intended. If this can be any comfort to you, you're not the first (nor will you probably be the last) struggling with the GFDL legalese.

• Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#4. MODIFICATIONS is exclusively about publishing elsewhere (with regard to wikipedia: published *outside* the servers that can be reached by typing a "xx.wikipedia.org" webadress in your browser software that is connected to internet);

If you are correct about this, then noone is being granted licence to modify the work on Wikipedia and all the modifications are taking place without legal permission. That's a much bigger problem than the one I originally raised. Irrevenant 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• For wikipedia, we're all working on the same *original*, that is a *database* somewhere located in Florida (or other places, depends on language too). When I click the "save page" button in a few seconds, I'll be modifying that original, and I'll not be (re)distributing a copy or a derivative work. I modify the "original". Before that modification, the "original" was different, and after the "save page" instruction initiated by me reaches the Florida servers, the previous version of the original will be outdated. By the time (for example) that someone downloads a database dump, that database dump will be a no longer up-to-date copy, while it is the "original" that is continuously modified (as can be followed in "recent changes").

Can you back this up? As far as I can see, the original is that document at the very beginning of the history. Irrevenant 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The GFDL does not grant any right to modify the original document" – of course not, but that's how the wiki system works. It's not possible to build the content of a wiki-system without allowing to modify the original. So, indeed, no, the right to continously modify the original document (as long as you're not banned etc), does not *derive* from GFDL, it is *inherent* to a wiki-system. Your reasoning that we're not changing the "original" because of something-to-do-with GFDL, is incorrect.

Okay, this completely misses the point. Obviously the technical ability to modify the document comes from the wiki software. But I'm talking about the ability to legally modify the document. If that's not coming from module 4 of the GFDL, where is it coming from? Irrevenant 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, for wikipedia's *original*, the distributor always remains the same: the WikiMedia Foundation, Florida-based non-for-profit organisation. So, for these modifications of the original (a new version published every few milliseconds - or longer time-interval if considering publication by webpage) section 4 of the GFDL about modifications does not apply, while that section is only about modifications distributed by a different distributor: that section is written in the "you" form, where "you" is in that section described as the one "receiving" a *copy* of the original, and distributing that copy with or without modifications: editing wikipedia does not change the distributor, i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation, so section No. 4 of the GFDL has nothing to do with copy-editing the original. Section 4 of the GFDL is, for wikipedia, covered by what is explained in wikipedia:mirrors and forks (which is also a link I already gave above).

• What was correct in your previous remark is the end of it, where you come down to something like: the "no invariant et al. sections" provision of wikipedia's copyright document (as per standard GFDL implementation), avoids that invariant et al. sections are smuggled into the original. Such additional sections are only allowed for publications elsewhere, for wikipedia: outside the servers serving the WikiMedia wiki's.

Don't know if this helps. You're right anyhow, it has some (unavoidable) complexities. But no, there are no inconsistencies. --Francis Schonken 14:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I still see a problem. Francis doesn't. Can a third party please weigh in here? Otherwise this could go on indefinitely. Irrevenant 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, no problem, you've got your mind set to "seeing" a problem, even if there's none.

But what shocks me, is that you're not prepared to give Jimbo Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation, and those who put their money in it (tax-deducible or not), any credit for doing something *in excess* of what is required by GFDL and underlying (copyright) laws, that is: opening some webservers and databases, and allow the content of these to be filled via a wiki system open to anyone who can connect to internet. No, you're not going to find in GFDL that they *have* to do that.

Don't put words in my mouth. Of course I credit Jimbo et. al. for going 'above and beyond'. I just want the legality of the whole project to be clear. For example, who owns the copyright on my contributions? Obviously, anyone's free to use them under the terms of the GFDL, but what if I want to reuse them personally under a different licence. If, as you say, the whole of Wikipedia is the original document (presumably copyright Jimbo Wales & Co.) then by contributing to their original am I giving them the copyright to my work? If I was releasing a derived work under the GFDL, then it would be clear; If the GFDL modification clause isn't in effect then what is the legal status of contributions? Irrevenant 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

GFDLed documents have been produced without wiki systems, just sending documents via e-mail, or placing them on static webservers (all of these are systems where you can exclusively work with copies of documents). GFDL does not imply you have to allow people to work on a common original document, and provide the infrastructure to have every modification distributed within milliseconds worldwide. The GFDL allows you by, among others, its 4th section to make a *copy* and distribute that copy, modified or not, with your own resources via the channels you think fit (like Wikinfo did). GFDL does *not* oblige the publisher of the original document to also distribute the modifications you and I make to it. But the Wikimedia Foundation does that. There's no law or license document that forces them to do that, but nonetheless they do.

Yes, I see you're going to continue to imply that it's the GFDL document that makes them do that. Sorry to disappoint you, it is only their free will, and no law or license document - well, that's where your reasoning takes a bad turn. --Francis Schonken 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep trying to make this issue be about other things but it's honestly not that complicated; the question is simply on what legal basis are contributions to Wikipedia handled? And for all your lengthy commentary and personal insults you still haven't managed to (apparently) recognise, let alone answer that basic question. Irrevenant 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry, no, it's you who complicate things:

• "Your reasoning that we're not changing the "original" because of something-to-do-with GFDL, is incorrect" (simple, no?)
  • Your answer: "Okay, this completely misses the point."
    • Sorry, my comment was spot-on. You're still looking for things in the GFDL that aren't there.
• Your question: "on what legal basis are contributions to Wikipedia handled?" has been handled long and in depth. It's only you that don't like the answers you've gotten, because you're craving for something more complex, and you've made it clear you won't rest before you've got this immersed in a multitude of redundant complexity.
  • Short answer to your question: see wikipedia:copyrights.
  • Somewhat longer answer: wikipedia:copyrights (in conjunction with the GFDL text linked from there) settles it all for contributions stored on the WikiMedia servers/databases. Section 4 of the GFDL has no effect on contributions sent to the WikiMedia servers/databases (while for these edits to the WikiMedia servers/databases it is not the "you" as described in the GFDL that becomes, in a legal sense, the distributor of the modified version). Section 4 of the GFDL relates to what is described in wikipedia:mirrors and forks.

Please proceed to find an answer different from the one I gave above, if you think there is a need to unnecessarily complicate things. --Francis Schonken 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

There is much inconsistency in policy about whom to include in ethnic groups. I propose a set of rules.

People should only be included if one of the following applies:

1. There is clear and explicit evidence that they, or both their parents ("born to Italian-American parents"), or their family ("from an Italian-American family") are of that ethnic group.

2. If they are described as say half-Italian, they should be listed with a note. If they are described as say Irish-German, they should be listed under both headings with a note. (this refers to ethnicity, not nationality, i.e. "Irish-German" meaning, say, a "List of German-Americans", not a "List of Germans")

3. There is clear and explicit evidence that one parent is of that group, and it should be noted in the list that it is only one parent.

4. If there is only some ethnic ancestry (i.e. less than a parent), proof has to be shown that the person identified with that group above others or singled it out, such as Robert DeNiro for Italian Americans. The proof should be explicit in that the person self-identified, and persons listed as such should be the exception, not the majority

5. As Sikhs and Jews are also religious groups, an exception is needed for converts to these religions, who would be explicitly noted.

6. Consideration is needed of the treatment of adopted people.

It is suggested that where possible the source to confirm the person's ethnicity should be cited in the format: "Name" - "Number citation" - "Quote, directly from the person or from the source" (citations from offline would be listed after the quote). See List of Catholic American entertainers for examples of this citation method. This would not work where the reference is to a list, such as a list of Italian American Oscar winners.

In the manner of inclusion, the rules apply equally to all lists of ethnic groups. We shouldn't apply different rules to one particular ethnic group (i.e. and as a result exclude someone from the list who fits the above criteria) and not treat it equally with other groups is discrimination.

This policy should also apply to ethnicity categories, which need to be consistent with the lists, and help to ensure that the maximum of categories a person could be listed in would normally be two.

Newport 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack O'Lantern and Newport (aka RachelBrown and Poetlister) are trying to sneak something in here that they've been strongly opposed on on other pages. The V and NOR policies are being strictly applied at List of British Jews and should spread across the other lists. Jack and Newport opposed that and are therefore trying to make changes to other ethnicity lists, then insist they be applied across the board. Jews are a distinct group because they are a religion and an ethnicity, and so considerations about how to compile lists, and what criteria to use, may have to be different too. Jack and Newport have opposed what one of them called the "religious" view of what constitutes a Jew, and want to make Jewishness an ethnicity like any other. This led to the absurd situation of people being listed as Jews, even though they had only one Jewish great grandparent. V and NOR are non-negotiable. No consensus of editors is allowed to override them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you have any evidence that Jack'Olantern is RachelBrown, Jck is a teenager from Canada, while Rachel is certainly not. I don't think Newport is suggesting that Jewish lists should follow the same guidelines as others, people do not normally identify as a Jewish American just because their paternal grandmother was Jewish. Arniep 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Jack O'Lantern was RachelBrown. Please read what people write before commenting on it, Arnie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is sensible for lists like "List of XYZ-Americans," where there is no question that the list is ethnically-based. However, nationality and ethnicity can interact in strange ways. When building the List of South Korean footballers, I didn't hesitate to add non-ethnic-Korean players from the K-league, although perhaps I should have been more hesitant. This seemed like a no-brainer because of course "South Korean" is not an ethnicity. But would we include non-ethnic-Japanese in a List of Japanese footballers?

I don't mean to drag this too far off-track. The proposal seems fine, as long as it is clear that some lists can combine ethnic and national/geographical criteria -- or are not "really" ethnicity-based. -- Visviva 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal above is roughly correct. For citation, I highly recommend the cite.php mechanism, especially because in many cases there will be many people cited to a single source. And I don't want to see the main body of a list littered with quotations. Put 'em in the notes. The main body should just be the names, superscripts linking to footnotes, and a qualifying statement, if needed (e.g. for Fiorello LaGuardia, in a list of Jewish people "father was Italian" and in a list of Italians "mother was Jewish").

I don't totally agree with "To apply different rules to one particular ethnic group and not treat it equally with other groups is discrimination":

1. Jewish ethnicity is specifically matrilineal. A person born of a Jewish mother is absolutely a Jew, regardless of who the father is. I think it is also appropriate to mention a Gentile father, but there is no need to be "Jewish-identified". Conversely, if only the father is Jewish, then the issue of Jewish identification arises. Similarly and conversely, Pashtun ethnicity is specifically patrilineal, so similar rules apply.
   • In response to this, most lists of Jewish people note if someone has a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, and I feel it is ideal to include them if this is the case. Many half-Jewish people actively identify as Jewish, and the notion that your mother needs to be born Jewish to count is disputed by some reform groups. --MartinUK 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
     • Agreed. I was just pointing out that treating groups identically may not work. For example, if only one of your grandparents is Jewish, and it happens to be your maternal grandmother, then there should be no question that you are a Jew, whereas if only one of your grandparents is Pashtun (a specifically patrilineal ethnicity) and it happens to be your maternal grandmother, probably neither you nor anyone else considers you Pashtun. "Treating all ethnicities alike" has to find some compromise with the self-definition of that ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
       • That rule is mostly there in the cases of exlcusion of people (i.e. preventing exclusion), not really inclusions. I.e. having an Italian-American father doesn't make someone more Italian than having a Jewish-American father make someone Jewish. Just to correct - the Jewish mother rule is a religious rule, it isn't an ethnic rule. There are really no criteria for the Jewish ethnicity (and there are really no established criteria for any other ethnicity, actually). JackO'Lantern 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
         • That's why, as you know, we stick to V and NOR and we've only been adding names of people identified as Jews by reputable publications. It's not for you to say that the Jewish people's self-identification isn't valid because it's (in your view) religious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
           • You also can't say you're going to ignore what you call "religious" rules (when what you mean is Jewish law), but on the other hand, want to include converts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. I think that there are some other cases where the line of ethnicity vs. nationality is blurry and notes are needed. For example, List of Romanians has a note near the top, "Most of the people listed here are of Romanian ethnicity, and whose native tongue is Romanian. There are also a few mentioned who were born in Romania and who can speak Romanian, though not being of Romanian ethnicity." I think that is also a perfectly good policy, as long as it is explicit in the article: I really don't welcome a hunt for whether a person who is culturally Romanian and from Romania might have a different ethnicity. I'd just want to see a note if their ancestry is known to be solidly something else.

When this discussion "plays out" and is to be archived, could someone please copy it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about rules 2 and 3; there are some (many?) people that fits under the ethnic category of one but not both parents---an example is Anni Friesinger, who may be said to be Polish-German, i.e., in this case a German person of half-Polish descent, and as such also a German (she's a German speed skater), but not a Pole (her mother is Polish, but Anni F. herself was raised in Germany and has been a German citizen all her life). Thus, for this person and presumably others in the same situation, a listing such as the one I have described, with a note in the text about the ancestry, would be the most sensible IMO.

