Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive Y

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)

In WP:V, self-published sources. One can self-publish for financial reasons because the cut publishers demand is huge. They can also make unreasonable demands for length of content which would exclude a work from outside publication. I can tell you about this having submitted a manuscript to a publisher and got back a contract that demanded ridiculous margins and length of book. There was little disagreement on editorial content, but an impasse on who makes how much and length. Whoever wrote that section needs a reality check. On the WP:NOR policy, I object to this section: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" All encyclopedias analyse to some degree. That is not research. I would agree with the synthesis concept. Research and analysis are different bodies of data. --Fahrenheit451 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding self-published sources, anyone can self-publish and so this makes it uniquely unreliable. Why should Wikipedia require its newspaper sources to be reliable and have fact-checkers if it's going to consider any Joe Blo's web site or print-on-demand book to be authoritative?

Regarding synthesis and analysis, I don't to see exactly why either of these should be allowed. Can you give an example of an analysis that is not original research (by the common definition, not technical policy definition) and that should be included in articles? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis may be used in research, but it is not research, which is, according to Oxford: "The systematic investigation into and study of materials, sources, etc. in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." Analyse is: "Examine in detail the consitution or structure of."--Fahrenheit451 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit has arrived at the page with no knowledge or understanding of its contents, apparently not understanding how it fits in with the content policies, and apparently also not even knowing what the content policies are, yet he wants to make changes. He is being rude and belligerent, and has completely failed to understand the reason self-published sources are treated with caution, which is simply that nothing stands between them and the act of publication, and particularly no libel checks — which all good publishing houses and newspapers perform, even if they are very basic ones. With self-publishing, and particularly with online self-publishing, there are no such checks and balances. That is why Wikipedia handles self-published sources with caution, allowing them only in certain circumstances, which are outlined on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are again engaging in personal attacks which is a violation of wikipedia policy. That is rude and belligerent. You are presuming a great deal about my views without communicating enough to ascertain them. I agree that self-published sources should be treated with caution. If one understands the libel statute, it easy Not to libel another party. This does not require a review by a solicitor. And even they make mistakes. I have seen many. It is not uncommon for periodicals and newspapers to be sued for libel or publish incorrect information. I would agree with you that it is more likely a website presenting views by one person could contain faulty information. My point is that all should not be condemned because some should be. And I ask you, if you cannot have a discussion with me without engaging in ad hominem attacks, then please excuse yourself from discussions with me. --Fahrenheit451 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about changing the conventions for category names to allow for not spelling out acronyms in all cases at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Abbreviations: to expand or not to expand?. --JeffW 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Exactly. This is, in fact, the solution advocated by the "Undue weight" section. Melchoir 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't have to be split out either, it can simply be reduced/removed to fit the NPOV policy. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think this is partly an instance of a larger problem, which is knowing when to quit. Why have one Gundam or Pokemon article when we can have hundreds? Why not talk about every facet of a celebrity's life or a university's athletic program? Sometimes it leads to bias, or awkward, unbalanced articles; sometimes it leads to... cruft. · rodii · 01:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This has long been considered to be covered by the NPOV policy section on undue weight, but there now is a proposal and example wording that everyone so far on the talk page believe accurately summarizes how the policy should cover this. Please see WT:NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on Wikipedia:No Polarising Policies would be appreciated. I think Wikipedia:Consensus 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)

I cannot see this becoming a policy, but the spirit of the guideline seems fine enough. But most propositions or proposals will usually have some sort of polarity in terms of opposition. As such the proposed policy seems counter-productive. --Knucmo2 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor has recently taken it upon himself to begin a campaign to remove references to many arabic-titled articles (mostly connected with islamic subjects) from en.wikipedia, claiming they are "POV forks". In the course of this effort, he has recently added a "Translation" section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) instructing editors to that effect. It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike, providing justification for their eventual deletion or merging (as subsidiary material, based on his contention that the abrahamic religions should be referred to in chronological order of their "founding", regardless of any claims that Islam predates Muhammad for example), as per Jibril (merged into Gabriel after a two-day "merge discussion period" during which no discussion took place; see Talk:Jibril) into articles with principally jewish or christian content. Other editors might like to comment on this development. — JEREMY 10:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends, please do not make quick judgements as Jeremy did. Writing like "Apparent crusade against arabic/islamic articles in progress" is not expected from a wikipedia editor. I and Timothy have two different sets of argument, both ending up with the same conclusions. Please hear our argument first. I don't agree with Jeremy on "It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike" Please specify a place and we will discuss the matter in length. You can revert everything back whenever you want. Peace --Aminz 11:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written up a policy proposal for reforming the use of Wikipedia:Shortcuts, which seem overly arcane and confusing to newcomers. The proposal lets editors keep typing similar abbreviations, but has software convert the abbreviations into fuller text before showing them to readers.

Intead of typing, say, [[WP:NOR]], you'd type {{WP:NOR}}, which would display a template of that name. The template would contain nothing but a reader-friendly link to the page: Wikipedia:No original research, for example, or No original research (a Wikipedia policy).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tlogmer (talk • contribs) .

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Full meta links. Please add additional comments there. Thanks. --Ligulem 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to advertise, but... Oh, ok. It is an advertisment. I have designed a new policy on User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll. It is still under construction, but to make it widely acceptable, it needs the community's input. Please make yourself familiar with it, perhaps visit it's talk page and make comments that will help me improve it before it is officially brought up for voting. Thank you, Misza13 ^{T C} 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Userboxbot regarding:

• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Userboxbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

During the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyde, he specifically stated that he was no longer working in the Userbox area. "Eventually I realized I was spending way too much time arguing over userboxes and I self-imposed a userbox wikibreak on myself. I made a conscious decision to get back to writing the encyclopedia."

Several (many?) folks endorsed based on that implied promise. A few others wisely thought it would be best to wait and see.

Looking at his deletion log, he began deleting userboxes the very day he was approved as an administrator, with the edit comment: I'm going to go out on a limb here and delete this userbox. Even though I said I wouldn't. Sorry.

In several recent cases, he has deleted (not subst and deleted), userboxen that have survived Templates for Deletion, in every case with majority of keep!

That means the debate moves to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, where very few even know about the discussion....

Yesterday, he deleted userboxes that had survived both TfD and DRVU in the past. At what point would it be appropriate to ask that administrator status be revoked because of disingenuity in his elevation, and failing to conform to community processes? And how would one go about that?

Folks will please note (by looking at my User page) that I don't have a dog in this userbox fight. But I'm tired of certain administrators failing to adhere to the limited and meager processes that exist.

--William Allen Simpson 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Except you do have a dog in this "fight", Stranger. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't, Cyde, and I had the same reaction--"I thought Cyde said he wasn't fighting the userbox wars anymore." · rodii · 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with policy? This appears to belong on a dispute resolution page such as RfC or the admins' noticeboard. Snoutwood (tóg) 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Snoutwood is right, this isn't the place. But second of all ... I'm not fighting a war. Substitution is the way out of this. If anything, I'm offering the armistice. --Cyde Weys 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely don't have a dog in this fight--I'm fairly oblivious to the whole userbox thing. I'm just offering a data point for Cyde, who I respect. Sometimes it helps to know how other people see your actions. Do with it what you will; no conflict here. · rodii · 12:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose Wikipedia talk:Userboxes would be the right place to raise userbox issues;
• I suppose Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Userboxbot would be the right place to voice specific concerns re. Userboxbot (section open for comments currently).
• Listing on this WP:VPP page not by definition inappropriate afaik, but if not requesting/suggesting guideline or policy improvements this seems a bit redundant (to say the least). Even if requesting/suggesting guideline or policy improvements, a link to the active discussion place would probably suffise. --Francis Schonken 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think WAS somewhat self-defeatingly tried to raise a policy question by burying it in the middle of a userbox dispute question: "At what point would it be appropriate to ask that administrator status be revoked because of disingenuity in his elevation, and failing to conform to community processes? And how would one go about that?" That's the part--if any--that belongs on this page, I guess. · rodii · 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So we're talking about Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances then. There, the suggestions are:

1. Deal with it by the steps described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (I don't see "list at WP:VPP" anywhere recommended on that page);
2. If these steps led to nothing, go to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (also there "list at WP:VPP" is nowhere marked as part of a process).

I didn't see WAS request/suggest that the processes described on these pages should in any way be modified. Indeed, I didn't even see WAS start up the processes recommended on these pages (which, with all due respect, would be the processes most likely to solve any issue on such matter, according to the wikipedians who put their effort in making the recommendations on these pages the best they could).

Anyway, requesting/suggesting that recommendations be changed before trying them, seems a bit gratuitous. If WAS' question was "who would help me depose Cyde for the given reasons?", I'd say again: gratuitous question, why don't you try following these recommendations first? If WAS' question was simply, "where can I find guidance?", well I suppose the link given above should do: Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances --Francis Schonken 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It was enlightening to me to see that this comment has been expressly declared by three members of the Arbitration Committee to a glaring example of severe incivility justifying Wikipedia discipline:

object to newbie-biting; slamming an article-in-progress one minute after a new user begins work is grossly uncivil. Give him a chance.

