User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/February

Timothy Brook (historian)
Hi Jayen, I've created an article about the very notable Timothy Brook (historian) and five articles about books for which I can find ample sources.

As for the rest of his books, for each I've only been able to track down 1 review 2 reviews in academic journals and no other RS in google web search. Most of these others hardly show up in google web/scholar, but one The Chinese State in Ming Society is well cited (and mentioned on .edu and .ac.uk web sites). Is there any merit in creating an article about this book?

I'm aware that notability for academic works is a bit different to general book notability (though I'm not sure of how to prove citations: provide a google scholar search, or list some of the citing works, or (where possible) use text from these works?)

Update: Well, I managed to squeeze a stub out of it. Ah, I see ... some journal reviews (eg for his book "Collaboration ...") are mentioned at the publisher but aren't showing up in google.

Many thanks, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have been busy!! Timothy Brook (historian) looks very impressive ... will have a closer look and look at the articles on the books. Since when have you been into Chinese history then? :) -- JN 466  01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers, J. I managed to track down enough refs for all but his first book. It looks like the journal references are too far down the list at google to show (not all results are returned) unless you search with the journal name and reviewer name, which you need to know beforehand. I'm at 11,400 edits and I want my Vet II medal. :D Sure takes time.  Esowteric + Talk  10:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best word to describe my efforts at Wikipedia would be "hack". I can get an article to start class and I'm hoping that Timothy will be worth a C, but that's about it. There are so many "bigger cheeses" at WP, as there are in the martial arts :)  Esowteric + Talk  10:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

need a proofreader for Battle of Winterthur (1799) at FAC
would you please take a look at this? It's relatively short. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, I was just about to start on it (no kidding). -- JN 466  19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh‎
Hiya, and happy New Year!

would you mind having a look at Akmal Shaikh‎, which I have nominated for WP:GAN? There are some WP:NPOV issues which may need sorting out. Any input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and vice versa. Will have a look.  JN 466  17:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazing work, thanks! I'm also happy Silk Tork has agreed to review it. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It may still need some NPOV tweaks in the lower half. I'll keep an eye on the GA assessment. -- JN 466  23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I called you guys in is that this is as tough as any Falun Gong article, with the same sort of problematic. The NPOV tag has been there for some time, even after my cleanup, but I always prefer to leave them to someone else to remove it for reasons of objectivity. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that. The top half of the article seemed very solid; further down it still bears a few scars from the wars. To clarify, I think it is broadly NPOV, but the structure and continuity is not quite as tight as in the first half. -- JN 466  00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish, English or just plain British?
Hi J,

If a person (a psychiatrist) is "born in Aberdeen, Scotland, and brought up in Yorkshire, England" but his career has been mostly based in London, should I just categorize him as "British psychiatrist (etc)", as I have done so far, or Scottish, or English? My feeling is that he is only nominally Scottish, yet not strictly English and definitely British :)

Many thanks, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Eric, I am crap with categorisation. Looking at R. D. Laing, he is classified as Scottish, even though he worked in London. But this does not mean anything ... this is a wiki, and any person off the street can change anything whatsoever ... ;) You could try Village_pump_(miscellaneous) or Help_desk. Cheers, -- JN 466  22:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg article
I placed it on the ACR list. It will eventually get some reviews. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

translation question
Thanks for your support, and edits, on Battle of Winterthur (1799). It passed yesterday, although the bot hasn't run yet. Siege is at ACR, and Sturm raised a question about a word we both translated as "foreyard"....I don't remember where it was, but what would that have been in German? It needs a better translation. Could it have been forecourt? Foreyard is a nautical term. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Re Godesberg, I've commented at the ACR and made a couple of edits to the article. Please have a look; I think it should be correct now. -- JN 466  00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh
Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, will look into it. -- JN 466  12:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead editors
Hi Jayen, hope you had a great Christmas. Can you help me clear something up? An article I have been looking at seems to be rather stalled in a pretty turgid state because the editors have nominated somebody to be the "lead editor" and this person has become the final authority on what changes get made. They insist that this is Wikipedia policy, but I have certainly never heard of it. It seems to contradict OWN at least. Have you heard of anything like this? Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rumiton, good to hear from you. Where you do hear the expression "lead editor" is in places like Featured Article Candidates or Peer Review, where someone may say that they are the lead editor. It's generally understood for example that only a person who has done a significant amount of work on an article should nominate it for FA (it is not okay for someone who has only made two edits to an article to nominate it; they should check with the "lead editor(s)" first), and they are the ones who will get the FA credit if the article is promoted. However, your situation sounds rather different, and I cannot think which policy the editors there would be thinking of. The one that does seem to apply, as you say, is WP:OWN. Hope this helps. -- JN 466  15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a comment on the article talk page as well. Given that editors there are trying for GA, it makes sense to have a lead editor. However, I also found the present lead hard going and have said so. -- JN 466  16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

