User talk:DGG/Archive 0.45

this page is an archive of talk worth keeping around about for discussions about bilateral relations and related topics

Relations
See User:Aymatth2/Relations. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Don't know what action if any is needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * since 10% (e.g., Swiss-German, Israel-Ukraine, Latvia-Poland), and another 20% clearly defensible (e.g.  Denmark-Estonia, Israel-Italy,  Argentina-Peru), its a pity he did the others. It looks like he understood geography and history just as little as the people who are attacking all of them indiscriminately DGG (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any pattern, but maybe there is one. He put some work into making the maps, tracking down the embassy sites, adding the internal links. Not a lot, but a start - if there were any plan to expand the stubs. Quite a lot probably are defensible, not all obvious. I tried to recover a few: Canada/Haiti amazing there was not an article already; Nicaragua/South Ossetia not so obvious until you find out about the furor over recognition, then clear; Greece/Nigeria also not so obvious until you focus on trade & investment, then clear; Estonia/Mongolia - well, nice try but no banana. Some of them really don't make much sense. It bothers me that these stubs are going to keep popping up in AfD, each generating much more collective energy in the discussion than it would take for one editor to do a reasonable first expansion. Oh well, not much that can be done, I suppose. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a/ We can ask for a motion at AfD Talk that there be a 4 week moratorium on deleting them. Try it. b/ people like you & me can nominate the weaker ones, & only the weaker ones c/people can systematically source them . As for c, I unfortunately have another priority, which is fiction. DGG (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked AfD talk and someone is already suggesting a change - but I don't know if that will help much. Just slowing the process down is not particularly useful. I am reluctant to work through the list nominating the weaker ones, because I don't know which they are without checking a bit - I am sure there are surprises like Nicaragua/South Ossetia. And my attention span is way to short to work through country X/Y articles for the next two or three years. No. These tadpoles are going to have to survive or not survive on their own, with a bit of help from the Rescue Squad. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you are saying in essence, that it is so much easier to delete than to save, that the deleters can usually overwhelm those who want to improve articles. You're right. The solution then, is the more general one of requiring the nominee to search, and present the results of the search. DGG (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is something I entirely and fully support! Brilliant concept. Before nominating an article for deletion, check to see if it can be improved. An amazing and original suggestion. I would like the following policy for AfD nominations:
 * Add an "==External links==" section to the article if not already present
 * Search for sources that may be relevant
 * Create * entries in the external links section for the sources found
 * In the nomination for deletion, state the search terms used.

I think that simple rule would save a huge amount of effort for reviewers. See Man Shield for an example of the result on a 1-line stub with no references. Great idea. This should be policy. Where is it being discussed? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * several points


 * first, any style of referencing will do, there is no need to use the cite templates; if you put them in wrong, somebody will fix them. The point is to get them in somehow
 * second, when you do use them, by far the best way is with the "cite gadget" User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar, added to your  monobook JS  page in user preferences.
 * the full details for using thecite templates, which are very powerful but correspondingly complicated, are at WP:Citation templates
 * third, we need references, not External links, third party published reliable sources which support the notability of the article. Some will be on the web, others not (and anyway cite web is not what one uses for newspaper articles, etc found on the web but rather the more specific templates.) If you find a book that supports the notability, it can be added as a reference to a general statement about the article.  WorldCat is a good way to find them.   A general web site that does not meet the requirements a reliable source can often be used as an external  link, though, and it helps a little.
 * fourth, we want good references--material that actually supports the article. andyou sare really supposedto have read them, though that step is often skipped in practice here.
 * For a refresher on this: One way is to start with WP:V,followed by WP:CITE andthe details in WP:Footnotes  But the very clearest information for how to do this is the section on "Researching Articles" in  How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates, available free online at . Everyone working here could useful read the whole book. I have, twice--I think it's better in print: see
 * BUT this has been discussed several times, and rejected. The discussions are mainly at the AfD talk page, WT:AFD. I'll check for where the latest one is at the archive. DGG (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. I am starting to get more confident but still have a lot to learn about policies and guidelines, etiquette, mechanics etc. I will read the book.

I prefer using cite templates, and have the parameters for the web, news and book variants stuck on my wall - but that is just personal preference: makes it more likely to get the format right. I am o.k. with external links sometimes, but agree that all the content needs inline citations so it can be verified. But I will sometimes go through a research mode where I hunt down sources, read them, decide there is useful material and put the reference in as an external link (memo to myself). Then when I have sorted the subject out in my head, go back and write the article content, moving the external links up into references in the body. Just an approach. Man Shield is an example - started it, got distracted, have to get back to it. As it stands, it would qualify for deletion. This is just mechanics.