Discuss among yourselves. Monicasdude 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more like a lack of AGF than a lack of civility, but I think more context is needed to make anything of this. –Tifego^(t) _{21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Huh? Warrens 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in the proposed decision for the current RFAR regarding me, along with such other offenses as objecting to hate speech and repeating suggestions from Jimmy Wales without permission (theirs, Jimbo's, the new Pope's, they don't say). It's fun stuff. Monicasdude 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate your being frustrated with the Arbitration Committe about being ruled against in an RfAR, but really, going on about it here on the policy village pump isn't a productive use of this space -- or of your time. Warrens 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an unprecented ArbCom policy interpretation, and it goes against the express text of the policy. What's wrong with asking for community input -- especially since there's been previous discussion of the underlying issue here. It's not frustration -- I've known ArbCom was going to rule against me for some time, since it refused to say what charges it was considering. Monicasdude 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "express declaration" from the Arbitration Committee, then? I didn't see such a thing from a quick leafing through the RfAR. Warrens 00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A disingenuous post, in my opinion. The above quote was one of seven links provided to illustrate the assertion that "Monicasdude has been frequently uncivil to other editors including making personal attacks" (see here). After perusing the seven links, I, for one, would agree with them. — Matt Crypto 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that you chose one that is a very poor example - but you'd need a tractor trailer to haul all of the "aggressive ignorance" and "Would it kill..." instances in your edit summaries. I can't believe they didn't throw this one in to the Proposed findings of fact section. Not only is that completely unnecessary but actually detracts from your point - a point which many would agree with if said in a nicer manner - and reduces your credibility to almost nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Aggressive ignorance" is a currently fashionable term for a mode of argument; it's becoming common enough in published political commentary (I believe Joni Mitchell's use of the phrase in an interview "mainstreamed" it, but it's not a phrase I've put much time into trying to trace back to a prime source.) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Older forms, with overlapping meanings include the antiquated "Know Nothing" (often-self applied) and Hofstadter's "paranoid style." It seems odd to me that a supposedly knowledge-promoting community would punish an individual for being overly well-read, but things are quite strange here. As for the "Would it kill" formulation, I have yet to see anyone provide even a pro forma explanation as to how it is uncivil, since it is specifically directed toward behavior rather than personality. Indeed, one Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales has made much stronger and more comments about the same type of behavior, describing it as "a sickness in the [deletion] process" and describing the process itself as "ludicrous." When I quoted Wales directly (but without attribution) in deletion debates, the response regularly included virulent personal attacks far less civil than the comments ArbCom members chose to cite, such as"suggest commenter above look into anger-management sessions" and "Looks more like it's based on anger-management issues and reading comprehension problems/mind-reading delusions. . . There can be a difference of opinion, but that gives no call for you to, as a friend of mine puts, "make shit up" about motivations, nor to distort the English language to justify your pouting." Such comments are, it seems, deemed perfectly civil and do not fall into the category of personal attacks. Monicasdude 13:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fashionable or not, it's neither necessary nor endearing. From perusing your conversations, I'd guess that you would let loose with quite a tirade if the tables were reversed and someone called your behavior an example of aggressive ignorance. You seem to have a lot of good opinions and good points but, when you bring them home with a ten-pound sledgehammer like that, they get completely obscured and — surprise surprise — you end up in WP:RFAR. As far as the Jimbo Wales comparison, hopefully you recognize the difference: he is attacking an overall process and a general community behavior (in his Wikipedia project no less); your comments in the RFAr examples are, for the most part, directed at one person or even a small group of people. Surely you know which are going to bring down more wrath. For your last point, I'll concede that someone defending themselves with a personal attack isn't helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on the first point, if for no other reason than that I know what the term means. It's not exactly rarely used, although it's something of a neologism. Are you really saying that Wikipedia debates should be phrased on the level of the least literate members of the community? On the second point, Jimbo was talking in no small part about a specific AfD debate -- interestingly enough, one where I was the strongest "Keep" voice. And on the last point, the user in question made the same sort of comments, repeatedly, whether he was on the "attack" or the "defense," and has targeted quite a few other editors besides me. But despite hundreds of displays of incivility and personal attacks on a range of editors, he isn't called to account. And that's one of the clear signs that this whole debate really doesn't have anything to do with civility or conforming to Wikipedia policies, but one in a series of attempts to use the dispute resolution processes to suppress certain views. I'm not the first, I'm not the last. But the pretextual nature of the "incivility" claims and the other citations should be quite evident from the double standards displayed so clearly. Monicasdude 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The "aggressive ignorance" term is used often? So is "you're an asshole" but I wouldn't recommend using it in a discussion if you want to accomplish anything. As far as literacy, discussions should stay at whatever level is least likely to cause tension that would, in turn, cause that discussion to wander off-point. You have to confess that many of your discussions that have started with the term "aggressive ignorance" have ended with everyone pissed off and forgetting what the original point was, don't you? Even if you're justified in using "aggressive ignorance", if you've seen a pattern where people get pissed off when you use it, you should cease and desist. Re: Jimbo, the comment still sounds directed at the overall Afd process - whether it was given in a particular Afd or not. If one of the examples in your WP:RFAR is one where you chastised the overall Afd process, then I'd agree with you in saying that's an inappropriate piece of evidence. But if a Jimbo decree was originally said in one context which pointed to the overall community and then someone uses the same quote in another context which points to a small group of people - or an individual - that's a WP:UNCOOL violation (the common sense version of the various official policies). As far as double standards in applying the various official policies --- you're most likely correct. Someone adept in politics could cash in some old favors to get that argument heard. In summary, even if you are skating around the edge of the various official policies, there are still several unwritten policies included in WP:UNCOOL which you would be wise to adhere to. One of them is be nice. "Would it kill you...?"  ;-) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that argument is somewhere between ingenuous and utter nonsense. I don't "confess" the point you want me too; it's not the phrasing, it's the substance that provokes reaction. "Let the Wookie win" isn't Wikipedia policy, but that's what your argument boils down to. If pointing out a pattern of WP:BITE violations annoys the violators, don't bring it up? If pointing out patterns of systematic bias gets people angry, sweep it under the rug? I'm waiting for somebody to use the venerable insult "outside agitator," because the argument you're presenting is almost isomorphic. You're really calling for censorship of ideas and statements that produce strong reactions, without looking at the issues on their merits. Monicasdude 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you're saying that phrasing has nothing to do with anything. "That argument is utter nonsense" and "I completely disagree with that argument" are the exact same thing. You must be right - that way of thinking has worked wonders for you so far. I've already conceded that your pointing out of a WP:BITE violation seemed perfectly fine to me. I'm pointing out the difference between, "Hey, that's a WP:NPOV violation!" and "You scumsuckers are complete assholes for violating WP:NPOV!!!". To me, those are giving the same idea and concept - but one starts a good clean argument that may lead to a WP:NPOV violation reversal - and the other results in a giant protracted war and the responder in WP:RFAR because the reaction to the policy violation drowns out the violation itself. But I guess you're right and I'm wrong - those are equivalent. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating my point so exactly. While you take offense at the phrase "utter nonsense" here, indicating you find it inappropriate, the same phrase was directed (in the RFAR discussion) at someone who supported one of my positions, and one considered the phrasing inappropriate. It's not the phrasing at all; it's the substance; and these feigned claims of offense and incivility are just an attempt to suppress ideas that people don't like to see expressed. That's censorious. Monicasdude 13:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a double standard - I got that. Personally, I don't think it was a necessary phrasing when said against you or said by you. You're both wrong. And sorry, but there's no way I'll agree that it was your opinions that got you into RFAr rather than your phrasing. Of course I can't prove it without a time machine but there are plenty of people that get into plenty of civil arguments - and win those arguments - that have never been to RFAr. I've been in a few my own self and have never come close to RFAr. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a double standard. When a phrase is used in support of one position. it's considered civil. When the identical

