User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 7

GCP and PEAR
My argument was always that GCP used exactly the same methodology as PEAR and so the same criticisms apply. I guess that is treading a little close to the WP:SYNTH line in retrospect. Thank you for the links to more appropriate refs. Simonm223 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Logos5557 denying any connection between PEAR and GCP isn't credible, here's Roger Nelson describing the GCP: "During deeply engaging meetings, concerts, rituals, etc., the data tend to have slightly increased order compared with the expected randomicity, and we are able to predict this deviation, according to the type of gathering, with significant success. In the GCP, exactly the same procedure is applied on a broader scale."[my bold]. Your argument that the criticisms of the methods of one can apply to the other is reasonable. If I had my way we'd apply common sense and allow the use of the reference, but as it's disputed it might be best to concede. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Generation Articles
Fences & Windows: I noticed that you’ve had an interest in Generation Jones in the past. Over the last few months, a couple of Wikipedia users have gone to great lengths to try to minimize the presence of GenJones on Wikipedia. I am now back on the site and will carefully help to maintain an accurate representation of GenJones for Wikipedia readers. I message you to ask you to please, if you are interested, to also try to keep an eye on the generation article pages to make whatever edits you feel will be helpful in representing these topics accurately to Wikipedia readers. Thanks.TreadingWater (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My interest only extended as far as not agreeing with deletion of Generation Jones. You'll need to work out your content dispute with User:Arthur Rubin on the talk page, following the guidelines at Dispute resolution. You may want a third opinion or to call a request for comment. Don't edit war any more as you'll be blocked if you continue, and please don't WP:CANVASS for support. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "data"

 * Hello F&W- I saw the recent action regarding the usage of data, and thought you might be interested in a quote I added to the bottom of Talk:Data. Eric talk 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise that "data is" can be acceptable in informal use and particularly in the US, but as Morrissey said "America is not the world" and "data are" is the standard in scientific use. Calling "data are" grammatically incorrect is simply wrong! p.s. The singular of data is data point... Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Exploding tree
I sympathize with your concerns about the article and was tempted to close this a "No Consensus", but ultimately I felt that a rough consensus that this is an appropriate topic was formed. The WP:SYN was the strongest argument in favour of deletion, but it did not seem to persuade very many people. Even after you made your case many of the delete votes focused on irrelevancies such as freezing induced cracking not being an explosion. I would not say that the argument was refuted, but given the presence of sourcing I am not willing to delete as OR absent a consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. You're right, arguing that certain explosions aren't really explosions is an appeal to The TruthTM. I guess Wikipedia can live with a few stupid articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process
This is indeed a subject which has brought up before.

I have to laugh that, like always, the very first argument against your idea is bureaucracy, as it is always is.

Often the best way to change things is to discuss the issue with editors who generally support your view on their talk page first. These editors will give you valuable advise about the strengths and weaknesses of your ideas. And you can build up support before letting your idea be exposed to the harsh WP:AFD, where many good ideas are destroyed every week. Ikip (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, well, at least the arguments can be brought into the light once again. If closers can't or won't give rationales, they shouldn't be closing AfD discussions. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Largest village
Because we already have articles which detail claims to be the best or the biggest, even if those claims are dubious. For example Albums considered the greatest ever. The village article appears reasonably sourced, although it could do with improvement. Black Kite 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there were sources for the claims, which is better than some articles. That misses the point. What did you make of the argument made by me and others than none of the sources actually discussed the topic of the largest village? All the sources only give bare claims in passing with no discussion, and most are primary sources. The lead is all original editorialising; none of that comes from the sources. Is it acceptable practice that we stitch together articles out of single line mentions, and should we now abandon the concept of "significant coverage"? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