I was too explicit. The main idea was that nominators should check to see if there are readily-accessible, good sources, and should say what their search turned up in the nomination - some do, many do not. Also, I would prefer that both nominators and editors contributing to the debate would put any newly-found sources into the article itself than into the debate, simply because that makes it easier to expand the article. But I suppose an AfD discussion is about whether an article is good enough to be kept as it is now, rather than whether it has potential. So I suppose the AfD nominator is not obliged to consider whether it has potential, and certainly is not obliged to try and fix it. I just wish they were not so quick off the mark sometimes. Recreating an article that has been deleted after extensive debate takes a very confident and determined editor. Once killed, a small but useful article is very unlikely to be recreated.

Can the rules be changed now? I am coming to feel that, after massive debate, the framework of policies, guidelines and processes for Wikipedia is becoming cast in stone. Sometimes I see an effect of the process that is a bit irritating, and raise the subject. Generally in the end I am convinced that there is nothing much that can be done, probably nothing that should be done. The framework works very well. The job now is more about improving the content itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * not stone, very stiff mud. After two years of trying, Afd was changed to seven days, though not without opposition. DGG (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations task force welcome
Welcome to the project DGG :) Thanks for all your help. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral Tables
Looking for feedback on what I have been doing. You have been involved in some of the debates about bi-lateral relations articles, many of which are just stubs. My feeling is that the best compromise is to make tables in the "Foreign relations of" articles that can hold the stub content, then redirect the stub there. This approach seems acceptable to many other editors. Maybe the table entry will grow beyond a reasonable size. If so, it is easy enough to convert the redirect back into a full article. Or maybe it will not, but it gives some basic comparative information so has some minor value. So I have been busily, maybe a bit obsessively, created the tables and merging stub content into them without paying too much attention to the content itself.

But now I am looking at some of the table entries, and wondering if they make any sense at all. The one in Foreign relations of Cyprus got me thinking. It seems that the stub creator stumbled on an official source here and then here and started churning out stubs for each pairing - some of which are truly trivial. I tend to think relations between two countries are quite likely to be of interest. There is usually trade, migration, agreements and disagreements, stuff going on between them. But (this may seem like bias), there may be little or nothing to be said about relations between two small, distant countries like Togo and Tonga - the two simply don't interact at any significant level.

To me, the criteria for a country pairing belonging in a "Foreign relations" table can be a lot lower than for a stand-alone article, but there must be some rationale for inclusion even in a table. I don't like rigid rules because there are always exceptions. I would say the relationship is non-trivial if the two countries share a border or conduct a lot of trade. Also if one has a resident ambassador in the other country, has stationed troops in the other, has a large migrant population from the other. Maybe other reasons. I suppose simple recognition in some cases is significant with countries like Abkhazia given the controversy.

But even as a table entry, Cyprus–Paraguay relations? Any thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * the only way to fix the foolish mechanical production of these stubs is to write proper articles to replace them. The real question is how to organize this. It is a very large scale version of the common situation of someone writing an impossibly bad article about something important, and then someone with more experience has to scramble to fix it before it gets deleted. (This does not mean mechanical production of stubs is never acceptable: it's been done well for geographical places and for individual species of plants, where there are good defined  databases to start with that provide what is necessary for a supportable article, and there is general consensus that the subject of each will be notable--though in each case they was some argument about it.) Doing large scale projects without prior thinking and discussion and a sample run is not the way to work on a large database, or any large project or system. Not many of the people here actually have experience with this in the RW. Librarians do--our systems and databases are so large and complicated--much more so than WP-- that we have the opposite problem--of ever getting enough evidence to safely make major additions and changes, which is why we are notoriously such a slow-moving profession. In practice we make progress by small test samples, and by the experience of many failed pioneers.
 * I agree with you that in many cases the bilateral articles are not fixable. My own guess is that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the total are not really going to be worth the doing. The difficulty here is that one cannot really tell without a proper search, because some apparently unlikely pairings have yielded interesting results--it is very hard to say a priori that something significant may not have happened. The way in which they have been nominated for deletion is every bit as bad as the way they were made--worse, because it multiplies the amount of work involved in dealing with them. There should have been much more careful screening to nominate the very least likely of them. To return to a common theme, if WP:BEFORE were obligatory, we would have much less of a mess to sort out afterwards.