phrase is used in opposition to that position, it's considered uncivil. And nothing in this pattern should give anyone pause? Monicasdude 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to post this in a public forum instead of on your talk page where you can revert my argument against you, Monicasdude. The Arbcomm council are not biased against you. The strength of the case made against you by the contributors is certainly enough to stand alone, even overlooking the many uncivil comments you have made against myself, Eusebeus, and the (as I mentioned earlier) arguments made against you on your talk page that you either neatly snipped out as a "personal attack" or simply deleted entirely without bothering to respond or even justify yourself, which might be argued to be one of the more instances of incivility you have provided. As WKnight has said, it might not be that people are colluding against you; it might be that you are in the wrong, here, and cannot see it for yourself. Kuzaar 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say ArbCom was biased. I said it was not following policy. You avoid that point, in favor of an ad hominem attack. Charming. Monicasdude 13:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I delight in your incivil, condescending tone and accusations of an "ad hominem attack" when I was merely recounting my treatment in trying to speak to you on your talk page- in my defense: show me the attack and I will apologize. Furthermore, your first example posted at the top of this section could certainly be construed as more than pointing out the error of other editors, and thus the incivility that ArbCom has said goes against policy. Not to mention the other evidence provided by Stifle et. al. in the opening section of the Arbitration against you; ArbCom is not distorting or going against policy, here; you merely cannot see your own violations of that same policy. Kuzaar 14:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(Which also brings to mind, you have done nothing to deny the fact that you have deleted the neutrally-toned comments of other editors criticizing your actions on your talk page, namely Eusebeus, myself, and Stifle, which is a more worrying concern than many of the things you have said to other editors.) Kuzaar 14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a clear personal attack, in which Eusebeus in effect ranted at some length to the effect that Billboard (and billboard.com), allmusic.com, and vh1.com (among other sources) were not reliable sources on matters relating to popular music. That is not a contribution to civil and informed discourse. Several of the editors involved in this dispute have regularly wiped their talk pages of any unfavorable comments, including formal administrator warnings, yet that doesn't concern you. In the real world, that would be acknowledged as evidence of hypocrisy and bad faith, but Wikipedia appears to operate under different rules. And Stifle has been posting variations of the same comment for some time, with no apparent purpose other than to annoy; one version of that comment is sufficient for civil discourse. Especially since it's a policy interpretation without precedents, already rejected in practice by a range of other editors. Check out my response on his talk page; it's there even though you deny I made a response. Monicasdude 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response; I've had a glance through the various pertinent histories and it looks like Stifle isn't entirely blameless either. It's very easy to get hot under the collar and have issue assuming good faith when involved in a complex dispute where this where both sides of the conflict have made mistakes. However, I would like to comment that in the past couple days your tone has improved and you seem to be more responsive and interested in civil debate than previously, and for that I commend and thank you. My only hope is that your current trend continues and that we can all contribute to and improve the Wikipedia without the community and rules constricting contribution. Kuzaar 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Based on what I read here, seems like arb-com are applying Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Steve block The wikipedian meme 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha, when I saw that link I was a bit shocked and thought you were being sarcastic, having never encountered that article before; but I think I essentially agree with you. Kuzaar 14:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That leads to one I find even more interesting, WP:SENSE. It's just common sense that, if someone on the street says something you disagree with and you call it "utter nonsense" or "aggressive ignorance", you're likely to get popped in the nose. Do that to a couple dozen people and you're not gonna be feeling too good! I guess this RFAr is the Wikipedia equivalent to getting popped in the nose by a couple dozen people. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose that whatever definition of civil behavior and personal attack is currently in fashion, it is pracatically undebateable that Monicasdude has disrupted the deletion process. However, has anyone considered that maybe it needs to be disrupted? How does it help to write an encyclopedia by jumping on new editors and new articles on their first day because the new editor doesn't conform to the arcana of the new pages patrol. Take a look at Al Seckel, written by User:Al Seckel. The first version definitely had WP:AUTO problems [12]. Fortunately, 4 other editors have jumped in and are working on it; not only is it verifiable that he invented the Darwin fish but he was a famous skeptic and was quoted in and wrote columns for the LA Times a couple dozen times back in the days before google. How many other articles don't get the same treatment, and get trashed on their first day because the author didn't properly assert notability in version 0.1? Here we have Joseph Pasquale, written by User:Joepasquale. After it was sent to AfD, the editor blanked it. Is that because he suddenly realized he didn't meet {{WP:BIO]], or did he just give up on the project after being nominated for deletion? I don't know, because no one has tried to talk to him. Funny, the Afd is currently running 5 to 5 that he is notable.
• I submit to you that Afd is a meat grinder, and the current de facto process is that new poor quality articles get sent to AfD, where interested parties have about 1 day to get enough of a rewrite to satisfy the voters before a consensus builds against it. Is that really how its supposed to work? Setting aside vandalism and hoaxes (and copyvios and attack pages), someone please explain why new articles of questionable importance must be deleted within minutes of their creation, instead of at least trying to engage the author and bring him or her up to speed on our policies and guildelines? Thatcher131 16:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What happened to letting things grow in a sandbox? Isn't that clearly described in various places? Am I the only one that actually practices that? While I agree it's not necessary to crush a bad article within minutes and without consulting either the author or Google or someone, I also don't think it's necessary to just throw a bunch of junk into the regular article space. What's the hurry in deleting bad articles - but what's the hurry in putting bad articles out there in the first place? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Which applies to new users how?
• Which is required where?

If you can get the NPP to agree to contact authors and request that they userfy their articles in personal sandboxes until they are finished, and to wait at least 24 hours after making such a proposal before nominating the article for deletion (assuming the author is unwilling), then I would be behind you 100%. Somehow I think that is unlikely to happen. [13] [14] [15] Thatcher131 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean how does it apply to new users? I thought it applied to all users? No, it's not a policy, but neither is waiting a while before nominating a junky article for deletion. You're pointing out a few examples where the person may be notable and the article was possibly valid, but what about the zillions of articles that get created and never get past the first sentence? Look through the list of orphaned articles or uncategorized articles and you'll find a lot of junk. And I wouldn't particularly worry about the authors of the two vanity articles you mentioned - most of those people only came to Wikipedia to put their own important selves in the system and were not going to stay and build a healthy overall knowledge base anyway. Back to my point, the facility is there (and is easy to grasp) on how to create a decent article in your own user area where no one will bother you. When it's somewhat complete - or at least a stub demonstrating notability - then you can put it out in the regular area. I've got several such pre-release articles going right now. If anything, I'd say the sin of creating a sub-stub non-notable article is committed before the sin of prematurely deleting it in the situation we're referring to. Hard to say who is more at fault but both parties are somewhat culpable IMHO. Now Monicasdude is being held accountable for the third sin, which is overreacting to the second sin. In this case, his response didn't seem over the top but, in other cases... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On sandboxes, everybody's told of the communal Wikipedia:Sandbox, which isn't suitable for making a complete article. But, I don't think many newbies know you can make a personal sandbox in user space (e.g. User:somebody/sandbox) to prepare a complete article, before putting it in article space. Maybe that should be encouraged in welcome messages, and in the text you see when you're about to create a new article. I've suggest a link to a personal sandbox be included in the welcome message, and in the "non-existant article" message. --Rob 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I do not believe there is policy that articles should be perfected in a sandbox. I will be happy to be corrected. Second, I'm not sure exactly how new users are supposed to learn about sandboxes and about the (de facto if not de jure) demand for articles to be right the first time. Wikipedia:Your_first_article doesn't mention it, neither do any of the standard welcome templates, and Help:Starting a new page tells you how but doesn't say its required or even recommended. One could try to talk to the editor about it, but I have seen a lot of prods and Afds where no one even welcomed the newbie, much less tipping them to the relevant guidelines their articles missed. The motto isn't supposed to be, "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they first read all the rules, policies, guidelines and help pages so they can get it right the first time." If people looking for things to delete can't tell the difference between this and this, maybe they should find other areas to work on. Thatcher131 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both of you are correct. I originally had a much better argument planned but couldn't find sandbox mentions. I swear they used to be in the article creation help page and in the welcome page, etc. but now almost every mention is gone. That's unfortunate because it's a very good way to keep the peace in situations like this. Anyway, I guess I'm the only one who took extreme care in the first couple dozen edits I made? Other people think nothing of hitting that Create an Article link and going at it, eh? Fair enough but I still don't think it's right to force people to make the assumption that some newbie is going to dilligently correct and expand the mistyped article fragment they just dumped into the public space. Personally, I'm fine with adding it to my watchlist and waiting a little while but turning that practice into policy seems over-the-top. I'll agree with that policy when someone institutes the bake-the-article-in-your-own-area policy. That's only fair IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading WP:EL I'm still not sure if it's OK to give an External link directly to a PDF. I've come acrose a number of external links on the wiki which link direcly to a PDF. Can someone who understands this policy clarify? Shlomke Shlomke 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to link directly to a PDF if that is required but you should always make a note in the link description so the user isn't surprised when a PDF pops up. (WP:EL#Rich_media suggests that if a HTML page is available which contains the other formats, to link to that instead, but that is not always possible.) {{cite web}} has a format parameter, which can be used for specifing the format of the link target. Regards, MartinRe 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Google gives an html rendition of a PDF which it has cached. However, it it not necessarily a good idea to link to the html version, as it can significantly distort the layout of the PDF and make it difficult to read. Tyrenius 23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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 [16] 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 MESSED OCKER (TALK) 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is such a commonly stated phrase, I feel it demands a response. We can have an encyclopedia without a community - see the many examples in Category:Encyclopedias. Wheather we can have a wiki without some type of community spirit is more debatable, and it's pretty certain that some community feeling improves the operation of a wiki, which is the current method being used to write the encyclopedic content which is our goal. Another equally critial element of making a wiki work is a focus on the subject(in this case, encylopedic content), overriding any goals of "personal interaction" or "community spirit". A division between so-called Exopedians and Metapedians is, in my view, counter-productive both to our focus on our work here, and our community spirit. We are all Wikipedians, no more and no less. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye. See also m:The Wikipedia Community#Beers after work ff. Snoutwood (tóg) 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll endorse that too. Everyone is valued; we don't want divisive labels. - Runcorn 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been a gradual on-again, off-again edit war going on on my user page over my addition of that page to Category:1989 births. I don't see any reason why users can't be added to such categories, but others insist that this is so. Lar, ever the calm negotiator, suggested that I post here and find out, once and for all. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem the primary reason for that is that the category was designed specifically for articles that are part of the encyclopedia, which user pages don't fall under. If there's a "Wikipedians born in the 1980's" category or something to that effect, it'd be much better for your user page to be categoried there. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to maintain a division between encyclopedia articles and sections that relate to the process of writing an encyclopedia. Categories always contain only one or the other. This is so that if the encylopedia is published or presented in another forum the parts that relate only to the making of the encyclopedia can be removed easily, and if someone wants to access Wikipedia the encyclopedia they aren't barraged with information about how it was made. Think of it like a curtain between the encyclopedia and the authors of the encyclopedia. The relevant guideline is at WP:ASR: "User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not under Category:People." Regards, Ziggurat 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. You win. But I suppose it makes sense. And at least now I have a reason, instead of just a bunch of people coming in and reverting my user page. Thanks for the info. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If several different people make the same change to your page, it's often (but not always) a suggestion that there might be something to their assertion, and seeking guidance, as you've done here, is definitely the way to go... full marks! That some of them were anons thins that argument a bit, of course, as the anons may all be the same person. I'm not myself so keen on birth year categories for us editors (because I'd be the only one in "Wikipedians born in 1843" is not why) but if others want to do it, why not. As I suggested on your talk page, start by creating the nesting... Wikipedians/Wikipedians by birth year/Wikipedians born in 1989 would be my suggestion of how to nest the categories. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A new proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Expert editors, has been drafted and is awaiting comments. --EngineerScotty 03:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus vs. Jesus Myth Wars & Acharya S

http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

I understand Wikipedia has been altering some aspects of its policies to enable it to be a more reliable, professional encyclopedia, and I have seen a few articles that reflect this. (I heard the interview on NPR with the head editor/manager... I was impressed by his visions and goals for Wikipedia)

THEN, today, when researching the subject of "Historical Jesus" at various places on the net, I encountered numerous Flame Wars ...whole websites and blogs dedicated to slandering individuals and authors in the "HJ" (Historical Jesus) camp... and other sites denigrating certain authors in the "Jesus Myth" (Jesus didn't exist) camp. Having made no conclusions of my own on this subject, I found the war between these participants, interesting, yet sophomoric... the goal apparently to destroy the reputations, and whole careers, of opposing players... including tactics like digging into private information and publishing it on the net.