My point also applies to, say, those Norwegian-Americans (Americans of Norwegian descent) who are children, grandchildren, and so forth, of Norwegian immigrants to the U.S. While some or all of the first-generation immigrants might be listed in all three groups---Norwegians, Americans, and Norwegian-Americans---the 2.,3.,...-generation immigrants are not Norwegians as such, and should be listed under Americans and Norwegian-Americans. --Wernher 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the policy just means if someone is described as "French-Irish" by ancestry, henceforth will be listed under French Americans and Irish Americans. It wasn't really referring to nationality. Nationality is really a lot clearer - if you have or used to have a citizenship somewhere, you're in, if not, I guess not. Jack O'Lantern 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the many of these lists as problematic. With the xxx-American lists and categories as it is not clear whether being an xxx American means that you identify with that ethnicity above other ethnic ancestry one may have, or whether lists or categories of xxx-Americans are the equal of lists or categories of Americans of xxx descent. Detailed ancestry can now often be found online for famous people or in biographies, so if it is detailed in those sources that a person had 8 great grandparents all born in a different country, would that mean we should list them on 8 different lists and categories of xxx Americans? Also, I think many people are added to these lists and categories because their surname is assumed to be of xxx origin, but as in the case of John Kerry this is not always a reliable indication of one's ancestry. There are also problems with other lists in determining nationality, i.e. some people who live(d) in Ireland may not identify or have identified as Irish, this equally applies to many other lists, i.e. many of the eastern europe lists in countries that used to be in the Russian or Austrian empire, it is unclear that someone who lied in a certain areas of those empires should now be described as of the nation that now occupies that area. Arniep 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the policy? Obviously a person who has eight different ethnicites wouldn't be on any list, unless you can prove they identify with one of them. As would a person with a "last name" belonging to an ethnicity, because these lists according to the policy, should be based on good sources, not last names. Jack O'Lantern 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that people are often keener to identify with an ethnicity which is more fashionable to identify with, i.e. people are probably less keener to identify as French, German, Dutch or British than Irish, Italian or Jewish. Therefore if lists are based on self identification they will be subjectively skewed according to fashion rather than fact which would really put into question their validity. Arniep 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh! What's next, creating lists of Mulattos, Quadroons and Octoroons? I think there's something obsessive about this trying to assign lables to people that don't really fit in your little categories. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely disturbing, it's always the same small group of editors/sockpuppets, and they're constantly violating V and NOR, arguing it shouldn't apply to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a problem as I said before whether xxx-American is defined by self identification, or ancestry. If it is defined by self identification it would be skewed according to what is more fashionable to identify with. You have to ask what is really the point of classifying every person who has an article by ancestry or ethnicity which is certainly a legitimate discusssion to have (rather than having a few limited examples on the relevant page e.g. for Irish Americans with people who actually have Irish origin names and it is confirmed that their ancestors were Irish). Arniep 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the beauty of this is that we do it by both self-identification and by ancestry. Ancestry, by including people with one or two parents of that group, and identification, by including people with lesser ancestry - but only if one can explicitly prove that they identified with that group. I certainly think this is a reasonable guideline for the many lists we have right now, especially since most of them are go-for-all and have no guidelines. As for whether the lists should be there in the first place - that's a different question - but the point of this proposal is to govern the lists we have right now, since there are so many. To answer SlimVirgin's concerns - obviously people with a Jewish great-grandparent or grandparent would not be listed unless someone can provide proof that they considered themselves Jewish. And as I said, we're not ignoring Jewish religious law(s), we're combining people of the Jewish religion (i.e. converts) and the Jewish ethnicity (i.e. non-practicing Jews), and both (which is most), which is the only non-POV way to do this. As for "Original Research", as you can see, not a single person before you brought up that point, and in fact it is up for a lot of debate whether putting a person with an Italian mother on a List of Italian-Americans, for example, would be Original Research. In fact, please see the under-development proposed policy Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia page, which states that membership criteria should be included - and this is an attempt to figure out workable criteria so all the lists can finally be in synch. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the self identification idea is problematic; for example, how do we determine what is required for it to be determined that someone self identifies? Do they just have to have talked about their Irish ancestry in an interview or book, given their children Irish names or specifically said "I consider myself Irish American (which I should think is actually quite rare)? We had already discussed this before in relation to the xxx-American lists and decided the only way to accurately maintain the lists was to cite specific ancestral information from biographies or reliable genealogy sites. Now if we are to keep the lists why should we only include a person in a list for only one of the grandparents just because they mentioned that grandparent in an interview and not another? For example, Marlon Brando felt he had a strong Irish input in his makeup as his grandmother used to sing songs her Irish father had taught her. Yet she had an English mother and I bet some of the songs were English, but as it is not so fashionable to identify as English-American he latched onto the Irish connection. Brando also claimed his name was French probably because he felt a strong affinity for the language at the time as it was his new wife's language, yet in fact his name his name was German in origin not French. John Kerry for many years identified as an Irish American yet it is now known his grandfather was not Irish. I think that this shows how subjective and whimsical self identification can be and why it should not be considered as a reliable source and governing factor for inclusion for these lists (if they need exist at all). Arniep 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making too big of a deal out of this "list if distant ancestry + self-identifies" clause. This should be the exception to the rule, and certainly not the majority of the listings. I have not been able to find anything about Marlon Brando identifying as either Irish or French. Claiming Irish or French ancestry is not the same as identifying with it. John Kerry never identified as an Irish American, just certain magazines thought he was Irish. You should source these claims if you're using them as part of the argument - and certainly they would have to be sourced if they're going on the list that way. Mentioning a grandparent in an interview is not the same as identifying. Maybe this will clarify it - list the person if they are less than 50% Irish only if they explicitly say, using the Irish example again, "I identify as Irish", "I'm Irish", "I'm an Irish-American", "My main influence in life is my Irish heritage", not something like "my grandmother spoke Irish" or "I have Irish ancestry". You'll find that for the most part, this will be the rarity in the listings. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The mere act of determining what a person has to say to qualify as xxx American is original research. This is why I argued that the lists should be renamed to Americans of xxx descent. Arniep 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the examples I used (i.e. "I'm an Irish-American" "I identify as Irish") are directly linked to that person's own identification as an Irish-American. We have rules and policies all over Wikipedia that could be termed as original research if we go that way. As for renaming these lists "Americans of Irish descent", "Americans of Italian descent", "Americans of Jewish descent", I suppose that could be done, and solve all these problems as then guidelines wouldn't really be needed - beyond being able to source that person's ancestry. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that you were mentioning specific things a person would have to say in your opinion to "qualify" as xxx American or to not qualify. That would definitely be original research. Basically it seems that we are just getting back to the discussions I had with Vulturell that the only way lists can be encyclopedic is with genealogical information from a biography or other notable source. There are still inherent problems even then in that a biography may be vague and just say his family had origins in xxx, but how far back were those origins? Should that sentence in a biography qualify that person to be in a list of xxx Americans, even if is not known when the first immigrant ancestor arrived or indeed if the information is accurate? Arniep 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are supposed to use commonly used criteria for Wikipedia lists. I think the point of all of this is to determine what those criteria are. The example you just used, i.e. "had Irish origins", sounds like it wouldn't be enough to put a person on the list, because it's too vague. The criteria above is pretty specific. But again, if you wanted to change these lists to "Americans of xxx descent", maybe that would eliminate that problem. Maybe that is a good idea. Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lists are problematic BUT they do serve a research purpose in that they can be the starting point of detailed research and very useful - I do beleive that ethnic lists should rely on 2 criteria - 1 - Documented Ancestry and 2. Individual's opinion or how they see themselves. However, I'm not sure what is right - part of me thinks if it is good enough for a Government to recognise an individual through descent as the irish Government does back to if an individual can proove descent from an Irish Parent, grandparent or a great grandparent they are entitled to Irish Citizenship, so perhaps that should be the standard practice for this list and other similar ones that are based on ethnicity. It would be more accurate in that the descent issue is easier to substantiate through research than an individual's personal identification e.g. genealogy, family history and background is far more likely to be detailed in biographies where as an individual’s identification is harder to pin down as it can appear in a variety of sources usually not well publicised or promoted and be more localised that are far more difficult to find; such as newspaper articles, interviews, reviews etc. that are not on the net or readily available and lets face it nowadays most people use the net to source. I do believe also that some contribution to Irish American culture or American culture in general should be considered. Believe me I think what you are doing is a tremendous undertaking and you are very brave to do it simply because your hard work can be (ultimately) trashed by someone who has a different opinion or is less dedicated to verification and simply because of their own limited view decides that someone doesn't belong on the list. I hate to keep harping on the one family but Garland's family is a perfect example of my point. She certainly belongs in the main category of irish Americans under actors because during her heyday she contributed to Irish American Culture through Irish themed songs that were on every jukebox in every Irish Pub through the 1970s, she was a regular guest on fellow Irishman Bing Crosby's radio show during the 1950s singing many Irish songs with him and often referred to her self as Irish and also to her Irish maternal family, incidentally here is a good quote from the article that appeared in Irish America Magazine "She never lost her Celtic soul". However her daughters belong in the Distant section because that is appropriate for them in that they do have substatiated "Distant" Irish heritage and although may not promote it daily have referred to it on occasion and probably more than some entries on the main list. By example; how does one know Lorna Luft does not identity with being Irish? I live in Ireland and she has appeared in concert and on Television in Ireland many times over the years, she starred in the Dublin production of Follies, she lived here for a period and often visits, she has made reference to "the family's Irish charm", and other quotes about about her mother's Irish traits in her book Me and My Shadows, and in interviews in the USA, Ireland and the UK, she has appeared at Irish charity performances in New York with Irish entertainers and a famous photograph of her by Scuvello that appeared on the cover of Interview Magazine pictured her in a green sequined outfit holding a huge shamrock! She is first and foremost American but certainly has demonstrated an appreciation for her Irish heritage as well as that of her father who was of Russian/German Jewish decent but she is Episcopalian like her mother and sister but yet is listed in a wikipedia list as a "Jewish Female singer" should I delete her from that list? I don't think so the wider issue is that each list should require the editor to give a reason why the individual they are proposing should be on the list. Liza Minnelli is as much Irish as she is Italian in that she had only 1 Italian Grandparent and 1 Irish Grandparent and while she wasn't raised in either an "Italian or Irish " family environment she is aware of her heritage. She was quoted in an early London Times interview after Cabaret stating "I'm Italian, Irish and French" obviously choosing to omit Scottish as her "French" and Irish Grandmothers was also half Scottish. Since then she has appeared at many Italian and Irish American functions and commented on both nationalities but in reality prefers her French ancestry as that was the heritage that her father identified with. I have found that people generally identify more with their mother's nationality due to the family influence is usually stronger from teh mother's extended family. I think inclusion in the distant part of the list and perhaps some historic figures should solely be based on documental direct heritage. There is an article that appeared in the Irish Echo newspaper around 1991 where Liza attributes her determination and ability to laugh at herself to her Irish roots - but as I say these comments are very much "localised" and not widely available unless someone does extensive research. I have many articles, letters and other documents not available on the net that realate to many people's Irish connections and use them in my work but for the most part this material is hard to find unless the individuals have a lead or know where to look and it is rarely on the net. There is also the scientific reality that is Mitochondrial DNA that is passed from generation to generation unchanged from the female line - what this means is that an individual in America who had an Irish distant Great Grandmother would have the same mitochondrial DNA as that distant (female) relation, this has tremendous implications for health research and forensic identification. I am sorry to go on so much but as you can tell this is a subject that interests me very much. There is also something that we must take into consideration when talking about Irish American Culture that is fairly unique in how "loyal" individuals can be to it even if the connection goes back many generations and the current family name is not remotely Irish - this again is a fairly unique phenomenon more common among those with Irish roots. Research into this has stated that America, Canada and Australia all founded on waves of immigration offered a new life to these "tired and poor huddled masses yearning to be free" but in the case of the Irish leaving Ireland was not a choice but a necessity to survive and many regretted having to leave and many were angry over having to leave and I dare say many were glad to leave but ultimately this forced immigration did not sever the ties with home and generations of the same families continued to cross the ocean right up until recent times and this has kept the link open and to a degree fresh. Also the Famine Irish of the 1840s after only 2 generations in America became very influential and successful in the military, church, politics and show-business, combined with the world-wide popularity of St Patrick's Day celebrations particularly in America and the stereotypical images of the Irish that were for the most part flattering although some not so e.g. drinkers and fighters but overall this group of people managed to maintain a strong connection with their "motherland" whilst still remaining fiercely patriotic Americans. Ireland did not interfere with American identity that was to a degree formulated by Irish immigrants. Finally on entries like Arthur Shields, Barry Fitzgerald, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Maureen O'Sullivan it is highly likely that they became Naturalised American Citizens as did Maureen O'Hara for several reasons the least being that they made their living there, and that it was a very patriotic timein Hollywood and America and they were unable to go back to Ireland due to WWII - sorry to be so long winded and I am happy to asssit as I can.86.12.253.32

Don't censor, explain. I think some of you might be forgetting that over the years this encyclopedia is bound to expand, not contract. People want more information, not less. Why try to remove names from a list? What's the hidden agenda? Why try to hide that someone had a Rwandan great-great-great-grandmother? This project is not a border patrol saying can come in and who can't. Readers want to know everything! If you merely want clarification as to WHY someone is on the list, fine, but that will tend to happen with or without a rule. Don't censor, explain. --Armenian-Irish-German-Austrian-Swedish-French-English-USAmerican-Canadian Korky Day 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. I think the main problem that the people have is that "Irish Americans", "Jewish Americans" are labels that may not necessarily 100% fit the person unless they're 100% Jewish, Irish, etc. That's why I am starting to believe that it would be a good idea to just change the list names to "Americans of Irish descent", "Americans of Jewish descent", etc. and we can list anyone we want, as long as we can prove the Irish-Jewish-etc. connection. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Americans of <ethnic group> descent" vs "<Ethnic group>[-]Americans" issue may also be slightly difficult in those cases where the second format is by far the most commonly used one. For instance, employing the example nearest to myself: "Norwegian-Americans" is the phrase used by most people belonging to that group. However, there is also a case for using the 'descent-phrase' for those who are 'n-th generation' Norwegian-Americans (n > say, 3 or 4), and who might not identify particularly much, if at all, with their ethnic ancestry, even though that ancestry is a straightforward fact. For example, I doubt that Paris Hilton identifies herself as a Norwegian-American---even though her hotel chain-founder ancestor Conrad Hilton did, being the son of a Norwegian immigrant to the U.S. So, alas, my conclusion is somewhat of a non-conclusion: either one of the two formats would be kind of 'wrong' for a great many members of the group. That being the case, I say we could just as well go for the status quo. --Wernher 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But then an even better question arises... what is the present status quo? I think the main problem and the reason this - or any other proposal - was brought up is because it's not really clear how the lists are currently organized, and there's no real consistancy. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Americans of xxx descent is a statement of fact whether it is somebody's father or great grandfather. If a person has made particular statements in which they identify with that ethnicity or exhibit some interest in it, that could be noted next to their entry. Arniep 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved List of Irish-Americans to List of Americans of Irish descent. It seems to have worked out fine there. Most of that list is cited, so you can see the kind of citations we should usually have (and some of the people are described as "Irish-Americans", some aren't, so that distinction is noted). I think sooner than later all of the American lists would be moved to similar titles, solving this problem entirely. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that brings up an interesting question, in that you said they have been described as an xxx American, not they described themselves as an xxx American (which they may well never have done). Arniep 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, but we're quoting direct and reliable sources, so if they decided to describe that person as Irish-American and we quoted them, it's their responsibility. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need, nor can we have, special rules for lists of any ethnicity. All we need it Wikipedia policy. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS. All Wikipedia articles must follow Wikipedia policy, we can't have special rules for these ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a curious misunderstanding by some editors of the point of this proposal. No change is suggested to any WP policy (although of course, since we proceed by consensus, any policy could be overturned if the community so wished). However, the policies are not enough. We need some supplementary guidelines and definitions. Consider Irish Americans. It violates no WP policy whether we have a list entitled

• Americans born in Ireland,
• Americans of pure Irish ancestry or
• Americans of partial Irish ancestry

In the third case, we could put in the introduction whether it is restricted to people with one Irish parent, grandparent or great-grandparent. We could include every eligible person without comment, or add a note explaining the extent of their Irish ancestry. We could include everyone whose brother or sister (i.e. both parents the same) is on the list, even if there is no explicit source that they are of Irish-American ethnicity, because it is illogical to split siblings in that way. As long as we say what we are doing, this violates no policy. As SlimVirgin has said, "I agree that there should be consistent criteria for inclusion across all these lists"; we just need to decide what the criteria are. In the case of Jews, we can say that we will include someone without comment if we have a reference that his or her mother, or mother's mother, or mother's mother's mother, was Jewish, since such a person is Jewish in orthodox Jewish law, or we can say that a comment must be added. If anyone can think of a loose end not covered above, please say so. - Newport 11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The loose end is that what you're proposing is a violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. While it would be my preference to adopt as a definition of "Jew" that a person's mother was Jewish, certain denominations would not agree with that. Any definition that we came up with would either violate NOR or NPOV. It was proposed elsewhere that we adopt a mixture of the definitions of all the denominations (though the Orthodox could claim that was not NPOV), but that was rejected by Vulturell, who said it favored a religious over an ethnic POV. Therefore, to adhere to NPOV, NOR, and V, if we're going to call someone a Jew, we must produce a reliable source that calls them that: not their father or their grandfather, but the person themselves. We then trust that the publication has done its research properly, which is why it's important to use good sources and not dodgy websites, as has happened. That's what we do with all other article edits: cite good sources and trust that they've done their research, and ethnicity lists can't operate under different rules. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons stresses that we have to be sure to source edits particularly carefully in the case of living persons, which many on these lists are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, we're not calling a person a Jew, or an Irish-American, or an Armenian or a whatever. We're providing explicit information and then what they consider that person to be is up to the readers themselves. Using an example that fits both Irish and Jewish (this entry from the Irish list):

• Tanya Roberts [2] "modest beginnings in the Bronx, the daughter of a pen salesman (Irish) and a Jewish mother (who were divorced before she reached high school)."