 * I think the merging for the time being as you have been doing it is the best solution. You should not be discouraged that many of the entries in the table are trivial. This is the case with all tables of standardized data--they contain a great many blank or nearly blank portions. I see nothing wrong with even a list of all 200 countries, with some saying: no information available. In the RW, a lot of table entries have just that. In a non-paper system like ours, it takes fewer resources--both computer and human--to include them all, rather than select them. Do not undervalue negative results--for someone searching for information, the fact that there is none for a particular query is a significant result. It does not look stupid--it shows, rather, that we have done the topic completely, the way an encyclopedia ought to.  no information available can be encyclopedic. There are many analogies. As a simple one, tables of deaths per region per disease will have many zeros. They show that the data is zero, rather than nobody having looked.


 * For the examples you have given at the end, I agree with the criteria, but they apply to articles, not entires. DGG (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very thoughtful response. Yes, this whole collection could have been handled with much less effort if it had been viewed as a significant class of article, discussed, pioneered and reviewed to find what approaches would work or not work, and then the articles or table entries systematically created following a well-thought-out plan. Presumably the end result will be similar, after a huge expenditure of energy and emotion. Given the way Wikipedia works, I suppose we just have to look for practical and constructive ways to sort out these problems rather than spend too much time in futile debates. Your reply is reassuring. A table entry that indicates "non-existent" or "trivial" is useful. I will keep plugging away on the tables as time permits, probably not spend much time on the debates. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wish I had more time. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

World War 3
I just started it. The other day I made a casual attempt to salvage a minor article of no great importance, and Articles for deletion/Lebanon–Uruguay relations! Think I will just close the door and tiptoe away. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well, see the reasons I gave there for not trying to find a compromise, though I will agree to any reasonable compromise that has significant support. One way of establishing policy is by accepted example, and I thin people might accept this article. DGG (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw your comment, and agree - although I can't feel strongly about this particular article. I think there are in fact only about 4,000 significant pairings - maybe 15 per country on average - based on slogging through all the "Foreign relations of" articles and most of the "X-Y relations" articles trying to start cleaning them up. Some countries, such as the USA or Russia, have relations with most of the other 200. But a lot of the smaller countries simply can't justify the cost of embassies, treaties etc. and deal with each other through supranational bodies like the WTO, African Union etc. It is a bit depressing to see how poor many of the articles are. A lot of bias and a lot of gaps.