re: The Dharma
Nothing's happened on sourcing for this non-notable band in a month. Is it going to? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume it's non-notable. Why don't you look for sources yourself? You should always do that before a prod or AfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look for sources found one, that is probably ok. An unsigned local band is usually not notable, no matter how long they have been together.  I wikified the article a bit, the quotes and history need references badly to something other than their website.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should've sorted it out before, only there's a million and one things to do on Wikipedia and I kept putting this one off. I will do some more cleanup soon. I've rescued quite a few articles about apparently non-notable musicians and bands before as the musical press is often not on Google News, though this one is looking quite borderline for whether it can be saved. "The Dharma" is a hell of a name to try to disambiguate, tons of bands seem to have similar names. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue
You may or may not want this one. But if you do, rescuing it should be fairly easy. I've cited several sources in the AFD discussion, and there are plenty more. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, again we disagree. I actually missed this note and found the AfD discussion independently, so I'm not just being difficult for the sake of it! Framing the discussion of Labour policies and councils in the mid-'80s around the term "loony left" is always going to fall foul of POV problems. It strikes me as a topic that can and should be subsumed under another article concerning Labour in the '80s and some of the example will be great for political correctness. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things counter that: A fair amount of sources do treat it as a subject in its own right, and the do-as-the-sources-do principle comes into play once again here.  This pre-dates much of political correctness, and there are even sources that discuss the influence of the "Loony Left" label in the 1980s in the U.K. upon the subsequent critiques of political correctness in the 1990s in the U.S..  Indeed, 5 out of the 15 sources that I have and have not yet exhausted directly make this very point. As for NPOV, the problem there is if one starts writing the article by unconditionally buying into the falsehoods, rather than looking for people who have actually studied the subject disinterestedly, or at least with a scholarly level of attention to correctness.  Indeed, that's actually what happened with this article for three years.  See Talk:Loony left for this very point.  The cure for that is not a subject change, because the problem isn't that the scope of the subject is non-neutral (as long as one realizes that the article's purpose is not to push an agenda that the Left is Loony, but to document a political subject).  The problem is that the treatment of the subject in the article prose is non-neutral. That treatment included external linking to WWW sites that unconditionally repeated some of these falsehoods, being supposedly the "most detailed website about the subject" (I'd like to think that the Wikipedia article now has that honour.  That's certainly the intent of our remit to "make the WWW not suck".) as well as being a simple laundry list of purported incidents, with none of the (quite a lot of) scholarly analysis that has been done of the politics and the journalism themselves.  Fixing this problem of non-neutral treatment is done by finding more and better sources that counter the falsehoods, and provide historical and political context and analysis.  (On that note, I've wondered whether we are making print encyclopaedias "not suck", too.  I'm mildly curious to see how Bamber Gascoigne's Encyclopedia of Britain treats this subject.) The sources themselves, from what I've seen, are pretty even-handed about the subject, explaining that although this wasn't all true and that the Left isn't actually Loony, that moreover it wasn't all the Right's doing, conversely, with the left-wing politicians shooting themselves regularly in the feet being part of the problem &mdash; which revelation only casts greater shame upon the versions of our article that stood for four years, which tried to assert both that it was All True and that it was a Vast Right-Wing Fabrication.  On that final point:  For a good laugh, see this edit, where an editor thought that a singly-sourced non-neutral article lacking in historical and political context was "complete".  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The content is certainly much better than it was before! On reflection I can live with the article being kept, it does hold together as a coherent topic, but I don't think it's the optimal way to cover the subject matter. The existence of the article invites editors to add their own examples of what they think is the loony left, or to have a catalogue of every use of the term. See Terror bombing for a similar thing happening. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

COI
I though the COI tag was a NPOV tag rather than a clean-up tag and was used to sign that there *was* a conflict of interest not that the conflict of interest was bad? So you can place it to indicate that it has been edited with someone with a COI rather than to say that there is a problem with the COI? Since Benbjoi was the archivist (and maybe still is) for the Sisters of Indulgence, that would seem to fit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hum it's interesting, checking out the last year's worth of conversation over at the template itself, it seems there is significant discussion about what it is and what it should be used for - I take the position as do many, that it's a neutral template to alert the reader that someone with a connection has edited the article, while others see it as a sign for action. If you want to remove it from the article feel free. It seems there used to be a COI2 template, so maybe at some stage, the different in the positions was more explicit and covered by the different templates. I will investigate... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a parallel on Jonathan King, where the man himself has edited the article using various IP addresses and sockpuppets over the years. Isn't there—or shouldn't there be—a talk page template that does the same job? Ah, I found it:


 * By the way, I did find something that was missing - Sister Roma appeared in a play, Sleeping With Straight Men, based on the murder of a gay man who said he loved his straight male friend on Jenny Jones, and it got some decent coverage. I'll add it in. Duh, it was already included. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick note
I just realized I never looked at your reply here. So you know, I was absolutely not indicating that you were a fringe-pusher. I was simply being curmudgeoney after having wasted hours upon hours in the then-recent past with fringe pushers who accused me of COI constantly because I was actually knowledgeable about the topic (and generally behaved with incivility). I am very sorry for having caused you distress due to my general grumpiness back then, Awickert (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for unexpected apology. I wasn't distressed, I just felt the need to clarify my position as it's often assumed that not liking Sense About Science = anti-science. I had quite forgotten about it, consider it water under the bridge. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - thank you. I just ran across it while looking in the archives for something else, and felt like I needed to let you know that I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, Awickert (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Grup Mp3
Re your message: Sure, no problem: User:Fences and windows/Grup Mp3. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response! Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused
I happened to just run into this comment:

User_talk:Cyclopia one edit from you

and I compare it to the above:

Articles for deletion/Lamia (Vampire Folk lore) two edits from A Nobody.

I guess the only difference between badgering acceptable contacting and not badgering unacceptable contacting one edit? i.e. if you would have made just one more comment in Cyclopia you would be badgering unacceptable contacting too? You would be participating in "indiscriminate inclusionism"?

BTW, I dont know if you are aware of this, but your "indiscriminate inclusionism" statement is part of the evidence in the main RFC. Ikip (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be missing your point, but my comment you linked to has nothing to do with badgering. I was made aware that two comments I had made were provided as evidence in A Nobody's RfC; I don't have a problem with that and I mentioned it in my comment on the RfC. I don't remember commenting on A Nobody 'badgering' anyone. One person's badgering is another's reasonable and expected response. Some editors get carried away in replying, I know I have before, but it's not something we need to sanction them for unless it becomes seriously disruptive.
 * At Lamia, A Nobody's editing would have been problematic even had he not contributed to the AfD debate. He does exhibit poor judgment in some of his edits on articles at AfD, especially on fictional elements for which little or no notability can be shown. His editing at Lamia made a dog's dinner of the article, making it cover disparate topics, and it seemed designed to prevent deletion by writing material in order for it to be merged; this is one of the key issues at his RfC. I called what he was doing "indiscriminate inclusionism" because he wants to keep content in Wikipedia without discriminating between what is notable and verifiable and what is not. Inclusion is often his entire raison d'etre, which leads him into edits and behaviour that are counter-productive. I know you're an inclusionist too, but I make no apologies for criticising indiscriminate inclusionism.
 * As for my self-described 'badgering' of editors at the Maura Murray AfD, I do that kind of thing rarely, apologised for doing so, and didn't get any negative responses. There was a rationale for contacting editors who had commented before I did, which was that I'd added non-local sources to demonstrate notability, which had been missing when the debate started. I think it's reasonable to politely ask editors to reconsider the arguments if there is a significant change in the debate such as sources being provided. I become overly emotionally invested in that article, but the AfD was useful as it forced me to dig up lots of references and add them, which I'd not done at the prior AfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. your right, you have never used the word badgering, and for this i apologize. It has been other editors who have also criticized a nobody who used the word "badgering".
 * I really could have cared less about the vampire article, so I didn't follow the entire debate. Maybe if I was more active, I could have tempered A Nobody. Ikip (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Musgrave Article
Just wondering if you could give me some feedback on this issue, if I included the endorsement under the controversies header, (I meant the section to illustrate the extremeness of the positions of the congresswoman Musgrave), and included Rolling Stone and the 5280 magazine as both having picked up and reported on the story, could it be included? I certainly never meant for the addition to legitimize the KKK as an endorsement generating body. -PingreePark —Preceding unsigned comment added by PingreePark (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare at Goats (film)
Haven't seen this yet, but it looks like an interesting film - you know, being (kind of ) about telepathy, and war, etcetera. Perhaps we should have an article ...  pablo hablo. 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see we do have an article! I've read the book, Jon Ronson's always good. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just finished reading it, a bizarre ride it was too. Could have done with a copy-edit (particularly p264 line 3 in my edition) but otherwise immensely enjoyable and thought-provoking. Assuming, that is, my thoughts are my own ...  pablo hablo. 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jokes
I'm never sure how ironic and absurd humor will go over on Wikipedia.