AND I was amazed and greatly disappointed when the links ultimately lead me to WIKIPEDIA

How can you allow Wikipedia to be a battlefield for personal feuds?

While I may be skeptical of the above author's hypotheses in the subject of historical Jesus, the author is legitimate, nonetheless. The article may fit into the catagory of a book review (sort of), and while it is not an obvious “rant”, it is certainly not merely unbaised information about the above author.

• see the entry for JP Holding, (a player on the opposing side) as an example of a much more appropriate author description

I am not defending the author, Acharya S, nor her work ... I am complaining that this kind of game is allowed on Wikipedia

Obviously we have to allow some level of debate in order to sort out article content. In this case the article has improved considerably over the last few months.Geni 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the word, village pump? (Or, if you prefer, the village pump, villag pump, villiage pump, De Kroeg, etc. :)) Are cross-namespace redirects (specifically from article-space to Wikipedia:-space) against policy or not? -Silence 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I say speedy the lot of them. Melchoir 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? Including ArbCom, NPOV, be bold, assume good faith, CotW, Wikipedia is not paper, Deletion Review, no personal attacks, disambiguation, avoid self-references, votes for undeletion, RfA, and the literally hundreds of other cross-namespace redirects out there? (For that matter, I've been told that technically all WP: pages are in the article namespace, making them cross-namespace redirects as well; should we speedy them too?). Why? -Silence 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant the ones you've listed here. Someone might actually want to know about village pumps. Melchoir 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was only using those as examples, purely to show how incredibly ubiquitous these cross-namespace redirects are, not to discuss whether those exact pages ought link here. I'm interested solely in the broader policy issues of whether cross-namespace redirects are acceptable, not so much in any specific example of a cross-namespace redirect (I agree that an article on village pumps wouldn't (as far as I can see) be a bad idea). Current policy doesn't seem to discourage the creation of useful cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia:-space where there isn't an article to consume that space, yet a surprisingly large number of users seem to vehemently oppose cross-namespace redirects, without any rational justification for it and seemingly based on the misunderstanding that it's currently against policy, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth, as far as I can see. So, if we aren't going to ban cross-namespace redirects, we should spread the word on that fact to discourage the misunderstanding that they're already banned; and if we are going to ban them, we should make that explicit and be completely consistent in our standards for when such redirects are and aren't appropriate. The current state of affairs, where redirects are being completely arbitrarily targeted based solely on the political climate and which userprojects are more or less popular than others, is intolerably unfair and senseless. So: what's the word? -Silence 00:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Silence, I'm also curious about this issue. Why are cross namespace redirects an "inherently bad thing," as it seems some people are labelling it? For example, RC Patrol was recently deleted in an RfD simply because of the fact that it was a cross-namespace redirect (not because RC Patrol is anything in real life or that there's a possibility of a legitimate main space article in that spot). Is there some kind of technical issue that I'm not aware of, or do people simply think that they set bad precedents? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevant policy seems to be at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#When should we delete a redirect? which says we might want to delete such redirects (#5 under "You might want to delete ...") but not if they're useful for navigation (#3 and #5 under "However, avoid deleting ..."). Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept?. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that cross-space redirects were inappropriate according to WP:ASR, that is, everything in the article space should relate to articles, not to the process of making those articles. Presumably redirects will be kept in an offline or hardcopy version of Wikipedia, but not the Wikispace stuff, so having one leading to the other is broken. Ziggurat 00:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (WP:ASR, incidentally, is a cross-namespace redirect from articlespace, as I mentioned above :)) should state that explicitly, or otherwise state explicitly that it doesn't forbid cross-namespace redirects. Because currently it gives absolutely no indication whatsoever that cross-namespace redirects are in any way a bad thing. In fact, every indication of the circumstances surrounding the page leads one to believe that WP:ASR doesn't have any problem with cross-namespace redirects, because WP:ASR itself is the target of a large number of such redirects! Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. We need to be consistent on this issue and determine exactly when cross-namespace redirects are and aren't acceptable. If existing policy is not going to be changed to condemn cross-namespace redirects, then we should state as much on Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and say that such redirects should only be deleted when they don't assist users in navigation, since this is such a common misconception. -Silence 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to get this into policy at WP:CSD but it got watered down. :-) Anyway, Ziggurat has given a good reason. A related idea is that having a cross-namespace redirect like The Communism Vandal implies that the guy described at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism is notable/significant/encyclopedic enough that our encyclopedia should have an article on him. (EWS23, there's no technical issue.) Note: I have no problem making a big exception for the WP:FOO style of redirects. I think it should be worded tightly, though, because redirects like "RfA" could also count as navigational aids. FreplySpang (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that WP: type links are okay, because they're only technically in the articlespace, and would easily be parsed out for an offline version (that they all start with an abbreviation of Wikipedia I'd always assumed meant that they were in the Wikispace instead). In any case, I would agree that there needs to be a definitive policy on this. Ziggurat 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Last fall, I created a list of every redirect from Article space to User space, and dumped the load (many dozens) onto RFD. One was saved WP:BEEFSTEW, one was changed to point at Wikipedia space, and all the rest were deleted. Dragons flight 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I just dealt with all of the cross-namespace redirects listed here, are there any others you guys happen to know about? --Cyde Weys 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify this before I get asked, the only acceptable cross-namespace redirects have to begin with WP: (for project pages) and WT: (for project talk pages). Obviously having something like No personal attacks that redirects into project space is entirely unacceptable and directly conflicts with our encyclopedic mission. Plus, it breaks mirrors, which mirror the articles but not the project space pages. --Cyde Weys 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best place to raise it, but there is a problem with some tags, specifically merge tags, in so far as they don't appear to be time limited. I keep coming across articles which have merge tags attached and have done for months. No-one has supported the merger. Sometimes no-one has even commented on it, or the last comment was months ago. But the poser of the tag stands guard on it, and woe betide anyone who dares move it. They will be accused of censorship and everything bar starting the Black Death.

One user has been guarding his beloved merge tag for nearly a year now. No-one had commented on it, and it appears to be just a bit of ego on his behalf (he is pissed off that another article, in passing, dares mention the topic he is a self-proclaimed expert on — he has written the "definitive" (his words) article on the topic on the topic and is annoyed that someone else dare write about it somewhere else!. He wants them merged (ie, his version kept and the other passing mention dumped) and stands guard over his merge tag like Merlin.

Today I took a merge tag off another article. It was debated (slightly) in February and had no support. It has just been sitting there ever since. I know from experience of the author of the merge tag he will go ballistic when he sees it removed (its the same story. Author has his own "pet" article and does not like the fact that, in passing, the topic is mentioned in summary somewhere else. He is particularly peeved that he can't POV the second article the way, though sheer attrition, he has been able to POV his 'own' version. So he has the merge tag in theory to merge them, in reality to get stuff from one article dumped, leaving his article as the definitive version on Wikipedia).