This can't possibly be a violation of original research - in fact it veers into the other end, because this is a direct copy-and-pasting of information from a source. If you read that and think Roberts is Jewish, great. If you read it and think she's Irish, great again. If you read it and think she's neither, ditto. The point is we provide the full information, and in the cases of all the ethnicity lists, it would be explicitly cited information. We're not adapting any definition, but rather listing people - with these explicit quotes - who could be considered Irish, Jewish, etc. under reasonable grounds. We're not saying Tanya Roberts is Jewish (although there may well be a source out there that says so, too), all we're saying is she's Irish on her father's side and Jewish on her mother's, see this explicit quote, and make of it what you will based on your own beliefs. That's all. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine for articles, but with lists you're labeling the names you include, so you have to make sure that reputable sources have applied that label explicitly before Wikipedia can do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What you're proposing would be like having "List of psychiatric patients," then adding Jack O'Lantern, with the explanation: "Jack's mother was a psychiatric patient in May 1962." Well, what does that have to do with Jack's name being on the list? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Very simple. No one at all would consider me a psychiatrist patient because my mother was one. The two are in no way connected. But, say, a large majority of people would consider Tanya Roberts Jewish because her mother was, and another large majority would consider her at least notably Irish because her father was. Why are we removing information that those people would find useful? Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is where you have a blindspot. There are people, including Jews, who would not consider a person Jewish just because their mother was, and many more who would not consider them Jewish just because their father was. And almost no one would consider them such just because a paternal grandparent was, and we even reached the stage with some of these lists where people were listed with just one great grandparent. Because of the diversity of opinion, there is no clear definition and therefore to plump for one would be POV and to invent our own would be OR. Therefore, we stick with WP:V, and we call people Jews if and only if reputable sources have done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the definitions in this case are even clearer than those for other ethnicities, who have no clear definitions at all. Again, I'm not calling (this example again) Tanya Roberts "Jewish", I'm saying she has an Irish-American father and a Jewish-American mother. If it's the title of the page you're concerned about, why not change it? I can see articles being called "List of Greek-Americans and Americans of Greek descent" or "List of Jewish Americans and Americans of Jewish descent". The cited quote by each person would obviously let the reader know if that person is a "Greek-American" or "an American of Greek descent". These titles would more accurately reflect the contents of all these lists, many of people listed under Greeks, for instance, have significant Greek ancestry but have not been described as "Greek" or "Greek-American". Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to conflate all these issues. My comments are only about the Jewish lists because "Jewishness" is an ethnicity/culture/membership of a nation, and a religion, and so the criteria differ from other lists. I have no comment to make about the other lists, as you've been told many times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's not true. It works the same way for the other lists. If someone's mother is Greek, but that person is not described anywhere as "Greek" or "Greek American", then the exact same logic - i.e. a violation of original research applies - if they are put on a Greek list. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You say it works that way for the other lists. I have no idea and no opinion, because I've never edited them. All I'm saying is that "Jewishness" is more complicated. Those are the only lists I am commenting on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, but what's to see about the other lists? They're all organized the same way. People who have (using this example) Greek parents, parent, grandparent, etc. are listed. Some have been described as Greek or Greek-American in good sources, and some haven't. If you say it's a violation on the Jewish lists, then it is the exact same violations on the other lists. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The only criterion that is compatible with Wikipedia's policies for lists of foos is that the person in question has been described as a "foo" in a reputable source. Deciding that having X ancestry or Y upbringing or Z parents makes you a foo is original research. Wikipedia restates what reputable sources have already stated. It does not make judgements. I consider the following policies absolutely nonnegotiable: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I suggest to Newport and Jack O'Lantern that they read them and make a genuine attempt to understand them.

As far as having "Lists of people with foo descent", this is fine, but must be restricted to those people who are described as having foo descent in the sources. You may not interpret other wordings as meaning that they have foo descent, any more than you can interpret them as meaning they are foos.

People ask, does this mean we should include people who are in our view wrongly described as a foo on lists of foos. The answer is yes, if there is no other, preferably better source that says otherwise. If you do not understand that, go and read WP:V once more. The key sentence is in bold. The criterion for entry in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We do not decide what is true. We state what others can go see for themselves.

I should point out to Jack O'Lantern that "one drop" tests are absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia of this nature. It doesn't matter whether you think this, that or other thing makes someone a foo. Unless you have a reputable source that states it, you may not include the person in a list of foos. This is exactly the same standard for all edits on Wikipedia. Write it on a piece of paper, Jack. Stick it on the wall above your PC. Wikipedia does not make judgements. To do so is original research, which is rightly forbidden here. Grace Note 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, let me get this. You're saying that a person who is described as being of "Irish ancestry" couldn't be on a list of people "of Irish descent"? If you think that's true, you had better go ahead on copying whole articles on people and pasting them here, otherwise it would be the exact same violation of original research as assuming "ancestry" means "descent" would be. Use of the thesaurus, alas, is not forbidden to us, and I will never, ever, accept that it is. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I must say I firmly agree with Jack O on this one. Grace Note's statements

1. Deciding that having X ancestry or Y upbringing or Z parents makes you a foo is original research[.]
2. As far as having "Lists of people with foo descent", this is fine, but must be restricted to those people who are described as having foo descent in the sources. You may not interpret other wordings as meaning that they have foo descent, any more than you can interpret them as meaning they are foos.

strikes me as implying that an American who is listed with, say, Norwegian parents, is not to be categorized as a Norwegian-American unless there is another source using the exact wording "Norwegian-American" about that person. Does WP policy actually forbid such very trivial deductive reasoning on the pretense that it is to be considered "original research"? I can't say that I reach such a conclusion from looking at WP:NOR's section "What is excluded?". I hope I have misunderstood this part of the discussion, since I can't honestly see what to discuss here. --Wernher 04:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agrree with Wernher here. There doesn't seem to be a OR issue here. JoshuaZ 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this should have its own header/section but on a related matter to the ethnic lists, is their a standard biographical format for AMERICAN born, I won't even get into foreign born, folks, as far as "Jewishness". I see that 90% of the bios read,"joe blow, is an American tight rope walker. He was born to a Jewish family or is of Jewish decent or his father was a Polish Jew, ect ect." It seems that the term Jewish-American isn't appropriate. Thanks!Backroomlaptop 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

One-shot things

Alot of articles i'm involved with are filled with irrelevant info about one-shot events/characters, and even if they're removed, editors will come back and add it. For example, in The Andy Milonakis Show, I reverted an edit that said "In one episode, he asks St. Andrew's Head (an angelic head that resembles Andy's head) about where his shoes are, then Andy punches St. Andrew's Head in the chin after helping him". This was a 30 second skit that had no effect or relevance on the series. Here is a fine example of what i'm talking about. --Philo 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that articles about TV series and the like are written by their fans, and that for fans of such a subject any aspect or detail of it is noteworthy. Wikipedia is to a very large extent a Fancruftopedia. -- Hoary 14:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

>>Wikipedia is to a very large extent a Fancruftopedia.<< You can say that again. I used to spend a large amount of time in the Articles for Deletion, but I was just getting worked up, and there was always one more piece of cruft to delete. So I eventually decided to spend that time editing the more traditional types of articles. I wish you luck, Philo. 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say what characters should be mentioned in an article about a TV show. At least it's not a separate article (I hope!). -- DavidH 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's this sort of dicussion that sickens and disheartens me. I cannot express my indignation at the foolishness, arrogance, bias, and pure hipocrisy displayed in the above comments. I'll address your points, in turn.

• "It seems to me that articles about TV series and the like are written by their fans, and that for fans of such a subject any aspect or detail of it is noteworthy.". Aww, lovely. You imply that any fan of any television show cannot write proper encyclopedia articles. If I were to imply the same thing about anyone interested in any area of politics I'd be drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered. But you're able to get away with it because it's about pop culture. I wasn't aware that contributors to pop culture articles are allowed to be personally attacked.

• And then, even better, you pull out the old favorite, "fancruft". Fancruft exists. But it has now became shorthand to attack and denigrate the contributions of others because one are not interested in the subject.

• ">>Wikipedia is to a very large extent a Fancruftopedia.<< You can say that again. I used to spend a large amount of time in the Articles for Deletion, but I was just getting worked up, and there was always one more piece of cruft to delete. So I eventually decided to spend that time editing the more traditional types of articles. I wish you luck,". So rather than attempting to improve, or discuss merging of these articles, you instead try to get them deleted. Apparently you viewed this as a crusade against so-called "fancruft". I can only imagine that you did not do a grand ammount of research prior to making these nominations. Nothing personal, mind you—The vast majority of deletion nominations are poorly researched, and pop culture-related ones even less so.

• "It's hard to say what characters should be mentioned in an article about a TV show. At least it's not a separate article (I hope!).". Oh, how grand! You offer no solution whatsoever to the problem, and instead attack and denigrate the practical, logical, and overall excellent method of splitting off lists of characters so they don't clutter up the article. This is totally inexplicable, but I can only imagine that it's because you are personally not interested in the subject. For whatever reason, you believe pop culture is exempt from the standards and practices of all other articles, for no other reason than that it's popular culture. That's biased, hypocritical, and to be blunt, absurd.

In short, I can only wish that at some point, people will understand that pop culture articles are encyclopedic, that the same standards of detail and coverage apply to them as all other articles, and that the contributors to those articles deserve the same respect and appreciation as the contributors to any others. Fortunately, the people who do realise far outweigh those who don't. I can only hope that eventually everyone will.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now. I don't see anything in my comment above that should be characterized as "attack and denigrate." I don't happen to believe articles about each individual fictional character on most TV shows are appropriate in an encyclopedia. Madame Bovary, maybe; crewmembers on Star Trek, not so much. I don't consider your opinion absurd, but that's what you've called mine, as well as "hypocritical" (have I contributed to articles that makes my statement above hypocritical?) -- and that's a bit uncivil I think. The fact is, when there is scholarly research or other independent verifiable evidence of a wider cultural impact on which to write, that's one thing. Articles simply about what characters did on which episode of a TV show is not up to encyclopedic standards, in my opinion. Call it absurd, but I'm not the only one with this absurdist view. DavidH 08:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for avoiding WP:BITE on new articles

Some of the discussions regarding Monicasdude's arbitration case have prompted me to think about how Wikipedia handles new articles, particularly those created by those new to the system. While I do not think that a newbie's first article is in any way holy, I believe that newbies' articles require consideration other than what is given with the AfD, prod, and especially Speedy processes. I know, from personal experience, that a newbie who desires to write a completely new article is usually unaware of Wikipedia formatting standards, citing standards, and the practice of claiming notability within the article. Thus, I suggest that new users' articles be (if the newbie such wishes) put into a special cleanup area where, if notability is confirmed through Google hits or other means, more experienced editors can format the article to meet Wikipedia standards. On a new user's first few new articles, possibly the first five?, a prompt would appear, explaining that while Wikipedia values new users' new articles, many such articles are not formatted according to Wikipedia standards. This prompt would also encourage the new user to place a template such as {{newbie}} at the top of the page, which would then put the article on a list of articles for more experienced editors to examine. At this point, non-notable articles or other articles not included in Wikipedia would be deleted, while notable articles with poor formatting would be improved.

I believe that this proposal would help to prevent unintentional newbie biting, by allowing newbies' articles to be deleted more kindly than through a Speedy process, and by allowing newbies' legitimate articles to be improved. I realize that this proposal would take a considerable amount of work to code, and a considerable amount of work to sort through the newbies' articles. While I do not currently know enough about Wikipedia coding to assist in any way with that, I hereby volunteer myself to regularly work on the "newbie article" section, both improving and deleting articles. I believe that an expenditure of my time is a good trade for preventing newbie-biting through this system, and I am not proposing this for "someone else" to do—I will help in any way I can, should this proposal be accepted. Thank you for your time in considering this proposal, and thank you in advance for any comments. Abhorsen327 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a newbie myself (my only wholly new article, Fast battleship, has so far only received one tiny edit and no comment at all), I fully support the suggestion of a new editor support/cleanup service; I would strongly oppose any idea that new editors who do not solicit assistance should be exempted from the normal procedures of AfD, prod, and especially Speedy processes (in fairness, I am not sure that this is what Abhorsen327 has in mind). When I created my first new page, I was shown a conspicuous message saying "If you're a newcomer, please first read the introduction, tutorial, and your first article to ensure the quality of your new article". Although I do not possess a degree in Rocket Science, I was able to appreciate the force of this advice and took it. If a would-be editor is too arrogant, lazy and/or stupid to do likewise, I would suggest that speedy deletion of their work is all that they deserve, and the more discouraged it makes them, the better. On the other hand, I agree that newbies who ask for help in good faith should receive it as fully as the resources in Wikepedia allow.

Can I add my thanks to those who have already commented on this very interesting idea? Comments on what I have said are welcome; I have added this page to my watchlist.