I had stayed away from AfD discussions for a while, so this one came as a shock to me. So much passion! To me, in AfD you should just apply the normal criteria - verifiable, notable, balanced etc. Weed out the unsourced articles on truly trivial subjects and biased ones that could do harm, and leave the rest. Oh well. -( Aymatth2 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason the articles are so poor is that they were all foolishly introduced by one particular editor, who apparently did them mechanically from a database, and contained only the minimum information. To try to improve that many articles quickly is beyond us--to do it slowly is something we are capable of. The problem is exacerbated by most of the relevant material being in the languages of the countries involved, and rarely on the web. It therefore requires serious work, and not that many here are able & willing to do it. I could, but I do not think it as important as other things I could do with similar work. Had they been written more slowly and carefully, it could have been handled. Bot production of articles has worked in a few cases, but not always. Anyone proposing to write a large number of similar articles, mechanically or manually,  should test the water, and use the feedback from the first few, and as the work progresses.
 * As for the number of articles, it wouldn't be literally 200 × 200 ÷ 2 = 20,000, but more a case of (20 × 200) + (150 × 100) + (30 × 10) = 12 or 15,000, removing the duplicates. In other words, the major states with everyone, the middle important with the ones not totally outside their range of interest, and the mini-states with their neighbors. DGG (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On numbers, my guess is lower. Doesn't matter - time will tell. On quality, I don't entirely agree.
 * The typical mechanical stubs are, in a sense, not too bad. They give basic standardized information: dates and embassy locations. Nothing like proper coverage, but at least not really objectionable.
 * I dislike many of the "X-United States relations" article, which tend to say (pompously) only how the US perceives and deals with the target country, but nothing about the view from the other side. "The United States regards the status quo on Cyprus as unacceptable.". "Chile is noted as being a valuable ally of the United States in the Southern Hemisphere." See United States foreign relations for a list.
 * yes even where the are major relationships, and a little news digging would find them, it hasn't been done. Cyprus and the US is an interesting story--they need major allies for defense, the US needs to avoid inflaming the middle east further & wants to keep them defended but quiet. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote an article in full: "Russia has an embassy in The Hague, and the Netherlands have an embassy in Moscow, a consulate in Saint Petersburg, and an honorary consulate in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Peter the Great studied in Holland. During the Cold War, all the Dutch consecutive governments perceived the Warsaw pact including the Soviet Union and Russia as a threat to its safety."
 * ditto. they did perceive it as a threat, and they made statements about it, & they can all be referenced. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I search in vain for Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda relations, despite the fact that not so long ago millions of people died in wars between the two countries, and the issues have still not been settled.
 * wonder how that got missed by the bot. We may need to do some manual work in making articles -- & there's enough in the Wikipedia pages on the conflict  & the obvious refs. to do it easily enough.. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles really do need a lot of work. I am not being very helpful with minor ones like Lebanon–Uruguay relations - should work on more serious subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * my point is that an incomplete article that is not harmful and can be expanded, and is about a subject which is probably notable when expanded, should not be deleted, no matter how unfinished, and that essentially all of these have the real possibility of being notable. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not disagreeing at all, but I do see a huge amount to be done. On the US ones, I would like two rules: 1) no quotes from government sources are allowed and 2) sources from independent publications originating in both countries should be given equal weight. That sounds drastic, and is obviously not enforceable, but would certainly help to balance the articles. As they are, this whole set is just plain embarrassing - totally one-sided. Imagine writing the Cyprus-US one in the same style but from the point of view of the Cypriots. "Cyprus welcomes the USA's reduced emphasis on military interventionism ... Cyprus encourages the US to deal with their narcotics problem, which continues to destabilize ..." On the others, I would be tempted to ignore the rich world, which will typically have many interested editors, and focus on developing countries. I would look first at relationships with their neighbors and with former colonial powers, then see what other ones turn up. When I made a first pass on Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo I added redlinks to obvious articles - check it. The same could be done with most of the poorer countries. But cleaning this up is a massive job, and full of potential for political soap box wars. See Kosovo, Armenia etc. Don't know how much energy I have. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are certainly not arguing, but exchanging ideass about the possibilities. Your last point is certainly true--but this will affect every article on these countries. I had noticed the redlinks at the congo, and I think those are very much what people should be doing. I see nothing wrong with government sources for description; for controversy, one uses material from both sides and says where it's from. What he successive governments of the US and of country X think about US relations with X is relevant, and clarifies things a good deal,when used critically. The problem sometimes is finding material from X. DGG (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, I have no problem either with government quotes, used in moderation. Just that some of these articles seem to be lifted in their entirety from a State Department website (public domain). Honduras – United States relations is a typical example. Is this is a fair and balanced view? Check the headings. Missing are "Honduras Policy towards the US", "Business opportunities in the US", "Principal Honduras embassy officials". For that matter, where is the evidence of notability? I know, if I don't like it, fix it. Just grumbling. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a particularly horrible case, e.g. "U.S. policy toward Honduras is aimed at consolidating democracy, protecting human rights, and promoting the rule of law" I've refrained from improving it, so as to use the article as an example. I think an article based on such US sources only isn't a good one, and some Honduran sources should be findable easily enough. Of course you are right about this.  And I further have a general view that our practice of inserting PD sources  intact is generally an extremely poor one, and should not be allowed. At the least, the article MUST indicate just what portions have been taken, not the vague word "incorporates"  -- even if it's the whole article, later edits will be added & must be distinguished. I apply that to all  subjects. Sometimes the sources can be used complete, being written in a suitable manner for us as well as the original purpose, (some USDA sources come to mind), but it still needs to be indicated--for the material will gradually become outdated.   DGG (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many of these one-sided articles listed in United States foreign relations. See Guatemala – United States relations where I have added/improved headings and noted the source of all content. This at least puts "gaps" into the article where information from other sources can be inserted. See also Bolivia – United States relations, where I took the same approach but then interleaved content from other sources. Probably still far from free of bias, but at least a bit livelier and more complete. It can be done, but that took about 3 hours and there are how many of them? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. ), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime T C  17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on other people's votes, and I don't intend to start.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