Its almost funny seeing these battles. The problem is that the merge tag is not being used in many cases for genuine mergers but as part of one author's attempts in effect to copyright a topic and ensure that no-one else dares mentions it outside his or her pet article. Even when no-one agrees they still stand guard over the merge tag and threaten fire and brimstone on anyone daring to remove the merge tag. The tags should be time-limited, with say a decision within 14 days, or 7 days, of their inclusion in an article, and a ban on they being imposed over and over again on the same article by the same user. As of now the merge tag is being grossly abused and seems to reflect not so much a real need to merger but someone's ego being annoyed that someone else dared write on 'their' topic, even in two or three lines, elsewhere. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples please? It's hard to evaluate your proposal without some specifics. · rodii · 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always viewed merge tags as a notice that the placer of the tags was going to carry out the merge in a relatively short time, if there was consensus to do so (or at least not consensus not to do so, in the case of little or no comment) and would support removal of tags that had been there a long time. The answer to a removal that is complained about, at least in my view, is "so go ahead and merge them then, let's see how it comes out and discuss the result, we can always go back if we have to..." I sincerely believe that every tag I've ever placed I followed up in some fairly close period of time (unless I forgot some? feel free to catch me at a lie there so I can go fix it... grin). Isn't that how most people think of these tags? ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen merge tags as a way for people to inform me that someone has found yet another collective term for the four elements of Fire, Water, Earth, and Air. --Carnildo 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mgekelly has unfairly dismissed my as a vandal becuae I listed templates for deletion just becuase they are highly offensive. Does this mean that if I continue to do so, or even place a vote to delete it just because of my morals, I really do desearve more respect. He can't even beleive that I do not (automatcialy or not) know today's date, it is possible to forget it, or what 'frivolous' means.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

It sounds like you're trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Read WP:POINT. I can't believe this TFD. Do you really think that we should delete Template:User Pro-life just because you're not pro-life? Do you realize there are other people using Wikipedia and that *gasp* they don't all share your views? Or did someone make you the King of Wikipedia while I wasn't paying attention? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Do you really think that we should delete Template:User Pro-life just because you're not pro-life?" No, it's becuase anti-abortionists are technically not pro-life people, they're anti women people as explaind on WP:TFD.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-O

I agree with your view, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's an established term, and pro-choice can also be redefined as pro-death (as a politician in North Carolina tried to do). Userboxes are more a social interaction than building a encyclopedia anyway (the prime reason to be here). KimvdLinde 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Who even cares how each is defined. The idea of trying to get something deleted simply because it offends you is --- well --- offensive! Now, if you want to have all social impact userboxes removed, that's another story - but it sounds like you only want the ones you disagree with removed. To that, I can only say "wow". You're trying to make Myrtoneopedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your nominations, I think Mgekelly was correct. Wikipedia does not base its contents on "what is offensive to Myrtone". In a community we all see things that personally we see as offensive but others don't, but we all to get over it. Your behaviour is borderline vandalism. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that wikipedia does not base its contents on even international (drug) laws. I happen to see templates that claim a user to transgress such laws as immoral (why are they less common on wikipedia than in the real world, that is my expierience (I'm middle class Australian)). Why should I be blocked form editing for a perfectly reasonable TFD nomination? How unfair! Mgekelly finds it hard to believe that I do not (automaticaly or not) know today's date. It is possible to forget it. And no one has yet told me what 'frivolous' means. Help!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

Frivolous means unnecessary. I don't want to sound condecending here, but you have an Internet connection. Google it. Also, you're using a computer when posting these messages. The date is in the bottom-right corner. You can't claim you forgot. As for your TfD nominations, they are bad faith nominations because they are based entirely on your personal opinion, an opinion that the majority of Wikipedians do not share. Wikipedia is not obligated to adjust itself simply because you are offended by a few random templates. Also, the "not drug-free" template can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Maybe that user smokes marajuana for reduce pain? Can you say otherwise in every single instance? Of course not. I suggest you get over your problems with these templates. Don't like them? Don't use them. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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 [17] "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)

A "Jewish mathematicians" category was created very recently, and a link thereto was added to the bottom of the pages of quite a few mathematicians. We might be best off not having such a list altogether - and certainly no bottom-of-the-page category. Some reasons are given in

Category_talk:Jewish_mathematicians

Of course, there would also be the advantage of avoiding yet another war on inclusion criteria, for what that is worth. What do you think? Hasdrubal 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: categorizing people by ethnic groups is in itself controversial, and does not (and won't) have unanimous support. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is written somewhere in the policies, to let know that decisions here should be taken not by majority, but by consensus - that's real democracy, but anyway. I just want to point out the debate that has taken place in January 2006 in the talk page of the French people article. Although the vast majority of French people and French Wikipedians who edited the article rightly insist that French people is not an ethnic group, because of a variety of historical and cultural reasons (without entering the debate, I'll just refer to Ernest Renan's classical conception of a nation, opposed to the German understanding of the Volk - which definitely is an ethnic group). However, (mostly) Canadians and US people have repeatedly insist on qualifying it as an ethnic group (due to their partial and uncomplete understanding of French culture and, more importantly, to North-American political stakes - they thus transfer a North-American debate about ethnicity to define the French people as an ethnic group, against the will and history of the French people! -- ignoring the first rule of ethnicity, that the people concerned must first define them as such!). This has led to wrongly include the French people on the list of ethnic groups. Any historian of nationalities and nationalism will agree that the two rival conceptions about the nation concerned this German/French opposition, and thus the French case is surely not alone. Controversies have therefore a long time before them. Lapaz 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's currently a debate about whether or not the {{Policy}} or {{Guideline}} templates should have "feel free to edit this ..." in them. Please see some of the older discussion at Template talk:Guideline, and let's centralize the discussion at Template talk:Policy. This was also posted at WP:RFC/POLICIES. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on this topic at Template talk:Policy. Related comments can be viewed at Template talk:Guideline.

The issue is whether users should be advised to "free free" and "be bold" when editing policies and guidelines. Discussions are taking place at Template talk:Policy and Template talk:Guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, discussion should take place at Template talk:Policy. We do not need ForestFires. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You started the discussion at Template talk:Guideline and so it has been taking place on both talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Guideline notes that the discussion should be centralized. I reworded it to note the related comments on that talk page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page where different standards for how foreign language words/names/articles/etc. are presented on Wikipedia? For example, someone has suggested on the talk page for Jopará that the article be retitled Jopara, without the accent. English speakers would most likely encounter the word/concept in a Spanish context, in which case the correct spelling would include the accent. Strictly speaking, however, the word comes from Guarani (though it would be used in both Spanish and Guarani), and according to Guarani rules, there wouldn't be an accent. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page you're looking for is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Specifically in answer to this issue, it should remain at Jopará if this is the most commonly-known spelling, and there should be a redirect at Jopara for ease of searching. It may be appropriate to note in the text of the article that the Guarnaí spelling is Jopara (bolded for the benefit of those coming from the redirect). — Saxifrage ✎ 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be a systematic policy of putting in redirects whenever there is any accent or diacritical in the article title. Otherwise, it makes things much harder for English-speaking people looking for articles. - Runcorn 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I'm a part of a research network funded by the EU whose mission is to: "... leverage added-value from existing work through interaction and to use this to encourage further contributions from new participants. A key objective of the network is to foster interaction between all the many different scientific sectors involved in this multi-disciplinary area and to help create truly inter-disciplinary perspectives." OK, blah blah blah, but the point is we have funding to create something which is publicly understandable about a subdiscipline of cognitive science. This would of course respect the no original research rules, but rather create a summary of existing published pratice that other members of the field could freely expand upon.

I've been looking at and playing with wikipedia for about 6 months now and I'm convinced it could support this kind of endeavour and that this would be well within its mission. I expect to make a portal. But the one question is that the funding agency wants to be acknowledged. There are many pages with acknowledgements of original sources at the bottom (e.g. EB 1911 or whatever). Would it be OK to cite people who paid other people while they were typing in content to wikipedia?

Thanks,

--Joanna Bryson 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I understand this question, I think a notice on the talk page of each article would be an appropriate place to give credit (probably in the form of a template like the 1911 Britannica one, except that goes on the article page). Note that the Britannica template just says substantial parts of the article come from the 1911 EB, and it's often removed once the article has expanded or evolved substantially--so your own organization's acknowlegement may not there in perpetuity either (though it should always be there in the history). Do you and your funding agency understand that other people can and will edit this, that the content is released under the GFDL and that no one owns articles once they're entered, etc.? · rodii · 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Also, ironic respect to your funders for using "leverage added-value," errant hyphen and all, with a straight face. :)

Yes, they are aware of that and not sure whether to go with this model. I think it is really an interesting question --- if we do go forwards and embrace wikipedia as a scientific tool supporting research then it will have an impact on the culture I think. And on the mission. Most encyclopedias don't document the creation of a discipline, for example. On the other hand, most don't have a "current events" category.

Maybe we should make an acknowledgement template which points out that funders are acknowledged on the talk page from the main page. I like your suggestion other than that -- I do think it would be nice to have a easily reinserted direction arrow. Also, note that eventually the funding notice (like the EB ref) probably should get deleted when it no longer represents the majority of the content. Funders don't get acknowledged on papers that cite funded research, just the original paper. We would also have an accompanying traditional publication for the "archival" version. --Joanna Bryson 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that listing funders at all will cause a lot of controversy (similar things have happened before, and they have a tendency to explode, see for example the current fight about Wikipedia:Reward board). A concern that I have is that you'd wind up with a skewed article. I'm sure that you realize that you'd have to follow our neutral point of view policy, but I'd like to make sure that your sponsor is aware that this isn't the place to get publicity for themselves.

I don't really think that listing funders on the article page is appropriate, as it comprimises our neutrality. I wouldn't mind having a small tag on the talk page, though, in the manner of the EB 1911 template. That being said, I think that you should post a message onto WikiEN-l, the English Wikipedia's mailing list. You'll be bound to get responses from a wide variety of Wikipedians, and that'll help you gauge the community's feelings on the matter. More information about the list can be found here. Good luck! Snoutwood (tóg) 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Funders in academic papers are quite used to having just very small acks in footnotes, so for academics its no culture shock. What is much more a problem for objectivity is when the funder isn't acknowledged so you don't know what kind of bias may be in the research. But I did think it might be surprising / confusing to a lot of less-academic wikipedians, which is why I was looking for input. --Joanna Bryson 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That last is an excellent point. Better visible bias than hidden bias. (I'm not suggesting that there will be any bias at all, of course.) Snoutwood, we're talking about funding agencies like NSF, EU agencies, NATO, the UN. This seems quite different than, say, a company funding a show on "ad-free" public radio in exchange for a brief promotional announcement. Assuming a bright line can be drawn between acknowledgments and quasi-advertising, what Joanna is suggesting seems like a win for Wikipedia with not significant downside. But I haven't read the discussions you're suggesting--I'll do that.