scientology
It's still got ambiguities and awkwardness. May I? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead! Note the comments by Panyd at Peer Review; some of these seem to make sense. But basically, I have received conflicting advice as to how much background info to present. Any advice on that issue appreciated. :) -- JN 466  21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scientology in Germany occupies a precarious legal, social, and cultural position. German courts cannot decide its legal standing; the German government views Scientology as a business, and most Germans favour banning it altogether. German authorities estimate that there are 5,000–6,000 active Scientologists in Germany today; the Church of Scientology gives a membership figure of around 30,000.

The German government views Scientology as an abusive business masquerading as a religion, and which pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in German Basic Law. Scientology has an ambiguous legal status. German courts cannot decide if it is a dangerous sect, or a religious or worldview community, and different courts have reached contradictory conclusions,  which places the Church of Scientology on precarious legal grounds. German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities.

Scientologists in Germany face specific political and economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in major political parties and employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a job applicant's association with the organization. Germany's stance towards Scientology has been criticized widely criticized, most notably by the U.S. government, which recognizes Scientology as a religion and has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.


 * Thanks Ruth. Could you have another look at the lead now? I've merged your ideas above into it. -- JN 466  23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved a couple of sentences, put similar ideas together. How does that work?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that works. -- JN 466  23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested ...
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
All I'm interested in is a better and more objective article. There are a couple of very forceful Falun Gong hotheads stirring things up, and I feel they want to force a showdown; I don't want any more of a confrontation than there is now. A third opinion wouldn't go amiss. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight criteria
Thanks for your message. I've drafted a proposal for a new clause, which you can see on a sub-page accessed from my user page. All comments very gratefully received.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've left you some feedback on the proposal's talk page. -- JN 466  21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the feedback. I've now added the proposal to the Oversight talk page - do you recommend I publicise it in any way apart from simply placing it there?Jimi 66 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks for letting me know. One place you could perhaps put a pointer to the discussion is the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard: WP:BN. The Oversight talk page does not seem to get an awful lot of traffic, and at least some oversighters will have the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard watchlisted. -- JN 466  22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better idea ... there is a list of oversighters here: Oversight We could ask one of them what would be the best way to get their attention. :) -- JN 466  22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and dropped Cool Hand Luke a note. -- JN 466  22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

many thanksJimi 66 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Islamic titles
While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics such as PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this. (WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)

Will appreciate it very much if you can point me in the right direction.

If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, do you think it's fair to say that generally avoiding titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?