PS - I would be delighted if Abhorsen327, or any other newbiephile with time to spare, were to take a look at the Fast battleship stub, or my work on HMS Hood (51), which has taken up most of my editing time, and add a constructive comment or two to my talk page (currenly blank).

PPS - While adding this post, I've just discovered that links to article names appear to be case-sensitive. Is this really a good idea??

John Moore 309 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible. I suspect that many new editors get put off by hostile reactions to their first attempts. I'm sure that if my first article had been speedily deleted, I'd have thought twice about writing another. - Runcorn 15:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. In support of the claims made justifying the idea, I offer Annie's Road as an article a newbie put up that benefited from someone else editing it a bit. The next article the newbie put up got speedied before I got a chance to rescue it (although I have the text in my user area, I haven't got to it yet.. too much yammering and not enough article writing I guess? (note to self {{sofixit}}!)) ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, just as long as it only applies to pages which have been created or greatly changed (x characters?) by a newbie: if we have {{newbie}} templates popping up all over it;ll be more work than it's worth. Nihiltres 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Something to be said for it. WOuld it have altered the discussion on anti-vaccinationist I wonder. Midgley 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a terrible idea. Articles are not owned, and this would easily create the wrong impression. The encyclopedia is the primary product, not the community. We should be civil to newbies and patiently explain the way things work to them, and that should be sufficient. --Improv 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Improv. Such a policy would give the misleading impression that the article in question somehow belongs to its creator. Moreover, anyone could then get special treatment for their articles just by creating a new account and thereby becoming a "newbie." Sure, Wikipedia can seem a little harsh to new users, but I like to think of it as a kind of hazing process that weeds out people who by disposition (stubborn, egotistical, exploitative, dogmatic, unwilling to learn, unwilling to compromise, etc.) aren't suited to be encyclopedia editors anyway. Of course, more experienced users should bend over backwards to be nice to newbies. This should not be built into Wikipedia's technical infrastructure, however. dbtfz^talk 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no one owns an article. However, the newbie in question certainly created the article, and the template would point that out. What a {{newbie}} template could do is point out that it is one of the person's first articles, and so help, development, and messages that explain how Wikipedia works is in order. In the case that an article truly doesn't belong, the article could still go through the speedy process. However, the newbie template would still apply, and so the person who nominated it for speedy would explain to the newbie how the article quite isn't what Wikipedia is looking for. Once the newbie understands why the article was deleted, then they can go on to become better contributors. If they're being unconstructive along the way (i.e. arrogant, disagreeable, etc.), well then that's a whole other subject. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of user talk pages

Until a few days ago, Wikipedia:Vandalism held that blanking a warning from one's user talk page was considered vandalism. This appeared to be the only type of edit to one's own talk page that was explicitly disallowed. With its removal, there apparently is now no edit on a user talk page that would per se be disallowed.

I think this policy change is moving us in the wrong direction. I have noticed, with seemingly increasing frequency of late, editors who blank their pages repeatedly of all, or all negative or controversial, comments. This appears to be allowed under current policy (e.g., WP:VAND currently reads, "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion."). Should it be? Perhaps WP:VAND was the wrong page for such a policy, and calling user talk blanking behavior "vandalism" is too strong. But should it be allowable?

In more than one case I have examined the edit history of talk pages whose user follows this practice of blanking, and have discovered the same issue being brought up again and again by different commenters. Most leaving a comment are not going to take the time to click through edit history; and besides, repeated blanking means that if you want to read all comments to the user recently, you have to click every other diff, which can be extraordinarily tedious. (Especially since most commenters leave cryptic or article-oriented edit summaries, which means you often cannot weed down the history to relevant diffs.)

I've also sometimes found {{welcome}} added multiple times to these users' pages, which I find amusing, but it belies the fact that editors, upon finding a blank talk page, assume the user is a newbie. It seems to me that some of these "blankers" may be gaining extra dispensation for bad behavior under WP:BITE that they are not otherwise deserving of.

I'm not envisioning anything fancy, but something as simple as "don't delete anything (except vandalism and personal attacks) less than a month old" would probably be plenty sufficient.

Alternatively, perhaps we could adopt a standard edit summary system for admonishing or warning users, so that even if the user's talk page is repeatedly blanked, it will not be necessary to click "diff... diff... diff" to find out whether the user's been previously warned. --TreyHarris 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, there is already a warning template when someone blanks their talk page of warnings at Template:Wr. Ziggurat 01:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TreyHarris's assessment of the situation. I cna't suggest any procedural changes, but I'll support anything reasonable that reduces the tendency to blank warnings from user talk pages. -Will Beback 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think people should be allowed to do anything they want with their user pages and should never be criticised for it. The fact that one is expected to put up with any number of personal attacks on one's user page - which unlike the people that made them one has to look at over and over again - is one of the very worst features of wikipedia. CalJW 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If users are allowed to blank their talk pages, then we will need to implement separate, unblankable "rap sheets" to document warnings against them, attempts and notifications toward dispute resolution, etc. Is that what you want? Melchoir 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that one is expected to put up with any number of personal attacks on one's user page - which unlike the people that made them one has to look at over and over again - is one of the very worst features of wikipedia." I don't know what you mean about it being one of the "features of Wikipedia". First of all, I'm not talking about "user pages". I'm talking about user talk pages, which are intended to be pages where other users communicate with you (and, in the case of warnings, where warners indirectly communicate with one another to determine if disruptive behavior is isolated or part of a continuing pattern).

Certainly we can't prevent unknown users from attacking you, though WP:NPA describes how we can deal with an attack after it has happened. In any case, my simple proposal — "don't delete anything (except vandalism and personal attacks) less than a month old" would still allow you to refactor personal attacks. But a criticism or warning is not necessarily a personal attack. The standard warning templates are all civil in tone. If an unfounded warning or criticism was used as a personal attack, just respond right there on your own page that it's unfounded, refactor anything beyond the pale, and notify an administrator at WP:PAIN. In my experience, administrators are happy to remove a warning that was used maliciously or in error.

Under my proposal, if you are legitimately criticized or warned on your user talk page, you should take it as constructive criticism, respond as necessary, and then a month later, you can delete or archive the criticism or warning. If a legitimate, constructive critique really bothers someone so much that they just can't stand it being on their talk page, then they should really try to grow a thicker skin. If they plead ignorance and show understanding of their transgression and promise not to do it again, the original commenter will probably be willing to withdraw the critique anyway. I have no desire here to bite newbies or to humiliate editors acting in good faith. I merely want to ensure that those few editors who are truly disrupting Wikipedia cannot postpone the action necessary to stop their disruption by repeatedly blanking their talk pages. --TreyHarris 03:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you think about

Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.

? No need to write a new guideline about that, it's already in Wikipedia:Etiquette (apart that I bolded "resolved").

The word "legitimately" in the expression "legitimately criticized" you proposed is too tackish to be workable IMHO, just adds another level of complexity that even has less chance of being solved. It will always come down to who *thinks* it is legitimate and who *doesn't*. If reading only a few RfC's (and believe me I never read more than a few), you'll see that pages, and pages, and pages can be filled with interpretations of how "legitimate" a criticism was.

Personally I take pride in receiving some absurdistic comments by an odd semi-troll on my talk page every once and a while (don't exaggerate though!) - When you're around here long enough you know in the end it always reflects back on the writer. Even makes me feel sorry sometimes to have to archive such excellent self-condemning prose when my talk page becomes too long.

The problem is for newcomers, that probably didn't read what I write here, or simply can't believe it. Yeah, and true: Jimbo's talk page needs some special surveillance nearly permanently... (see header text at user talk:Jimbo Wales, ooh, even appears to have been converted in a yellow and a pink template now...).

Seriously, I think editors can be banned for dodging resolution of disputes if quickly removing negative comments from their talk pages without attempt to address the raised concern. Just apply WP:POINT, WP:EQ, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or whatever policy/guideline that seems applicable after properly warning the editor. If you're a sysop and apply a ban, best to make some time to clarify the reason for the ban at WP:AN/I or so I suppose (we don't want wheel wars, do we...) --Francis Schonken 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken with the worst of the worst. My concern, though, is with low-grade disrupters, like people who change different articles repeatedly from one national English variant to another, are warned, delete the warning, and move on to another article and do it again. Disrupters who move around nibbling at the edges of the article space (or worse, who use AWB so that their edits are in an entirely random swath of articles) may have no "nexus" where different editors will realize that the bad behavior is part of a pattern, apart from their user talk page. Recently I had the occasion to warn an AWB user that they were making bad edits. I got back a "thanks, fixed" response, but a few days later noticed the same sort of bad edit by the same user. I went to their talk page and found my prior comment gone, checked the edit history, and found dozens of blanked complaints about the same issue, all responded to with "thanks, fixed". If the user had left the comments on the talk page, someone would have realized that there was a problem long before thousands of articles got badly edited. --TreyHarris 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, AWB... the old enemy (not all that old is it?)... I think we might need some new guideline wikipedia:semi-bots or something in that vein. Have been thinking about this for some weeks now. Up till now WP:BOTS and the bot admission procedure (notwithstanding being made somewhat stricter recently), are maybe not the appropriate instruments to help contributors see the value, but also disadvantages, of semi-bot operations. On one side WP:BOTS is too coarse, while it uses "number of edits per minute" as a treshold for defining a bot... While what we seek (I think) regarding semi-bots is rather an approach and appreciation of the kind of tasks that benefit from some degree of automatisation, and the ones that don't. As we all somehow experienced some of the style recommendations intended to improve wikipedia, become monstrosities if left to be implemented repetitively in a walkover method. Bot alert procedures (...block the bot, which usually ends up blocking the bot operator's account too) are also a bit coarse; continuing the present approach: AWB operators without bot flag are responsible for each and every edit on the same level as any other user account, is not too appropriate either. Sometimes the "faults" made are rather enervating by their repetition of small deteriorations or even useless/non-existent changes, like this edit creating a lot of yellow, green and red in the diff, but creating only *one* visible change: it changed (essay) to ( essay) – which I only discovered when starting to revert the edits.

So I suppose a major issue for the new guideline would be to come to terms with accountability of the semi-bot operator. They need to be able to revert a whole range of edits, if some of the edits of a series appear to be questionable (it's not the task of the one who spots the questionable behaviour, to check and/or revert each and every edit), and this reverting by the bot operator would need to be respecting other edits that may have happened to those articles in the mean while (if AWB can't do that, or the bot operator doesn't want to take that kind of responsibility: no use to have such bot operator edit by AWB).

Existing guidelines need to be reviewed discerning between (what I'd call) "soft" recommendations (that can't be implemented purely mechanically, at present even typo correction would fall under this definition of a "soft" recommendation); and operations that can't really go wrong when implementing them on a repetitive scale.

Just some ideas... --Francis Schonken 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Did any of you Guys Notice this Conversation is already lower on this page Removing Warnings Also In an Atempt to resolve this Problem there is Wikipedia:Removing_warnings And I am trying to Move a Copy of all Conversation on this issue there.--E-Bod 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

There is a large problem with observing pure neutrality in journalism, and especially in the writing of encyclopediae. The problem I assume is rather clear to everyone who has ever taken a course in philosophy, which the problem of truth. Assuming neutrality when writing about historical events, literature, and any other such topic in the humanities fosters the notion that both sides of any argument are valid, and that when presented with a good argument, any position can be respected and 'tolerated.' The problem with this assumption is one that bites the very course of the journalistic enterprise, which is the belief that journalism is meant to expose the truth and provide the audience with solid material for discussion and exposition. Of course, presenting 'both sides of a coin' is based on the nihilistic notion that truth in and of itself does not exist. If there is no truth, there can be no rational discourse, for all such discourse is based on the assumption of an axiom (I would rather not say dogma for that word has acquired a negative connotation to it over time) on which all parties can agree. Truth is such an axiom. Therefore I call upon Wikipedia,— both the writers and the directors,— to rexamine the policy of neutrality and to reconsider it. above unsigned edit by User:Krishnamurthi.

I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV, and I encourage you to re-read it. The policy of Wikipedia is specifically not that all sides of an argument are equally valid: the policy is that arguments should be presented in a manner that makes it clear to the reader how well accepted each is. NPOV states that Wikipedians must not (insofar as possible) insert our opinions on a subject, but we must report on what others (preferably those with reputations for adding to the search for truth) think. We trust (and it is an act of faith) that the world-wide free interplay of ideas is sufficiently strong that truth will gain acceptance, and falsehood will fade, given enough time. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In theory, if enough editors work on any article, their views will tend to balance out and the final outcome will be NPOV. Of course, this may not always happen in practice, humans being fallible. - Runcorn 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. NPOV is not mainly about balance, though that is part of it. NPOV is, above all, about the relation between the narrative voice of the article and any opinions expressed in the article: that it is clear whose opinions these are, and that they are not stated as the opinions of an omniscient narrator. - Jmabel | Talk 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And we are all responsible for making all of our edits as NPOV as possible. WP is not an adversarial forum. Yes, we have biases, and many eyes will help catch and correct them, but the idea is never to write as an advocate. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Study pages?

I have looked at many of the comments about existing core policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and I think I have learned something. To the extent that the concerns are legitimate, they can roughly be divided into three classes:

1. Making it harder to use policy in bad faith as a bludgeon to gain an advantage in an edit war.
2. Grey areas that an editor fears will give rise to disputes, or that actually have caused a dispute.
3. Complicated or rare cases that the editor feels need explanation.

The problem, as I see it, is that modifying the policy is rarely the correct solution. Moreover, the problem is often more theoretical than real: has any editor actually been admonished by an admin for not providing a peer-reviewed study that shows the Sun rises in the east? Has there ever been an actual consensus that, given sourced birthdates for two men, it is original research to conclude that one of them was older than the other without citing a source that makes the comparison? I would hope that demands of this sort would be considered WP:POINT.

It occurs to me that there is a better way -- one that decision makers, such as managers and lawyers, have been using for a long time. The case study. A number of real-world cases are boiled down to essentials, and then used as examples of how the principles work in circumstances that are not necessarily straightforward or obvious. This approach would do several things.

• It would help reassure people that policies are not a weapon being used by a cabal to dominate Wikipedia.
• It would help editors see where their good-faith actions might be against policy.
• It would help editors see where their good-faith complaints might be ill-founded.
• It might reduce, at least marginally, the sort of petty rules argument that comes up from time to time during an edit war.
• It would provide a public resource for arbcom to use as precedent.
• If there are any actual deficiencies in policy, it would help identify them.

