User:RoyGoldsmith/Sandbox

First Impressions

 * Superscript, inline citations make Wikipedia hard to read.
 * On the main page, the "In the News" heading makes Wikipedia sound like a news service.

Welcome (stolen from Agradman)
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0"
 * style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"|

The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana
The Robert Heinlein Interview and other Heinleiniana is a collection of non-fiction articles about science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein, written by J. Neil Schulman over the years 1972 through 1988 and first published in 1990. It features the longest interview that Heinlein ever granted, in which he talked about his personal philosophy and ideology.

Contents
The book consists of fifteen articles and a foreword by Brad Linaweaver. Four of these are published reviews of Heinlein's novels: Revolt in 2100, Time Enough for Love, Job: A Comedy of Justice and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Over half the book consists of Schulman's interview with Heinlein, conducted in June 1973.

Friday: Unreferenced Sources and possibly Original Research
Folks,

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but I think that the bulk of the article on Friday does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be removed. The problem is that most of the article has no reliable sources. In addition, my guess is that everything from A New Future History down to Religious references is based on original research with an in-universe perspective, which is also disallowed.

These sections were originally created by two anonymous users: 118.92.189.35 on April 7, 2008, and 203.97.21.90 on October 8, 2008. Unfortunely, many of you have added content to those sections over the past year. Unless we can find sources for your efforts, I'm afraid that all of the work will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. (It will still be available through the History tab at the top of the page.)

Everything published by Wikipedia should have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You, as an Wikipedia editor, should not read a novel and then write how one portion of that novel relates to another portion. This would be original research.


 * For example, you can say that "Appoximately two-thirds of the book deals with Friday's employment in "the boss's" secret organization and the rest deals with her after her boss has died, including her interstellar journey." Since you're only counting pages, that would be allowed.


 * But, you cannot say "The Kingdom of Mexico is now no longer a republic, possibly ruled from Spain, or by expatriate Spanish Royalty, but either possibility is conjecture." That would be original research.

Unless the meaning of that paragraph was present, in some concise form, in the novel itself OR we had at least one source confirming this.


 * For example, if some Wikipedia editor did have (say) a review of the book and it said that "Within the timeline of the novel, Mexico is now a kingdom. This kingdom is possibly ruled from Spain although it is equally likely that it's ruled as a separate country, possibly by royalty from Spain, although I may be presuming too much." If we did have this source then we could cite it as a reference for that sentence in the article. (The best way is through an inline citation.) Then the judgement is by the reviewer, not you.

However, even if you had such a citation, we should probably not use it, unless there was something in real life that made the novel's description of Mexico pertinent. For example, if the government of Mexico lodged a formal complaint with the US State Department over that description, that would certainly be relevant to the article. But, of course, then we would have a citation (or many citations, like news reports and official State Department announcements) about the real-world incident.

I quote from our guidelines:
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

and:


 * "An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research by relying on primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become."

In our case, the text of the novel is our primary source. Remember that we're editors, not contributors of ideas. Our job is to summerize and paraphrase information that is already documented, not to come up with new thoughts. For an example of reliable sources and a real-world perspective, see the article on Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

In conclusion, let me say that I really liked the treatment of Friday, especially the questionable sections. Friday is my favorite book and I read it about once every two years. It's just that I believe that those doubtful sections should not belong in Wikipedia and I think that most experienced Wikipedians would agree with me. I wish we could find some other wiki that allows original interpretations. Then we could cut and paste our material over there.

I'm going to leave this talk section around for several days, to see what comments I attract. Sometime next week, I'll begin adding warnings to the article, like:

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Simple English WP
To be added to enWP Main Sequence talk page.

Hi Folks,

I intend to create the Main Sequence article in the Simple English Wikipedia. (Think of the SEWP as an online students' or childrens' encyclopedia.) To do so, I have some questions. Please bear in mind that I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy.