Joanna, maybe a small invented sample of the kind of acknowledgment you're proposing might help clarify matters? · rodii · 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(@Joanna:) Other possibilities include IMHO:

• WP:SOCK#'Role' accounts: you could try to run a "role" account, which would mean that the reasons for the program could be explained at the role account's user page. Note that "role" accounts need to get some sort of permission, and that the link above indicates that there is not a standard procedure for getting such permission, nor, apparently, any external organisation that has such account granted currently (I thought there was some but it's no longer on the page) and that there is currently only one "external" organisation (a "trusted party" of some sort) running a role account mentioned in that section. Anyway, you could choose a nick name that reflects the name of your program, and every edit done with that nick, would tie the edit with the program (as would be shown in edit history); clicking the user name in edit history would lead to a "user" description explaining the thing. And, by listing the "my contributions" of that account, one would get a quick overview of it's contributions. Seems simple. But probably also something to discuss with the Wikimedia foundation (I mean apart from with the on-line community, who might frown on this in their own way) whether such thing would be a good idea.
• WP:COPY#Introducing invariant sections or cover texts in wikipedia: I updated that section of the copyright page some time ago, stating that introducing "invariant" sections per the GFDL is not really possible. But what you describe as being the thing you want to do is indeed something foreseen by the FSF to be covered precisely by such invariant sections (and/or what in the GFDL is called "cover texts"). While updating that piece, describing that Wikipedia goes currently by "no invariant sections/no cover text", I thought about the edit summaries, that while in the legalese terms of the GFDL not exactly invariant sections nor cover texts, they provide a possibility to leave (stable!) "markers" about who is behind the contribution (like, for instance, we suggest (semi-)bot software to leave such markers in the edit summary, for instance "by popups", if you ever saw such thing in an edit summary). So that's basically the technique I described in the section of the WP:COPY page linked above. Something similar could be used, for what you proposed. A difference with the previous idea would be that it's a little harder to retrieve a list of contributions with this "marker", and that nobody can forbid others to use the same marker.

My two cents... Still a question, if you are part of a EU-funded project, what's the name of that project? Just out of curiosity (I used to be in some...) --Francis Schonken 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting. How about this:

1. Create a "role" page or some such that describes the funding body / network (in this case, since you ask,euCognition.
2. On the article main page, put a template that says something like "Time for some of the authoring of this article was provided by an independent funding agency. See history for details." This template could link to a page with an edited version of this discussion (initially).
3. In the history page, on your edits that are funded, put a link to the role in your comment.

This makes sense to me because the history is the only thing that's really permanent, and it seems to be minimally disruptive. Am I on the right track?--Joanna Bryson 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I looked at it a "role" page would be in "User:" namespace, I don't think any other namespace qualifies for something like that. That's why WP:SOCK applies, all forms of "acceptable" sockpuppet accounts are listed on that page too (and "Role account" is one of them).

This means (among other things):

• You create the account by using the "login" button in the upper right corner of your browser (if you're currently logged in, log out with your current account first);
• For example, choose a login name that combines your name with "euCognition", something like "Joanna Bryson euCognition"
• You're the only person knowing the password (it's only from the moment that you start sharing that password with other people in the program that the "role account" really applies, until then it would be simply a "declared alternate account", allowed without reserve, per WP:SOCK#Segregation and security for a non-hidden "segregation of tasks" reason).
• On the user page of that account you explain what it is all about (advantage: you don't have to allow others to post irrelevant content on that user page, and can ask protection/semi-protection on the page if there would be abuse: there's no other namespace - not even template or project namespace - where you could ask that so easily), and indicate that the account is "run" by the person also known as "user:Joanna Bryson";
• The user talk page of the account can be used to answer questions regarding the use of the account, and, of course, regarding any other issue that needs to be adressed regarding the account (e.g. if the account inadvertently made an erroneous edit, other wikipedians can ask you about it there).
• This allows you to retrieve lists of edits performed by that account (simply go to "contributions" of that account, and you get the list).
• Possibly, you also activate an e-mail address for the account, opening an other possible channel of communication (if you have a different "project" e-mail address, this allows you to segregate personal e-mail traffic from the "EU program" related communications).

While notes on article talk pages are less "stable", and "edit summary" content can be mimicked by editors you might not want to be associated with, the "separate user account" solution has pretty much of all the advantages you need I suppose.

Still another consideration: linking to the EU (Cordis, IST,...) and/or euCognition website(s) from a user page would not be experienced as problematic. Disseminating links to external webpages on other places in wikipedia (for example, making your user signature include a direct & clickable external link, or post external links on talk pages in a systematic way) would easily be perceived as "linkspam", and be rejected by the wikipedia community. An account's signature *is* a link to its "user page" (unless you modify that in user preferences), so with every edit you do, both in edit history, and also with the sig on talk pages you make a straight link to the user page that explains what the account is about (and contains the external links, linking to the program websites) - no problem there!

Re. my involvement in EU projects, I didn't make it to an FP6 one (yet), I was involved in some FP5 ones. One of them involved development of an "artificial cognitive system" though. --Francis Schonken 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, FYI:

• Here is the list of edits you did with the Joanna Bryson account: [18]
• Here is the list of edits you (and maybe some others before you) did with the "anonymous" 81.6.234.170 IP: [19]

--Francis Schonken 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I keep forgetting that I get logged out by Wikipedia until I see the wrong author come up on the sig!--Joanna Bryson 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant idea, I will shop that by the funders involved. Do you think I should still also send this to the mailing list? Do you think someone should make a policy page about this? I guess I need to do more reading about policy is made -- it's certainly not concensus yet. --Joanna Bryson 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Do you think I should still also send this to the mailing list?" - basically: that's up to you. I'd try to (at least) notify some of the people involved directly with the Wikimedia Foundation if going for a full multiple-user "role account" model. Mailing list is a standard proceeding in such case, contacting one of the board members (e.g. user:Angela) or the "office" contact user:Danny, and let them decide how to proceed might be another option (see also http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Press_contacts for some e-mail adresses and phone numbers, if you'd like to discuss this by e-mail/phone first). Using OTRS (follow link) would be another option I suppose, and there are probably more...

"Do you think someone should make a policy page about this?" - it's not likely that would happen, while in fact it is already covered by current policies and guidelines (primarily by WP:SOCK as indicated above). But if successful for a full-blown role account, you'd probably be listed there. If this results in a two-way active collaboration (I mean "Wikimedia Foundation" <-> "euCognition"), meta would probably be the right place to discuss/advertise that (depends also whether you'd want to limit this to "English wikipedia encyclopedia" in strict sense, or rather something accross the borders of several wikimedia projects).

Anyway, I'd concentrate on what you'd want to do in "user:" namespace now first (i.e. getting the "acknowledgement of funding organisations" worked out, per the suggested steps), which, in a first step, afaik does not require policy change (BTW, see Wikipedia:How to create policy for more on that topic). --Francis Schonken 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion copied to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Apparent contradiction in copyright terms? by Francis Schonken 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Okay, let me take a shot at this. I'm not a GFDL expert, but from reading most everything (though skimming a lot), I think the source of the confusing lies in this passage: ""Permission is granted to copy... with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." What I think might be the case from Mr. Schonken's position so far is that the "with no..." clause modifies what may be copied from Wikipedia, not what the copier may create themselves. So Irrevenant is concerned that the passage is forbidding the addition of invariant sections, front-cover texts, and back-cover texts, while what the passage is really saying is that no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts may be copied from Wikipedia.

Is this right? If so, the text for that notice that is recommended by the GFDL is really confusing, because Irreverant's reading is what I got from it too. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There's more to it. The standard GFDL/copyright statement (which indeed might confuse if not reading the whole of the GFDL text, which is also legalese, but blame RMS/FSF for that),

[...]
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.
[...]

ALSO implies that at no point in time there could be found Invariant Sections or Cover Texts in Wikipedia's content. While, if there would be Invariant Sections or Cover Texts in Wikipedia, the formulation would need to be different, still according to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#How to use this License for your documents:

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the

Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.

If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation."

So you'd have to keep lists of these types of sections, which Wikipedia doesn't do currently. And certainly no copies of these lists are included in the copyright statement.

The problem is, that this also implies (as long as wikipedia keeps to the No Invariant Sections/No Cover Texts copyright statement) no (other) GFDL documents containing Invariant Sections or Cover Texts can be added to wikipedia, while Invariant Sections or Cover Texts remain Invariant Sections or Cover Texts when joined in another document. The only possibility (but then you'd need to be copyright owner of these documents or at least you'd need express permission by the copyright owner to do that) is to copy the text of such Invariant Sections or Cover Texts in Wikipedia agreeing that they lose their statute of being Invariant Sections or Cover Texts, while Wikipedia has no means to protect that statute ("invariant" means that that text should be "literally" kept in every copy of Wikipedia's content, and should be listed as such in the copyright statement; the same for Cover Texts – read the GFDL). Which doesn't happen. And that's why currently the copy of Wikipedia's content at the WikiMedia servers/databases can not accept "Invariant" or "Cover" content according to what these concepts mean in the GFDL.