In a sense, the Village Pump archives could be used for this purpose, but if I want guidance before writing something, it would be a long hard search to find something that fit. Perhaps they could be mined for examples. What do people think? Does this idea make sense? Have I just volunteered for a lot of work? Robert A.West (Talk) 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad that nobody has responded to this; I think it's a great idea. I suppose nobody has the motivation or time to actually get it started. I don't currently have the time, but I don't want the case study idea to die. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This was tried on AFD a while back (actually, long enough ago that it was VFD then). It was somewhat helpful. Yes, building up an equivalent of case law could have some value, but it is a lot of work. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Narrowly targetted pronoun policy

I know that there has been some debate about the use of appropriate pronouns on articles. I have no interest in restarting it, because I don't think it will get resolved. Instead, I would like to suggest that we have a policy, like the spelling or BC/BCE policy, which prohibits needlessly changing pronoun usage. In particular, I would suggest that generic "he", "she", and "they" be allowed. Unlike the BC/BCE standard, I would suggest that alternating between generic he/she be acceptable. (By this I don't mean awkward phrasings like "Suppose there was a person, she ate food and then he got sick". Rather I mean choosing a single sex for a particular example and using it consistently, and then choosing a different sex for a different example.)

The policy would say that changing from one accepted form to the other, without any external justification could be reverted. Changing the wording of the sentence so as to avoid the need for generics would be allowable. I add the "without any external justification" with specific cases in mind. For instance, in Ultimatum game there are two people. I orginally wrote the entry to make one a man and one a woman, which aids in parsing the sentences. More than once this has been changed, to the detriment of the article (I claim).

I would like to have this policy because I use a particular style, common in many academic fields, of starting with a generic "he" or "she" and alternating. I find it particularly frustrating when people come and change wording. This is especially frustrating when they make changes inconsistently (i.e. changing all the "her"s to "they"s but leaving the "his"s or changing only one "her" to "his"). But its equally frustrating when they only edit to change one acceptable form to another for reasons about which I will not speculate.

This, I believe is already policy. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Disputes_over_style_issues. Nonetheless, I would like the "acceptable" forms codified so that needless debate does not ensue.

Before anyone gets too angry at it, let me say I hate the singular they as much as the next gal. I try to avoid it when I can. It is an unfortunate part of our langauge that is here to stay, and I think including it would be an important part of a compromise. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The position in English law is that, where the context so requires or admits, the masculine pronoun covers the feminine too. While this is a nice, simple policy, I realise that many people don't like it. - Runcorn 05:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of its merits, such a policy will not gain consensus support. I think it would be better to find a compromise. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not an English legal document. Comprimise is not what we should be looking for, a sensible solution is. Picking some random gender per example would make sense. --Improv 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I oppose the use of "she" when used to describe hypothetical people in a gender-neutral situation. I don't believe this usage has ever been standard, and it's jarring to get halfway into a description about, for instance, what a generic scientist might do in some situation, and then see "the scientist" referred to as "she" when the author first ran into a sentence where not using any pronoun would be too repetetive. I've nothing against females being scientists or whatever else, but by convention in English it simply sticks out too much (and I actually know some women that strongly agree). Also, it just gets distracting when the gender alternates back and forth, example after example. I would say, either use "they", or possibly "he", or get more creative with the sentence structure to avoid needing any pronouns. –Tifego^(t) _{08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'm sorry that you find it jarring. Nonetheless, I believe it is acceptable practice. This link that I provided above is from the Chicago manual of style, at the bottom the writer indicates this is a standard some authors adopt. Since this is an manual of style, I take this to indicate that it is acceptable form. It is not uncommon in philosophy publications for this to be used. For instance, in her Lakatos Lecture (a big award in philosophy of science) Penelope Maddy adopts this standard. (In fact, she uses it in other publications too.) This is by far not unique to her, and if need be, I'll track down many other cases. The fact of the matter is it is common and acceptable practice in the english language. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes alternation is reasonably natural and works, more often it isn't and doesn't. (At least with no page breaks, we will be spared using one form on even pages and the other on odd.) Saying that an editor can't change an alternation just because he thinks it doesn't work is like telling her that he can't edit. Seriously, you can't legislate writing skill or common sense. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some writers deliberately oscillate between using male and female pronouns when referring to hypothetical people in books. This style works quite well (as long as one gender is used consistently to refer to a particular hypothetical person within a single section of the larger work), but can be quite disconcerting to those not familiar with it. --4.246.36.59 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we should include the alternating style that you've parodied? If this is an argument against having a policy, I don't get it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a wider issue. People often go to the article only to change it to their prefered style of writing. Changing he to they and back, changing sentences with serial commas to senences without them, changing names with diacitics to names without and back. I do not like it. I believe that when you have nothink to add you should not change the article. It does not involve improving the style or spelling when it is objectively wrong, but there are many situations when there are more correct ways of saying things.

I would say that this is closely related to the NPOV policy. If people believe that "they" is better then "he", it is their POV. Their are free to use the spelling in their own articles, but they should not push it to all articles. It is just normal POV pushing. My recomandation is: "Do not go to the article only to change from one POV of correct writing to the other POV" --Jan Smolik 12:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid a list being a copyvio?

I ran across something on articles for deletion which was a chronological list of comic books featuring a comic book character. One reason for deletion was a copyvio. There was no reference - I don't know if it was cut and pasted directly from another website. Assuming it wasn't but this list already existed on a fansite somewhere and was used as a reference, how do you have the same list without it being a copyvio? There is not more than one way to construct this list. So is the best way to just present a link to that fansite, and avoid any infringement? Hope this wasn't too muddled. --Joelmills 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some things, like the Periodic table are scientific fact and thus uncopyrightable and thus in the public domain. But as for the fancruft...cite the fan site as a source and move on. The only way to list that is in order, and that's the same no matter who's giving the info. So that shouldn't be a reason. Fancruft may be one, but...--HereToHelp 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some murky areas. Suppose I find a list, copy it and make a few additions and corrections. Is that still a copyvio? - Runcorn 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A list of facts, per se, cannot be copyrighted. A chronological list of comic books featuring a comic book character cannot be copyrighted. If, however, there were comments included in the list, those would be copyrightable. There have been several discussions lately concerning such things as "Top 100 movies of all time as chosen by the editors of xyz magazine". Those are copyrighted, because they're the intellectual property of the magazine who made the list. But "Top 100 movies of all time as chosen in a public poll" might not be copyrightable. Recently the Writers Guild came out with their top screenplays of all time. I made a couple of small mentions of the poll, but did not write an article about the poll itself, because the information is copyrighted to the Guild. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you copy a substantial amount of someone else's work you violate their copyright. If in the example first given, you research and create a chronological list of comic books featuring a comic book character, then it is your work and doesn't violate copyright. If you simply copy and paste a list from another site, you violate their copyright, even though you end up with exactly the same list. If you did your own research and were charged with violation, you would be able to prove (by citing your original sources, for example) that it was your own work. Sometimes commercial organisations deliberately insert "mistakes" into lists and directories, so that if their list is copied, they can show that it was theirs, as the "mistakes" would also have been copied. If someone researched the same data themselves from independent sources, then the "mistakes" would not be there. Tyrenius 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia is a dictionary.

Somebody needs to get rid of that policy WP:WINAD, since most users don't agree with or follow it on AfD discussions. To my way of thinking, adding usage examples and an etymology to a definition still makes it a definition, but some people think, for some unfathomable reason, that this makes it an encyclopedia entry. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of a bitch for a current example. Erik the Rude 16:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have to say (except of course for getting rid of WP:WINAD). Wikipedia has lately turned into an indescriminate collection of unencyclopedic material, and no one seems to mind. I guess it doesn't really bother me that much, as I generally prefer more information to less, but I do feel that vocab articles need to assert far more than definitions and pronunctiation--they need to show impacts of the word on pop culture, etc., to be encyclopedic (take for instance Fuck, which has potential to someday be an encyclopedia article). On another note, what is up with the thousands of lists of random things (i.e. List of celebrities playing radio show callers on Frasier)?! I thought this was an encyclopedia. =S AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah! It's not an encyclopedia, it's Trivial Pursuit(ʀ), the Wikipedia Edition. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia should allow definition-type articles, but only for terms that are not widely understood and are used in several articles. Explaining every term that people may not understand and that does not have an article is impractical. I think this is a partial reason why articles are often marked as "too technical". Also, Britannica has definition-type articles. -- Kjkolb 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't {{wi}} the tool for explaining terms that aren't attached to an encyclopedic topic? Melchoir 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Melchoir. Wiktionary is the place, not here, for dictionary defs, even for obscure terms. --Improv 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but inevitably many articles will have a degree of dictionary definitions in them. - Runcorn 05:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be easy to link to a - supposed existing - Wiktionary (WK) article, instead of creating a WP one. When there is nothing to say about foo past its definition, let us imagine a [ [:WK:en:foo|foo]] instead of a [ [foo]] link. --DLL 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the use of the "h" template for the HTML hover function {{h:title|hover text|text}} can be This means that it is enough. --DLL 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, radical thought, create a Wiktionary entry, then link to it. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Relatives of famous people

There seems to be some confusion over whether merely being related to a notable person makes someone more notable than if they weren't, and if that added notability factor does exist, whether that should be an accepted criteria in WP:BIO. I would welcome wider community input on current afds and cfds relevant to this issue here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Frederick_A._Kerry-Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Tarita_Teriipia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Travolta Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvatore Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Travolta, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Category:Famous_people.27s_relatives_who_committed_suicide, and any further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Thanks Arniep 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that being related to a notable person should in itself be a factor. However, inevitably these relations often get more publicity than other people so become notable. If that happens, WP needs to report it. - Runcorn 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is does a relative being mentioned in the media for something relatively minor/banal mean that they deserve a wikipedia article? How much, what level, and what type of media attention is required for the relative to have become notable enough for their own article? Arniep 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I recently got one of the editors who created the category (User:Mike Selinker) and was pushing for the constituent articles to be kept to concede that a line can at least be drawn between someone like Frederick A. Kerry, who lived a largely unremarkable life and killed himself 22 years before John Kerry was born (opposition to deletion withdrawn) and Cheyenne Brando, whose whole life was affected by being related to a massive star, did some modelling and was involved in several newsworthy events including her suicide, and probably deserves an article. As far as the wider issue is concerned, an individual must be individually notable to pass WP:BIO. If a relative is involved in a notable event in the life of a notable person, there is certainly no automatic need for said information to be reported anywhere other than the notable person's page. Deizio 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

patern of abuse from certian ip ranges?

I've noticed that approximatly 99.9999% of wikipedia vandalism, by ip users seems to come from the same ip range,

NetRange: 1.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255

I suggest that if it were blocked, nearly all vandalism could be ceased indefintly--152.163.100.200 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to happen any time soon. Please stop posting this all over Wikipedia. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't you be blocked if this was implemented? --Osbus 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, where does the other 0.0001% of IP vandalism come from? Blocking IPs would be bad for Wikipedia - many anonymous editors add valuable content on a casual basis, whereas the vandalism that comes from them is quickly reverted. -- Mithent 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why exclude those vandalising from 0.0.0.0 to 0.0.0.255? But honestly, April 1 was several days ago, eh? -- cmh 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales comments: policy or opinion?

The Wikipedia page on policy and guidelines says that one way that policies are decided, are by Jimbo himself.

Does Jimbo have to physically update the policy page himself for his word to become law, or do his mailing list comments on policy clarification carry equal weight, or does the community have to decide on his comments and have a consensus? --Iantresman 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally, Jimbo makes it clear when he is speaking in policy-creating mode, wherever he might do that. When he does do that, it doesn't really matter how or where he does it. At other times, he's speaking as an editor, but as a clearly influential one whose opinion should be taken very seriously indeed. Some actions of his are considered executive decisions: most particularly when he presses an admin button. This is because he only takes an admin action very occasionally, and usually to directly remedy a situation. A recent case with a lack of clarity was the establishment of WP:CSD#T1. I think that most admins/editors considered him to be speaking ex cathedra, and the speedy criterion has consistently stuck in some form or another. An example where it is a non-binding opinion is the thorny question of Wikipedia:Notability. Jimbo's not a fan of it, but that doesn't stop people relying on it with frequency in an AfD. This reliance is controversial to say the least: many people cite Jimbo's not-a-fan-ness but it doesn't really stop or decide the issue. -Splash^talk 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you think that Jimbo's message concerning NPOV being "absolute and non-negotiable" here be considered such an example?

And likewise, these similar messages on NPOV clarification here and here? --Iantresman 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he should be more clear about when he is speaking ex cathedra? For great justice. 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

After the page on Papal infallibility:

1. . "the Wikipedia Pontiff"
2. . "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Wikipedians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. . "he defines"
4. . "that a policy concerning editing or discussion"
5. . "must be held by the whole Wikipedia" (after Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.)

How about that? For great justice. 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See also m:benevolent dictator --Francis Schonken 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the listserv messages: the first (that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable") is a description of preexisting Foundation policy, I believe. For Wikipedias of all languages, NPOV, verifiability, and WP:NOR are all Foundation-mandated, IIRC, of course along with legal issues and the like. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read all that somewhere authoritative. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaic style

The manual of style appears mute on the question of archaisms in WP articles. It doesn't cover people using archaisms in running article text: "Brewing hath much to do with sugars". (The manual does treat international variation, and I think that its suggestions there are appropriate, but this is not the same as archaism. Or even dialect for that matter.)

One would think that it would be evident that the encyclopedia is interested in having readable text in modern english. Sadly, however, this is not the case. A debate/edit war about this is currently ongoing (regarding spelling Egypt as Ægypt) and with no style guideline on archaism it is hard to improve the article.

Would editors support adding something to the manual of style along the lines of: "Wikipedia strives to create a readable encyclopedia in modern english. Archaic terms can reduce the general accessibility of the encyclopedia, therefore where editors disagree about the use of these terms it is best to err on the side of not using them." -- cmh 22:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. The "en" means modern English, not whatever archaic English one can dredge up. Exotifying names like Egypt -> Ægypt also smells of POV to me.

Probably a clarification at the bottom of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) would suffice. Melchoir 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Has there been an incident in which the editors of an article reached a consensus to write in anything other than modern English? If not, I see no need for this instruction creep. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A debate/edit war about this is currently ongoing (regarding spelling Egypt as Ægypt) and with no style guideline on archaism it is hard to improve the article. -- cmh 03:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a specific policy against every disruptive activity a fertile mind can come up with. Just revert disruptive changes until the disruption stops. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is also the article Æ, which has a title consisting solely of an archaic letter, and which has survived several attempts to move it to "Ash" or "Aesc" or anything that does not violate WP:UE. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest recourse to WP:AN. This is blatantly against consensus, and disruptively so. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The big picture

Am I alone in the impression that the overarching organization of Wikipedia material about Wikipedia is confused and therefore confusing? Often, trying to find specific information about Wikipedia, I am led through a maze of twisty, little passages, all different. Is anyone working on this? I tried to find out but, I found myself in a maze of twisty, little passages, all different. Rick Norwood 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--Are we just talking general info? If so, I strongly reccommend starting here

Licensing question

Lets say I am an author of an article, and I have submitted it to Wikipedia, thus agreeing to license it under the GFDL. Other people who use material need to credit Wikipedia, post the GFDL policy or link to it, etc.