 * What is the importance of the main sequence?
 * Does it contain most of the stars? (If so, how do you define "most"? The enWP article says "The majority of stars on a typical HR diagram lie along the main sequence curve". Do you define "majority" as simply greater than 50%? What is an untypical HR diagram.)
 * Do main sequence stars follow a difference life-cycle than other stars? (Are there "other stars"? See question #3 below.)
 * What was the importance of the main sequence in the past, if it differs significantly from the present?
 * What would you say are the two or three main things that make the main sequence important.

This is, at least conceptually, different than determining if a star is on the main sequence. That's simple (in theory) but, as you go up the cosmic distance ladder, things get diceyer. Do you have to plot thousands of stars from (say) a particular globular cluster to determine that that globular cluster even has a main sequence? How about stars in distant superclusters or in the Sloan Great Wall? Do those have main sequence stars?
 * How do you determine if a star is a main sequence star?


 * Do all stars, without exception, form from protostars on the main sequence?


 * The enWP article on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram says (in the last sentence) that HRD's aren't used any more for developing new theories. Is that also true about the main sequence?


 * The article talks a lot about the main sequence and the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Is there only one Hertzsprung–Russell diagram? If so, which one? If there are many H-R diagrams, aren't there also many main sequences? How do I explain that to children?


 * What facts would you include in an article on the main sequence intended mostly for children and other students?

As we say in SEWP, "You shouldn't lie to children". Children will accept whatever's in books as if it were gospel, especially for An Encyclopedia. Grown-ups know that when even a reference book says A is B you have to treat that statement with a grain of salt (unless the article happens to be on mathematics, law or computer programming :-); children do not.

I could sprinkle my article with a lot of "Scientists say that..." and "according to most professional astrononers, ..." but that's weaseling. I prefer to say something like, for example, "About nine out of ten stars in the Milky Way were formed on the main sequence from protostars. (Of course, when we say 'on the main sequence' we really mean: having a brightness and a temperature that causes them to be plotted within the main sequence region on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.)"

I know my questions may seem babyish to you but I like to get my facts straight before I write about them in SEWP. Also, I would appreciate it if someone could look at the Simple English article Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks a lot. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiSeniors
After a long and fruitful career of editing Wikipedia regularly, a Wikipedian may become a WikiSenior.

One type of WikiSeniors are characterised by a general loss of enthusiasm for editing, even on articles they previously enjoyed working on. WikiSeniors of this type return to using Wikipedia for reference and may no longer edit simply because they see little room for improvement. They are often known as WikiRetirees, even though they might occasionally edit an article for spelling or grammar. They may have trouble remembering all aspects of policy, complaining that things were different in their day. This may be the first indications of WikiSenility.

But a very few WikiSeniors may become WikiElders, respected by their WikiColleagues and known for their almost infinite capacity to assume good faith. They may become WikiMentors and teach wave upon wave of WikiAcolytes and builders of Featured Articles. Or they may try to bring peace to the world, for our generation and the generations to follow. Whatever they do and wherever they go, WikiElders always remember that our future rests with our children.

Retrograde and direct motion
Possibly new section in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

A few of us (myself, Zbayz, possibly others) have decided to split the article Retrograde and direct motion into three, separate articles: Direct motion, Retrograde motion and Apparent retrograde motion. The original article was virtually all about apparent retrograde motion.

So far, we have:
 * Split the article into Retrograde and direct motion and Apparent retrograde and direct motion.
 * Split the talk into Talk:Retrograde and direct motion and Talk:Apparent retrograde and direct motion.
 * Moved the article's history from Revision history of Retrograde and direct motion to Revision history of Apparrent retrograde and direct motion.
 * Moved the talk pages's history from Revision history of Talk:Retrograde and direct motion to Revision history of Talk:Apparent retrograde and direct motion.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Retrograde Motion
I'm dissatisfied with the first sentence of the article: Retrograde motion means moving in the opposite direction to something else. While that's true from a dictionary definition point of view, we're talking about celestial mechanics here. What makes a celestial body move in a retrograde direction? Is it (a) opposite to the rotational direction of its primary, (b) opposite to most of the other bodies within that system, (c) opposite to the conjectural angular momentum of the system's formation or (d) something else? For example, when WASP-17b was discovered, what made the discoverers sure that it had a retrograde orbit?