your comments bilateral relations (LibStar)
your comments on my nominated AfDs rarely provide examples of actual sources establishing notability yet you continue to deride me for making incorrect nominations. that is not assuming good faith. are you going to say my searches were also faulty for Articles for deletion/Hungary – New Zealand relations,Articles for deletion/Greek-Malaysian relations and Articles for deletion/Congolese–Turkish relations and the "closely located" Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Malta relations? your continuing attitude towards an experienced editor like me is noted for future reference. PS you should archive, even when I pressed the end key, my broadband connection still takes a while to load up your talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus of a deletion in on the person who wants to delete the article.  By the time I comment, other people have generally already added enough material.   I appreciate you are trying to fulfill WP:BEFORE, but you are not using common sense in doing it. G and GN are very useful when they succeed, but meaningless when they fail. I think you sometimes do very good work building up these bilateral relations articles, but you don't look far enough.    I don't expect you to agree with my view that almost all such relations are notable, but you are persistently ignoring the historical aspects even when they;'re as obvious as Turkey-Malta.  In those few cases where there's really  never going to be enough for an article and there's no reason why there might be,  I have agreed with your nominations & I've not said keep, as for those 3. I don't want to say delete unless I personally check, but it did seem very unlikely in those cases).  I have no grudge against you, so I do not see why you should have one against me. Coming here & saying right out that you have one seems unusual, but i won't hold it against you.  DGG (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments, I must say at times I'm unsure of the intent of your comments. google news is usually the primarily means of getting a feel of third party coverage. google search just yields too much trivial stuff. can you suggest any other ways to verify significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG? whilst I don't agree with your view on the notability of these, !voting keep for the sake of it and not providing actual evidence of third party non trivial coverage is not very weighty in my opinion. whilst I often don't agree with Richard Norton, at least he makes a genuine effort to demonstrate some third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to agree than RAN is working on these harder than I am. It's not actually my main interest, since I can only work on a few articles a day,  I pick articles to try to source where I have some special technique, or  access,  or background to find sources. I never say a bald keep. I always give a reason. I try to have it based on policy. If people don't agree with my reason, they won;t vote in accordance with it. If I were personally deciding as a one-person committee what to keep and delete, and was doing it without looking for sources, you'd have a valid complaint. But this is a cooperative effort, and if RAN is there, I know I can depend on him. DGG (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

well your point about me being careless is not appreciated, AfDs are for discussion, if consensus shows something is notable, I accept that. if nominations are "faulty" then it will come out in consensus. what I think is more careless is the 1000s of bilateral articles that were created as stubs (not just the banned user) and no effort being made to improve them...so they are left as stubs for 1 or 2 years. rather lazy in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we need some way of discussing what should be done with less-than-satisfactory articles in contexts other than threatening deletion. But AfDs are for when deletion is proposed as the solution, and if nomination s are faulty it wastes everyone's time and energy. I agree with you also that many people who write articles are lazy (or even ignorant) about references, but the secondary responsibility for trying to remedy that is everyone's.DGG (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AfDs are a proposed solution when I nominate because I fail to find adequate sources, I can tell you in most instances I don't nominate bilateral articles because there is evidence of coverage. In some instances, I put a tag on some bilateral articles, in the cases I think are borderline, yet I have never seen any editor attempt to improve an article after adding this tag. you can draw 2 conclusions from this, people can't be bothered improving it or it needs to go to AfD. the problem with these bilaterals is that anyone can make an X and Y article and just leave it there and not risk speedy deletion. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Croatia-Mongolia relations AfD
concerning this edit, I do wonder if you even read the actual article, they don't even have embassies. also there seems to be very strong consensus for delete. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am quite accustomed to being a minority, even a minority of one, as I have been before on the bilateral articles. I do not see WP is helped by deleting them, and quite frankly, I  regard all or almost all the prior  deletions as errors. I only wish I had had the time then, or have the time now, to properly expand them.  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * you know that we use WP:CONSENSUS. and there is strong consensus that not all bilateral articles are notable despite your personal views. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am all too well aware they were deleted. Of course I know that some of my views do not have, or at least do not yet have, consensus. Respecting consensus means I do not attempt to disrupt the situation, such as repeatedly trying to introduce a deleted article. it does not mean I must  agree that it was right to delete it. The day we stop tolerating dissent is the day the project will no longer be viable. That's one of the things that seem to have killed Citizendium.  When I obtain consensus on some of the even more important issues I work for, such as the principle that it is everyone's responsibility to try to source articles, or  that  that spammy articles like all other unsatisfactory articles are rewritten if possible, rather than deleted out of shame we have not gotten to them sooner, then I will return to this relatively less critical one among the many things I think WP is doing wrong, or moving towards doing wrong. Anyone who thinks everything we do here is right is not looking very carefully.  DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost never agree with DGG but knowing that there are people not afraid to make an intelligent, polite, well-reasoned dissenting opinion and damn the consequences is what stops me being worried when people agree with me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)