But if I want to use my own article elsewhere, after I licensed it here, do I (as the author) need to also post all these notices? In other words, do I forfiet any usage rights of my work by submitting it to Wikipedia?

you still own the copytight on your work so you can do what you like with it.Geni 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The only issue is if you're selling rights to distribute the content rather than simply distributing it yourself, the contract may contain clauses which would be violated by a GFDL work, and once you've licensed something under the GFDL you can't take it back. So if a contract is involved, I would suggest you carefully check for any clauses demanding sole distribution rights or naything like that.-Polotet 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By licensing your contributions under the GFDL, you give up some of your exclusive rights—that is, you lose the right to prohibit certain uses of your work. What exclusive rights remain are still yours, and you can license them however you want (and entirely ignore them for personal use). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Religions Affiliations

Wikipedia finds that various Religious groups, however big or small, are complete trash if they don't thousands of people. For example, my article on Hongwei Teh has been removed several times. Though not exactly a religion, it is a practice. It was formed at Lisgar Collegiate Institute this year, and helps students contemplate and live life. It calms people down. Though not a registered school club, there are many followers, mostly grade nine. Wikipedia is the new Google. We want everyone in the world to embrace peace, and that's what Hongwei Teh preaches. This is why we want our article to be reinstated. So you guys should fix your Deletion Policy--MUBOTE 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless there have been other people writing about the movement there's no way to fact-check such an article (this clashes with WP:V) and that would mean anything you write about the movement is your own descriptions (this clashes with WP:OR). These are both foundational policies in Wikipedia, which means that they are essential to how the encyclopedia is run. Can I recommend that you find press articles, published books, and the like to support the inclusion of such an article? Best, Ziggurat 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the new Google, a site that sorts and searches preexisting data indiscriminately; it's the new Encyclopaedia Britannica, a site that collects and organizes neutral and factually-verifiable information (or at least it aims to be). It also, by the way, has no particular opinion on the merits of peace, if that's what you meant to imply. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ph D Points

Dear Wikipedia:

Although I know that Wikipedia is becoming one of the most esteemed resources on the internet for research, I had a spontaneous wacky idea that could ensure authenticity of articles. Each wikipedia article could have "Ph D points." People who have graduated any school with a Ph D can become wikipedia members, and endorse articles that they feel are at their best and 100% accurate. And of course, someone who has a Ph. D in medieval art cannot endorse an article about latinamerican politics in the 90s. Doctors of Philosophy will be categorized into the same categories that articles are in, so that Ph D points are accurately representative of the endorsers' knowledge of the field. So the article with the most Ph D points would have the best credibility as opposed to some controversial or questionable ones with less. This would also ease school teachers' worries about their students getting false information off the internet.

It's just an idea, but please respond with your thoughts.

Sincerely, Daniel Wininger, NY

Well, what if I endorse an article, but someone later replaces it with crap? Or should I have to re-endorse every article when someone fixes a typo? I don't think your idea works with a Wiki. It could work with a static mirror (and in fact this might be a potential added-value service...venture capitalists take notice!), but it conflicts with the Wiki concept.--Stephan Schulz 10:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't work here, but you're free to start your own site and use our content in this way. That's why it's licensed the way it is. There are various proposals for static versions that it might fit into, too. — Omegatron 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For starters... there is no way to know who any Wikipedia really is, or what their credentials are. I can say "I have a Ph. D." but how would you or anyone else know whether or not I really do?

One of the most educational things about Wikipedia is that it forces you to ask questions about the reliability of articles... questions which you should be asking about information you get from other encyclopedias, textbooks, newspapers... and anywhere else.

We already have mechanisms which IMHO are much better than "Ph. D. points," namely the policy on verifiability and the guidelines on citing sources and reliable sources.

When you look at a Wikipedia article, the first thing you should notice is whether or not it cites sources for the facts it presents.

Getting more Wikipedia articles into line with the verifiability policy (which, at the moment, is honored mostly in the breach) would do more to improve the reliability of articles than trying to establish social hierarchies and ranking schemes for the personal authority of contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

P. S. It's amusing to contemplate how a system of Ph. D. points might deteriorate in practice. Should a Ph. D. from Lacrosse University get as many points as one from Harvard? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are certain Wiki communities where only qualified individuals may register and edit articles. There's a medical wiki where only registered physicians may become members (its name escapes me at the moment). Shawnc 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We tried something like this. We called it Nupedia. It sucked. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages: what is appropriate

What do people think of things like this being written on talk pages? Nothing encyclopedic, just someone expressing his hostility to the subject of the article and being vaguely mean to those who feel otherwise. Especially given that it is anonymous (so it doesn't usefully give anyone an insight into the character of the contributor who wrote it), should we just delete it (and things like it)? It's hard to see how it is helpful in the project. If we were getting a lot of this, I'd say that we clearly should sweep it away to get it out of the way. Even as it is, keeping it seems to encourage more. But it's not (for example) into the realm of blatant hate speech that I would more readily delete. Thoughts? - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it alone and no one respond. Most trolls become less active when they are simply ignored. JoshuaZ 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd call that vandalism / a personal attack ... but if I were you I'd just leave it. It seems to be feeding the trolls to delete remarks like that--just ignore it and go on. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ and AmiDaniel. - Runcorn 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Either delete or ignore. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:NOT

WP:NOT EVIL
Herostratus 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we need this? Surely WP:AGF people will not be evil? - Runcorn 18:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what the proposal means by evil. Is this not evil in the sense of google Don't be evil or what? If it means it in that sense, then you should be talking to Jimbo and the Board. JoshuaZ 22:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this proposed addition. Is anyone likely to make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia is evil, or is intended to be used for evil purposes? Exactly what sort of behavior is this supposed to rule out that is not already ruled out by the existing policy? dbtfz^talk 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Daniel Brandt might believe Wikipedia is evil. And quite possibly EB as well.  ;) But in any case, this policy (in my view) conflicts with our goals of neutrality and comprehensiveness; we absolutely should not do or fail to do anything just because most of us agree it's "wrong". See also: systemic bias.

(Anyway, this is a total rip-off of Google.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Username usurpation policy

I've started a policy addition to Wikipedia:Changing username: Wikipedia:Usurpation. In essence, it would allow users to rename their accounts to the name of registered-but-unused/no-edits accounts. --maru (talk) contribs 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with a potential copyright issue

I'd like some input regarding what I think is a potential copyright violation. Please view the following two images:

1. Image:Vatican coa.png
2. Image:Coat of Arms of Vatican City.svg

The first image is tagged with {{logo}}. The second is tagged with {{PD-self}}. The first image is an exacty replica of the image found on the Vatican's website at [3]. The second is a very close match to image #1, but it is not an exact copy. There are some differences. Is the image #2 actually still covered by copyrights of image #1 since they are so remarkably similar? I'm thinking that in a court of law, the courts would probably rule in favor of a company/organization that went after someone for having a very similar logo to the one the company/organization has. I'm also concerned because even though the 2nd image is crafted, it is so similar that I think it would count as a derivative work. Should image #2 be re-tagged as a logo? Thoughts? --Durin 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, yes that is a derivative work and hence it's copyright status is dependent upon the copyright in the original. However, in the case of the Vatican's ensignia, I would be surprised if the design had not long ago passed into the public domain by virtue of age. Dragons flight 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I don't know. Copyright can be renewed. I don't know what the status is in this case though. --Durin 13:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Copyright cannot be renewed past a certain point. All works first published before 1923 are public-domain. However, a specific derivative of the (doubtless PD) Vatican logo that was first published after 1989—as Image:Vatican coa.png appears to be—is eligible for copyright (with a few pretty narrow exceptions), and therefore may require some kind of fair-use justification if it's not released under a free license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC question

WP:MUSIC outlines the notability requirements for musical-type things. It doesn't have any guidelines for members of groups, though. Just the groups themselves. Am I to assume that if a group is notable, each of its members are as well? Jesuschex 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Osbus 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A group member's notability would be subject to WP:BIO (WP:MUSIC doesn't change that). Example:

• Whether The Hanover Band deserves a separate wikipedia article would be assessed by WP:MUSIC
• Whether Roy Goodman (a regular conductor of that band), Caroline Brown, or any of the dozens of other people that regularly perform in the band or are associated with it would get a separate wikipedia article falls under WP:BIO.

--Francis Schonken 11:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If the individual members aren't notable enough for their own article, you can include bios within the main article for the group. 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs)

Yeah, of course, forgot to mention that option. But keep an eye on article size and space and balance in that case. So I'd say "short" bios, and: where relevant (e.g. when that person was a part of several bands that have a wikipedia article, don't put the bio details about that person's student years in the article on the xth band he was a member of, but in the article of the band he was a member of in his student years; don't start bio's on all musicians in an orchestra; etc... all pretty self-evident I think). And of course: keep it verifiable --Francis Schonken 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll on proposal to Wikipedia:Prohibit AOL users from editing

I noticed that a poll was created on the talk page of this article and figured it would benefit from some visibility. Comments should probably be directed there. Polotet 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Logged-in editing from blocked shared IPs

Hello, I'm UED77, an admin at the Commons, and I'm seldom active on WP, so if there is a more suitable venue for this discussion, then please move it there. Earlier today, I was browsing anonymously from my school, and I wanted to see (not edit) the wikitext of the Hero of Belarus article. So, quite naturally, I clicked on "edit", but my school uses a proxy that is now blocked from editing. I thought, "No problem, I'll just go ahead and log in", but it still didn't let me edit the wikitext, because I was browsing from a blocked IP.

Is there a way I can make legitimate edits with my account from a blocked IP?

Perhaps, if there is no existing way, I would propose a policy to let users with already existing accounts created at least 4 days earlier from a non-blocked IP to edit, regarless of his current IP.

And even if that is not possible, then can it be considered to treat the edit button for blocked IPs as a "view source" button, and allow them to see, but not modify the wikitext? —UED77 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See current discussion at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the right place. Just for the record, I strongly support the proposed policy with some restrictions on creating new accounts from blocked addresses, preferably a 1-hour wait. —UED77 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

SI or imperial units?

Discussion moved to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#SI_or_imperial_units.3F.
bobblewik 12:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikipedia?

This may sound naive but I am a little confused about the true purpose of Wikipedia. I can see that you do not want to include collections of external links or Internet directories, collections of internal links, collections of public domain or other source material or collections of photographs or media files. I can also see that you discourage inclusion of or links to primary resources. Isn't the ability to link to other sites and to primary resources what makes the internet such a valuable tool? Are you trying to create some kind of secular knowledge network, with minimal reference to outside resources? As far as I can see this means: a) While you may cover a broad range of topics, it is difficult to reach depth with any one topic and; b) The material is completely fallible- it seems to be publishing simply "what readers think they know about a subject"- a little concerning. I am not meaning to criticise the site, merely wanting to understand it a little more. If anyone can help me, please do.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.68.32 (talk • contribs)

See also comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is (IMHO) to build a useful, reliable general reference resource on a variety of topics. In order to do this, we require that all contributions be verifiable, cite sources, and discuss all important sides of any controversy. As you have probably noticed, a lot of articles don't yet meet this standard. Some articles have been left alone because it is apparent that there is a community of knowledgable people writing them, but it would be better if they all had bibliographies, if not footnotes. Contrary to your impression, external links are not discoura

ged -- what is discouraged are articles that consist of almost nothing but links, and we try to avoid links that amount to advertising. For one thing, much of the material on the web is simply not vetted enough to qualify as reliable. For another, there is a lot of material not on the web (see FUTON bias) that is often important to an understanding of a particular the subject.

As to your point (a), an encyclopedia rarely reaches great depth in any subject -- that is not its function. (b) To the extent that we obey our own rules, our articles are compendia of what is known, not just "What readers think they know."

I hope that this answer helps. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To add on to what Robert has said: Wikipedia is about citations to external published sources, meaning sources published through conventional editing and publishing processes which thus have a slightly higher probability of being true. There are places with millions and millions of reliable outside sources---they're called books. Generally online stuff is linked to directly only when there is no other alternative, because most online materials are so inherently unreliable.--4.246.36.59 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is an expert on something. What Wikipedia is trying to do is combine everyone's knowledge to create an encyclopedia. Of course, this invites all kinds of vandalism, but we're dealing. --Osbus 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia becoming a reference source for projects, Wikipedia may never be useful for research [4] because

"NOTE: Most teachers and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, and as a starting point for further research.

As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia content — please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information. "

Wikipedia Is really a wikt:Medium for people to interact with each other and feel part of a community or M:Metapedianism.--E-Bod 15:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To add onto E-Bod, there are two recognized aspects of Wikipedia: the encyclopedia and the community. People heavily involved in the encyclopedia are generally called Exopedians, and people heavily involved in the community are generally called Metapedians. While we exist for the point of an encyclopedia, a community is important, too. We can't have one without the other. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:DDGLO

This page, the fruition of a proposal here, is strangely uncontested. In fact, discussion has all but died, and there is consensus to ratify it. What now? Do we give it more time? (Understandable; it's only been around for a few days.) I could not find documentation for the final step of officially making something a guideline. Do I just swith out the templates?--HereToHelp 03:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I suggest giving it a little longer yet, since there's no hurry. Look for talk pages that interested people might frequent and leave notes there. Give it a week or so, then announce your intention on the talk page to make it official in X days (another week, maybe) if the consensus still exists at that point. Then, if that's the case, do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to keep WP:WOTTA in mind -- you won't get anybody excited about your proposal if they have no idea what it is. For those who want to know, the proposal's title is "Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Medical - I suggest that the policy explicitly list some sources as reliable. I suggest that at least PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration and some major magazines (Maybe also HONCode??) be included in the list. In a discussion with Alternative/Complimentary health care providers, there is no way to persuade them that these sources are reliable (even though they are considered reliable by most of the scientific world). Their argument is, that all or most of the published studies are subjective in interpretation, and they frequently insist on using sources which they consider reliable, i.e. publications of their profession's members. See Talk:Chiropractic for details. ackoz 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion! Quackwatch has excellent information and links to it are constantly being deleted by promoters and defenders of dubious and dangerous methods. Here is an excellent defense of Quackwatch:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto#Outside_view_by_Askolnick

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto&diff=next&oldid=48703302

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto&diff=next&oldid=48711449

--Fyslee 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It may be worth collecting together the attacks that are recycled against it despite being demolished each time, into an RFC or essay on it. Midgley 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested generalization: A list of frequently referenced, acknowledged as reliable, websources. Since websources are frequently disputed, a general consensus list (with nothing added without approval on its talk page) would be highly useful. It could be a subpage of WP:RS (obviously it would need a massive disclaimer that not being on the list did not exclude a websource from being reliable).