I think it was something like this: its primary (WASP-17) rotated in this direction and (possibly) all the other planets (WASP-17a, WASP-17c?) had orbits in the same direction. WASP-17b revolved around WASP-17 in the opposite direction, so it was retrograde. (By the way, does WASP-17b also rotate in a retrograde direction?)

If so, the definition of retrograde motion in the article could be something like this:
 * Retrograde motion is the motion (either clockwise or anticlockwise) of a celestial body (such as a moon or planet) in a direction similar to that of other bodies within the same system.


 * When a galaxy or planetary system is formed, the bulk of the material is generally orbiting and rotating in the same direction. This is due to the collapse of gas or dust under gravity, causing the cloud to spin due to conservation of angular momentum. Retrograde motion is motion against this general direction. Direct motion is motion in the same direction as this general motion.


 * Astronomers assume that, when they discover a new star, planet or moon, that the rotational direction of the central object is the direction of formation. If the central object cannot be observed (such as the center of the Milky Way galaxy), astronomers assume that the direction of the overwhelming majority of object within that system.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the dispute?
There have been 34 edits to Five pillars since August 20. Discussion of these edits spans Wikipedia talk:Five pillars (section 39) to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars (section 42).

Who is involved?

 * User:Agradman
 * User:Kim Bruning
 * User:Izno
 * User:Hiding
 * User:RoyGoldsmith
 * User:M
 * User:SlimVirgin
 * User:JamesBWatson

What is the dispute?
Because some editors edit the main project page without achieving consensus (under "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules"), the content of the Five Pillars varies wildly. A new editor, accessing WP:5P for the first time might get a totally wrong idea of what the Five Pillars (and by extension, Wikipedia itself) is all about. Some of us do not believe that the Five Pillars should be changed without consensus.

Please note that the edits died down about two days ago but they seem to be heating up again, at least on the talk page. At a minimum, a mediator should be aware of this situation and be prepared to step in, if needed.

What would you like to change about this?
Some editors believe they can edit what they want, including the Five Pillars or anything else. Others believe that on certain Wikipedia policies and other important principles, the editors should reach consensus before changing the project page. We would like a mediator to help us resolve this.

How do you think we can help?

 * First, you can help us by reaching a consensus on whether a consensus is really necessary in this case or if "Ignore all rules" works here.
 * If we do decide in favor of consensus then we should decide on what that consensus should be; for example, not performing significant edits on the main page until everyone has agreed.
 * Finally, if we've gotten this far, how should those restrictions be implemented: a sandbox so that all ideas can be discussed; fully protecting the main page.
 * Also, how to back out any changes that were already made before implementing this procedure.

Friday Plot
The novel opens with the first-person protaganist killing a man following her through the earthside station of the commercial space elevator on Mount Kenya while travelling from L5 to her home base in the "Chicago Imperium". She is captured and raped as soon as she arrived.

Incorrect Citations
The following citations are missing or need to be reviewed, revised and/or replaced:

Lead section

 * as well as the 2008 bailouts[3] -- dubious; the citation uses "bailout" in a general sense, not just for the bank bailout of Oct 2008.
 * revelations about bonuses paid to AIG executives[4][5] -- both citations disputed; neither about Tea Party.
 * It has been most visible through a series of Tea Party protests, which have occurred ever since early 2009 -- citation needed.
 * the social networking outlets Facebook, Twitter and MySpace as well as blogs and conservative media outlets[6] in promoting Tea Party events[7] -- partially disputed; MySpace not mentioned in either citation.
 * The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation in the British Parliament[8] -- original synthesis? The citation says nothing about Boston or taxation, with or without representation.
 * Tea Party protests have nevertheless sought to evoke similar images, slogans and themes to this period in American history[9][10][11]. Requesting quotation(s) from any of the three references: where is the material on "similar images, slogans and themes" that Wikipedia is summarizing/paraphrasing?