Thanks very much! --Sarabseth (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Have a look at Manual_of_Style_(biographies). This provides some general guidance (though rather Anglocentric) on honorifics. Does that help? -- JN 466  21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is too generic and does not help you further, I would advise you to check with WikiProject Islam. You could drop a note on their talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam. It is best if you give them one or two specific examples illustrating the situations you have in mind. -- JN 466  21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (Sorry for not responding right away).  Will do as you suggest.  --Sarabseth (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies again
JN, once again, I sincerely apologize for missing that text; it wasn't where I expected to find it, I didn't expect to find it grouped with South of the Border, and I just missed it. It's also very hard to keep up with the tandem reverting across so many articles of Off2riorob, Rd232 and the Brazilian IP, so I just missed it. Although the ANI thread was closed, and Durova knows it tics me off when threads are closed right after the main participant announces s/he won't be available for a bit, I went ahead and posted a link to my apology there, as it should be cleared up to the broader audience. Sorry again! Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's okay. It easily happens, especially when one is annoyed and under time constraints!  JN  466  11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope it works out and Wikipedia ends up the winner. -- JN 466  11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Was CESNUR ever Deemed a Reliable source? i find a lot of talk about it but i am unsure? Secondly i seem to remember a rule like: since conference paper are peer reviewed before a conference they are a RS. I could be mistaken about this rule but if it is correct could you point me to it? If Cesnur was deemed a RS i would like to use text of a Conference paper for a source for a An article. thanx Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you see the discussions about it at RS/N? -- JN 466  20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i read it i could not find a final decision it looked like quite a quagmire Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which specific paper is it on cesnur.org that you would like to cite? -- JN 466  20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally I would say that as an academic website CESNUR meets RS. That was how I remembered the consensus of uninvolved editors at RSN. However, CESNUR sometimes hosts copyvios (we shouldn't link to them) and papers that say "Do not cite" at the top (we shouldn't cite them). Unpublished conference papers are probably the least reliable type of academic source. Their marginal status improves significantly if they are subsequently published in a book, as many are. Hope that helps. -- JN 466  20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see, etc. I guess in part it depends on the author. If the author is a very well-known, published scholar, things look better already.  -- JN  466  21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Twelve Tribes lawyer and member and the author of the documants Jean Swantko, fairly prominent in some circles Timothy Miller, Susan J Palmer and James T. Richardson have all cited or mentioned her at some point in PR works. She has work published in both Peer revewied journal Social Justice Research and later republished an updated version in Richarson's book "Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe ". Well respected or at least reconized in Vermont Law Circles largley due to her Vermont bar journal Article.  It would be an educated guess of mine that she is one of the more frequent Attorneys in Vermont Sumpreme court during the 1980s. So that is where author stands as far as credibility. the three conference papers of hers i am considering using off The TT's site are from Cesnur: Conference on the future of Religious and Spiritual Minorities (1998) and 1999 CESNUR conference "Religious and Spiritual Minorities in the 20th Century Globalization and Localization". Lastly from  14th World Congress of Sociology An Issue of Control: Conflict between the Church in Island Pond and State Government. Also her
 * In my expierence The TT have never altered documents on thier. the few probable Copy Vios of documents on their site show no other alterations against the originals other than removal of references for ease of reading.
 * So what do you think in you opinion of what a hypothetical Wikipedia FA Peer Review would say? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have a copy of Regulating Religion lying in front of me on my desk, and I see Swantko's chapter in it. I think it covers some of the same ground. Could you not cite the chapter instead? It's in google books too. -- JN 466  00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I might be able to, i am waiting for Interlibary loan of my own copy at the moment and it proably does cover much the same. i have to wait to see it myself though. But if there is something a statement i can only cite in one of the above do think it would fly?
 * Citing the papers might prove more contentious than citing the book. I would advise you to use the book. You can see almost all the chapter's pages in google books. There are a few pages that are hidden in google books; you are welcome to ask me about those, as I have a physical copy of the book. -- JN 466  00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * for most of the older ones the book will suffice most likely but the last one does seems irreplaceble by other sources at the moment.Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The book chapter says (in the footnote on the first page) that it summarizes the two earlier papers, and is a revised reprint from Social Justice Research, an academic journal. As for the two more recent papers, I'd advise you to cite the one present on CESNUR.org rather than the one on the group's own website. Be sure to attribute statements to Swantko, and say in the text that she is a member of the movement. -- JN 466  12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You're very welcome. -- JN 466  16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg
Should we (or you or I) just go ahead and nom this for FA? Neither of us has a lot of time, and getting Potthoff's chapter may prove difficult. I think the article is in really good shape as is, so perhaps we could just go with it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through the images and updated the description page with both English and German. The Wappen of Bonn may be a problem, since it's undated, and I'm not sure how to date it. Will you take a look?  That has to be dealt with before the next step.  Also, will you check the mapmaker's description? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will have a look.  JN 466  18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Venezuela Invitation

 * Thanks for the invite. Joined. -- JN 466  10:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I learned that we don't need to add four tildes when using the invite template: it's automatic! JN, I've ordered Nelson, and it was in stock, so I should have it in three to five days.  There are several other books mentioned in these (including Marcano):
 * Hugo Chávez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President; Venezuela: Hugo Chávez's Revolution; Hugo Chávez: A Test for Foreign Policy
 * The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela
 * and I've started a list at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. I am sumamente atareada IRL, so I don't expect I'll be able to get through more than one book in the near term.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help

 * Thanks, love!  &hearts;   And it's a great article.  -- JN  466  22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)