I have detailed knowledge of at least one case where the Cochrane review is completely bogus (the reviewers based the review largely on their own work, with figures never duplicated by any other group, and excluded by design any dissenting views). The problem is not with the sources themselves, or their reliability, but with the refusal of complimentary practitioners and their supporters to accept assessment of their work by the traditional medical world. Adding a list of reliable medical sources will not change that, their problem is not with the reputation of the sources but with the fact that they are "allopaths". So for my money this is instruction creep to no good purpose. WP:RS already makes it unambiguously plain that the source publications on Medline are considered reliable sources per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. PubMed is a good way to find a RS but not everything on it is a RS by any means; not everything is peer reviewed, not every journal is of high standing etc etc. WP existing policy is good - best RS are recent, peer reviewed secondary cources (reviews) published in high standing international journals. Just keep insisting that these are the top of the tree, and can only be displaced by something better. Quackwatch is a good source for information and for opinion and interpretation, but a bad site to quote for facts because the facts might appear as coming from a site tainted by opinion - why quote a source that might be perceived as being biased when there is an alternative?. Quote the original RS instead for facts.Gleng 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This same problem exists in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto; John posts links to sources mirrored on his own site but surrounded by other data of a massively less reliable and often highly unreliable nature. Best to cite the original source journal. PubMed/Medline is not a source anyway, it's a database of sources. A link to PubMed should IMO only be posted when the source journal does not make abstracts available online. But you can cite every medical journal in the world and it won't cut any ice with some people, because they believe that the conventional medical profession has a vested interest and therefore any traditional medical journal is inherently biased. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Signpost articles

I have come across a collection of articles labeled as "signpost" articles and all listed in Category:Signpost articles. A quick look at the articles in the category shows that these articles have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Other than the fact that they all look very much like disambiguation pages, and are members of a category that was deleted last November, there appears to be no indication what these articles are for. Could someone point me to the appropriate documentation for this type of article? Court Jester 19:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The blurb at the top of the category explains what these articles are for, and it seems very sensible. If the name is confusing, can it be changed? - Runcorn 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Addition to WP:NOT

Proposed Addition: "Wikipedia is not a press-cuttings service"

Comments:
For Wikipedia articles whose subject is large/famous/well-known etc., press mentions (newspapers, periodicals), of its subject, are frequent. Editors should avoid needlessly linking online versions of articles / online articles.

One article with many links can be seen here: [[5]] (old edit). Others might be able to provide better examples.

Succumbing to the temptation to link a press mention/article that is barely content-relevant, non-unique, or distinguishable solely because it appeared in a well-known publication, should be avoided. This does not detract from the need to cite, using authoritative references of source material which has been published by reputable sources.

I have seen articles containing a 'References' section, a 'Further reading' section, and a 'Media attention' and an 'External links' section - with linked press articles in each section.

A limited amount of balanced and carefully-selected external links will enhance an article. An excessive amount of links can overwhelm the article. Superfluous links to press mentions/articles detract from an article. With a greater amount of linked press articles the likelihood that some can be safely omitted is increased. --Whitehorse1 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't this be addressed through the external link guideline, rather than what Wikipedia is not? Either way, I don't think it will greatly reduce the number of such links added to articles, only provide support for their deletion because the most prolific linkers of these sources are new and anonymous users, who are usually unaware of policy. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not needed. It already is covered under existing external links and WP:NOT directory of links guidelines. Davodd 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Convention for the use of †

Hi and sorry if this might be the wrong place, I've been looking around for some time and couldn't find a better place to ask this question.

I found this convention Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death but couldn't find a discussion where this convention was agreed upon. Has the use of † to indicate a person's date and place of death (as seen on de:) ever been discussed on the English Wikipedia? If yes, could you show me where this discussion can be found? Thanks for any help (including moving the question to the right place, if this shouldn't be it). -- Hey Teacher 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ellywa seems to have a copy of two old discussions on her userpage. Wikipedia:Village pump/August 2003 archive 2 also mentions it. Shimgray | talk | 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Shimgray, thanks for showing me those two discussions. Everyone else: do you know of any more discussions concerning the use of † ? -- Hey Teacher 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was debated back in 2004-2005 with the consensus not to use the "†" symbol to mark deaths for a variety of reasons (although use as a voluntary marking for a footnote was acceptable). The most popular reasons not to use it were: Apparent institutionalized western cultural/Christian religious bias and the conclusion that the symbol is a form of jargon that is not readily understandable by a good portion of the audience. The consensus then was "died" or YYYY-YYYY was more understandable and less confusing/offensive than "†." - Davodd 22:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'This is not a Policy' template?

There are several pages in the Wikipedia name-space that describe standards or practices, but have never been through the policy creation process. Some times these are incorectly used as if they were policy. for example, Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Can I sugest a template similar to the current policy templates to highlight that the page is not policy. This would also give weight to making policy through the normal 'propose then find consensus' way. (For instance, Wikipedia:What is a featured article? should have gone through this process, but never did.) --Barberio 14:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternativly, altering of {{Essay}}{ to be more suitable for pages like Wikipedia:What is a featured article? which keep being used as if they were policy. --Barberio 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea and even worse example; Wikipedia:What is a featured article? is policy as far as what is allowed to be a featured article. --mav 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a policy, it should have gone through the normal process that other policy went through. --Barberio 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It did go throught the normal process: as the concept of featured articles has evolved, so has the critera for what constitutes a featured article. --Carnildo 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Barely used aristocratic titles in the header of articles

Apparently people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage have decided for the whole of Wikipedia that any person who has an aristocratic title, even if they never use it should have the title in bold right at the beginning of the article as in Jamie Lee Curtis who currently has Jamie Lee Haden-Guest, Baroness Haden-Guest right at the beginning, neither the surname nor title she ever uses. I find this completely inappropriate but I would welcome wider community input on this. Arniep 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The name in bold should in general be the same as the name of the article, maybe with the addition of middle names. I am dubious about the bolding of "Sir" at the beginning of a name, though there is a good case for it. If the person has a title, it should of course be mentioned upfront, but not as the main name. Jamie Lee Curtis is an excellent example. - Runcorn 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to "Jamie Lee Curtis (born November 22, 1958), by marriage having the seldom-used title Jamie Lee Haden-Guest, Baroness Haden-Guest". My question is if the title and name are never used and are insignificant to her life why do they need to be in bold in the header? Arniep 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold text in the intro paragraph is WP shorthand for other words/phrases that mean the same as the title - it is usually the result of an editor acknowledgment of a redirect page going to the current article (although that doesnt apply here). - Davodd 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It seems perfectly fine, for example, to begin the Paul McCartney article with "Sir James Paul McCartney, OBE...", but the Jamie Lee Curtis thing noted above is just ridiculous. dbtfz^talk 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In a case where someone is always known by his middle name, I'd suggest putting the first name in brackets: "Sir (James) Paul McCartney" to emphasise that nobody cals him James. - Runcorn 08:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded, as this should be clear from the article title. And it should be expected that people are not necessarily known by the first of a number of given names. It is quite common, and I see no reason to divert from normal style in those cases. Tupsharru 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with dicdef slang lists.

Please refer to Talk:List of gay slang words and phrases#Future of the gay slang list - Should this be merged back into gay slang and if so or if not, how can we make it comply with WP:V and WP:NOR? Also, should the list in some form be moved to Wiktionary or Wikibooks since WP is not a dictionary or slang usage guide (WP:NOT). - Davodd 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Simpliyfing Policy Change Process

I've noticed how difficult it is to propose a new policy or modifying an existing one. First, you have to go the the Village Pump, and you have to sort through a ton of other policies before you can find the one you are looking for. There is no search engine (or something like a search engine) specifically for the Village Pump so that changing policies becomes an easier process. Additionally, there are numerous other ways to simplify the process. How about a 1 - 2 - 3 step process? For example, step #1 is finding the policy at issue, voicing your opinion, and then having a vote on it. There is no formal polling, and I am not even sure if someone tallies the votes to see if a proposed policy should be implemented or not. There is no one to supervise the process so that one could determine what policies should go into effect, and which ones should not go into effect. Also, exactly how many people does it take to get a policy to change? There is no word on that anywhere. Why isn't there something like a poll you see on many websites? Currently, you add your vote to your post, and other members have to go through your post to find your position on something. What about a status check on a proposal to see if it is headed somewhere, or if it has been rejected? Where I live, in the local government, there is a way for citizens to see if bills have gone through the state assembly, and check on the status. There is no status check here on Wikipedia. Come on, I can't be the only one frustrated with the current process.

Re-cap:

1. A polling system where members can vote on policies.
2. Status checks that tell one how far along a proposal is, and whether it has been implemented or rejected.
3. Setting up a 1-2-3 step process.
4. Providing a search engine one can use to sort through proposals.

Let me know what ya'all think. Stiles 03:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works.

1. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is evil.

2. A proposal is accepted or rejected once it is clear what the consensus is. Until then, it is under discussion.

The basic policies of Wikipedia are fundamental. An analogy would be the written constitution of a meatworld country. Such things are not changed easily, with good reason. The most basic policies of Wikipedia were established at the beginning, and are not really subject to change. Other policies and guidelines are an attempt to codify established practice of Wikipedia. They are not changed because a proposal gains the votes of a few editors. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think people overstate the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy" business myself, since it is a democracy when the Foundation doesn't step in—it's just a distinctly odd democracy, in certain respects rather unlike real-world democracies. Voting processes (which are conventionally called "polls", even though they aren't representative of the Wikipedia population—not that I wouldn't support a system to make them representative, but they currently aren't and never have been) are poorly-defined, often with no small degree of influence being given to one person or a few people who close the issue when the votes are over. Nevertheless, it still is a democracy of sorts once you put the Foundation to the side, and I find Wikipedians' opposition to the use of that term quite bizarre.

Anyway, to answer Stiles' question, part of the reason we don't have those things is that they would be a bother to implement software-wise when the current system basically works, and part of it is the seemingly widespread belief that "consensus" is or should be somehow different from "the stated support of a large percentage of Wikipedians". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that consensus is when everyone agrees. In practice, this rarely happens, and so rough consensus is usually the fall-back. If this were actually a democracy, then 50%+1 would be enough to pass any measure, and that's not the case even if we did routinely poll everyone and made it representative. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Democracies often require supermajorities to do certain things; that none requires them for everything doesn't mean that one that does isn't a democracy. The fundamental character of a democracy is just that decision-making authority is vested, in general, in a large percentage of those affected rather than the very small percentage that makes decisions in dictatorships or other forms of government. My problem is with users who a) deny that our "polls" are, de facto, votes, and/or b) say polls are evil and then talk about proposals having to attain consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Wikipedia is obviously very different than any democratic state or other meat-space decision body which has come before, which is the only context that political theory about democracy has been able to develop. Wikipedia doesn't function on canvassing the opinions of all or even a representative portion of the users; rather, it gets decisions made by applying many brains to a problem until a good resolution bubbles to the top and is recognised. I think calling it a democracy fails to accurately capture all relevant aspects of the "political" system of Wikipedia. If people want to call it one because it's the closest label that kind of fits, they're welcome to. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guidelines

I have had very limited success in editing the policy-like wording in a document that is merely a guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. I did remove some of the "must nots" and "must nevers" which is policy language, and substitute "should nots", however, User:SlimVirgin has reverted other edits I have made to this guideline, claiming they violate wikipedia policy, but refusing to cite the policies. I requested mediation and she refused. I think the Reliable Sources guideline is faulty on the points of citing blogs, usenet postings, and so-called "personal" websites. There are several other editors who feel similarly. We need some process to revise this guideline. Some help would be appreciated. --Fahrenheit451 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Personal_websites_and_reliability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree in many ways with Farenheit 451, I really don't see a need to change the document. It's a guideline; it's meant to be considered holistically. I think having an easy-to-access link to a "personal" site -- especially in addition to the cites to the actual books -- is clearly accepted by the guideline. The "reliable" part is satisfied by the book part of the citation. The "easy access" is satisfied by the web link. Even if the citations didn't meet the guideline, the guideline would still have only the force (or lack thereof) of a guideline. Guidelines are not policy because they're not intended to be followed to the letter. --Davidstrauss 08:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement of what a "policy" is, isn't entirely clearly stated. Perhaps the statement of what a "guideline" is, could be more cleanly stated, too. I have it that policy is the broad, general philosphy, the statement of intent and direction. Policy is the manner in which a goal is stated into knowledge which can be understood. The next step of specificity is guidelines. Guidelines set out specific ways of doing things. Therefore, policy is to be followed, while guidelines are to be literally implemented. A policy would never instruct an editor to "remove a vandalism" while a guideline would state, "a vandalism within an article can be removed by any editor". Guidelines are the literal "how to do it" while policy is the broad, general philosophy. Terryeo 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. Policy is the strict rules of what is and isn't allowed at Wikipedia. Guidelines are simply ways of doing things that many editors agree are best practices and which have been endorsed by enough people such that it is officially recommended to follow them, though exceptions are always possible. See the explanation in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that Saxifrage. --Fahrenheit451 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Farenheit451, the policy in question here is, in fact WP:V, one of our three critical content policies, and one which WP:RS supports. You can't have the guideline contradicting the policy it supports, which is what your changes were doing, and which was explained to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If that be the case, then both WP:V and WP:NOR need to be revised. --Fahrenheit451 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are they broken? — Saxifrage ✎ 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Using excerpts from WP in a non-free work?

A friend of mine is preparing a non-fiction book for publication, and I thought that Wikipedia would be a great source for the book's yet-to-be-written glossary. I thought that having WP as a major source in a book from a well-known publisher would be great for WP's reputation, and might encourage the book's readers to use WP. I hoped that many entries in the glossary could be verbatim excerpts of a few sentences from the corresponding article on WP.

Of course, I'd release the glossary under the GFDL. In addition to appearing in the book, a copy of the glossary could be posted online, linking back to the full entries on WP. (The site's URL, of course, would be published in the book.) This seemed like a great way to introduce the general public (or at least the book's readers) to the idea of free resources.

However, it seems that under the GFDL, if we do this, then the entire book must be released under the GFDL... not to mention that, with small but significant snippets from dozens of articles, the attributions would be longer than the copied text. Unfortunately, making the whole book free is not an option in this case.