Positions and goals

 * "This is a protest that has been in government the last few years... Bush himself was guilty of socialist policies" -- this quotation does not appear in either of the two citations.
 * "It’s obvious they’re trying to ride on the brand that we created... It’s somewhat insulting."[13][14] -- this quotation does not appear in either of the two citations.
 * the protests could have tapped into real feelings of disillusionment by American moderates...[16] -- original synthesis? Please quote the material in the citation that is being summarized or paraphrased.
 * "It's very much anti-establishment at both parties....They don't care about party labels." -- this quotation does not appear in the citation. [See "Ghost Story" below.]
 * "I think we're getting to the point where you can truly say we're entering a post-party era. They aren't going to be necessarily wed to a certain party -- they want to see leadership that reflects their values first.....They don't care what party you're in; they just want to know if you reflect their values -- limited government, fixing the economy."[19] -- this quotation does not appear in the citation. [See "Ghost Story" below.]
 * Thomas B. Edsall in The New Republic concludes that the findings of Robert D. Putnam... -- misplaced citation. The reference to "Ghost Story", now being used for the paragraph above about Ned Ryun, belongs on this paragraph; please relocate it.

Etymology
Section skipped for now.

Background

 * The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints.[28] [29][30] -- the last two citations disputed. Both are about the same event and, although they mention Tea Bag, neither mentions Tea Party or Boston Tea Party.


 * It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[31] [32][33] [34] -- second and third citations disputed. The news articles were published in July and October and don't refer to Tax Day in April.


 * ...and details of the 2009 stimulus bill became known, including the provision for the AIG executive bonuses...[38][39][40] -- all three citations disputed; none mention stimulus or AIG.

"Tea bag" campaign

 * On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a portfolio manager for an investment firm[41] posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate".[42] The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout." [43] -- all three last two citations disputed. The first has nothing to do with Tea Parties; it's about a Mexican cement manufacturer. The next two are self-published posts to a forum-style chat area.
 * Upon review, the first citation does say Makohoniuk is a portfolio manager of an investment firm. I am therefore withdrawing this objection. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 [not in citation given] [non-primary source needed]


 * Forum moderator, Stephanie Jasky helped organize the group and "get it to go viral."[44]...She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1, 2009) in a coordinated effort.[44] -- disputed; another self-published post to the same chat area.
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 [non-primary source needed]


 * On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party."[48] -- date and quotation disputed. (Scroll down to The Long Arm of Goldman Sachs.) Date is April 12, 2009; quote is "Attend one of the many Tea Parties; start your own".
 * If the change is approved, this sentence would read "On April 12, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation to "attend one of the many Tea Parties; start your own". Since the date is now April and the reference is to Tea Parties rather than Tea Bags, the sentence should be removed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 [not in citation given]


 * The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO),[49]... -- disputed. A Facebook mirror of that same, self-published chat area.
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 [non-primary source needed]


 * Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail out of Bear Sterns, had been a guest on both Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports.[51][52] -- for both citations: publishing date (of video) not found.
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010
 * However, upon review, I can find no reason why the lack of a date should per se preclude a valid citation. I am therefore withdrawing this objection. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign.[53] -- citation doesn't mention forums or email campaigns as of Feb 1st and the only reference to a blog is Carender's, covered elsewhere in this article.
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 [not in citation given]


 * ...who that morning had outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so dollars remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. He intended to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks.[55] -- disputed; citation doesn't mention Tea Bags or Tea Party. [not in citation given]
 * Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010

"Tea bag" campaign, phase II
I have restored this subsection to the way it was on March 9, inserting the appropriate tags (like [non-primary source needed] and [not in citation given]) where ever needed. I have also tracked down the original editor of each bullet point above and posted a message to their user talk page.