As an example of the Chewbacca defense and an abitious attempt at hypnosis, my AfD argument didn't seem very successful in influencing anyone to change their mind, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. :) Johnnie Cochran was one of a kind, may he rest in peace. Thanks for the note. Look at the monkey. Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone has had any luck with Reverse psychology? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like arguing fervently for articles to be kept using deliberately poor arguments, leading to a backlash of deletion arguments. Perhaps some apparent inclusionists are really members of fifth column. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments I disagree with always seem poor. :) And I'm convinced most of my fellow Wikipedians are involved in conspiracies. As I am in the resistance does that make me a fifth columnist? It sounds a bit dastardly. I prefer to think of myself as a principled individual. I have no intention of attempting self-sacrifice, let alone martyrdom, and have no allegiance to any Wikiparty. Gulp. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

on Pia Magalona
I don't think there's a COI with Pia editing her husband's article. As you can see by the editing history, she has made only 15 edits out of around 1000, most of them clarifying information inserted by other users, particularly people asserting that he was ever a member of a local fraternity (which she has fiercely debunked). Unlike other editors too closely associated with certain subjects, her position as Francis' wife and manager makes her a unique source of data on his career, but is familiar enough with Wikipedia policies such as WP:OWN and WP:NPOV to let others edit as well, thus the rarity of her editing. My two cents. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She needed to be made aware of Wikipedia policy on editing articles when you have a conflict of interests. Did you look at her edits to the page? They were to make unsourced changes and also added blatant promotional language: "BEWARE OF IMITATIONS. Score your AUTHENTIC FMCC products at '3 Stars & A Sun stores". Do you think this is acceptable editing, because I don't. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability for breaking news

 * WT:N It was recently suggested that there be no prods or AfDs for two days after an article creation - it was almost universally opposed.

Do you recall where? patsw (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Allison Harvard
I have no problem with you removing the Mahalo source, but simply reverting my edit was not the answer. Did you read the Wired article? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it months ago. I guess the issue was over her home town. This article looks reliable and confirms she grew up in Houston:. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion RFC
I don't think your proposal has much of a shot at gaining consensus as it stands. I certainly appreciate your motives, but it would be too big a change from current practice.

Your odds would be better with a proposal to basically write a policy addition that describes what most admins generally do already, which is to provide rationale that's proportional to the discussion. I'd like to begin a new RFC, jointly if you like, to brainstorm possible standards for requiring closing rationale, other than unanimity; something involving a vote count or a discussion length count in KB, for instance. Most admins will close very long discussions with a proportionately comprehensive rationale anyway, so I think this has a much better chance of success. Let me know what you think. Equazcion  (talk)  01:50, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
 * It was worth a shot and at least it didn't immediately go down in flames. After reading the opposition I'm satisfied that there's no really good reasons why an admin shouldn't always give a rationale.
 * But you're right that a tactical retreat is in order to avoid sacrificing the proposal on the altar of principle. Consensus is not suddenly going to swing behind my proposal, and I very nearly did just as you're suggesting earlier today. A change in the wording to make clear that the community expects a debate with substantial disagreement to be closed with a rationale would satisify my concerns and I think would be in line with consensus, if not a reflection of how every admin currently behaves. I think something based on length or !vote ratios won't go down well, a more vague "significant and substantial policy-based disagreement" might be along the right lines. But we can propose several ideas to see which if any gain approval. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your idea sounds good too, just some mention of expecting rationale in cases of substantial disagreement might offer the intended effect. If you want to end the current RFC and start the new one, and want my help doing so, let me know. Or I can leave it up to you if you like. Equazcion   (talk)  02:11, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

User watched
I noticed you put that userbox on your page and it wasn't displaying correctly. The problem had to do with the spaces in your name. I just fixed it though. Thought I'd let you know. Equazcion  (talk)  03:53, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Old notability proposals
My experience was that it is very hard to avoid having a notability proposal tagged as "rejected" since lots of editors hate "instruction creep." It in no way helps a new proposed guideline to hide a former proposed guideline by redirecting its name to the new one. I like the old one for news stories more than the proposed new one. The most you can reasonably hope for, in the end, is a tweak to WP:N. The WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS seemed to follow from the earlier effort to establish a guideline for when a news story might justify an encyclopedia article (secondary coverage in books, plays, movies, or societal changes, or new legislation ("Amber's Law", "Megan's Law.")). Note that WP:NOTNEWS explicitly references News articles which you want to redirect instead to your effort, which is unlikely to gain consensus as a standalone notability guideline. It is a bit insulting and contemptuous to hide the work that a number of good editors contributed to the old notability proposal for news stories by replacing it with a redirect to your effort. The proposals are not at all the same. The talk page of the first proposal also includes a pains-taking effort to analyze AFDs about news stories. Just let it be. There were multiple efforts to create guidelines for schools, and newer efforts did not find it necessary to obliterate older efforts. Edison (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, an apology: I was too abrupt. I'd like to be able to discuss this issue and get your thoughts on improving the new proposal without being adversarial. While I didn't do the redirect - that was another editor - I did propose a merge, but I didn't think there was enough discussion to go ahead. Note that nobody tried to revert you. I think working to build a new consensus is better than leaving multiple similar proposals, but I'm happy to leave the essay be. I've not tried to hide the older proposal, as I've linked to it from the new one.
 * WP:News articles become linked to from WP:NOTNEWS in April; the original intent in adding it appears to be to refer to the formatting of the articles, see . I can find no discussion of this addition in the talk archives. If the new proposal does gain support of course I will propose linking to it from WP:NOTNEWS, but it'd be presumptuous to link to it now.
 * I saw the the analysis of AfDs about news stories, great work. Could that be put to use to create a section of Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes?
 * I know you like the old proposal; what I don't know and would like to is why you like it. My question to you about why you wanted it kept wasn't rhetorical. I think the old one is too blunt in some of its wording e.g. "absurd", and I think it attempts to over-restrict what events can be written about in its criteria, i.e. it is prescriptive. It comes across an unsympathetic to articles about events and the editors writing them. The new proposal comes out of the repeated issue of how WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. are applied in practice to articles about single events. It aims to be descriptive, making explicit the criteria commonly used by editors at AfD and their interpretations of existing policies and guidelines, and it deliberately uses ideas from the older proposal and is similar to the existing notability guideline for criminal acts, a specific subset of events. If it fails in its intent then it'd be great to know how and why. It is a work-in-progress that is open to change. If a result of the new proposal is to have changes made to WP:NOTE and WP:NOTNEWS to clarify their intent and meaning, then it will be far from a wasted effort! Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news events). A tweak to WP:NOTNEWS seems like the best outcome of the present efforts. It is very hard to get consensus for a new stand-alone notability guideline. Edison (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just writing to thank you for supporting the restoration of my comments on the Richard Gere talk page, especially because you clearly have taken the opposite position on the matter. I am pleasantly surpised to see that some people can disagree without being disagreeable here. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

'peton
I created the stub from a red link. I had no familiarity with the original genus. Sorry for the error. Good catch! Abyssal (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

anti-Semitism
The "I hate jooz" stuff is treated as vandalism. It is with other stuff, esp. article content, that we run into a real grey area. You can argue that it is covered by NPOV or CIV but many will argue back that it is not. I still think the solution is to add hate speech as a category of WP:Profanity and/or add to the CIV section something on gratuitous content. You are right to find elements of what I am talking about in different policies or guidelines; I think we need a clear statement in a policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Profanity sets a good example that being offensive is not acceptable editing. I'm not sure that WP:Profanity is the right guideline to expand to include this point, I think specifying WP:CIVIL to include non-directed discriminatory and hate speech is one option, but this only covers talk page conduct rather than article writing. WP:NPOV seems the most appropriate place. Various parts like WP:VALID and the section on impartial tone touch on this area, but I'm not sure what new wording or changes to suggest to directly cover this. Do you have any suggestions? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

F & W, I agree with you that WP:Profanity is not the most appropriate category. It's possible to write bigotry without using profanity, and in a tone that is calm and reasoned. The real problem with bigotry is, as you suggest, its incompatibility with NPOV. Bigotry is not the same as fair and just negativity. It's acceptable to write things in WP that reflect negatively on a group of people, so long as they are verifiably true and do not give the article a deliberate and systematic bias. Although User:Equazcion seemed to disagree with me in our discussion, I would go so far as to say that bigotry is one of *the* reasons we have a policy like NPOV in the first place. It's one of the most unjustly damaging types of biases. We don't want to write an encyclopedia that has this type of bias, just like we don't want to write an encyclopedia that has any other type of bias. Perhaps we could expand WP:CIVIL to address bigotry in talk page conduct, and WP:NPOV to address bigotry in articles?

I was also thinking that maybe we could add a special template to articles that have bigotry. I'm sure there are editors who would want to specialize in eliminating bigotry, just like there are editors who specialize in eliminating vandalism now. I know about a couple other bigoted articles besides the ones we discussed, some of which are relatively difficult to find. One of them is the biography of Anan ben David, an early forerunner of a Jewish movement that still exists. The article, which is "mid-importance" in WikiProject Judaism, incorporates public domain text from an old edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia that essentially slanders him and his movement. There's been discussion on the talk page of this article about the problem with its neutrality, but not enough work on correcting its biases. I have changed some passages I found particularly objectionable, but others remain. I strongly feel that there should be a specific way to find articles with this problem. --AFriedman (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFriedman, I am afraid you miss the point. I refered to WP:Profanity as a model for a policy.  This point has nothing to do with claiming that bigotry is a form of profanity or that bigots use profanity.  Also, you misunderstand NPOV.  NPOV does not at all require that views be verifiably true.  NPOV requires that it be verifiable that a person holds that view.  Truth is ireveleant.  If I can demonstrate that a significant number of people believe Jews control banks, NPOV allows that view to be included in the article.  This is not a matter of NPOV or POV.  This is a matter of a form of attack that is not covered by our policies because it is not a personal attack.  We need to prohibit it as a form of attack, but allow it as a view (according to NPOV) - this is why the rofanity policy is such a good model to follow. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I am saying about NPOV. If a significant number of people believe Jews control banks, this could of course be included in an article; however, if there are verifiable sources that suggest otherwise, information about these also needs to be added to complete the article. Basically, I don't think we've said anything too different about NPOV. I did misunderstand what you said about profanity, and I'll take a look at that policy as soon as I can. BTW, thanks for taking a look at Anan ben David. As a Jew, even a non-Karaite, that article was quite disturbing to me. I wasn't fully aware of how we did things like that to our own. --AFriedman (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your point about NPOV - I am glad you see that I was trying to make a different point. I also appreciate your looking at the Anan ben David article and perhaps others of Jewish interest.  If only among Wikipedians we had some young PhDs in Jewish history who know the most reliable scholarly scources! It is the lack of such people among our editors that is the big weakness of the project .... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not spam email some young academics to see if they've thought of contributing? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) How active and scholarly are the people in WikiProject Jewish history? I think that's another good place to look for people to work on all the articles we've discussed.  In terms of professional academics, many of them don't want to be bothered and many are already active in other areas of WP, but I think some will take to this effort with enthusiasm.  It will probably take time to see real improvement to the articles and a larger effort.
 * 2) Slrubenstein, I think we agree about what needs to be done about bigotry and in which WP policies (WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL). I think what we might consider bigotry is more or less self explanatory, i.e. things that cross the line in either of those areas.  With User:Equazcion in disagreement, I was actually trying to draw an analogy between this proposed bigotry policy and the BLP policies.  Maybe we don't need verifiability standards as strict as the ones in BLPs, but the idea could be the same--don't slander.  --AFriedman (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (news events)
I left a comment about some material in the routine coverage section that I thought might be a little too difficult for most editors (myself included) to understand, but in general I think it might be ready for more general review. While I like most of it, there are still somethings I consider issues. We seem to have sort of two different definitions of routine covereage. One definition in the depth section has to do with the lack of background and context in routine news reports, and the other (which I don't like as much) seems to focus on the nature of the event being covered. However, I suspect that we are unlikely to come to consensus on these issues with just a small group of editors. At this point, with most of the guideline looking pretty good, getting input from a wider group of editors might be the best way forward. I am watching this talk page so you can respond here or on my talk page as you prefer. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)