If, instead, we paraphrase and summarize all of the information we get from WP (just like we would from any other source), it becomes uniquely our own, but then we're not exposing people to the wonders of free resources... which to me is really the point!

So is there any way to use parts of Wikipedia articles in one chapter of a book, or in this case just an appendix, without releasing the whole book under the GFDL?

--Josh 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, certain limited quotation is "fair use". --Davidstrauss 08:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but having big chunks of Wikipedia text making up an entire section of the work probably moots that. If they were to use one or two definitions in an appropriate context there could be a 'fair use' argument; building the entire glossary almost certainly fails the test.

I'm not sure about releasing just the glossary under the GFDL. It might be possible. I recall seeing a few years ago a magazine article about OpenCola. In order to reprint the OpenCola recipe in the article, the article was released under GFDL; the rest of the magazine issue remained under the conventional, restrictive license. The specific part of the GFDL that applies is 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS, which in part reads:

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

I'm not sure whether something like that could be done here—I'm not an expert in copyright law, and the situations aren't precisely parallel. You would have to be able to describe the glossary as an 'independent work'—a characteristic that's easily understood for separate magazine articles by different authors, but perhaps more legally 'gray' for book chapters. Your best bet is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly; they should be able to give an idea of what you can and can't do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that works well. The book itself is a compilation of essays by different authors, so each chapter is as much an independent work as the articles in a magazine are. So it looks like this would be allowed. --Josh 23:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "place"

As a geographer I am naturally interested in being involved in articles relating to spatial aspects. I have worked on a fair number of articles on my local area and knowledge: Sussex and Kent in England. One basic question which seems to me to cause problems is the use of the word place. It seems a matter of polict that everywhere - English counties, US states et al, all have the article List of places in ...... They also have a parallel series of Category lists. Taking Kent as an example there is List of places in Kent and, for example, Category:Villages in Kent; there is another Category:Towns in Kent. It is pretty obvious that few entries are included on the list, apart from the larger "places" (ie towns/cities).

It is also obvious to me that the word "place" is far too loose a term. The article Place does not get right down to define what it means. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as a particular position or point in space; a location, Funk & Wagnall says much the same: A particular point or portion of space, especially that part of space occupied by or belonging to a thing under consideration; a definite locality or location.

When I look at a map it is covered with the names of "places", all following the rules set out in those definitions. Some are towns/cities; some are villages or hamlets (in the UK sense of the terms); but some are simply the names of completely isolated dwellings: farmhouses for example; or an area of land (a wood, a common, for example). As an example of the sheer number I have taken this list of hamlets, villages, towns ands cities in West Sussex. Taking one entry from that list, Roundstreet Common, the local map (using [6] streetmap) shows it to be a small hamlet. In the same square in which it is located there are the following "places":

• Hurst Farm House
• Sparr Farm
• Loves Farm
• Paplands Farm
• Newpound Common
• Gunshot Common
• Malham

Eight "places" in 9000 m²; and that in a predominantely rural area! If all were included in the List of places in West Sussex - and in all the other counties of England - it would cause chaos.

The result, though, is quite the opposite. The first time I came to the List of places in Kent it was to find that there were only a handful listed: most were the major centres of population, although there were a couple of villages as well. The problem is that such a list needs a conscious effort for a "place" to be included - a knowledge that the article exists. On the other hand Category:Villages in Kent is getting more complete day-by-day since adding a Category to an article is a natural action.

Having written the last paragraph I thought to check on the List of places in Kent article to find it being altered: see its discussion page. Surely this will break out of the mould of all the other counties? Peter Shearan 07:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

They should just cover subdivisions and settlements. Definitely not buildings. Golfcam 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think of those lists as being only for places that warrant articles in Wikipedia, not every place in, um, a place. So if Sparr Farm got an article, it would be included, though Loves Farm would not. · rodii · 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A problem comes in that many editors feel that subjects (places) that are worthy of an article, but don't have one yet, should also be included in lists. It is just one more step to adding to lists subjects (places) that probably are not worthy of an article. I see that as a problem, but I don't have an answer. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template for medical conditions

Feedback on Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions would be welcomed. --Arcadian 13:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: No Polarising Policies

Any comments on Wikipedia:No Polarising Policies would be appreciated. I think Wikipedia:Concensus doesn't put enough emphasis on the point made there. - Drrngrvy 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I militantly oppose this proposal--which means that, by its own logic, it should not be implemented. Seriously, this is far too conservative and would make substantive change impossible. Every non-trivial proposal is bound to have some strong opposition. dbtfz^talk 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am strongly opposed to Drrngrvy's suggestion. MPS 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per above logic, also since this is a policy about policies, it would be a meta-policy (I think) if accepted. Anyways, bad idea. Will paralyze things. And might violate Will Beback's dictum- "Better articles are our goal, not better policies." JoshuaZ 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite a ghastly idea. (And not that it matters much, but "consensus" is rather conspicuously misspelled.) Let's have the policies that are required to produce better articles, without worrying unduly about how these policies may antagonize those users who tend to produce worse articles. -- Hoary 06:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle at play on Wikipedia

For reasons I cannot comprehend, the PR person for a new age website run by a former Playboy Playmate kept on removing the fact that the website sold e-mailed tarot card and "love" readings, claiming this was a lie, or that it was suggesting that the website's owner herself was soliciting the customers for the readings (whatever difference that made). After edit warring for awhile, the user account was blocked tonight (for trolling, disruptive threats, etc.), and shortly afterwards, the really interesting thing happened: the tarot card and love readings pages were actually removed from the website (compare the current page with the google cached version; the individual sales pages can be seen here: [7],[8]).

This was a silly dispute on the face of it, and I really can't fathom why a website would not want its business mentioned, and then actually remove the commercial solicitation from the website when it couldn't stop it from being mentioned. But I think it's an interesting consequence of writing an encyclopedia, for whatever inexplicable reason to instigate real-world change to what you're writing about. Postdlf 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this is on the policy Pump, but it's certainly funny. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it's the word "solicit" that had them in a tizzy, since "solicitation" (for prostitution) is a crime. Maybe they don't realize that "solicit" means other things and were worried about getting in legal trouble? They seemed comfortable with the word "offer." · rodii · 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As to why I posted it here, aside from the entertainment value provided by yet another cautionary tale in Wikipedia conflicts of interest, I think there may be a further interesting issue. Assume that the website tarot card business was relevant and encyclopedic information to have in the article. The company, opposing its mention here for whatever reason, removed all mention of its business from its own website in response to that mention. What then should the article say about it? Would it be proper to mention the attempts to alter the article in the article in this case? Sure, it's a far cry short of the Seigenthaler controversy, but once again, assuming the information was encyclopedic in the first place, how do we now address and update that subject after we know Wikipedia changed it? Postdlf 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. My brain seems to be done for the day and just hurts thinking about that. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jiang

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that, in my opinion, called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [9].) I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or Nlu. However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving consequences? Am I wrong about this? --Freestyle.king

Undue weight of facts?

I'm having trouble finding what Wikipedia policy disallows/discourages bias from being introduced by covering a topic more than it deserves based on its importance relative to the rest of the article. For instance, if a city has had problems with water quality and that's both verifiable and relevant, what's to stop somebody from filling 2/3 of the article with cited information about how terrible the water quality was, and aggressively defending that information's importance? (It's not a fringe viewpoint; it's simply an accepted fact being vastly over-emphasized.) It clearly introduces a bias to over-emphasize a negative point like that (or a positive one, for that matter), so it seems like something the NPOV policy should cover, but when people make the mistake of doing this, I'm not sure where to point them to. (crossposted at WP:NPOV talk) –Tifego^(t) _{08:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree this can be a problem. One solution is to split out the section into its own article, eg Water treatment in xxxville, and then have a few lines in the city article explaining the problem and linking to that article for more detail.-gadfium 09:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are academic disciplines less notable than Buffycruft? (AfD revisited)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refounding Public Administration.

A mass-nomination of persons and institutions in an academic field, Public administration, all deemed "non-notable" by the nominator who contributes no actual arguments or discussion. A bunch of "me too" delete voters, and an article author, Ryan Lanham, who is apparently a lecturer in the field[10] and willing to contribute his expertise to Wikipedia, but gets harassed rather than helped when he tries.

I just checked one of the articles: Dwight Waldo, called a "non-notable theorist" by the nominator. He gets:

• 16,500 Google hits
• 573 Google Books hits
• 906 Google Scholar hits
• 1096 hits in the academic journals included in JSTOR

There turns out to be two books in which Waldo's name figures in the *title*:

• Brian R. Fry: Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1989)
• Brack Brown & Richard J. Stillman, II: A Search for Public Administration: The Ideas and Career of Dwight Waldo (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1986).

A couple of links:

• "A Tribute to Dwight Waldo" by Richard Stillman, National Academy of Public Administration
• "Former IGS Director, Dwight Waldo Passes Away"

As I noted in the discussion, this mass-nomination is insufficiently researched (and that is actually an understatement). Recognized academic fields, recognized academic journals and leading academics in those fields are notable, at the very least as notable as individual episodes or minor characters from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The fact that these articles appear as a walled garden is given by the nominator and one voter as a reason to delete them. I see this as an indication that the field is underrepresented (i.e. systemic bias) and that the author has not been given a chance to finish his work before a bunch of people threw themselves over his articles to get rid of them. I'm pretty sure we have lost another contributor because of this behaviour and that the area will continue to be underdeveloped. Tupsharru 12:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know this field or these people, I completely agree with the spirit of these comments. There seems to be a disproportionately high standard set for academics to be included. (See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Bearing in mind that all high schools are routinely kept, all professional sportspeople are kept, plus the most trivial TV program characters/episodes, this seems unfair.

It probably does also discourage experts if their articles are deleted, just as much as anyone else. Furthermore, in specialised fields, there will not be that many people capable of writing good encyclopedia articles. If the price of having specialist contributions on esoteric subjects is that the contributors write articles on themselves and their colleagues, I say its worth paying.

I understand that WP shouldn't encourage an attitude of 'I'm an expert, this is my article', but I haven't actually seen this happening in academic articles. After all, experts don't have to shout 'I'm an expert', they are in a position to cite material in their own fields.

In short, I think the 'professor test' should be changed. I'd say 'member of proper uni, research institute, or similar, plus one or more published papers' is good enough. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While it may not be terribly efficient, the current prevailing method of running questionably notable articles & bios through AfD seems to actually be a good thing, so that the subject is looked into, an attempt at establishing notability is made, and maybe the articles get a bit of needed attention/tagging/categorisation, too. If the result of an AfD is Keep, then that gets put on the record for future editors to see that a notability discussion has taken place. Warrens 13:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all you've written, Warrens. I wasn't proposing to change the AfD process, I'd like the criterion by which academics and obscure academic subjects pass or fail the existing process to be changed. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, I succumbed to the temptation to have a bit of a rant. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I do not agree that we should include everyone who has published a paper or two, as that would include a large proportion of graduate students and even undergraduates (unless it was a truly exceptional paper, I suppose), established academics with full professorships at research universities are usually notable, and their biographical articles, whenever they are nominated individually on AfD for not "asserting notability", tend to be cleaned up and ultimately kept. That process is often beneficial for the overall quality of Wikipedia, although it would have been nicer and less of a waste of time and energy if the cleanup had happened without the AfD.

This particular case is more problematic. User:Redvers nominated all articles by a Wikipedia newbie (who happens to be a specialist in the particular field he writes about), makes blatantly untrue assertions of non-notability in the nomination without apparently having made any attempt to research the topics, and does not even attempt to communicate with the author. As the contributor of these articles, User:Ryan Lanham, was still around, some guidance would probably have led to the articles being cleanup up and referenced by their original author. However, when Ryan Lanham asked about the motivation for the nomination on Redvers' talkpage, Redvers just archived the question and the rest of his talkpage the same day without a reply. This is not how I expect a Wikipedia administrator to behave. Tupsharru 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the criticism of the mass deletion nomination, and just voted to keep all of the articles. However, I think the rhetorical tactic of comparing the subject matter to pop culture minutiae is misleading. A subject's significance to society, in terms of utilitarian value, is only a factor of notability. A particular potential cure for cancer is probably not notable if only two people are working on it and writing about it. On the other side of the coin, we have Paris Hilton. Curse you, fame, and mass media proliferation, curse you both. Postdlf 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who regularly makes such comparisons for rhetorical purposes, I'll defend them. The point is not that major popular culture figures (Paris Hilton or whoever) should not be included in the Wikipedia project; the point is that extremely minor popular culture subjects are generally treated as notable, while major academic and economic subjects are too often treated as non-notable. Notability, for too many users, seems to operate on a sliding scale, and the more significant a class of subjects is in the real world, the higher the standard for notability is set. Thus, the (never-accepted) "average professor" test, although there never has been an "average actor," "average athlete," or even "average Pokemon character" test. The standard for economic/industrial figures is set absurdly high; being CFO of Merrill Lynch for nearly a decade is considered less notable than being on the taxi squad of the Baltimore Ravens for a season. And articles on such subjects (academic or industrial, in particular) are actively targeted for deletion by an aggressive clique of users who defend with the same intensity the often most obscure minutiae of popular culture. Monicasdude 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this fit WP:RS and WP:V?

I would appreciate some comment on a current problem with the pages Sammy Davis, Jr. and Elvera Sanchez. Davis claimed in his lifetime that his mother was Puerto Rican, but that has quite convincingly shown not to be the case in a 2003 biography which was very well reviewed and seems to have been thoroughly researched [11]. His mother was in fact a New Yorker of Cuban heritage and said so herself. Two users have reverted my edits placing both Davis and his mother back in the Puerto Rican categories which to me seems just misleading given the research in the book. Arniep 12:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There was also this comment made on the talk page of Sammy Davis by the niece of Jesús Colón. Arniep 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette: Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had

I've made a small addition to etiquette - it seems uncontroversial to me but I seek comment.

Talk at Wikipedia_talk:Etiquette#Principles:_Register_an_account..._but_if_you_don.27t.2C_don.27t_make_a_signature_that_looks_as_if_you_had

The item is "but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had" added to the request that people register unless they have a very good reason. Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles:_Register_an_account It won't be a surprise to some people that this arises out of one of the behaviours of User:86.10.231.219 (user page deleted some time ago for reasons, talk page still in use) who signs himself as The Invisible Anon

One of the behaviours that is which is not a subject of the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219

I'd like views on that addition to the etiquette page, the RFC is another, and particular matter, but one should say why such instruction creep is contemplated - otherwise perhaps nobody would believe it necessary. Midgley 18:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)