Note that anybody can copy Wikipedia content, add Invariant or Cover matter according to the GFDL (section 4 et. al.) and distribute such modified versions. But that person can not impose on the Wikimedia Foundation to distribute such version that includes Invariant or Cover texts. Unless, when the GFDL/copyright statement of the WikiMedia projects would change so that the Invariant and Cover Texts are listed, and on top of that there would be a system with which to protect such content in designated places (won't happen in any foreseeable future afaik). --Francis Schonken 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From the deep, dark and dank quarters of the Wikimedia dungeon guards comes the practice of Ostracism. Read more at: A proposal to add Ostracism to the official list of Wikimedia philosophies -- PCE 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Zondor started inserting {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} on the (currently) 36 37 40 (hard to keep up) guidelines/policies mentioned in that template. Good idea?

I don't have a clear opinion on the issue yet, apart from some technical issues with the template (it's TOO LONG, so crosses the lines under quite a few level ==...== section titles on most pages); also in general my first appreciation is too long: 36-link navigational templates don't work too good on pages that usually already have quite a few templates. That's a usability concern (if it doesn't help to get to the right guideline/policy quicker I suppose it's no real improvement, 36-item lists on pages that already have a few linked lists is assumably a usability horror in that sense).

Also, basicly it's a negative approach, listing "wrong" things on 36 policy/guideline pages, and not listing "things that can go splendid" in wikipedia, with links to pages with positive tips & tricks on how to achieve that.

Also several entries in the list might be questionable, e.g. "Weasel wording" and "Peacock terming" are currently listed - why not the more generic wikipedia:words to avoid?

But, as said, apart from these "first impressions" I don't have a real opinion yet. Something in this vein (but simpler then) might maybe work and might actually be a good idea. --Francis Schonken 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite like it, it lists pretty much all of the bad things on Wikipedia in one place, but is a bit long. --Knucmo2 15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the title of bad things which is overly negative. Possibly "Issues of concern"? Also, it is long as a template as currently formatted. It might make sense a list or a category. JoshuaZ 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something interesting here, though using a template seems like the wrong approach. A page, maybe, with appropriate responses or warning templates for each, could develop into a useful reference. So I'm tending toward the list approach. · rodii · 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A page would be better as the current template lumps together everything with no indicators of seriousness. 'Bad usernames' aren't the same order of problem as 'edit warring' and 'pov pushing'. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh, this template is one of Wikipedia's Bad Things. Can't we at least have a complementary List of Good Things? – 217.35.96.167 16:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's impossible to figure out what some of them are without following the links. "Some words" is a bad thing? "Uncommon sense" is a bad thing?  ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I too think that this template (now with 50 entries) is the wrong way to go about this - pehaps a category:Things to avoid on Wikipedia would be better. The phrasing could also be better on some - what is "vandal insulting" and is this really as bad as copyright violations? Medical advice and Legal advice are in general good things to get - just not from Wikipedia. "Safety awareness" is also a Good Thing, as is our Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer to which it links. Thryduulf 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was also struck by the incongruous inclusion of medical/legal advice as a "Bad Thing". These are not a type of content to be isolated and excised from an article - merely broad disclaimers that the article is not provided to be used as advice. Anyway, this follows more generally from the idea that Wikipedia is provided as a reference, rather than to tell people what they should do. It would be very unfortunate if this policy guideline had the effect of intimidating some contributors out of providing all the information that they could regarding medical or legal issues.Mike Serfas 05:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and I wouldn't want to delete it, but at the same time, it's not so important as to need including on dozens of policy pages. It's kind of pessimistic to organize all project space pages in terms of "Bad things". I think a "Policies" organizational template would be a lot more appropriate. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see it replaced with a category. It's too long-- look what it does to WP:IAR, for example. It's too negative. Ashibaka tock 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• If we're going to keep it like this, can we make it {{hidden}} so it doesn't clutter up pages, at least? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of a list that intermingles policy, guidelines, and essays indiscriminantly, and if it does it really shouldn't be on each policy page (which state that the contents of that page - templates included - is policy). I like the idea behind it, however - would it be more appropriate as a userspace-only template? Or changed into a Wikipedia:Essay page? Ziggurat 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: Did anyone expect a template about "Bad Things" on Wikipedia to be anything other than negative? Attacking it for its purely "negative" tone is not valid, and betrays a shallow optimism about the things which occur on Wikipedia. Sure, a creation of a good things template might be just as good (and NPOV, heh :-D) --Knucmo2 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the criticism of being "negative" includes criticism on its very name. Or was that too complicated? WP:NOT EVIL! --Francis Schonken 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, for the time being, and getting the sense this needs more discussion, and that there's certainly no "policy-level" consensus to have the content of that template on all the affected policy pages (note that there are also some negative comments about the template on some of these policies' talk pages, not echoed here), I'm going to take a temporary "bold" step of making the noinclude tags on the template over-arch its complete content. Will make it invisible everywhere. I'll make a link to this discussion venue on the template, and copy the content of the current template's content here, by a "subst" on the template above, before the "noinclude" change.

So please continue the discussion here. For the list in the template we get the thrust, and if it changes dramatically we can again copy its content here. --Francis Schonken 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A better name could be Wrong Things. This is a subset of Bad Things which is quite broad. Why Good Things, another POV? Two wrongs don't make a right. Not all items should be displayed. We can make it so only policies are allowed to be included. -- Zondor 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually good things in themselves are not wrongs, they can cause wrongs, just as bad things in themselves may cause good. Yes, that would still be POV, but you misunderstood my little joke anyway. The question is, which do people need to be reminded of more? --Knucmo2 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In policy pages we ought to further understanding of what is acceptable, not what is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it needs to be formatted so it terminates the lines underneath sections rather than chopping through them. Should also be hidden as a norm, since it's a rather large list. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Things is what might cause Incivility in people, though. Wrong Things at least should be toned down and less negative but violating censorship. My initial name would have thought to be 50 Sins of Wikipedia or 50 Commandments of Wikipedia. Hopefully, with the omission of non notable items, the list size can be reduced. However, whatever is wrong with Wikipedia should not be judged by what the POV list size it should be. -- Zondor 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This template is pointless. Many things on the list are rephrased awkwardly to be negative, like "not being bold". What does making a huge list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, all expressed confusingly in the negative, accomplish? We don't need a "Good Things" template either, as it'd just involve negating everything on that list. It doesn't need a different name, or different formatting, it just needs to be kept off of policy/guideline pages like any other large chunk of irrelevant text would be. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I still like it. It's just another way to teach people some important stuff about Wikipedia. I would like it better if it somehow led to constructive responses--how to avoid these problems, how to fix them, how to report them. But as a list it's not doing any harm. I agree it shouldn't be a template on all those pages though. · rodii · 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of it is to try and keep everyone above par. You can do almost anything you like on Wikipedia but as a minimum requirement you should not do wrong things or bad things. Admittedly, this is a POV stance on how Wikipedia should be for the better. -- Zondor 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: "Doing The Right Thing" (as Jimbo states it, see User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, first point) can not be reduced to avoid doing the Bad/Wrong Thing. IMHO Jimbo's "at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run, period." applies to that first principle, including "Do The Right Thing", as much as to anything else on that Statement of Principles page. At least, I see no reason to change that. --Francis Schonken 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The buck stops with Jimbo's POV. Consider this: A Right Thing to do for Wikipedians to do is to... avoid doing the Wrong Thing or avoid doing the Bad Thing. It also says: "Doing The Right Thing takes many forms", which can mean avoid doing the Wrong Thing. And also, "...perhaps most central is the preservation...", where the word preservation can mean maintain, protect, and prevent. These can mean to prevent decay, this is, to avoid people decaying doing the Right Things, that is, avoid people doing the Wrong Things to prevent that decay. -- Zondor 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Think about it this way. Who's going to take the time to read a 51-entry list telling them all the things they shouldn't be doing? There's very little reason for this to be on any page because it's just going to confuse people. The templates currently on such pages links to related topics. This is all over the place in comparison. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound too fluffy bunny about it, but wouldn't it be more productive to just encourage people to join in and help out and then point out (and help correct) mistakes when they occur? There are always going to be new things that we don't want people to do that nobody's thought of yet, and there'll be people who rules-lawyer by looking at the list and saying, "It's not there, so I can do it." I'd rather just focus on making more good editors, then you have more people helping to make the place better and mentoring others! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 00:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If its not on the list, then you can do it or it should be changed as it is still a wiki template. On the contrary, you can grow more and better editors by having a good infrastructure like reminding people what wrong things you should not do. -- Zondor 06:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the world's biggest source of information and so naturally it can get pretty complex. No one is expected to read every single one right now, of course. When one refers to the NPOV policy page and is told POV as a wrong thing, what other wrong things I should be aware of? Well, this list of the side of this NPOV policy page will tell me. If it wasn't there, people will continue to do the wrong things and cause even more hassle for every one. So it is an important tool to remind people about it potentially saving lots of further trouble. It is advertising but one worth putting on project pages just like anti-smoking advertising campaigns. Perhaps, people don't care for doing the wrong thing and thus it is up to us to be more proactive to take on this preventative measure. -- Zondor 06:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

People will do the wrong things regardless of whether or not your massive list is present on every page. Also, as has been mentioned, they might nitpick and use it to bypass other rules by saying something isn't mentioned. You should encourage the good to foster good behavior, not remind people of the bad in the hopes they won't do it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one example of a personal attack, a wrong thing. So they should nitpick, and so they need to update the rules. Loopholes are found and fixed making the system of rules of better integrity. Wikipedia is openly editable and continually improving. Every mistake is learned from. Encouraging the good and not others sounds like a bureacracy for an elite and mob mentality ("(2) Newcomers are always to be welcomed."). -- Zondor 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Two ideas:

1. Having a quick and handy reference list for things that can go wrong & how to address them, is a very good idea IMHO. Detail issues of what should be on such list, and under which name, should be addressed, but such issues are not the core of the idea. I think I can agree with Zondor on that. The current "list" that comes nearest to that idea, before Zondor's template, is probably Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings. At least: I use that list/grid in that fashion. But it has many disadvantages (among others, not displaying the content of the several messages, so using the template messages "list" involves a lot of clicking). In that respect I still think Zondor's list is a great idea, it works much better than anything comparable before.
2. When we're on the point of changing wikipedia's current "paradigm" from Do The Right Thing to Avoid Doing The Bad/Wrong Thing, I can't agree in the least with Zondor. Not because of Jimbo's statement, but because that's genuinely the way I feel about this. So, if we can't have Zondor's handy list without provoking a paradigm shift in this sense (what seems part of Zondor's general idea behind it), I'd like to curteously decline the gift. That's where I stand. --Francis Schonken 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis has eloquently summed up my feelings on this. The Grid of Warnings is exactly the tool I was comparing this to in my mind, and I have the same dissatisfaction with it. It's the "& how to address them" part that I find most important, and that's currently missing from the template. So: I like the list, I don't think it should be a template, and I think it should be treated as a skeleton to be fleshed out with help for editors. I dn't think it's that useful as "advice for newbie editors", for the reasons articulated in Francis's second point, but I do think it's potentially useful for users trying to figure out how to respond to problems. Some editors tend to focus on the creative, positive aspects of Wikipedia, and other on the negative--fixing problems or intervening in disputes. Both kinds are valuable, and resources for both kinds are useful. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
I think the only real Village Pump issue is whether this belongs as a template on 50-odd policy and guideline pages, and it seems to me the consensus is that it doesn't. But I think it's still a worthy project to pursue as a resource on its own. · rodii · 13:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Grid of Warnings is not a bad tool but there are some flaws. It trivialises the handling of Wrong Things. When one is given one of these warnings, it can come across as a personal attack, vandal insult, bad faith and causing incivility. You can have some comments to go along with it, but people don't want to be receiving any of these at all in the first place. Nonetheless, it is a useful tool for the most part. This tool is for a problem-reaction situation, a problem wrong thing is reacted to by slapping on a warning template. -- Zondor 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

50 Wrongs Things to do in Wikipedia is to prevent the problem from occurring altogether. Its purpose is not to tell you what you must do to fix it, it is trying to get you to understand a definite list of problems that exist in the Wikipedia world. The truth is out there. "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth." The outcome from this will result in more Wikipedians achieving enlightenment (like the Buddhism concept). -- Zondor 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The critical reason why it is objected is because it is too intrusive coupled with a negative spin particularly as it is on the top of the page as a Disruption wrong thing. Would it be less intrusive if it was made flat and be put and the bottom of the page? Otherwise, would it be less intrusive if it was kept of the policy pages altogether? It needs a project page of its own anyway. It projects negativity and people don't like negativity and will try to minimise it. The NPOV policy page already has a list of its own without but any negativity. -- Zondor 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While closing an AfD debate, I found this strange situation where an article (Alex Campana) is completely (besides the See also section and the categories) included in another one (Current Watford F.C. players). I think that either the first article should be substituted in the second or the second article should link (rather than include) the first, but I can't find anything in the policies. Opinions? - Liberatore(T) 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy is unecyclopedic ? --DLL 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you put it this way, the answer is perfectly clear. Yes, obviously this amount of redundancy is unencyclopedic. I will remove the inclusion from the second page. Thank you. - Liberatore(T) 11:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. That's what cross-links are for. Runcorn 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this, which suggests this was a prefunctorily discussed temporary measure, and yet it's been a year and it's still not even documented. Is this weird, or am I just on crack? -Dan 07:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, WoW seems to have moved on (no pun intended) for the most part, so people have stopped worrying so much about page move vandalism. New users are still unable to move pages until their accounts are more than ... I believe ... 4 days old, which seems to have been an effective deterent. Nonetheless, I just came across a very mild page move vandal today (so mild that there wasn't even grounds to block him), but I think the new user restriction does enough--I'm not sure there needs to be an edit count restriction. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If move vandalism is not a concern, is there any talk of reversing this? Also, are you sure it's 4 days? I would like to (finally, a year later) document this, but the page I cited implies it's 1% of recent accounts, not that I'm even quite clear on what that means. Is there another page discussing this that I missed? -Dan 08:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its the most recent 1% of all accounts. It certainly meant you had to be dedicated to do page move vandalism and also the predictable naming style of everyones favorite pagemove vandal meant that many of his accounts where permanently blocked before he could acutally use them. I suspect if there is any discussion on this at all it was probablly on one of the mailing lists since thats where the developers/server admins (not the wiki "sysops") hang out. Plugwash 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was once 1%, and then it changed to 4 days. Or 3. I don't know; documentation would be great, wouldn't it? Melchoir 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion and the development of the proposal could benefit from some more input. Шизомби 06:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if a "2nd notice" is inappropriate. However, the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Expert editors has been fleshed out after much comment and participation, and we are now formally inviting further comment on it's talk page before putting it up for a vote. Thanks~ --EngineerScotty 21:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know it was there, thanks for the notice! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive if this has been answered before. I have a chronic disease (multiple sclerosis). As most such diseases, for which neither cause nor cure has been identified, there are far flung research efforts. The Wikipedia article on ms is among the best I have read but...it ends far too soon. Could the site not serve a acute need by helping researchers from different disciplines/with differing theories, work together to map out where there are common or supportive findings through an iterative and corrective process. Example (a real one). An experimental drug is thought to impact on animal version of MS by inhibiting T-cell function/dampening the immune system. It is however, found to work by actally increasing a certain kind of immune cells known as "regulatory natural killer cells"...which proliferate in certain conditions...including pregnancy....while across the world...researchers are looking at hormone estriol, produced during pregnancy and believed to be reason that MS exacerbations normally decrease during third trimester. I'm not a scientist (obviously) jsut frustrated that these million points of reference don't seem to ever move closer together to illumination. I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but couldn't the MS pages be, not extended, but expanded by subpages to allow for this kind of review?

The Wikipedia talk pages go a very long way toward meeting this goal but special pages such as the reference desk for mathematics seem to concentrate and focus participation. Perhaps a medical reference desk would server the same purpose but I don't know who to ask about creating such a desk. You are probably in the right place. -- PCE 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't have discussions in articles, because of WP:NOR, but it would be nice if Wikipedia could facilitate something good like this. Runcorn 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really something wikipedia can do. You might be able to get something like that into wikibooks but I doubt there is much point. There will be plently of ways the researches can and will share information if they want to. As for informing the public science by press release is a bad idea.Geni 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could start a Wikimedia project in that regard? -Freekee 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

The word "evil" has acquired a unique complexity due to the multiple contexts and ways in which it is used. I don't see how it would negate any evil at Wikipedia anyway. --Knucmo2 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT GOOGLE. ;-) — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with this proposal. It will achieve little positive and merely hand a weapon to pov-warriors who have a moral crusade against [insert moral outrage here]. I suspect that such a principle would in any case eventually undermine NPOV and AGF. (Besides, it would mean that my favorite userbox might be deleted!)

{{user Evil}}

Bucketsofg✐ 13:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

While, IANAL, IMO, this is mostly, but not entirely, correct. You still can prohibit certain uses of copies of your work not derived from the GFDL-licensed copy; i.e. if you hand someone a copy of some text(or an image) you put on Wikipedia, and tell them they need to pay you if they want to make further copies of it, this is still totally legal and fine. As it happens, if they wanted to, they could find the image(or text) on Wikipedia, and thereby avoid having to pay you to make copies of it; but if they only used the copy you handed them, they would still be bound to the normal "All Rights Reserved" rules. What the GFDL says is that you permit anyone to do nearly anything with the copy of your work on Wikipedia and (here's the copyleft, share-alike part), you agree to permit anyone to do nearly anything with any copies(even modified copies) made of the copy(or later derivied copies) of your work on Wikipedia. It says nothing about any copies of your work that are not based on the copy on Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, your own copy you had before submitting it to Wikipedia is still your work and copyrighted to you. This is relevant if you make changes based on your own (not Wikipedia's) copy and publish that changed material—there would be no GFDL license "sticking" to that. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

JesseW: once you license an image under the GFDL, any copy of it is licensed under the GFDL as well, because copyright (and licensing thereof) attaches to the work, not any particular copy of the work. If you make an image, upload one copy to Wikipedia, and ask someone else for payment for an identical file, they don't have to go to Wikipedia to get an identical image to be able to use it under the GFDL.

Also, if you release an image under the GFDL, you may modify the image and not release your changes under the GFDL. Then the unmodified image would be free, the modified one would be unfree. Again, you forfeit your right to prevent people from using your work in accordance with the GFDL, but not your right to use your own work other than in accordance with the GFDL or to allow others to use your work other than in accordance with the GFDL. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 1970s section and references to the decade elsewhere are attracting adverse comment - there are several articles like this around - http://70struth.blogspot.com/2006/04/wikipedia-inaccurate-1970s-section.html . Please can contributors ensure that the 1970s section does not detract from the historical realities of that and other decades, and that all references to the 1970s elsewhere are justified and not just examples of the writer's own personal enthusiasm for the decade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.123.54 (talk • contribs)