Let's give them at least a few days to respond before removing the content specified in the bullet point. Remember, the documentation on these types of citation templates suggests that "most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a [better] citation can be provided."

More to come...

Original "Tea bag" campaign, as of 3/14/10
On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a portfolio manager for an investment firm posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate". The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout."

Forum moderator, Stephanie Jasky helped organize the group and "get it to go viral." Jasky is also the founder and director of FedUpUSA - a fiscally conservative, non-partisan activist group that describes themselves as "a group of investors" who sprung out of the market-ticker.org forums. The group had previously held DC protests in 2008. On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party." She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1, 2009) in a coordinated effort.

The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO), published his own write-up on the proposed protest, titled "Tea Party February 1st?," which was posted in direct response to President Obama's innauguration occurring on the same day, and railed against the bailouts, the US national debt and "the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system" which included the predatory lending practices currently at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis. Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail out of Bear Sterns, had been a guest on both Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports. By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign.

On February 11, talk radio host and Fox Business Network personality Dave Ramsey appeared on Fox and Friends, waving tea bags and saying "It's time for a Tea Party." He was on the show criticizing the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who that morning had outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so dollars remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. He intended to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks.

Original synthesis and the lack of citations
Most sentences in most articles do not have inline citations. If you retrieve 20 random articles, at least half of them will contain no references at all. Even if you ignore the stub- and start-like articles, the majority of significant sentences outside the lead still won't have citations. Even if you restrict your selection to only BLP acticles. I would think that a significant sentence without a citation would have to be presumed the product of original synthesis, unless it's proved otherwise.

Now, our policy of verifiability says: This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. Doesn't this mean that all of the uncited sentences (or significant phrases) could have a citation-needed tag applied to them and, after some reasonable period (say, a month), those sentences could be removed?

Shouldn't that be done for most articles (or all articles), effectively raising the level of verifiability up to and beyond that of BLP's (but without the "immediate removal" procedure)? Or at least for certain classes of articles, like those that are deemed controversial or contentious, including all current events or political articles? Every sentence or significant cause must have a valid inline citation or it's gone. Or admit to ourselves that Wikipedia is mostly a digest of the original thoughts of our editors, who do try (in general and, if necessary, by consensus) to achieve truth but not verifiability.

Counter-argument: Most material in Wikipedia articles is contributed by relatively-expert editors who derive most of their infomation from a lifetime of experience based on many years of study, especially in their work or in a long-held hobby or avocation. If we insist that these experts have to cite sources for anything they enter then we'll loose many (most?) of them and Wikipedia will be the worst for it. Beside, if we removed all uncited material, we would gut Wikipedia by 90%.

Counter-counter-argument: Unless we enforce something like this, Wikipedia will always be viewed simply as a compendium of random peoples' opinions, rather than a true enclyclopedia.

Counter-counter-counter-argument: So what?

Different meanings (in WP:VPP, not posted 6/15/15)
Aren't we supposed to create different articles if the title subject has different meanings? What if those different meanings derive from the same root term and therefore there is some slight similarity among the meanings? Is it required/recommended that we start a new sub-article?

For example, in the article Gay, we have at least three different meanings: carefree, homosexual and stupid (a pejorative, though not necessarily homosexual). In particular, the main section homosexuality discusses ...

Shouldn't each one have a separate article? Maybe with an overarching article named, say "Etymology of the word gay"?

Do we have any Wikipedia articles on the different meanings of a word (except for disamb notes)? Even when those meanings are the subject of numerous reliable sources about the different meanings themselves?

On a practical side, since the Gay article is maintained by editors who may like the current layout, even if you agree, do we stand any chance of getting the consensus to change it? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Medcab open cases Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance