User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57

Colourising wiki-tables
Jimbo, I'd like to know how to go about colourising wiki-tables like User:Discographer did for The Beatles discography, and making them a Feature. Help me. Thank you very much. --Wiki-Nanu-Tabu (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Try the Help Desk or Help:Table. – ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the usage of "Turkmen" and "Turkmenistani" on categories and templates
Heya, you may want to participate in this discussion regarding to the term should be used to describe Turkmenistan people. Thanks. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re to Jimbo from WeaponBB7's talkpage
Sorry Jimbo idk How i missed it But i saw you posted on my talkpage today. Here is what i got, i only selected the most pivitol and voltiale sections of the archives. But its alot still the same. Brief history:

Lisa and Pico got into a Dispute over content which drew in more attention to the page This is first part where the creation myth gets suggested

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_myth/Archive_5#Tying_this_off. This is where things start getting a little heated] This where the present battle lines get drawn

First Disputed claim of Consensus

first move to Genesis Creation Myth (note closed in four days instead of full week)

First note of negative connotation by a previously uninvolved editor

First "Battle" later confirmed Sock puppet Temple Knight Gets involved

Some one suggest moving it back

Gets ugly with warning on indivisual talk page removing for disputed content

First RFC

Very Ugly Page move With all sorts of Violation Of NPA, AGF among others

First suggestion of higher Level involvement at ANI(Note EGMicheals was Canvassing Both Sides To hash Thing out on his talk page for a new name that every on could agree on)

Four sections closed for their uglyness

EGMicheals Moved above mentioned discusion from his page to talk page with very nice summary of arguments

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_myth/Archive_7#This_needs_to_stop. User says this needs to end]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Constant_tendentious_editing_at_Genesis_creation_myth_despite_RFC.2C_2_RMs_all_supporting_current_consensus. ANI opened closed because too many editors involved and should be an RFC]

really long discussion that ends with ani (IMHO this was a Badfaith Ani to get rid of the editor) ANI here

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_myth/Archive_9#Exegetical_points:_Myth just one example of an editor stubling upon the title and having a group of editors slam him/her with replys. shunting off any discussion] (Just one example of ownership by a group)

more conflict, Two Editors in the dissenting (we should be careful of using myth party) get hit with a SPI (never confirmed) i thought it was total bull crap then, but then one of these editors acused mentions i have not seen "x" in while and then X pops back uphere is the SPI

Current Page move

In short its a big mess, at this point no editors hands are clean except for those who gave thier opinion and left the page. My own hands are not completley clean during the first time i stepped on the page i felt attacked by another user and opened RFCU a group of editors who were in the opposite camp came and astroturfed the comments section making it look like consenus found it to be POV push campaign. Personally i feel every one involved has dirty hand. neither do i think you direct invention will do much good; as the hostile responseshere when i inserted your observation into the thread. I have seen just about every policy used to support both camps postions. I detest this Battleground; i fear it will not be end. I make a humble request that you Refer This To Arbcom. As this battle ground will not end until arbcom nukes a fair number on both sides (Possibly including me) with topic bans. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As a practising Christian I find this very puzzling. It has never caused me a moment's anguish to refer to the Genesis creation myth as such. The only people I think are genuinely offended by it are the homeschoolers, and they only let their kids use Conservapedia anyway. Robert Hooke had no problem with the idea that fossils were the petrified remains of long extinct creatures, that was in 1690, before the concept of extinction was even understood - I don't think they even had a name for it - and we've become a lot more accepting of theological grey areas since. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I never understood why some people could possibly object to the word "myth". If they would just take a dictionary and look it up, they would read: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.". I think it is clear that anyone who cannot live with this definition, is someone with an agenda of imposing (i.e. POV-pushing) their own private personal deity unto the rest of the world, in other words, someone who definitely does not belong here. Continuing to make a fuss about this should be a sufficient reason for getting topic-banned. DVdm (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And in academic studies the creation myths of various religions are discussed in precisely those terms. The issue here is probably that some people believe it to be literally true and consider that any education system that describes it in terms other than literal historical truth are therefore unreliable and seditious. I don't think this is Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite. Those who think the myth is to be taken literally, can take def #1 (with with), while those who think it is a metaphor or just a story, can take def #1 (with without), or def #5 or whatever. When we write about data tables, nobody jumps up complaining that a list of data cannot possibly be a piece of furniture. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * frankly, This has never been about whether it nessicarily needs to be in the title, out of all the terms in the Wikitionary we choose these three word with heavily implied meaning to average joe over alternativew like "Biblical Creation" or "Creation in Genesis", Whether or not the term Creation myth is used academically here.(IMHO it is not) This is large issue, with 25 or so editors been Arguing and Edit Warring for 4 months time. This is not a few editors having disagreements this is full scale WP:BATTLE. Jimbo Approached me on my talk page wanting to know more, i am giving him more. No one has has even tried saying that this creationism is fact or spoken much of Creationism, this is not bible thumpers oppressing free speech and freedom of knowledge. This is 20+ editors who have dug in deep and refuse to have practical reasonable conversations.  Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, last time I read the article it was a discussion of the Genesis creation myth, not a discussion of creation in genesis (which would likely fail WP:NPOV by being in-universe). It's about comparative religion versus Christian Studies. One is a neutral study of religions, the other is a study designed to confirm religious belief. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Creation Myth Cat only uses "Ancient Culture+Creation Myth" Not "Holy Scipture+Creation Myth" Like We use Incident instead of "scadal" or Suffix "-Gate" we use term "incedent" Like "Cult" its a sociliogical Term, But becuase of its popular usage as "Religoin I dont like" or "Religoin that is differnt" we avoid it at all times in an Enclypoedia becuase the average laymen is going to intepret it differntly than what a Professor of Religion at NYU is. If anything this is not About group of biblethumpers Asking for special Treatment than a group another group looking to Define judeo Christian belifs as myth while leaving a number other faiths in the Cat alone. No one has disputed it is "Creation Myth" but Rather... Does it Make it easier for People to find? Does it harm the article to not have "Creation myth" in the title? Is there a better Way to describe it that does not Pass judgement? The Answer are no, No and yes Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the dictionnary: "Myth" does not pass judgment. It leaves the choice for everyone on this planet. You cannot possibly want more from a word -- it is perfect. Every Average Joe can (and actually does) make that choice. That should be all there is to say about this matter -- don't underestimate Average Joe. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Average Joe IPs confirm that it is misunderstood These are all just since the 3-22-10, Makes it clear it is being misunderstood... and dictionary defintions dont always equate to poular defintion which is the issue Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you have a handful of anonymous IPs with a problem. Well, I guess it's a matter of standpoint. I tend to identify Average Joe with a few thousand readers (--conservative estimate--) who never complained. This must be one of those varying mileage things. No problem. DVdm (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you have a number of people being encouraged to come over here and remedy the Really Terrible Problem that [WP:TRUTH|Revealed Truth]] is being misrepresented as mythology. I always think of it as Gastroturfing. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But surely it wouldn't be polite to identify these people with A. Joe. Let's keep it decent and avoid going that way. DVdm (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See Perfect example focusing on the editors and Dismissing the problem instead of working through the problem to compromise. Basically your argument is "There Is not NPOV Problem, these are just Politically Conservative Religious Fundamentalist Who should not be listened to because their views are backword and ignorant and thus should not be considered becuase this is not Conservopedia" Your Ad-hominen arguments have frankly shown my point of the battle ground mentality then anything i could have put here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman. I also note your commentary in the above set of links, when it's against your position it's "ugly" or a "battle", but when it comes to editors in favour of your position it's "very nice". You weren't even honest about the first Requested Move: it was closed after a week of discussion, not 4 days. But even if everything you wrote was true, you never seem to address reliable sources given to you: that reliable sources (all the way down to generally accessible reference works like Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopedia Britannica and countless others given over the course of the last few months) consider the article's topic a creation myth should not be ignored but incorporated into the article. In choosing a suitable title for the article, many things need to be and have been considered since the very first RM was listed. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not one of those things.
 * Yes you're allowed to be offended by some knowledge, but as a reader of this project's articles I likely won't care what knowledge you personally find offensive. Instead I care that what I'm reading is an accurate reflection of reliable sources on the topic (this is to be neutral). I presume most people think similarly. The place to argue over a change in terminology in the literature is in academia, not on a Wikipedia talk page. At this point it's worth pointing out we're not relying on tabloids for our terminology here (like your incident/scandal/*-gate example above likely would). Not all is lost though, if you can show that the term creation myth when associated with Genesis is notably offensive, via reliable sources, then by all means include that information in the article - The Mohammed article does the same with respect to images of Mohammed, and in this case readers likely will be interested. Ben (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * eyeroll, Attack my motives, That Its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is no NPOV problem.... yada yada yada... you again use the straw man argument that i want it censored from the article. Nice catch i read the opinion date on the bottom, mistaken it for closing date my apologies. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not dismissing the problem, I am simply identifying a different problem from the one you are. You seem to think the article title is a problem, I think the wall-of-text argumentation in favour of renaming to all sorts of names including some plucked out of nowhere is a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, what you mean yes i agree, i merely focused on the match that lit the fire as opposed to all the embers that blew away and sparked all these other fires. really I am at my wits end in the two months i have hung around and watch this page of this is in this fourth month. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered working somewhere that causes you less angst? Guy (Help!) 20:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be wise, but me leaving wont exactly fix the edit war, it just means one party has decided to drop out, happened several times already.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, all the gaming has run a number of people off. I've never seen a simple content or wording dispute spawn bogus ANI and Sockpuppet accusaton attacks like this one did (none of which have been taken up by an administrator as meriting notice, but all of which were way too distracting for the editors who were targeted).  JzG's "invitation" to Weapon to go elsewhere is an invitation I've been given repeatedly by this same camp, which seeks consenus through conquest rather than collaboration.  This basically boils down to a POV confinement of the article, so that 1 notable and reliable view (i.e. "creation myth") is used to suppress all others by being embedded in the title.  While I do regard the Genesis creation narrative to actually be a "creation myth" I'm aware that this is only one of many POVs and totally inappropriate in a title.  I would equally oppose such POV titles as "Genesis creation facts" or "Genesis creation truth" or "Genesis creation history."  A title should be open to all notable and reliable POVs.  It should not presume one. EGMichaels (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please consult a dictionary and compare myth with fact, truth and history. In the dictionary you will find that "myth" is open to all notable and reliable POVs. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm well aware that there is an academic use for myth as "symbolic narrative" (and in fact on those grounds initially supported the title of "Genesis creation myth"), I was very quickly made aware that the editors promoting the title "myth" were doing so not because they believed the narrative was "symbolic" but rather because they believed it was not "fact." While they continued to claim academic use, they were unable to give ANY example on ANY subject in which they could use the term in an academic way, and in fact complained that my request was unreasonable.  Yes, academically "myth" can be used in a neutral (and even positive) way.  Unfortunately, that is not the purpose of the title in question.  Again, I believe that Genesis contains a "creation myth" and in fact as a theist I'm very approving of that "creation myth" as a symbolic narrative affirming our role in the world.  Alastair Haines also seems quite capable of using the term in that way.  But we are not the only two editors, and the editors insisting on the term with no openness to other equally academic terms are doing so in violation of NPOV policy.  I could use all sorts of neutral or even positive terms, but if my stated reasons on the talk page are not neutral, and if I am not open to other neutral terms which cannot be "mistaken" as POV, then I would simply be pushing a POV.  That's a no no for editors.EGMichaels (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "...academic..." (5 times). You can safely stop referring to that term. The Academic Only Argument is a straw-man argument. I was referring to dictionaries. Dictionaries are meant to be used by everyone. If we see someone who is confused by the term "myth", we (and that includes you) can --and should-- point them to the dictionary and educate them. DVdm (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that "academic" can be a straw man. I've been forced to spell it out because it is being used by the "nothing but myth" POV to hammer it into the title.  That said, the dictionary isn't always the limit of meaning.  This is an ecyclopedia, and we try to include more than is just in a dictionary.  However, "fable" or "fiction" is a known meaning for "myth."EGMichaels (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The title is perfect. Look at the dictionary. DVdm (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We're writing an encyclopedia -- look at ALL notable and reliable POVs, and not just one. The Genesis creation account is alternatively myth, legend, symbolic narrative, false history, allegorical narrative, demythologizing polemic, or (to young earthers) historic account.  No title that is not inclusive of all notable and reliably sourced POVs would be appropriate.  "Myth" should neither be disallowed, nor should it exclude other POVs.EGMichaels (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the dictionaries the Genesis creation myth is alternatively an account, legend, symbolic narrative, false history, allegorical narrative, demythologizing polemic, or (to young earthers) historic account. So the title is inclusive of all notable and reliably sourced POVs. So it is appropriate. DVdm (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are confusing a characterization of the text with the text itself. An alternate title such as "Genesis creation narrative" would accord equally well to ALL characterizations of that narrative, without imposing one within the title.  Again, I do hold this narrative to be a creation myth, but it is wrong to make that the title.  It would be like a title of "Star Wars (science fiction / fantasy)" -- such a title is unnecessary.  "Star Wars (movie)" is all that's needed.  The rest can go into the article.EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Don't worry, I'm not confusing anything. The title accords equally well to ALL characterizations, without imposing one. According to the dictionaries the title is okay. DVdm (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah -- that's even worse: someone confusing something and not even being able to see it when pointed out. This is a document for a living religion, and as such there are multiple POVs, some of which actively oppose the characterization of "myth".  Surely you would object to the notable and reliably attested view by peer reviewed biblical scholarship that this is the "Genesis creation demythologizing polemic" (so Wenham and others).  Is it?  Sure.  It's both "myth" and "demythologizing polemic".  Why?  Because multiple notable reliable sources say so.  Our job is to get our tiny little selves out of the way and leave the title open to note real scholars hashing it out.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our (and your) job is to point those who actively oppose the characterization of "myth" to the dictionary. DVdm (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, OUR job is to report all notable and reliable PsOV from appropriate sources, and leave titles open to those notable and reliable PsOV. Please understand that I hold the Genesis creation narrative to be myth in ALL meanings of the term in the dictionary, including 3. "fictitious story."  My objection to the title is not in my disagreement with its characterization, but instead with the fact that it violates Wikipedia NPOV policy.  I do not come here to impose my own view of ultimate reality, including my view that this is a "creation myth."  I encourage you to do the same.  Wikipedia is a good resource.  Let's keep it that way and stop evangelizing people to a worldview that you and I apparently share -- but have no right to impose.EGMichaels (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to dictionary, Wikipedia NPOV policy is not violated. You have nothing to worry about. DVdm (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you or I worry about something, but only what the notable and reliable sources say. While there are plenty of sources that say this is myth, there are other notable and reliable sources that say it is not.  You and I don't need to worry -- we just need to follow the sources.  Some notable and reliable sources reject "myth" so it's not an option for the title.  Fortunately, we ALSO have no need to "worry" about a title such as "Genesis creation history" because there are notable and reliable sources that reject that term as well.  Let's agree to not worry, and leave that to the sources.EGMichaels (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Where some sources choose to reject dictionaries, these sources stop being reliable. Indeed, let's agree not to worry, just like dictionaries don't worry. They list the meanings of words. DVdm (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure they do, and these notable and reliable sources intentionally, with full knowledge and understanding of the term, reject it. As I said, we are writing an encyclopedia using sources.  We aren't writing a dictionary.EGMichaels (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But we are writing a dictionary using reliable sources. Those who reject dictionaries are clearly not reliable, so we are not supposed to use them. DVdm (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you are passing over the point, which is that there really are notable and reliable sources which fully understand the dictionary term, use the term per that dictionary, and reject the application of that term to the Genesis creation narrative. These are peer reviewed academics in the field specific to this subject (that is, they are biblical scholars).  Now, it sounds very much like you are either assuming that no one can possibly understand the term and reject its application to Genesis, or else no one who rejects that application is a scholar.  Maybe they shouldn't be -- but they are, working in reliably peer reviewed academic careers specific to the subject matter you wish to define.  But they define it differently from you.  That's fine, because you can find plenty of academics who DO agree with you.  So, while you can be comforted that your view (and mine) will be ALLOWED in the article, you cannot be so comforted that it will be there EXCLUSIVELY.  That's the world we live in, and we don't say what is "so", but merely report what others say is "so."  Relax!  That's what makes this site so useful -- to EVERYONE.EGMichaels (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If indeed they fully understand the dictionary term and choose to reject it, they obviously are far less reliable that you choose to think. DVdm (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do the following articles also have to be renamed to fix POV problems in their titles?
 * Ancient Egyptian creation myths → Ancient Egyptian creation narratives
 * Chinese creation myth → Chinese creation narrative
 * Mesoamerican creation myths → Mesoamerican creation narratives
 * Earth-maker myth → Earth-maker narrative
 * Pelasgian creation myth → Pelasgian creation narrative
 * Sumerian creation myth → Sumerian creation narrative
 * Hans Adler 15:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are leaving out V%C3%B6lusp%C3%A1 and En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1 and Ainulindal%C3%AB -- none of which have "creation myth" applied to them. To draw a pure parallel with what you intend would require Jewish creation myth.  Additionally, you are not drawing appropriate parallels with LIVING religions.  While DEAD religions are universally characterized as "myth" in notable and reliable sources, LIVING religions are not universally characterized as myth by their very nature as a living religion.  Wikipedia is neither here to promote or demote a living religion.  We merely step back and report all notable and reliable PsOV from appropriate sources and let the sources hash it out.  Too many editors are trying to impose their own worldview as ultimate reality.  We do not determine ultimate reality here, nor do we presume it in titles.  We merely report all notable and reliable PsOV.  When those PsOV do not disagree (as in a DEAD religion), the term "myth" could apply.  When those PsOV do disagree (as in a LIVING religion), it is not our place to convert or de-convert anyone to or from said religion.  We are agnostics, not evangelists.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my question was finding out what exactly you are objecting to. Is the following a fair description of your position?
 * While "myth", used in a technical sense, is appropriate within an article (per WP:AVOID), use in a title is more problematic per WP:TITLE and should generally be avoided in the context of living religions?

I disagree with this, but before I explain why I would like to know if that is in fact your reasoning. Hans Adler 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While that is one application of my reasoning, my core reasoning is far more basic: we may use terms in titles which are not explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources. There are plenty of notable and reliable sources that view this narrative as myth -- and I personally agree with them.  This narrative is a creation myth.  That is my personal view, and I believe that view is correct.  However, I am not a source, and I am aware that there are notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject this narrative as myth.  Wenham is but one notable and reliable example, and there are others quoted on the article talk page.  Well, I've agreed to edit on this site following a NPOV policy bound by notable and reliable sources.  While I am obligated to cite those sources, I am also obligated to not intentionally contradict those sources.  I can list alternate sources and points of view, but I cannot as an editor make a final presumptive decree.


 * No source explicitly rejects that this is a narrative, or a story, or that it is Genesis, or about creation, etc. But there are plenty of notable and reliable sources that reject your favorite word (and mine) -- myth.  That's bad news for the two of us, but thankfully our view is in the article (though not allowed to be imposed on the title).  I'll also add the good news that "Genesis creation truth" or "Genesis creation history" are also (thankfully) explicitly rejected by some notable and reliable sources.  So while you and I may be disappointed that we cannot impose our preferred view of reality on the planet, we can at least be safe that an alternate view cannot be imposed on us.  Let's be content with that, be good yeomen, and let the sources be the content of this grand resource.EGMichaels (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My humble applause to EGMichaels who has, in this statement, expressed what for me is the essence of what it means to me to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo, thanks so much! It would have been enough if you had merely forgiven me for all the noise on your talk page! :-) EGMichaels (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I confess that I forgot why I thought I would disagree with the position that I asked about, and your position is also reasonable. While I still don't think the title Genesis creation myth needs to be changed, I am no longer opposed to changing it to something like Genesis creation narrative that doesn't imply it's a factual account. Hans Adler 09:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hans!EGMichaels (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed this discussion. While my POV is that Genesis is clearly a myth, the irony is that the pejorative connotations of this word result from there being so many other myths which now look suspect. Maybe any other word adopted by the current myth-supporters will gain the same feel in future as myths fall out of fashion. But, for now, it would be good if the reader could not tell what the opinions of the writers are, and myth doesn't serve this purpose. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That Genesis is "clearly a myth" is not only your POV. It is a fact,  aka "everyone's POV". We could also educate the reader by explicitly pointing to (or even citing) the definitions of the word. DVdm (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Myth has several meanings. My Mac dictionary has "A traditional story..." as its first, which is NPOV. But as the second definition, which is also commonly used, A widely held but false belief or idea. While Genesis seems false to me, it is not something which can be proved. The second meaning is clearly POV as it takes a position which is not universally held. Including a word with two quite different meanings (one of which is POV) in a title is unnecessary. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Table has several meanings. When we write about data tables, nobody jumps up complaining that a list of data cannot possibly be a piece of furniture. (Hm, this sounds familiar). DVdm (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is only true when the context is clear. The word "myth" is indeed used pejoratively in relation to religion so often that one does not have the same luxury of obvious meaning in this situation.  This fact makes the word choice poor for the title, but still suitable for the content area where context is provided (of course that is by no means the only, or even the best, reason why the current title is a poor choice).  Given the direction of this conversation I'm worried that those who argue against the title change may ironically contribute to a very bad precedent in the future.  If the end result of this POV based argument is to eradicate "myth" from the entry itself, because a consensus builds around the idea that the term is always "POV", then I think, again ironically, that all the "pro-mythe titlers" are in fact to blame.  A great number of very reasonable arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with these POV claims have been brought forth by editors who agree that this narrative is a creation myth but also appreciate how awful this title is.  Many of us have tried, in other words, to find a reasonable solution to this that doesn't come down to this oversimplified POV issue, but these solutions just get stonewalled.  The end result may be displeasing to all of us.  Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the balance.
Jimbo, back in Jan you commended admins who helped prevent community deadlock on BLPs with bold out of process deletion sprees. Whatever the merits of that, and personally I think you were right, there seems to have been a possibly unintended knock on effect. The delicate balance between deletion and inclusion seems to have been disturbed, and months on its showing no signs of returning to equilibrium. Its like its open season out there, both for attacking articles and leading inclusionists. I guess my point is that because you came out strongly on the pro deletion side on one particular issue, this seems to have encouraged those who support the deletion of less rigorously sourced articles across our whole range of topics, thus tipping the balance for the entire community.

As I understand it you've historically favoured an inclusive and friendly project, where new editors are given time to grow and learn as well as contribute to the sum of all knowledge. If thats still your view? I think if you were able to re-affirm support for the original beautiful and inclusive vision of your project it might tip the balance back in favour of those who prefer to preserve improvable content and welcome new editors. Alternatively, if you've came to believe stricter exclusion criteria best serves the project, maybe you can arrange for the vision statement and associated marketing to reflect the practical reality that while anyone can editor one can only make lasting contributions if they buy into elite academic standards, even for work on the most low impact articles such as fictional characters or bus routes. Aligning the highest expression of what the project stands for and the reality at the coal face would help prevent disappointment for new editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps Jimbo can do something about those editors who always try to polarize things by dividing the community in the friendly, welcoming inclusionists and the elitist attacking deletionists. In reality, most of us are a healthy mixture of both, welcoming new editors without closing our eyes for the sometimes problematic articles they create; creating, improving, exapnding articles on the one hand while nominating others for deletion on the other. Furthermore, the examples you give have little to do with "new editors". Articles like London Buses route 66 (created in 2006), London Buses route 77 (2008), London Buses route 384 (2006) or London Buses route 69 (2008) have nothing to do with new editors, and as far as I can tell nothing to do with any shifted balance. There have always been such deletion debates and deletions, and there probably always will be. Fram (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

At the margins again
This subject is a school board supervisor who failed to act on claims of harassment against a school facilities supervisor. On whom we don't have an article. we also don't have an article on the case, which suggests that it, too, is not actually considered notable to pass the Warhol 15 minute test. The article was created in good faith and has lots of sources, of which most read to me as hysterical tabloids. I really do not like this "biography" of someone whose biography will likely never be published anywhere in print. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimmy, Ely's been a bigwig in upstate New York for years, but has been "below the radar" for that time. He only garnered national attention when he applied for jobs as the controversy was breaking. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that he has ever been a "bigwig". Schenectady has a population of 61,821 people. (The metro area is bigger, but the number of students in the school district, 10,400, is consistent with his remit being restricted to just the schools in the district.)  His name is not even mentioned in the Schenectady article.  His school district is not mentioned in the Schenectady article.  He's not the mayor, even.  I don't think small town school superintendents are "bigwigs" really.
 * Having said that, I don't think that automatically precludes someone in such a job from being the subject of an article - if there's any actual reason beyond a scandal. This is what WP:BLP1E is for, really.  To prevent someone who is otherwise not notable (and there's no offense intended by saying he's not notable) being ratcheted up for an article based on what appears to be a minor local controversy.  He may not have handled the situation with this employee who later turned out to be a criminal as well as we would have hoped, but it is worth noting that we don't (correctly!) have an article about the employee or his crime!
 * Bearian, you may not be arguing that we should have an article on him because he's a local bigwig, so I don't necessarily mean to be contradicting you. It is absolutely true that he only garnered national attention when he applied for jobs as the controversy was breaking.  Still more reason that he's not a suitable subject for Wikipedia, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The interesting question, of course, is "Do our content guidelines allow for inclusion of that person's biography?" Quickly followed by "If they do, how do we fix them so that they do not."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For someone so minor, there are lots of sources, but I'd say he's not notable enough for wiki. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "do they" versus "should they". WP:TABLOID kind of covers it but not quite. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Any superintendent in New York will likely get more press coverage than a minister in a third-world country. Sole Soul (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The creator asserts that his controlling a budget of $160m makes him notable; if that's the case then we should have an article on my finance director. I Googled him and got 21 unique hits including LinkedIn. People seem to be confused about notability guidelines: they are indications of the kind of person who might well be notable, not a guarantee that if you check two of five boxes you get an article even if the only sources are about the thing you did wrong one day. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little puzzled to find this discussion here instead of at the Afd. But to try to extract something of general interest from it, Guy, did you intend to say that we should not accept online sources equally with print. I've been contending for years here with people who refuse to accept print, because they can't read it immediately. & FWIW, I suspect at least some of the newspapers involved do have print editions. And are you also saying that that one cannot be notable for crimes? DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's here because Jimbo has an interest in the margins of BLP and notability and the tensions between "Notable, look at all these tabloid stories" and WP:BLP1E. I don't think there even was an AfD when I originally posted here, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When Guy opened this discussion thread the AFD for Eric Ely had not been created, in fact I created it three minutes later in response to a thread the the creator of the article, Bearian, had opened the previous day to get opinions about his article at the Blp noticeboard, which can be seen here . Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Schenectady, New York
I know you meant no harm nor insult with your words calling Schenectady a "small town, not a big city", but on behalf of the City of Schenectady, New York I'd like to point out that, yes at around 70,000 people it can be considered a small city (in NY towns are distinct political units similar but separate from cities), but historically it has been considered of national importance as the headquarters of General Electric from its foundation to the 1960s and of American Locomotive Company, and as the city from which numerous patents have come from including important advances from the use of tungsten in incandecent light bulbs to nuclear technology and the invention of television (the oldest tv station in the world still airs from Schenectady), it is still the home to much of GE's turbine and clean energy divisions (and is the site of where the turbines for China's Three Gorges Dam were constructed), two presidents of the USA have attended college here at Union College (founded in 1795). Schenectady is also one of the three core cities of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan Statistical Area with over 800,000 people; the city was even featured in US News & World Report as a prime example of urban decay as a result of the loss of manufactoring jobs from the Northeast. I hope one day you may wish to visit, we would all be very honored to show you around and help you have a better image our "small town" which has had quite a revival recently. I believe it would make national news if presented right. Thank you for your time, sir.Camelbinky (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside: The City of St Davids is the smallest in the UK at 1,700 population, Milton Keynes, with a population of 192,250, is officially a town and not a city. The term can be elastic or it can be nigglingly precise :-) 70,000 is not big. Even in the UK a a large town is of the order of 100,000 people or more. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside on the aside: Camelbinky made it clear that he is referring to the legal definition. In New York, a Town (New York) is a separate entity from a City (New York), both of which make up County (New York)s. Schenectady is a city, and that can't be elastic - at all. That doesn't make it big or small; I would call it a medium sized city (it's the 9th most populous in the state). Nit-picky, I know, but I just want the terms to be used correctly in the arguments at the AfD. Towns and cities may be large in the UK, but note that you guys have much less real estate than we do, so the necessity isn't there to be oh-so densely populated.  upstate NYer  22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you - I did not mean disparagement. It is not a bad thing to be a small town, indeed, it can be quite lovely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new
I have recently removed an abusive message by a vandalism only account. Anyway, have a good day! Minima c  ( talk ) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll
You said when I asked three weeks ago that you were planning a refined version of User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll for a few days from then. It's been much longer than "a few days - possibly tomorrow morning"; any chance of this happening? Flagged revisions, flagged protection, or even patrolled revisions are features that we need to implement systemic quality changes to BLPs across the project. NW ( Talk ) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, my apologies for taking so long. I agree with you that we need to move forward.  Soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is now over a year since the community strongly supported a trial of this. What exactly would this new poll achieve? Kevin (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to find consensus around software that we can just turn on - i.e. which already exists. The version that we approved didn't exist and we thought it would take a short time to make some adjustments to the software so that it would exist.  Progress still continues on that at the Foundation, though slowly, and that's great and all, but my thinking is - let's find a version that we can support and also turn on NOW.  It's a mix of policy and software configuration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your word used to be stronger than consensus. Or is WP:CONEXCEPT outdated? Just go ahead and do it. NW ( Talk ) 04:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's still "good law" but the reason it's still good law is that when I do act, I work hard to find a way forward that is consistent with "cutting a Gordian knot". That is to say, if we have a situation where we have 10% support for 10 different ideas, but 100% support that the status quo is not ok, then what I seek to do is explore ways to cut down the options thoughtfully to find the ones that will garner the widest support.  I preserve best my ability to act for the community, when I act for the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I highly doubt if Jimbo's words would still be accepted as policy by the community. The Office's most definitely and Jimbo's words would probably lead to a heated policy forming discussion, but they would no longer be accepted "as policy" in the way they did up to 2 years or so ago. Times have changed a bit, perhaps we should amend that part of the page ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% sure you're wrong, TheDJ. But you probably have an misunderstanding of history and how this has always worked.  Nothing has changed, particularly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't. There is a difference between your opinion, and your voice as part of the Board. I'm quite sure that your opinion, though respected, no longer would auto transition into policy unless it is communicated as a board or office action. You could of course wave your 'founder' flag and ban a few admins, but I doubt that the community would very much appreciate that. No, your 'founder' flag is useful for idiot whacking and as a doomsday device, but not as an argument in policy making I fear. It is much wiser to work behind the curtains to form consensus, than to bypass consensus without the explicit support of the entire board of the foundation. You know this, otherwise you would have been able to solve this issue, which many perceive as a problem, long ago. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking developers to implement something else at this point is going to make the implementation of flagged protection in the foreseeable future highly unlikely. In addition another implementation even similar to an existing one is going to take a considerable time to deploy, I'm quite sure that it would take more time to enable than flagged protection because the specific implementation efforts would have to be started anew. Also, much of the work that has been done isn't specific to flagged protection but are usability improvements and such to the extension FlaggedRevs, and in adapting it to en.wikipedia. In March there's been several updates of the testing site and I've had a few email exchanges in the recent weeks with the team in charge of implementing which make me think we're leaning towards finalization. I'm pretty sure that stopping this effort and go on something else (we don't have the resources to do both in parallel) would be a waste of resources and not result in a faster implementation, actually the opposite. Unfortunately patrolled revisions hasn't been developed for the trial, and while additional protection measures are good, we also globally need better monitoring tools; watchlists and recent changes are not good enough. Cenarium (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in part, but not in part. I think we can turn on some things that are useful now, and preserve a path forward for when the software we've requested is done.  That we also need better monitoring tools is absolutely true, as well, though not relevant to the immediate question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cenarium. Although it would be possible, I highly doubt if the difference in time for a deploy would still matter. Any deploy will take at least 4 weeks of testing anyway, heavily blocking normal code review and work on the usability project most likely. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Turning on the German version (or a very close variant) would not take 4 weeks of testing, nor much staff time at all. It's already well tested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And finally migrating to MediaWiki 1.16 was a one hour job that has already kept staff busy for 4 days now. Stuff like this is always more complicated than people suspect. Besides, the german config doesn't work on the size of the English Wikipedia. Sorting out how to manage it as a community will probably take as long as going with the final version now. I supported this plan in late december early january, but it is too late now to matter. I see commits of Aaron flying by all the time. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still very much in favor of using Distributed computing as it would seem to be the next logical step to solve at least part of these issues. Initially there were only the RC list and the watchlists, which are - by comparison - very ineffective and clunky if used solemnly to deal with vandalism. After that we had the first generation of vandalism patrol tools such as lupin and twinkle which improved efficiency quite a bit but were still relatively slow while requiring a lot of user interaction. Our current second generation of patrol tools - most notably huggle - are actually so fast that they can outmatch most contributers ability to evaluate edits, which means that we topped efficiency on that aspect.


 * In other words, the efficiency bottleneck of our ability to deal with vandalism doesn't lie with the efficiency of the individual anymore, but with the efficiency of the group as a whole. If there are 10 patrols and 100 edits to be checked including 10 counts of vandalism, a total of 910 diffs will be compared (the 10 vandalism edits will be checked once and removed from the list, but the 90 good edits will be checked by all 10 patrols). Double checking is a good thing, but if two or three patrols don't see anything the others won't do so either. A lot of progress could be achieved by a very simple toolserver app which would bundle and send subsets of edits to currently active patrols. Akin to the BOINC project each edit could be send to two or more patrols to make certain it is appropriately evaluated. Since efficiency takes a heavy hit for every editor above 3, such a change could improve out patrol capacity quite drastically.


 * Now, what does this have to do with flagged revisions? In fact i would say both are very tightly related. Flagged revisions are simply a means to make sure edits don't go unchecked (The only difference with the current situation is that showing an edit is put on hold till evaluated, and not the other way around). The application suggested could keep an edit in its database for checking until X patrols have verified it as being a quality edit. Im not advocating that we should use a toolserver app over patrolled revisions, but i believe that a combination of the two would be a logical way to improve our patrol efficiency a lot. Technically this could also be created by users for use in a specific tool, but one standardized wikipedia-controlled feed would mean that each and every patrol tool could work together with other alternatives without conflicting or creating. I know im probably oversimplifying things a bit while not seeing negative issues, but i believe that some Standardization within wikipedia's tools could work wonders here. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your distributed computing comment (not relevant to flagged revisions): I noticed User:Shirik/CollabRC the other day ("CollabRC is the prototype name for a cross-platform tool for monitoring recent changes, currently in development by Shirik, designed to take collaboration from vandalism fighters and recent change patrollers to the next level"). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a VERY interesting project. Thanks for pointing me towards it, im certainly going to watch that one. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm Jimbo
I guess your aware TheRegister.co.uk: Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn' No real people pictured Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Godwin's response--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Following that link it seems that Godwins response has been deleted from Wikimedia, along with all discussion relating to the matter. Weakopedia (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It still works for me. It's in green on the right hand side. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page says where it has now been moved to. It does raise another potential issue: it would be illegal to make a mirror of the database in the UK if it includes child pornography. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For all the people that are concerned about censoring things. This [] is why I have agreed with many other editors about some sort of image quality control. I again urge some sort of council or community wide discussion to work on this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While you're about it, you might like to review the video on my User page. Originally, it didn't show the middle frame, but the player software has been upgraded, which is unfortunate. The topic itself is serious. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Feh, Cade Metz is a long-time anti-Wikipedia axe grinder. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the legal side of this, the current article misquotes a previous Register article regarding the Virgin Killer album cover controversy. British ISPs had blocked large swaths of the UK from accessing Wikipedia in that incident.  Wikipedia administrators only reported that the blocking had occurred (the blocks weren't done on Wikipedia's end).  Also the current article fails to mention that the same album cover image was widely available elsewhere on the Internet at Amazon.com, etc., and that the Internet Watch Foundation quickly backed down due to a public outcry.  Durova  412 04:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, did you expect different from El Reg? They're entertaining sometimes, but careful attention to accuracy and detail isn't their stock in trade. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This charge is surprising, because the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ban on "virtual child pornography" as a violation of freedom of speech in 2002. The alternative is to go the Australian route, in which possessing photos of small-breasted women, even though they are known to be in their 20s, is now considered child pornography! Wnt (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One another reminder from WM CZ
Dear Jimbo, I am really sorry to disturb You again, but I have not got any mail from You, although You had promised writing a week ago, and my another reminder was archived without answer. Please confirm at least whether we should or should not count on Your help. Thank You. With regards, on behalf of Wikimedia Czech Republic, Okino (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't Jimbo say he was out for a couple of weeks on a course? I think he has limited internet access for a few days. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He has had plenty of internet access in the week since he said he would respond to this request, evidenced by the fact that he used 6 out of the intervening 10 days to make edits to this page. If you look at the link Okino has posted, you will see that on the 4th Wales was already apologising for his tardy response, and promising to rectify the situation the following day, a promise which he has failed to honour. Weakopedia (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I should get to it" looks more aspirational than a promise. Perhaps your request needs more careful consideration than his other responses - you could take this as a compliment. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the fault was mine - I filed it in my TODO list on the wrong date. In any event, it was taken care of earlier this week and all is well. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Afghan maps
Answered (some indications) there: Yug (talk)  04:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * commons:Commons_talk:Map_resources

Any Advice on serving on a panel
Mr. Wales,

We have not had any significant interaction, but I am one of your more diligent non-admin grunts running around doing stuff. Apparently, I have now grunted enough to be a suitable panelist/speaker. It seems my participation in the Meetup/Chicago 3.1 may become a statement of what the "Broadband Moment" means for Chicago wikipedians. I was just wondering if you have any advice about speaking about being a wikipedian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack coatrack we discussed
I noticed while you recognized that the Carrie Prejean attack page was a coatrack, you didn't accept straight off that it was an attack page. The "encyclopedia article" was created when Miss Prejean, then 21, said that marriage was a man-woman thing. I quote the gay/ same-sex marriage advocate mob editors: Per BLP, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." -- Rico  18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today."
 * "Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto."


 * It isn't helpful to insult people by calling them a 'mob'.
 * As to the content issue, I don't know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on whether this is a BLP1E situation, but I will say that there is at least very good reason to consider it, and my initial inclination would be to agree with you. As it currently stands, I re-iterate my opinion from before: the article is a fiasco and embarrassment. I'm dealing with several different issues at once these days, and so I'm not going to have time to personally get involved in this one, but I do hope I will be kept informed over time as to how it progresses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Rico, since I am the first quote above, I will note that I not a mob member. Even mice don't scurry from me. I followed the Prejean "controversy" closely at first and have cleaned up vandal edits on wikipedia to her article (as I have also done to James O'Keefe more recently). I also know that state pageant winners often do not get to have articles on wikipedia because they get deleted (not by me, but I'm more of an inclusionist if articles are verifiable). There is no question that Prejean's notability stems from her answer given in the pageant and Perez's subsequent baiting to increase the controversy. Since then she has had a very rocky road, and the article necessarily reflects what has been reported, and we need to avoid being too gratuitous--Jimbo's comment is not surprising because unless you've followed the controversy closely, you would be surprised to know the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative. But she's way too famous now not to have an article, imho. Its always fair to debate whether and how certain things should be worded, but those who may not agree with you aren't necessarily some cabal of gay marriage aficianados.--Milowent (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Milowent, I did look into this a couple of weeks ago when it was first brought to my attention, and I think the article is quite unfair as it stands. (And I agree with you that turning this into a "pro gay marriage cabal" argument is not likely to be useful.)
 * I think the things that disturbs me most right now is the close of the article - the article closes with an obvious enemy of hers (remember, she sued them for terminating her contract) calling her a liar, delusional, etc. The "hook" for that quote is that she apparently performed quite poorly on Larry King, storming off the set or whatever - is that incident actually worth including in the article? (Maybe it is, I'm just raising the question.) Surely she's done dozens of other interviews that went perfectly well - but we don't talk about those, we only talk about her failed interview with King.
 * What do you think of the BLP1E question? It does seem pretty much right that she wouldn't have an article had Perez Hilton not behaved as he did. (Seriously, I think were it not for his behavior, no one in the press would have even noted her answer - it is, as many have noted - not a completely outrageous answer even if you don't agree with it... it's the same answer that is fairly standard for a lot of people. Had she said "I think gay people should burn in hell" then that would have likely been notable in and of itself. But this only became notable because of something that someone else did.) Even the subsequent lawsuit might not have generated any particular notice - people sue people all the time, it's not that big a deal in most cases.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is just a BLP1E, but the article desperately needs to be rewritten. I edited it for awhile, but got fed up with partisans on either side of the issue and took it off my watchlist. Starting with the Miss USA 2009 controversy pretty much gets undue weight. I'm going to take a crack at it and see if I can get rid of some of the bias. AniMate  19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you got rid of some of the bias.
 * However, you masked the coatrack by:
 * (A) Spliting sections for when Miss Prejean said marriage was between a man and a woman, and what happened as a consequence, into two separate sections.
 * (B) You added another section for the book she wrote, even though it's abundantly clear that her book's about what happened to her.
 * (C) You added the unencyclopedic fact that she got engaged to a football player.
 * The addition of her engagement and book, disguised her lack of notability.
 * The addition of multiple unrelated non-notable accomplishments took the focus away from the event that was the true purpose for creating the coatrack article.
 * Also, the way I remember it, you left because TharsHammar -- who had been fighting for casting Miss Prejean in a bad light (using a leaked email of hers, in violation of BLP's Presumption in favor of privacy) -- called you an "edit warrior" -- Rico  05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit, that never was -- because it was withdrawn -- is in the article for two reasons:
 * (1) One of the causes of action was that the Miss California USA co-directors (both gay rights activists), said that Miss Prejean had had a boob job. She sued alleging disclosure of private facts. Without the lawsuit, that wasn't, it's hard to claim it's worthy of inclusion that a model and beauty pageant contestant had had a breast implant.
 * (2) TMZ, a decidedly unreliable source, published that the reason Prejean withdrew her lawsuit, was that there had been a "sex tape" that the defendants would make public if she continued with the suit. Without the lawsuit, that wasn't, they can't put it into the article that there was this "sex tape" that an anonymous person said existed.
 * All titillating claims about Miss Prejean's life, and everything derogatory, must be included in this sensationalistic attack page. The possibility of harm to Prejean has always been considered and, when that possibility has existed, the content has been included in the tabloid encyclopedia article. -- Rico  04:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Milowent wrote, "the article necessarily reflects what has been reported [...] the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative."
 * I have to disagree that:
 * (1) It is "necessary" that a Wikipedia article "reflects what has been reported."
 * (2) A biography of a living person should "necessarily reflect" an "exceedingly negative" "overall tenor" of coverage.
 * (1) BLP1E states, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."
 * (2) BLP Criticism and praise states, "Criticism [...] needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. [...] Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view," and there are a lot of motivated someones, give up. Wikipedia policies will prove to be not worth the media they're stored on.
 * This "encyclopedia article" has always been a smear file, and content was cherrypicked to use Wikipedia to establish that this college student was a s__t.
 * It has always been an attack page, a repository for all the dirt that was drudged up against her in gay/liberal media attacks, and it always will be.
 * What one editor wrote about one section applies to the entire attack page, and to Wikipedia: "I am not a fan of rightist 'Christian' Ms Carrie Prejean - I am rather quite the opposite," but the section/article "is all through biased and considers only Anti-Prejean statements, what makes this article sad and also make sometimes the state of wikipedia sad." -- Rico  03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it was that you wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot," or that you put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes," or that you substituted polling for a discussion -- voting that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch."
 * You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but you can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that. Then an admin comes along and declares, "Consensus seems to favor inclusion", and restores the disputed content -- even though HARM states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Biographies of living persons states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."
 * You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article." Luitgard thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat[ing] a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article."
 * So please excuse me if I assumed you were just another one of the dozens of editors and admins that have not been editing to create an encyclopedia article, but to create an attack coatrack of a living person.
 * And Milowent, I struck out the word mob before you wrote this. -- Rico  05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If she's "she's way too famous now not to have an article," why doesn't Encyclopedia Britannica have one? -- Rico  04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I wrote "mob", I only meant an overwhelming number of people -- that mobs you, with mobocracy (or "mob rule"). I wasn't thinking about an angry mob that goes after someone with pitchforks and torches, even though they have come after us many times -- with SLAPP suit-style abuses of process, Star Chamber activity and WP:Harassment -- with the predictable chilling effects. Lumping the two editors I quoted, above, into that group was a mistake -- and not essential to my point.


 * I have already objectively proven the interest in homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage of the editors that wanted an attack page, here (skip down to the bullet points). It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival at the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack, that they were editing the article because Miss Prejean had stated that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. It's hard to apologize for stating the obvious, especially after I've proven it, but lumping individuals into this group may have been painting with overly broad strokes, and it was unnecessary. For that, I'm sorry.


 * Since Dictionary.com recognizes that one definition of a mob, is simply "any group or collection of persons or things," I hope we can focus on the (now masked) attack coatrack. -- Rico  04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo- I personally think the Larry King coverage is too much (ETA: and i said so at the time, Talk:Carrie_Prejean/Archive_2), though it was covered widely at the time. What you can see is that the California pageant people were really vicious in this public drama - it would likely be fairer to say both sides made contentious public statements about other side. The lawsuit also didn't get major coverage until the sex tape claim came out. As for the BLP1E issue, I can't imagine consensus would favor her deletion, and we can't ignore the massive coverage she has received. Its a "famous for being famous" dilemma, and we are reflecting what the media has made notable. Thus, for John Edwards we have a massive John Edwards extramarital affair article.--Milowent (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is becoming more and more of a problem that probably deserves some sort of RfC or other centralized discussion. Articles that should fail by BLP1E standards get legions of supporters at their AfDs because they cite "the massive coverage" out there. With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the tabloidish/sensationalist nature of even major media outlets these days, IMO the threshold for being "in the news" is far, far, far lower now than it was even 3-4 years ago. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed much of the contentious material. Like Milowent, there was far too much on the Larry King interview. People give weird interviews all the time, so I removed it. I also condensed everything about the post-Miss USA into a couple of paragraphs. I think the worst part of the article was a sly attempt to say that Prejean could have been convicted for distributing child pornography for her tape if she was underage when it was taken. She wasn't, but the statement was still in there with multiple sources. AniMate  19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If Miss Prejean's masked coatrack were listed at AfD based on BLP1E, many supporters would vote to keep it, simply because they want the attack coatrack.
 * Listing the encyclopedia article for deletion has already discussed, among anti-Prejean editors, and they concluded that "Prejean is basically non-notable," but that "'Non-notable and stuck with it' pretty well covers it."
 * Per Notability is not temporary, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E) [...] when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable; [...] where time allows a more dispassionate appraisal of enduring noteworthiness."
 * Attack coatrack supporters would not be able to truthfully argue that Miss Prejean was notable for anything more than for what happened to her when she said she believed marriage was between a man and a woman.
 * Miss Prejean was a low profile person, and is again.
 * Heterosexuals (most people) barely noticed that Miss California USA, not to be confused with Miss California, said that marriage is a man-woman thing. Lots of people have.
 * Anybody can set up an alert and have anything that's written about Carrie Prejean, anywhere on the Internet, emailed to them or made part of a news feed -- and then put anything that makes her look bad into the 'encyclopedia' article, and then claim "massive coverage."
 * I get Google News hits for "stuff nobody cares about." Over time, I'm sure I could make a whole article about it and claim "massive coverage." -- Rico  06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the lawsuit (that wasn't) got major coverage, why can't I find it -- or anything else about Carrie Prejean -- in the newspapers that Wikipedia considers reliable?
 * Are there any peer-reviewed textbooks, published by university presses, when I can find the "massive coverage"?
 * I don't know what "famous for being famous" means, and while y'all have been "reflecting" what y'all have found in The Huffington Post and Gaslamp Ball, I'm not sure that 109 newspapers makes one notable -- perhaps the event, but there is already another article for that. -- Rico  02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're actually trying to claim that Carrie Prejean and the controversy was not covered in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Takes guts to do that, man. Let's see...first, you apparently have no Google-fu -- try the Google archive search, such as -- besides, searching the newspaper archives directly gives better results, such as, , , for instance. Second, there is still a perfectly good talk page for the article, why aren't you there? Third, if you want the article deleted, wouldn't WP:AFD be a much easier path? Think about it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from an editor that argues for slagging, arguing that Miss Prejean's notability is for the same reason I've been saying, but who suggests merging the Miss USA 2009 controversy article into her BLP:
 * "This conflict is key to her being who see is, to the degree that she's a person of more note than, say, Raquel Beezley. Now if you want to argue that the controversy should not be a separate article, and should be merged into this one, I'd think that's something worth considering."
 * I don't think there's a need for two articles. If Carrie Prejean was notable at all, it was for the Miss USA 2009 controversy. -- Rico  05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another quote:
 * "Prejean's answer to the Hilton's question is most of why she is well known today. [...] And finally, this is a quote about her answer which is certainly one step removed from Prejean herself."
 * Indeed. Delete everything from the pseudo-biography that isn't "material relevant to their notability," and the only thing left is the Miss USA 2009 controversy. -- Rico  07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions, that were just between anti Carrie Prejean editors, took the form of: 'how can we include this new slag in the article.' Justifications ranged from simple opinions to a predilection for disparagement (veiled, of course, in standard Wikipedia fashion and shrouded in Wikipedia-speak) -- but the direction was always the same (tarnish Miss Prejean's reputation).

When people like me tried to suggest following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, throngs of Most Interested Persons swamped us with arguments that were often ridiculously unpersuasive. Arguing with people that had no interest in building consensus was like trying to reverse the direction of a swarm of locusts with one's bare hands.

Naturally, we gave up, withdrew, and left the attack coatrack of a living person to those that were running Google News searches for "Carrie Prejean," and copying whatever dirt was published by yellow journalists into her BLP. InaMaka wrote, "You got your way. You and your associates jammed completely inappropriate comments into the article which violate NPOV and BLP." Caden wrote, "I see no point. That hateful mob owns and controls that attack page. Personally, I feel the article should be deleted."

Baseball Bugs, who didn't hide disdain for Miss Prejean, brought up deleting the attack coatrack.

AniMate, who once wrote, "I don't think anyone would confuse me with a Prejean fan," was the principal opponent.

Frederick Douglass stated, "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

I suspect that the limits of what people will submit to, will be the exact amount of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon this "encyclopedia article." And the endurance of editors that want Wikipedia's policies and guidelines complied with, will again prove to be far short of what would be necessary.

What's happened now, is that AniMate -- and who has " DOWN WITH H8TE! ," in a big box at the top of his/her user page, with H8TE pointing to California Proposition 8 (2008) -- has deleted some of the most egregious content and added that she's engaged to marry a football player, and that she wrote a book. AniMate also split her answer on gay marriage and the resulting fallout, into two sections, and the article looks less like a coatrack now.

But Miss Prejean's not notable for having gotten engaged to a football player, nor for having written a book. Lots of people write books these days, that don't sell. It would not make sense to report on the fallout, without putting why it occurred. Lots of women get engaged to football players. The BLP1E's still primarily about Miss Prejean's answer and the resulting fallout, and there is another article for that, entitled, "Miss USA 2009 controversy," classified as "within the scope of ... WikiProject LGBT studies." -- Rico  21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rico, "people like you" aren't the only ones who follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I dare say that most of, if not all, of the main principals in this discussion follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and endeavor to edit according to those precepts. The problem is that part of the difference is in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The discussion at the talk page should be a discussion of the differing interpretations and how article proposals fit with one or the other, and attempts to persuade editors and gain consensus. Unfortunately, what the discussion is and what it should be are two different things -- far too often at the talk page, the "discussion" was nothing but repetitions of "That's censorship!", "Hilton's evil!", "Prejean's evil!", "You're all pro/anti gay marriage, why should I listen to you?", and repeated postings of quotes from policy pages with any arguments, even pathetic ones, at all. (Heck, to a large extent, many talk pages look like that.) (And, yeah, I've been guilty of that too.) Can we, at least, please discuss the ARTICLE rather than the EDITORS? Maybe the paras in the Prejean article dealing with the controversy can be shortened given the existence of the "Controversy" article - but can we talk about it over on the talk page, instead of at ANI, the BLP noticeboard, and Jimbo's talk page? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm still trying to figure out how this is a BLP1E and what exactly Jimbo is supposed to do about it. Is the one event winning Miss California USA? Is it the controversial answer she gave in the Miss USA pageant? Is it the fact that she is one of the few women in the Miss USA organization that had the title taken away? Is it the book she wrote for Regnery Publishing that was endorsed by a number of high profile conservative commentators? So confusing. Even more confusing is why Rico has chosen to complain about this here. Is Jimbo supposed to use his special "Jimbo powers" to make the article disappear? If it is such an obvious BLP1E coatrack attack article, why not just nominate it for deletion? It's also quite confusing that Rico has now declared me not-neutral enough to edit the article because I have a banner showing my disdain for Prop 8, when in a post he linked to above, it shows him quoting me in support of his position. AniMate  05:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why complain here???? Are you serious??? Rico's attempts to improve the article have been consistently removed and deleted. My attempts to improve the article have been removed and deleted. It is wrong for you to even question why he came here. Is there a Wikipedian rule that I am not aware of that states that no one should go to Jimbo's talk page with an important issue unless AniMate or ArgleBargleIV decide it is ok?? No there isn't. Arglebargle states above to to discuss the article and not the editors but you and bargle seem to think is it ok to discuss Rico. That is hypocritical. I have made a consistent argument from day one that as editors of Wikipedia we could get across Hilton's clear hatred of Prejean without having to quote him word for word, thus not repeating his hate speech of the phrase "db". I have stated over and over again on the talk page that if some blogger had called Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton a "db" there is NO way that any Wikipedian editor would have allowed that to be repeated in the article. NOR should we stoop to the level of childish comments such as Hilton's. I have not reviewed the edit history so at this time I don't know if you (AniMate) or Bargle were editors who kept quoting the highly offensive and unnecessary "db" comment of Hilton, but I do know that I was repeatedly overturned each and every time I attempted to remove the exact wording but keep the general gist of Hilton's rant. Not only were my edits reverted immediately I had to read over and over again that my attempt were nothing by "censorship" which is also flat out wrong. I will complain here about that article because it is nothing more than a hit piece on a living person. It is joke now, but it was a worse joke when the "db" wording could not be removed. I believe that the ONLY reason that the "db" wording has not reappear BECAUSE Rico and I are still right here at Jimbo's talk page. As soon as this talk page discussion gets archived I believe the editors who feel the need to repeat Hilton's hatred will return and bring the article back to it POV and BLP violating state. And one last thing, I will bring whatever reasonable discussion of an article to Jimbo's page and I will NOT ask either AniMate or Bargle for permission because I do not have to have it.--InaMaka (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since this is continuing here, I will respond here. Warning, a tl/dr block of text is ahead.
 * First, I prefer "Argle", if you don't mind. :-) (Although if you look in the history of my talk page for reverted revisions, I'm sure you'll find something both more "creative" and more worthy of Mr. Hilton.)
 * Second, neither Animate nor I have been talking about "rules". You, Rico, Animate, anybody have a perfect right to come to Talk:Jimbo Wales and present your case (unless Jimbo kicks us all off of here) -- and nowhere did I say you couldn't. NOWHERE. You don't have to ask me for permission for anything, and I wouldn't dream of either giving or denying permission. I just wonder why you're here instead of taking policy- and guideline-suggested actions such as a [WP:RFC|starting a Request for Comment]] or nominating the article for deletion. I don't know how you jumped from my questioning Rico's reasons to half of your rant above. It's far too common these days to assume immunity from questioning or criticism -- sorry, but freedom of speech (even Wikipedia's version) doesn't guarantee that. Reasonable responses to suggestions or questions as to why are usually of the forms "Here's why or why not" or "That's ridiculous", not "You're not MY boss!"
 * Third, earlier here, I presented some examples of suboptimal and disagreeable behavior, with the intent that I've seen it on BOTH sides of this debate, including in myself, but not specifying any editor in particular. My only specific discussion towards Rico was to ask him why. I haven't said anything about his editing style or his Wikipedia habits, nor have I accused him of trying to censor and shut down a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. BTW, when an editor throws around accusations of cabal-like behavior, shouldn't he or she be called on it? If you're going to call responding to personal attacks a personal attack in itself, you're effectively arguing for disarmament.
 * Fourth, I'm not going to discuss the "db" comment here -- there's a perfectly good, if underused, place for discussion already, except to note that I have moved to the position that the "db" quote probably doesn't need to be quoted.
 * If you and Rico are constantly being reverted, maybe it's because you don't have consensus for your edits? If you believe that there is a policy violation occurring that trumps consensus, there are roads to take that are likely to be more fruitful and more likely to give you the results you want than coming here -- although, as I said before, what you do is up to you, because I don't and won't give orders. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * InaMaka and I (and others) are usually reverted because we've been vastly outnumbered, and editors and admins -- who have used the attack coatrack just to collect aspersions cast on Miss Prejean -- have always known it.
 * I stated that tendentious editing, tag teaming and edit warring were the norm last spring. This has not changed, and some editors have been quick to substitute polling for consensus, and take advantage of this -- in violation of WP:NOT -- but consensus is not numbers. We've never been able to come to a "consensus" on anything. -- Rico  16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reason that the "dumb bitch" wording has not reappeared is that we are here on Jimbo's talk page. After this talk page discussion gets archived, the editors who simply see the article as a place to cast aspersions on Miss Prejean will return the pseudo-biography to its POV and BLP violating state.
 * The fact that this attack coatrack has been the first hit Google's search engine has always returned, is a black eye on Wikipedia's reputation, and an embarrassment.
 * What we have gone through, before and after having given up, is a testament to the mobocracy dynamic that dominates Wikipedia.
 * There is a big difference between the theory of Wikipedia, as expressed in its policies, guidelines and major essays, and the reality of Wikipedia, which is that POV warring is in great abundance throughout Wikipedia, and that the side with the most Most Interested Persons wins. -- Rico  07:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If Miss Prejean was notable for anything, it was for the way she was vilified by the liberal media, as a reaction to her answer to the question about what she thought about gay marriage. There is a content fork that has all that in it. Her BLP is also primarily about that -- with a few non-notable, trivial details that mask the coatrack. For example:
 * AniMate added that she wrote a book. We don't know how many copies she sold. She is not notable for having written a book. I wrote a book, and Wikipedia doesn't have a BLP about me. (The publisher is the source cited.)
 * Someone added that she got engaged, but she has not set a date. I tried to delete this trivia, but AniMate reverted my deletion 18 minutes later, stating that it was "verified". (This was the 'reliable' source.)
 * Adding her favorite color will not change the facts.
 * The media vilification has proven to be transient, and former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean is a low profile college student once again.
 * Wikipedia's reputation suffers when it is revealed that an large number of editors, most or all of which edit gay and same sex marriage articles, can use Wikipedia to create a smear file -- just by copying vilification from yellow journalism into a so-called biography of a living person, just because she said marriage was between a man and a woman.
 * This BLP has always been primarily based on nasty, short-lived, little media flurries; most of its editors have had a predilection for disparagement (and just like to copy dirt into the article), and few of these have been restrained by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; and have often sought to use processes to shut more policy-minded editors up, presumably because of their numbers and interest level.
 * By simply copying things from media Internet sites -- even though "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (WP:NOT) -- this BLP has been more like news than an encyclopedia article.
 * For almost a year, when googling "Carrie Prejean," the first hit has been an attack coatrack -- and there are indications that this fact is not lost on the editors. That's a hell of a thing to do to a young college student.
 * It's pretty disgusting to see people's activism amounting to attacking a living person with every derogatory thing that appears in a newspaper somewhere, gossip website or on TV. -- Rico  07:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I never declared you not-neutral enough to edit the article. -- Rico  06:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "most of, if not all, of the main principals in this discussion follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines."
 * I can prove they don't.
 * You, Wikidemon and AniMate are principals in this discussion.
 * Last Thursday, I moved an untrue, disputed, contentious slag to the talk page.
 * Caden agreed with me.
 * You reverted my edit 18 minutes after I made it.
 * I deleted the slag again.
 * Wikidemon restored the slag stating, "no plausible BLP argument [...] no consensus to remove."
 * Caden deleted the slag.
 * Wikidemon restored the slag stating, "please discuss disputed changes on talk page." (Caden had.)
 * InaMaka deleted the slag.
 * Tarc restored the slag.
 * I made another plausible BLP argument, disproving Wikidemon's contention that "there's no plausible BLP argument here."
 * WP:HARM states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and BLP policy states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."
 * "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material," yet "main principals in this discussion" did not even attempt to prove "there [was] a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so."
 * (Administrator AniMate, another of the "main principals in this discussion," repeatedly violates this policy.)
 * SlimVirgin protected the page, citing the "edit war," another policy "main principals in this discussion" had not been following, working together to circumvent the three revert rule instead.
 * Edit warring over the inclusion of slags in the pseudo-biography has been the rule, not the exception. -- Rico  06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, since you're spreading your answers all over the place here, I'm just going to respond down here. If you think the article should be deleted, why are you complaining here (and spending more of your time complaining about editors than discussing the article)? Why haven't you tried an AFD on the article? Jimbo isn't likely to wave his magic wand and make it go away on your command. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear ArglebargleIV: Your comments above do not in anyway focus on how to make the Prejean article better. As a matter of fact, all your comments above are just an attempt to dictate to Rico what he actions as an editor should be. That is not helpful. Reading your comments you give the impression that taking an issue to Jimbo is a waste of time. Since you have decided to use this forum as an opportunity to dictate actions to Rico instead of fixing the obviously seriously faulted Prejean article and if it is a waste of time, which I do not believe it is, then why aren't you writing on each and every comment made on Jimbo's site concerning each and every article that is brought to Jimbo for his attention. We both know the answer to that question. You believe the Prejean article to be a mastery of insight and NPOV balance. But you are wrong. The Prejean article has been coatrack for over a year. It is just a place to go to bash Prejean by people who obviously do not agree with her position on gay marriage. It is not a fair article. I agree with all of Rico's comments concerning the article and I have attempted to edit the article myself and there are editors who simply overturned edit after edit moving the article back to its BLP violating state. I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not. Your attempts to question Rico's motives is an example of how badly written the article is. I will comment here and and Rico will comment here and that is just the way that it is going to be. Why don't you focus on improving the article which is what Rico and I have attempted to do. We are attempting to tone down article make it less of a BLP violating coatrack that it is. You comments just seem to designed to shut us up. That doesn't seem to be a very good use of time.--InaMaka (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Bargle: I reviewed the edit history of the Prejean article. An editor named TharsHammar kept placing the "db" quote in the article over and over again and he would state that the removal of the phrase "db" was '"censorship"'. You can see an example of that unhelpful editing here: Example of jamming "db" quote in article. At one point Hilton's use of the words "db" was re-stated four and five times in the article--which is clearly unencyclopedic and unnecessary, not to mention that it violates various goals and requirements of Wikipedia such as NPOV and BLP. You can see in the following edit that the hate-filled phrase of Hilton's "db" quote was in the article several times: Example of four uses of "db" by the anti-Prejean editors. Now, you, Mr. Bargle did believe incorrectly that jamming the "db" quote in the article was absolutely necessary. You can see an example of repeating Hilton's quote by ABargle here: Exmple of where Arglebargle demanded that Wikipedia quote Hilton's hate speech directly, which is clearly a violation of NPOV and BLP. Yes, the editors of the article were dead set on quoting Hilton's hate speech and I will give one more example of the overbearing nature of their desire to see of the phrase "db" in the article. Please review this particular edit by TharsHammar: Another example that we must either quote Hilton's hate speech word for word or be charged with censorship. This is the extent of the debate. It was a my way or the highway type of debate. Once again, there is NO WAY under God's green earth would Wikipedian editors (and admin's at that) allow a low life blogger like Hilton to call Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc. a "db" and then re-quote the low life blogger on Wikipedia. Now, I attempted to make a compromise and move the direct quote of Hilton's hate speech (which of course is completely inappropriate) to a footnote so that the exact wording would remain in article to stop the bogus screams of "censorship" from TharsHammar. Then, Mr. ArgleBargle reverted me and stated that moving the direct quote to the footnote was inappropriate. You can review Mr. ABargle unhelpful reversion of my compromise here: Example of Bargle jamming the hate-filled, inappropriate, NPOV and BLP violating quote back in the Carrie Prejean article. Mr. Bargle is upset that Rico and I are here on Jimbo's talk page commenting in his particular attempts to violate NPOV and BLP policies by jamming Hilton's hate-filled speech into the Carrie Prejean article. Now I see why you are questioning why we are here. You don't want your work to be reviewed by folks you can't push around. You know that if Rico and I just stay on the Carrie Prejean talk page then you can with the assistance of like minded editors and admins jam those NPOV and BLP edits right there into the article without much work. I pointed that ArgleBargle was edit warring here: Example of ABargle and TharsHammar engaging in edit wars. I attempted to put something in the article that was NOT a direct attack on Carrie Prejean and something that was notable. I added information about her guest hosting Fox and Friends and of course that was removed by the anti-Prejean editors. The anti-Prejean editors were NOT going to allow any positive information about Prejean in the article. You can review that unhelpful edit here: Example of anti-Prejean edit willfully removing positive info about Prejean but somehow it was not censorship. I do not believe in censorship so I put the Fox & Friends material back in the article and AniMate--who is upset that Rico and I are commenting here--reverted the Fox & Friends material and removed it, but AniMate did not seem to be worried about censorship issues at that point. You can review AniMate's inappropriate removal of positive, on point, notable information about Carrie Prejean here: Example of AniMate removing positive information about Prejean. The edit history goes on and on. The article needs to be cleaned up. And Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict.--InaMaka (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The way editors and admins, that were simply using the article as an attack page -- included the "dumb bitch" quote five times -- elucidates the goal. Put anything that makes Miss Prejean look bad into the article; keep anything that makes her look good out of it.
 * Dumb bitch Carrie ("Dumb Bitch") Prejean, who is a dumb bitch -- dumb bitch that she is -- is a dumb bitch.
 * Editors and admins prevented inclusion of Miss Prejean's guest hosting of Fox and Friends, but insisted on including the Larry King Live interview (in which King tried to humiliate her).
 * What's more worthy of inclusion -- her having been a guest, or her having been the host?
 * Miss Prejean once posted on the talk page asking, "Please put up my Official Website: www.officialcarrieprejeanwebsite.com". On most articles, this simply would be standard practice. It was put in and then taken out.
 * Sometimes it's not just what's in an article, but also what isn't (what's been kept out of it).
 * Put together, it kind of tells a story. -- Rico  06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this the only place you'll discuss the article? AniMate  08:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I've been discussing it on the article talk page, because you've replied, "I'm just going to ignore [it]." -- Rico  06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This BLP was created primarily to disparage a living person:
 * Sunday Night, April 19: Miss Prejean is asked for her thoughts on gay marriage and she gives them.
 * April 20: Judge #8, the openly gay gossip blogger, contemptuously heaps disdain upon Miss Prejean, presumably to attract attention to himself. The gay/liberal press reports on this 'encyclopedic' fact.
 * April 20 (in the USA): This attack page created, consisting primarily of Miss USA 2009 controversy -- about half of which was attacks from three gay rights activists (and the other half, the question and answer they were reacting to). -- Rico  06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest does not equal dictate.
 * "I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not." Fine, I wouldn't stop you. I don't see what you're getting out of it, but go ahead.
 * Please cite where I questioned Rico's motives. (Note, there is a difference between asking for his motives and questioning his motives (an idiom). I don't care about his motives, I just don't think he's taking actions that will result in what he wants. And I can comment on that, and make suggestions, and you can't tell me not to! Nyah nyah to you! (See how childish that sounds?)
 * I do think taking things to Jimbo, unless they are truly large matters, is a waste of time. This isn't a slight on Jimbo by any means, I just think that he's got better things he'd rather do, and there are paths one could take that are more likely to give results.
 * I don't care about 99.99% of the articles or issues raised on Jimbo's page, nor should I. I'm not trying to clean up his talk page. The only reason I'm here at all (and it is a visit of mine that, without a very good reason, is going to end right after this post), is because an article I was warking on earlier was brought up here, and I wouldn't have known that a discussion has taken place here at all if it had nopt been mentioned at Prejean's talk page. (I hasn't watchlisted Jimbo's page until this came up, and I'm de-watchlisting it shortly.)
 * The Prejean article is not a "mastery of insight and NPOV balance" -- it still desperately needs work -- and I would prefer that you not ascribe such an over-the-top opinion to me. I haven't made any recent non-wikignome changes to it because I was waiting until AniMate finished his slicing and dicing on the article (and until I had an evening free to study it a bit) before possibly making changes. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above in between compiles and test runs -- and yet another block by InaMaka addressed to me has appeared. To respond quickly, I thought back then the quote should be used exactly instead of paraphrased, and although I still don't think the quote is a NPOV or BLP violation, I've come to the conclusion that editorially, it isn't needed. If there was a national furor over a blogger calling Ms. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Bachmann, or Ms. Palin a "db", and I thought that the text of the quote was needed rather than a paraphrase, I would want it included (and, btw, why just include liberals in your rant at me, unless you're trying to insinuate something about my politics?). Furthermore, I am not upset about anything here (nor is there any indication of that), so save the over-the-top rhetoric for somebody else. Hilton's calling Prejean a "db" was distasteful, but to call it "hate speech" diminishes the phrase when needed to describe real hate speech. If you think that you need to put in positive things in and article to make it NPOV (and similarly for those who think that negative things must be added to any article to provide balance and NPOV), then you misunderstand NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean balanced positive/negative -- sometimes there are more positive notable things than negative, and vice versa. Note the word "notable" -- if something isn't sufficently notable, putting it in just for balance is a bad editorial decision and is against NPOV itself.
 * This is important -- please explain what you mean by "Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict."
 * If you have anything further you wish for me to respond to, you can try my talk page or Talk:Carrie Prejean -- unless Jimbo asks me a question directly, I won't be responding further here, and I'm already deeply regretful that I've been here as long as I have.
 * I will agree with you in part though -- I'm coming to see that arguing with you here is a waste of time. Unless something changes, g'bye. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly where you are coming from. On the Carrie Prejean talk page and in the Carrie Prejean edit summary comments it is clear that you have to have the "db" comments quoted word for word. The use of the quote word for word is inappropriate and it violates NPOV and BLP, as I have been stating for about one year. It is also what Rico has been saying. Why is it ok for Rico and I to comment on the Prejean talk page, but not here? The answer is simple. We get over-run over there by editors and admins who believe wrongly that it is ok for Wikipedia to quote word for word from the critics of living people. Hilton's speech is hate speech. It is offensive and as you say "over-the-top." It is NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia. We can simply point out the essence of Hilton's hatred and move on. Wikipedia does NOT have to stoop to the level of a distasteful, hate-filled blogger--who is looking to libel Ms. Prejean. So Hilton hates Prejean. We get it. We don't need to quote him word for word and as I pointed out above and you chose to ignore, the article quoted the phrase, at one point in time, "db" five times. That is the epitome of a coatrack. Now, the anti-Prejean editors, which you were part of at that time, felt the need to railroad the two or three editors that were attempting to enforce the BLP and NPOV rules. It was and has been a horrible article dedicated to bringing up everything negative about Ms. Prejean--rumours, lies, falsehoods and everything else. Wikipedia is supposed to treat living people with intelligence and respect. Simply removing the phrase "db" from the article was NOT censorship and Rico and I have been accused of censorship over and over again by the editors who only seemed intent on looking over for the viewpoint of Hilton. Is Hilton the only person in the world who has an opinion on Carrie Prejean? No. Why do Hilton's comments about Prejean dominate the article? I suggest that you don't understand NPOV. Carrie Prejean is a young woman who is many things and it is insulting and not encyclopedic to argue that the whole life history of Ms. Prejean has to be summed up according to the viewpoint of Hilton. That is like having President Obama's story presented on Wikipedia from the viewpoint of Hugo Chávez or President Bush's story presented from the viewpoint of Osama bin Laden. Hilton obviously do not like Prejean and his comments have dominated the article for about a year and each and every time that Rico or I have attempted to edit the comments to tone them down (I tried the words "derogatory" "prejorative") or move them (I attempted to the exact quote--even though I did not agree upon its use at all--to the footnote section) you and the other anti-Prejean editors reverted us--in a highly argumentative and rude manner I might add. Only now, while we are on Jimbo's talk page are we getting anywhere with a reasonable compromises to tone the language and bring in in compliance with NPOV and BLP--hopefully your newfound desire to compromise will continue long after we leave Jimbo's talk page. However, I did notice that while we were having this discussion there has been an anon editor who has attempted to re-instate the inappropriate "db" language.--InaMaka (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My first reaction was that the biography "destruction of a living person opinion piece," violated NPOV in the extreme.
 * That's why I originally asked "why isn't it in there that Hilton called Carrie Prejean a 'dumb bitch,' or does that expose Hilton for what he is, rather than paint him as a thoughtful person"?
 * I was just asking questioning the bias.
 * Then I wrote, "Undue weight threatens to make Carrie Prejean and controversy -- and all that is negative about this living person -- one and the same." "All that is negative about this living person," presumably includes quoting the openly gay gossip blogger's opinion that "she's a dumb bitch" -- so you could say I've been saying that the use of the quote word for word is inappropriate, and it violates NPOV, since it's part of the undue weight.
 * All along, I've been saying that the "dumb bitch" quote is WP:IINFO -- like all of the quotations of his that are in the BLP.
 * You could say, that -- since BLP states, "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information" -- I've been saying it violates BLP policy.
 * But IINFO is part of What Wikipedia is not policy, and that's what I've been saying.
 * An openly gay gossip blogger -- a self-described, "queen of all media," that doodles the word "HO" on women's photos and draws dicks shooting cum on their faces -- called a former Miss California USA "a bumb bitch." So what?
 * I don't think we've been saying the same thing.
 * We just come to the same conclusion.
 * Judge #8's quotes are also recentism (as is the basis for declaring Miss Prejean notable enough for a Wikipedia article).
 * I see the attack coatrack as part of a bigger problem. If all we do is copy titilating yellow journalism into a BLP -- no matter what our motivations -- then our BLP's are yellow journalism too!
 * Isn't that what's in a tabloid, yellow journalism about people? -- Rico  05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now answer me this.
 * (1) Carrie Prejean was a guest host of Fox and Friends. That was put into the article, but repeatedly deleted.
 * (2) Miss Prejean did an interview with Larry King -- but ended it when King tried to probe into an embarrassing area (that they'd agreed, beforehand, wouldn't be discussed).
 * That's in the article, squished into the masking section of her non-notable book.
 * What is more "notable", to use your word, a very brief interview or being the host?
 * The very brief interview made her look bad; being a guest host made her look good.
 * That's the way it's always been with this attack coatrack.
 * Any trivia that makes her look bad has been added to the article. Anything that's positive, has been deleted.
 * Why is it in the BLP that judge #8 said, "she gave an awful, awful answer"? He was a gay rights activist, so of course he didn't like her answer. Do you think it is notable to conservatives.. Republicans.. heterosexuals.. the mainstream.. that an openly gay gossip blogger -- a self-described, "queen of all media," that doodles the word "HO" on women's photos and draws dicks shooting cum on their faces -- didn't like a beauty pageant contestant's answer? --  Rico  04:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a "truly large matter," that a certain demographic can be attracted -- in disproportionate numbers -- to a coatrack created primarily to disparage a 21-year-old college student, and then put and keep anything in it that makes the living person look bad, while keeping anything out of it that makes her look good.
 * Whenever I've googled "Carrie Prejean," her attack coatrack has always been the first result returned.
 * When I first discovered that this attack page had been created, I knew:
 * (1) A beauty pageant contestant had said that she thought that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, and the judge that had asked her -- what "do you think" -- reviled her (for attention).
 * (2) 'Reliable' source, The Huffington Post reported that the Miss California USA co-directors (both gay marriage advocates), said that Miss Prejean had gotten a boob job.
 * (3) A photo had been leaked of her modeling panties. It was called "risque", or "semi-nude", as if she was less "semi-nude" in the pageant.
 * Seeing that all three attacks were in the tabloid's encyclopedia's titillating, masked BLP1E, I labeled it a "destruction of a living person opinion piece."
 * I had no idea what was going on, but I learned soon afterwards that this was the goal.
 * From there, things went from bad to worse.
 * This makes people think Wikipedia's a joke -- and when people decide an encyclopedia's a joke, that's a "truly large matter" too. -- Rico  05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (unindent) this discussion seems to reflect a content dispute, and the statements, frankly, have gotten rather ridiculous. First of all, there isn't any reasonable dispute as to Prejean's notability. Even without the scandal she's notable for her beauty pageant award. But she's more notable for a series of enduring public scandals. Next, for a gossip blogger to call someone a "dumb bitch" is not hate speech as such, but it is crude, misogynistic, and arguably sexist. It isn't POV to report that Perez Hilton said it because Wikipedia is not endorsing the epithet. He had every reason to be upset at Prejean, and as subsequent events unfolded, Prejean turned out to be a problematic figure whose notability is largely related to her embarrassing public deeds - outlandish proclamations, becoming a spokesperson for intolerant groups, threatened lawsuits, claiming things that were clearly untrue, and so on. To call it "libel" to repeat this stuff is nonsense. If Wikipedia is going to report on what happened, this is what happened. Indeed, Wikipedia is not censored, so reporting that he called her a db is the way to do it, not beating around the bush to say he used an epithet. However, Hilton's outburst isn't terribly relevant or noteworthy with respect to Prejean's biography, so the problem (you can call it a BLP issue if you want) isn't the wording, but rather including this in the first place. Anyway, that is all a content issue, something well within the community's ability to deal with. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. That is simply not true. The article grew and grew with every piece of negative information that could be found by the anti-Prejean editors--to the point that "db" was quoted five times, anti-Prejean editors were calling Prejean a "child pornographer", etc. Dear Wikidemon: please do not re-write history. There was a point where the "db" wording was inserted into the article in FIVE different places. If you want to ignore that fact that is your choice but it does represent the situation accurately. There was one editor that wanted call her a "child pornographer". Also, once again, I will repeat that the biographies of living people ("BLP") need to be treated in a manner that Wikipedia is not libeling a living person and placing Wikipedia at legal risk. The anti-Prejean editors did not take BLP into consideration when they jammed the phrase "db" in the article in FIVE different places. Oh, by the way, "db" phrase is hate speech whether you want to acknowledge it or not. (What do you call it? "Love Speech"? Of course not.) There is no way that Wikipedia editors would repeat the comments of a blogger that called Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, Angelina Jolie, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Atwood, Angela Merkel, or Jane Goodall (and the list is endless) a "db". Basically, your argument is that since Ms. Prejean is not a woman of substance equal to the women mentioned above then Wikipedia editors can write an encyclopedia article about her that uses the "db" phrase five times because, well, Hilton said it. Basically you are arguing that since Prejean has engaged in less than admirable behaviour you and the other anti-Prejean editors can just pile on the article as many quotes from Hilton (someone who hates Prejean) and you can repeat the "db" phrase as many times as you want because it happened. Once again, it is unfair to write a biography about one person (Prejean) that is dominated by opinion of someone (Hilton) who obviously hates that person. A Wikipedia article that is used to repeat negative information about one person is called a coatrack and if that person is living then by definition it violates BLP. Let's say that there is 400 anti-Prejean editors and there are only two editors (myself and Rico) that are focused on the BLP issue. No, let's say that there are 4,000, no, 40,000 anti-Prejean editors working on the article and there is just one editor focused on BLP. Your argument is that the sheer number of editors wanting to jam the article with the "db" phrase and long repeats of Hilton's rant makes it perfectly fine to ignore BLP because so many editors want to quote Hilton and his hate speech extensively. Dear Wikidemon: I believe that Alexis de Tocqueville outlined a this delicate balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority in free society many, many years ago. To quote the Wikipedia Tocqueville article: Tocqueville wrote of "Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans" by saying "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom" in Volumes One, Part I, Chapter 3. He further comments on equality by saying "Furthermore, when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power. As none of them is strong enough to fight alone with advantage, the only guarantee of liberty is for everyone to combine forces. But such a combination is not always in evidence." . To sum up, just because a large number of Wikipedia editors, and it does not matter if that large number is three or 300,000, want to jam a biography of a living person with negative, libelous material does not trump the rules of BLP.--InaMaka (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite an outburst. It's unhelpful to look at things in terms of "pro-" and "anti-" editors, and your eagerness to assign me to a category suggests you've become far too close to the situation. You're throwing around accusations of libel and BLP violations without backing it up, and also putting lots of words in other people's mouths - basically caricaturing other people's statements in order to criticize them. Let's stick to article content (which should be discussed on the article talk page). If there are behavioral issues there are forums for that too, but either way here on Jimbo's talk page? Are we expecting Jimbo to jump in to arbiter the Prejean article as an exception to normal process? This is just a run-of-the-mill article about a minor public figure who got herself in trouble by her actions, it happens all the time. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "she's notable for her beauty pageant award." She was a Miss California USA -- not to be confused with Miss California (part of the Miss America pageant, the more notable one).
 * As Baseball bugs pointed out, this is "a case for her being even less notable."
 * There is no BLP for the current Miss California USA; TLC just dropped the Miss America pageant, which has had difficulty finding both an audience and a network home; and the Miss USA pageant's ratings and prestige have plummeted significantly over the past several years.
 * Quite a few posters have suggested that Miss Prejean's not very notable:
 * Milowent wrote, "Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today."
 * NatGertler wrote, "Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto."
 * Baseball bugs asked, "now that she's no longer Miss California, is she still notable" -- "suggesting [the BLP] is now a candidate for deletion" -- and wrote, "It was argued that she merited an article because she's Miss California. She's not Miss California anymore. Hence, she doesn't merit an article." Bugs wrote that "[a (wrongly stated) policy] assumes she was notable in the first place, which is questionable" -- but conceded that "the votes are already stacked," so "'Non-notable and stuck with it' pretty well covers it."
 * Exploding Boy wrote, "I agree that Prejean is basically non-notable," and argued we should make the attack coatrack "as streamlined and non-breathlessly adoring as possible."
 * Mattnad wrote, "Prejean's answer to the Hilton's question is most of why she is well known today [...] this is a quote about her answer which is certainly one step removed from Prejean herself."
 * NatGertler wrote, "This conflict is key to her being who see is, to the degree that she's a person of more note than, say, Raquel Beezley. Now if you want to argue that the controversy should not be a separate article, and should be merged into this one, I'd think that's something worth considering."
 * I've stated that, if Miss Prejean was notable for anything, it was for the way she was attacked for giving her thoughts (when asked for them).
 * InaMaka quoted BLP policy's, "Subjects who are borderline notable" subsection.
 * Wikidemon, what if we're both wrong, and Carrie Prejean continues to be notable -- but is "borderline notable."
 * That subsection states, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care."
 * If we "include only material relevant to their notability" -- deleting her non-notable book, her engagement to a football player (for which no date has been set), etc. -- the only thing left is the Miss USA 2009 controversy, and we already have an article about that.
 * And we have a masked coatrack, that was created to disparage its subject. -- Rico  05:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting Tocqueville in defense of Carrie Prejean? Wow. Yes this article grew as every piece of negative information came out about Prejean, because almost everything that came out was negative. It was a bloodbath outside Wikipedia. Some editors exercised less restraint that I would have preferred.--Milowent (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Milowent. You unwittingly made my point above. Basically, your point is "how dare you quote Tocqueville to defend a living person of Prejean low status. Don't you know that she is a peasant? We can treat peasant however we want, BLP can be ignored."--InaMaka (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wittingly made my comment, and it was that quoting Tocqueville isn't going to persuade wikipedia editors about anything, but that your passion is evident from it.--Milowent (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a proposal on the talk page Talk:Carrie Prejean to shorten the lead of the article, which I'd ask people to weigh in on. Its typical in cases like this that the lead grows too long as events occur, and can be made shorter once the events are passed and the prime notable facts become discernable.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the Carrie Prejean article is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page
Many a editor that wants quote Prez Hilton's hate speech directly in the Carrie Prejean article believes it is ok to repeat Hilton's hate speech toward Prejean. They do not see the violation of BLP or NPOV or the dictate that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Now, Rico brought the discussion over here because there was five different direct quotes of the hate speech for about a year. A group of editors refused to edit out the offensive, unnecessary quote. As a matter of fact the editors not only wanted to keep the five redundant quotes but wanted to add claims of child porn, etc.--even larger violations of NPOV and BLP. However, since Rico brought the discuss here the editors (which includes admins I might add) they have been cooperative in their discussion. However, today the madness has started again. An Admin named Nat Gertler has decided that he does not like me expressing my opinion that Hilton's comments amount to hate speech and he has decided to edit out my comments from the talk page. Now, this behaviour is amazing in that Gertler believes that Wikipedia MUST quote every hate-filled comment of Hilton but calling it hate is terribly unacceptable. Now, keep in mind that Hilton calls Prejean a "db" over one hundred times on his own page. Hilton is not embarrassed by his comments, but Admin NatGertler believes that I, as a Wikipedia editor, do not have a right to call Hilton's speech hate-filled--even though that is exactly what it is. Is it "love speech"? Of course not. You can review Admin Nat Gertler's attempt to shut me up here: Example of Admin Nat Gertler abusing his powers as an admin. It is truly the best argument for why the discussion is here in Jimbo's talk page. This type of bullying tactic has been prevalent for over a year.--InaMaka (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but that accusation is false on several levels: I am not an admin, I was not using the powers of an admin, and I was not abusing that power or any power, but rather following Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. You may think that the term you used just means someone saying something about someone they hate, but it has specific meaning particularly under the law. As for "Gertler believes that Wikipedia MUST quote every hate-filled comment of Hilton", no, that's something you made up. I beleive we should quote the specific two-word phrase that generated a lot of the response, because it's clear and well-sourced and gives context to explaining the strength of the response, which aided giving Ms. Prejean her visibility, and it is no longer than the vaguer descriptions of the insult that people have been replacing it with. But apparently, having this believe in clarity and precision makes me to blame for every other edit that you didn't like ever put on that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize I misread your profile page. I was wrong. You are not an admin, HOWEVER you did remove valid, reliable sourced information. The famous columnist Liz Smith has called Hilton's rant against Prejean "hate speech" and I have been calling it that for over one year. --InaMaka (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is columnist Liz Smith a legal expert? Otherwise, by the logic that some famous columnist made an accusation therefore we should treat it as true, we'd be using the "db" term to describe Prejean without attributing it. I have raised the issue over at WP:BLPN, which is probably the best place to raise your concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. It does not matter if Liz Smith is a legal expert or not. Also, this is the absolutely best place to raise these concerns. Once again, I will state again the basic rules of Wikipedia and I quote Wikipedia's BLP policy directly below:
 * Subjects who are borderline notable

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.
 * Clearly Wikipedia makes it clear that we must use caution when Wikipedia repeats material that is defamatory. Hilton's comments are hate speech and we must use caution in repeating them.--InaMaka (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should also feel the need for caution before censoring and misrepresenting a topic. If Wikipedia or its contributors are sued for repeating allegations in reliable media sources, it may be distressing but it would not be embarrassing. Even the people of the UK are slowly making progress in repealing unjust libel laws.
 * But consider an article like the recently featured Insane Clown Posse, which scrupulously keeps mention of Juggalos to a minimum; with even the sub-article giving only a brief mention that police gang units all over the country have been describing "Juggalo gangs". I actually suspect the censored version is right on the topic, because face painting is probably just rather convenient for criminals - but we shouldn't be choosing the "right" side, we should be presenting both sides. The point is: what are we going to do when a grieving mother and her fancy lawyer show up, and she points at the Wikipedia page and says, "Johnnie showed me this and said there was nothing to worry about, so I let him go... ...and that was the last time I saw him alive." I understand of course that all disclaimers apply, but if there is a deliberate and systematic effort throughout the organization to suppress all mention of unflattering media reports about people, Wikipedia will have neither moral nor legal ground to stand on. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with virtually everything you said here. You are wrong about the meaning of 'censorship', you are wrong about the law, and you are wrong about our ethical obligations. We have a very strong need for a sense of responsibility about biographies, and this includes being extremely careful about repeating irresponsible allegations uncritically, and in cases like this one, pretending to ourselves that a random smattering of negative media reports gives us sufficient information to be able to write a proper and ethically responsible biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to advocate straight reporting of the sources available to us, but apparently the consensus really is against me. On Sarah Palin there will be no discussion of the idea that a mayor can be responsible for the rape kit policy of her appointed official. On Johnny Weir the GLBT WikiProject will not be allowed to place their tag because it is "negative", despite an RFC that apparently supported it. A user who did nothing more than things like highlight which parts of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service record form were faked for uploads to Wikicommons will remain topic-banned for life. So suppose I surrender. It is our responsibility to do the original research of comparing the sources and second-guessing which are true and which aren't and discard all but the ones that make sense to us.
 * In that case, let's at least not be bigoted or politically biased about it. It's time to fix the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and take out all of the unconfirmed allegations that make it sound like the living persons of the 27th Army conducted a mass murder. The various guesstimates from 6,000 to 10,000 dead by foreign intelligence agencies and commentators who say "no one really knows", out. The 2600 from the unidentified Chinese Red Cross official later denied by the agency - out. The Amnesty International figure of thousands then hundreds - out. Any such sources are unsubstantiated allegations we shouldn't be repeating. The only figure that matters is the 241 dead including soldiers, according to the Chinese government, the only source we should be citing. All others should be deleted, and 3RR does not apply.
 * And the Chinese deserve your apology, for trying to demand that they tolerate a level of free speech you would never try to uphold at home. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Open an RFC if necessary
Quite simply, this is not the right forum for this discussion. Please move it somewhere more... appropriate. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, you don't like what is being discussed and you want to move the discussion, to control the debate. Free debate is a good thing and it will continue. Take care.--InaMaka (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not exactly. You can discuss this on an RFC, just don't spam Jimbo's talk page because of this discussion. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Spamming is exactly what's happening here. In lieu of actual conversations or dispute resolution, RicoCorinth is coming to this talk page and leaving a message per day so this isn't archived. It would almost be funny, if the messages weren't full of bad faith accusations against editors who disagreed with him. AniMate  17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please shut this down? The tone of this discussion is becoming somewhat offensive, homophobia-wise.  Reliable sources are reliable sources.  Although there may be a reasonable debate to be had about the extent to which Wikipedia should cover events of a tabloid nature, if someone wants to propound theories about the so-called gay / liberal press, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't propound any "theories" about any "so-called gay / liberal press." I stated, "The gay/liberal press report[ed] on [the contemptuous heaping of disdain upon Miss Prejean perpetrated by judge #8, the openly gay gossip blogger]." -- Rico  05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is rather homophobic, blaming a news story on gays and liberals. Let's shut this down.  Any objections (other than RicoCornith)?  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't "blame a news story on gays and liberals." I wrote that the gay / liberal press reported on the contemptuous heaping of disdain upon Miss Prejean perpetrated by judge #8, the openly gay gossip blogger.
 * I didn't "blame" them for doing something wrong. I only wrote that they covered the story. -- Rico  04:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, at this point I think it is best to just let RicoCorinth continue to post his spam here. He refuses to actually discuss this with the editors he's in disagreement, and the daily posts here say much more about Rico than they do anyone else. Why Jimbo has allowed this soapboxing to continue is beyond me, but he hasn't commented on this issue in close to a month. I say let RicoCorinth continue his voluminous performance piece, and the rest of us can get back to editing the encyclopedia. Rico, the stage is all yours. AniMate 05:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thanks for the suggestion. It's well past the point of meaningful engagement.  If it were my talk page I'd politely archive this borderline objectionable thread by hand.  But if Jimbo chooses to allow the daily screeds it's not our place to insist otherwise.  As long as we don't take the bait it won't be unduly disruptive - he can talk to himself every day as long as he wishes. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem that you have, Wikidemon, is that he's absolutely right on the content issue, and insulting him by calling his comments "homophobia" is not helpful. It is long past the time when this thread on my talk page is useful - but not because of him.  It's worth noting that while I don't agree with Miss Prejean's perspective, it is a perspective held by many people including the current President of the United States.  It's not even a particularly conservative position, if I understand her.  There is absolutely no doubt that her answer would have gone completely unnoticed, were it not for "the openly gay gossip blogger" (and it is not homophobia to note who he is and why he might behave in that fashion!) behaving in a completely undignified and insulting manner.  Why Miss Prejean's entry should be a coatrack for that is the core question which has not been answered.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To a certain degree I agree with your position here Jimbo, but as to why this thread is no longer useful, you are 100% wrong. One user has posted here on a daily basis rather than engage editors on the article talk page. You've now given the impression that the way to affect change on our articles is to spam you, ignore other editors, and refuse to follow any steps in the dispute resolution process. Great job. AniMate  15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, are you assuming that I disagree with his content position? If so, you're incorrect - you can't fairly infer a person's opinion or politics from a complaint about another editor's behavior.  There's no point doing a post-mortem on a dead horse, but in the primary discussion of this on the article talk page I agreed 100% that we don't need to repeat Hilton's words, and that we should simply say that Hilton made attacks and personal accusations.  I'm also not terribly fond of covering tabloid fodder, whether it's Boy George's latest diet or Jessica Simpson's relationship issues - the phenomenon of the tabloid press is an encyclopedic subject; the subjects covered in the tabloids are often not.  My problem is that this editor has been repeating a screed of accusations here, once every day before the archive bot hits, against Paris Hilton, the gay media, and against other editors who he claims are promoting "hate speech" and creating the article as a WP:COATRACK in order to defame Prejean.  On other pages some editors have used the corollary "homosexual agenda" as shorthand for people in favor of gay rights.  You may disagree, but it is a bigoted comment to blame things on the gay / liberal media.  If you can't see that, just substitute "Jewish" or "African-American".  Even if it doesn't offend you, it does bother some people, and it's tendentious to repeat it again and again unnecessarily after others have reasonably complained.  Before your comment here I think we'd decided to just let it pass.  I hope the editor doesn't see your approval as a license to continue provoking other editors.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never, ever, claimed that other editors "are promoting 'hate speech'." -- Rico  05:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I've been "engag[ing] editors on the article talk page", because you've replied, "I'm just going to ignore [it]." -- Rico  05:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you have stated that this thread is no longer useful, I'll be happy to stop posting. I hope you don't mind that I defended myself against a couple of things that were written about me, personally, that were provably false. -- Rico  05:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous Virus Warning
There is a dangerous virus on the sandbox! Please remoce it AT ONCE! It is going to spread to the whole wikipedia!!!!Unreal engine 7 (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) (archive tag so this nonsense at least gets archived) Fram (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OH NOES, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ!!1! – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreign characters in names
I have for a long time had a pet peeve about English Wikipedia sometimes using letters which are absolutely not letters in English, particularly from Northern European languages. I think this is a disservice to our reader in many cases, and I don't understand why policy allows for this.

The particular entry I have in mind just now is this one, which I found while trying to read about the volcano erupting in Iceland: Þórsmörk. While the accented o (ó) and the umlauted o (ö) do not exist in English, I can tolerate them well enough. But this funny character: "Þ" looks like a funny sort of p, even though some googling reveals that it is likely to be pronounced like an English 'th'.

Notice that the article offers not even the least hint or suggestion that we are even aware that we aren't using English letters.

So, here's my question: (1) What is policy about this sort of thing? and (2) Where can I best go to encourage a shift in policy to help our readers?

There are some gray areas, to be sure, when a letter is not *technically* in English, but one can grasp how to pronounce it easily enough, because it's commonly seen in French or German, say. Or if the letter "sort of sounds like" the letter it "sort of looks like" - I don't care for that, but you know, not every fight is worth having.

But when I go to an article as an educated person and come away without the least clue how to say what I've been reading because it is written using letters I don't even know at all... that's just too much. We may as well start including Japanese katakana without explanation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Naming_conventions_(use_English). Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Naming conventions (geographic names). Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! While both of those are helpful and interesting, they didn't (at first glance, but I may have overlooked something) really address the issue of non-English letters.  Using the local name instead of the English name can be bad, but surely it's much worse when the local name is written using a character set that English readers aren't likely to know at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first one pretty clearly does - "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them." Given this, I'd suggest the name of your sample article should be at Thorsmork, as it appears that english sources mainly use that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I think the article in question (and a great many others, I'm afraid) are not consistent with that policy. However, I wonder if policy shouldn't be changed in some minor way, so as to establish a general "presumption" that unless there's a good reason, characters that are not in English *at all* should not be in article titles, and should not be used without explanation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is about a valley in Iceland, but with no help as to how to pronounce the name. However clicking on Iceland itself shows it has a pronunciation guide, even though you might think most everyone would know, similarly for Reykjavík and most foreign things.
 * The problem then seems to be one of individual articles - bearing in mind anyone who wants to look it up on Wiki also needs to spell it, maybe the problem is solved with a redirect from the most common English equivalent and a better pronunciation guide for the article. Weakopedia (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See now, I'd think the sensible thing would be to go the other way. We are supposed to name our articles by the most common search term, and I doubt many English readers are going to be looking for an article that starts with a non-English character. The redirect should be from the Icelandic name to the anglicised one. This is another classic example of where we have failed to put the reader first.  It's something that we as editors should always keep in mind: we're creating something for readers to use, and the ease with which our readers can find the relevant article is as important as the content within the article. Risker (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Addendum - and I have now moved the article to Thorsmork as it is the most common English-language spelling, leaving the redirect from the Icelandic name.  Risker (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I had thought of that ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens I have family in Japan. The funny thing there is that the Chinese characters used for the name of each city can actually vary from place to place. This makes it hard to match your train ticket to a train station sign! I would prefer a policy which the preferred article used Anglicised versions, using only character available in English. Apart from anything else, the other characters are hard to type on some devices. I would also like the foreign language titles to be redirected to the English version, and where there is no established English language version (possible for remote places), I'd like various spellings to be added as redirects. As an educational aid, I'd like the original local language version included in the definition part of the lede. It allows people to learn a little about foreign languages - particularly useful if they are actually visiting the place - and allows foreigners to benefit form Wikipedia too. Isn't this the most practical solution? Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style (Iceland-related articles). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [I am revising the heading of this section according to WP:TPOC, "Section headings". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]

Incidentally, Jimbo, your example was not that great: unlike many Scandinavian letters not in English, Þ used to be a letter in English as well, it just fell into disuse over the centuries (replaced, gradually, by the digraph 'th') and was still in limited use until the early 17th century. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's really cool. :) Now I'm starting to change my mind.  I think maybe this whole NPOV and "document the world as it is" thing might not be as fun as a Wikipedia written as much as possible in archaic letters and spellings.  Actually, writing the whole thing in mock Swedish might be best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Like the talk pages, you mean ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just watch out for those møøse, they have a nasty bite... – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't really get it. Then again, I'm German, and we have ß|one of the coolest letters of all time. :) Just because we'll write a topic in all English letters doesn't mean our readers will automatically know how it is pronounced, and it might even be misleading to our readers when the same English letter is pronounced quite differently in another languages. On the other hand, on most articles we do provide IPA pronunciation or even an audio file for the same purpose, so no matter what the article's title will look like, readers will be able to find out how it is pronounced. --Conti|✉ 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, our naming rules for places are as follows: Obviously there is a lot of fine print missing.
 * If the name often appears in English reliable sources, use what they use. E.g. Rome, Moscow, Nuremberg.
 * However, if the common English form only differs from the original from the local form in accents, umlauts etc., use them even if they are not normally used in English. E.g. Zürich.
 * If there are no English reliable sources for the name, use the original name in the original spelling.
 * If the alphabet of the original language is not based on the Latin alphabet, transcribe.

Btw, in case you missed it in Coren's link: The þ is one of the two letters that late medieaval / early modern Brits couldn't print with their printing presses imported from Germany, causing them to substitute them with th or y. This is why there are still shops with names like "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe". "Þe Olde Tea Shoppe" would be arguably more correct. Hans Adler 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it great there's this great encyclopedia where everyone can learn things like this available online? :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Iceland on Google Maps uses Þ and ð. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for Thorsmork on Google maps will point you to Þórsmörk, though - as it should.  pablo hablo. 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a historical aside- The letter we're talking about I believe is called in English thorn, and as pointed out it used to be part of the English language up to relatively recent times (it is used in the Mayflower Compact and the the King James Bible btw); many "modern" English speakers think the word ye actually existed in medieval times, but this is an anachronism; they are misreading the letter thorn as a y, which in script it resembled; the phrase "ye olde tavern" never actually existed until modern signage trying to look medieval was invented. Similarly English from that time often wrote s as a fancy f, but when we write our quotes from those documents we dont put an F in place of the S just because it looks likes an f.Camelbinky (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your last point is not entirely true. It looks as if due to rampant wiki fundamentalism ("OMG! You can't change a quote!!! That would be original research!!!") Wikipedia is beginning to spread the eccentric practice of using long s when quoting directly from original sources, but not using it when quoting via a modern edition (which of course always transcribes it, unless it is a facsimile). See Long s in quotations for the ongoing RfC. Hans Adler 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having to reconsider my approach, as Eyjafjallajökull doesn't have an obvious English spelling which sounds like the original (article includes spoken name). Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a solution for this (For use in-article only): Besides using IPA, use phonetic spelling (I think that's what its called). In other words, use the spellings found in dictionaries (Spell 'encyclopedia' as "en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh"). Most people are familiar with this type of spelling as they have used dictionaries some time or the other. Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which that even within a single country there are wide enough regional variations that all those faux-phonetic bits could be pronounced in any number of ways, many not even resembling the corresponding syllable in the original word. That's why that way of writing out pronunciations is thoroughly discredited and has been superseded by the infinitely better (if imperfect) IPA.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One billion edits!
Just a heads-up, we'll reach a billion edits (In all WMF projects) probably by today or tomorrow: http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wikimediacounter/ Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 22:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But where do we get the actual number of edits from? My version is faked ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The counter calculates a pace and displays edits via that pace, and updates every now and then from the toolserver. So we can't be xactly sure when we'll hit 1 billion (If the counter hits 1 B, it doesn't mean that we have actually hit it), but we can be sure that we will hit it sometime after (or before) the counter hits it. Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation - it looks like it will be today then :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably in next 3 hrs, we're @ 999,920,278 ... *twiddles thumbs Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is it: the billionth edit! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey - it's suddenly jumped back - everyone must be waiting with baited breath! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - 1,000,000,000 is definitely history now! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2010-04-16 19:11:13 GMT  Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please endorse the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative
The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, inspired by Wikileaks, seeks to make Iceland the world leader in freedom of speech. (See immi.is) I would be overjoyed to see "Jimbo Wales" appear on the list of endorsements! I don't know whether the Wikimedia Foundation is able to endorse political proposals, but if so I'd love to see them there as well. Once a safe haven is known to exist in Iceland, all other Wikipedias will have some room to breathe. Wnt (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I am currently stuck in London, I'm boycotting all things Icelandic - even Sigur Ros, one of my favorite bands - until they get their volcano under control. :-) Actually, I will take a look at this - I saw it a while back.  I try to be very careful about what I endorse and you are right that it would have to be me personally, as the Foundation doesn't do anything "political" directly really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're at a loose end, you might like to visit me in sunny Wimbledon. I'm sure you'll enjoy what I have to show you! Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was 14 when my mother's boyfriend said that to me, Streater. I hope you don't mean the same thing he did. Bielle (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, unless he was in any way like me, which my friends will tell you is unlikely! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not use a signature?
Usually, a custom signature identifies the user as experienced. Being the founder/God/Imperial Grand Poohbah/etc. of Wikipedia, it seems strange that you don't use a custom signature. Another reason for using a custom signature is that your posts are easily recognized. So why not use one? Regards, Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Others might argue that it is pointless decoration and waste of bytes. Just sayin' —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you, but to me, a custom signature identifies a user as an attention-seeker. --Carnildo (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)One could also argue that by not having a custom signature He is being the ultimate "benevelent dictator" (no offence intended on using term dictator!), that we are all nominally equal though He is the "first among equals". I think that's a good reason for Him not to adopt one, adopting one may be seen by some as arrogant.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they simply didn't have weird and wonderful signatures when Jimbo chose his - and changing it would be a big deal. Perhaps we can all get together and design a really wonderful one for his 50th birthday present. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could all just do useful things for Wikipedia articles instead? This is my custom signature. It is a monogram. It is plain and simple, and that's how I like it. DS (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Okip
I think all of Wikipedia should be concerned about the way the most prolifict editor with the ARS was driven off by a biased admin. Okip merely remarked at an editor review and for that, one of the deletionists blocked him indefinitely. This travesty deserves you upmost attention. We don't know if Okip is coming back but would the foundation consider paying a monetary reward to encourage his return? There is no editor who better works towards creating the sum of all human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.66 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okip isn't currently blocked. . MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you are genuinely concerned and not merely trolling, please muster the testicular fortitude to log in using your regular account.  pablo hablo. 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned, and not just trolling, why don't you AGF, lose the insults, and remember than registration is not compulsory. Weakopedia (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is no editor who better works towards creating the sum of all human knowledge." Nonsense. He makes good contributions, like many here do, but his content contributions have been few and far between in the last few months. Fram (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say the fact that he hasn't returned from the overturned block tells you how bad it was. And why assume everyone creates an account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.192.183 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This IP has already admitted that he/she/it is editing to avoid scrutiny. Just because one can edit unregistered doesn't mean they should, and to do so when bringing up issues of policy is, IMO, a show of bad faith. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Editing via IP because you don't want to create an account is hugely different from not logging in because you want to avoid scrutiny (which is effectively sockpuppetry).  pablo hablo. 22:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.161.128 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same person who was pretending to be a member of the ARS on that page awhile back, just to mess with people.  Anyway, the block was wrong, someone just getting emotionally, and it was undone rather quickly.  If Ikip/Okip hasn't returned, its because he is busy in real life, he posting less often before the block happened, not around every day.  Since I don't recall him bothering to comment in the block discussion, he might not have even noticed, it over rather quickly.   D r e a m Focus  23:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He was well aware of it, he did discuss it, but obviously only on his talk page (where he posted a lengthy copyright violation as his last message. And it wasn't "undone rather quickly", but after two and a half days, with the reason "I reviewed this thread and some of the problematic contributions. Clearly Okip needs to rethink some of their editing policies but, without commenting on the initial block, I think that he/she is willing to make an attempt to work on those issues. The support/opposes seem equally divided and, with the view that it is worth the effort to keep a productive editor, um, productive, I've unblocked Okip." Please don't misrepresent facts to support your preferred side in a discussion. Fram (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely AfD
'''Note: Please start migrating this discussion over to Talk:Eric Ely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Articles for deletion/Eric Ely has been closed as No consensus, with the article being kept. Coren asked here, "Do our content guidelines allow for inclusion of that person's biography?", quickly followed by "If they do, how do we fix them so that they do not." These were fair questions that we should try to answer. -- JN 466  21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont like the refs calls in a Lakers game, can I fix the rules of basketball so they dont lose again? ;)Camelbinky (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One way to "fix" the result is to limit the number of bios to 10,000 people, say. A duff one would be deleted to make way for each new one - comparatives are much easier to judge than absolutes. I often use a similar principle for over-long articles. I don't add new material without removing some waffle. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another idea, following up on Stephen's. While I tend to agree with Camel, I think we could harness technology to help us here.  Would there be a way to create a list of the least-viewed BLPs (over, say, a 3-month period)?  If so, and if that list were made available, editors with BLP-deletion in their blood could review articles on that list to see if they were non-notable (by Wiki standards), and bring them to AfD them as appropriate.  The premise here is that the least-viewed BLPs are of least interest to our readers, and perhaps most worth checking for notability--by those who wish to look for such things.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One practicable idea that's been raised before would be to have BLP AfDs default to "Delete" if there is no clear consensus. -- JN 466  06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an approach I would support, though I do believe the German wiki works that way.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ze German Viki is much more strict, because ze Germans haff strict laws. For example, all tools on the toolserver have to comply with the German laws. Annoying, but necessary. Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Isn't it far worse to have a bad BLP on a marginally notable person than to have none at all? -- JN 466  07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have an assumption or two tucked away there. The Ely AfD was not with regard to a "bad BLP".  Nor was there a consensus that the person was "marginally notable" -- there was a split between people, many of whom thought he was perfectly wiki-notable.  And some of the no votes appeared to simply be a misunderstanding of the one-event rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to think this is not a bad BLP ... try nominating it for GA or FA, or just a peer review! Your argumentation is incomprehensible to me, and this dialogue, clearly pointless. Let's leave it at that. -- JN 466  12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right. Even some of the delete !voters expressed that view.  I guess I wouldn't agree with your suggestion that all B-level bios and below are "bad".  But that's fine, reasonable people can disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the years, it's been quite a normal and salutary evolutionary process in sport to change the rules when people got hurt. Camelbinky, neither you nor me "lose" in a case like this; it's the BLP subject that loses. This article will still sit there in five years, even if the guy does sterling work over the period between now and then – sterling work that does not attract newspaper attention. It is simply not a very humane or responsible way to go about our business. You won't find articles like this in a reputable work like Gale's Encyclopedia of World Biography. -- JN 466  22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Epeefleche: This mechanism already exists, through the blpunreferenced category; we cannot force editors to tackle deficient articles, neither can we require that deficient articles be brought up to standard other than by forcing the issue per WP:AFD. That is a perennial problem here in that articles which meet minimum requirements are left alone until some dedicated enthusiast comes along and resolves to spend the time and effort to take them to the next level. But my experience here is that although stub creation is useful, there are few editors who can, or will, make a useful article. I cut my editing teeth here on the Wikification project, and it was a useful experience. That does not appear to be happening any more, and we end up fire-fighting. Unhelpful. Rodhull  andemu  22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been bringing some articles up to scratch (or at least to the next level). It's very informative and I enjoy it (although unfortunately a lot of the best film sources are unreliable) - but it's lonely work for an extravert like me, so I come by the more public places (and articles) from time to time for a holiday. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER covers my counterarguments against limits on the number of BLPs we should have.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like some indication of the number of editors who have seen an article recently. One with a lot of traffic is likely to be higher quality than one which is only occasionally read by an editor. The watch list measure comes close, but for some reason it has a lower limit which seems to be higher than almost all articles on WP, in particular the difficult ones. For example Eric Ely currently could have 29 watchers, or I could be the only one. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes I have seen an article recently (several in fact). I disagree with your premise that articles with more traffic are higher quality... perhaps that is somewhat true, but there are multiple exceptions to that just within the subset of Wikipedia articles that I work on. By both number of "visitors" and by number of editors who have it on their watchlist I would assume that Port of Albany-Rensselaer and Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District arent POPULAR articles, but I would say they both are much better than you would expect using a graph corelation based on your premise of "more watchers=better quality". Of course outliers will be expected from any hypothesis, perhaps these are just two of them.Camelbinky (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I agree it could only be a warning light and many of the best articles are specialist and may be rarely accessed or edited. Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If in three months only 2 people have accessed a BLP, it may well be that its usefulness is lesser than the risk it presents.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That right there is where I'm getting lost... what risk does a BLP that isnt "popular" (for lack of a better word) pose? Kenmore Hotel is a nice article, and I hope since I created and wrote it that it is indeed notable, but few will ever see it. But it keeps information around for the future, information that was scattered, information that may get lost in this digital information age, and allows for future bits found here and there to be brought here to one place in the future. I see Wikipedia's role as being more than an encyclopedia, more like the seed-banks around the world that save seeds from all the world's plants for the future in case of natural (or man-made) disaster so that we have diverse crops with different immunities and characteristics. Our goal, in my eyes is to save knowledge and history and science, etc. That's just how I personally wish Wikipedia was, though. So if the article is doing no actual harm, what's wrong with keeping it?Camelbinky (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the conversation is more about the damage that can be done to subjects that are of little notability apart from local when given long term continued exposure to a national readership, indeed global readership, your article is very nice but is a different kettle of fish and about how policy can be tightened up to stop such articles being written about minor not notable people when they are involved in a small local controversy that only raises the subjects actual real world exposure for a very limited time. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, let me ask this- if there had been no mention of this guy's involvement with a current event controversy, and the article had just been about him being a superintendant of the largest city school district in NY's Capital District and about how he is both recognized and sought out by the state and media as an expert on education and education funding/budgets; would the article have gotten noticed by someone to put it up for AfD and would everyone be so adamant about deleting it? Is the fact that he's involved in a local current event the reason this article is getting noticed for deletion? If not for the current event I think it probably wouldve glided under the radar.Camelbinky (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was written because of the current event, without it it I doubt it would have been written. Without the one event issues I doubt if personally there would have been so many votes for delete or perhaps not even an AFD we will never know, clear harmless articles about semi or little notability linger around and sometimes don't ever get nominated, basically unless it had been written by the subject or a fan of some kind it would never have been written, it is a dirty linen on the wiki washing line type article now. One thing is for sure, it won't be of much use in helping him get a job. This size of the actual interest in the controversy and actual notability of the controversy is reflected in the viewing figures of the article also during the AFD many of these views are internal, it is quite common for actual controversies about notable people to get for a limited time, viewing figures in the many thousands. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is a hit piece. We should not host hit pieces, especially not on marginally notable people that no other encyclopedia would ever be interested in. -- JN 466  18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It;'s also a blatant violation of WP:TABLOID. This guy is simply not notable, a clear case of I wouldn't know him form a hole in the ground, and the article is being kept largely just because we can - Wikipedia as an experiment in free speech (something which also we are not). News belongs on Wikinews, biographies of individuals of lasting significance belong on Wikipedia. What significance does this individual have? None that I can see. This is actively impeding the need to remove attack pieces by undermining what has developed in recent time into a strong and robust consensus against faux-biographies which exist solely to disparage the subject. What do we do if he complains to OTRS? Guy (Help!) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I come back to WP after a long pause, and what do I see? Another thread of deletionists screaming WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. We have an article with 52 references, and people claim that he's not notable? Let me repeat: Notable != "everyone knows it". Notable = "there are reliable sources about it". An encyclopedia covering only what everyone knows is the definition of useless. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes 52 fabulous refences all from national articles discussing at length a notable person, they look more like local blogs and minor comments in minor publications and such like, no one can seriously dispute that this article was written about the controversy. What we are discussing is not why this article should have been kept under current guidelines but the original question brought here is how we can stop this sort of thing happening in future. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is: we shouldn't stop that. Quite the opposite. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yawn. -- JN 466  21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clyopia. If you support the publication of the lesser known controversies of lesser known people to the world wide web then you would perhaps be better getting yourself a blog and your own 5000 dollar an hour lawyers. This is perhaps one of the ways such issues could be reduced, if the presumed protection from the wikipedia that editors think they have from lawsuits was moved to a more realistic point that editors are legally responsible for any lawsuits that their edits create, I think this would stop a lot of the publish and be damned, I am untouchable type editor attitude, it is about personal responsibility then and presently there is an assumption that the wikipedia expensive lawyers would protect the editor under all circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Foundation is pretty immune from prosecution, as they're not legally responsible for what anonymous editors post on its site. However, they would not protect an editor either. The difficulty that victims of Wikipedia-based libel have is that they need to identify the editor who introduced the libel. This is difficult, but it has been done in a couple of cases, with the cooperation of the users' ISPs. I think the relevant court cases haven't been concluded yet. -- JN 466  21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As interesting as this discussion has become, and I truly do find it interesting and I've learned alot from those here with opposing views- perhaps this discussion would benefit from being being moved to the village pump (policy)... it would get a bigger audience, though honestly I dont see anything actually being done to fix any "loopholes", Wikipedia inertia being what it is and all. If Jimbo wanted to step in I would assume he'd have stated something in this thread to that effect.Camelbinky (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to discuss anything you want at any location you like, please provide a link if and when you open your discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... ok... not quite the response I was looking for... For one I didnt want to split up the discussion as that can cause quite a bit of confusion and split the ability of people to follow what is going on... Second- I'll assume you didnt mean your post in the tone it came out as when I read it. Anyone with a constructive opinion on whether or not it should be moved wish to chime in? Personally I think this discussion should be opened up to the village pump, not that many regular editors who will actually be affected by new policies watch Jimbo's page, probably no newbies either. A policy change decided based on a discussion taken place here, even if it was done by Jimbo Himself, would probably get quite a bit of backlash from certain editors as "behind the scenes" and in badfaith, even though this page is open to all and very welcoming.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not here to give you the response you are looking for. I meant the commentary as I said it, you want to open a discussion elsewhere, please present a link here when you do. As for your other comments, this is a simple discussion about a situation that Jimbo commented on and a discussion has arisen here, I don't see any problem with that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

z:::::Is that what this is about? Jee, I didnt know that seeing as how I commented on the original AfD (in fact you can find my post being the one posted right above Jimbo's), I also started a thread here above regarding his !vote/comment before this thread was started, and I commented on this thread before you showed up. Glad you could set me straight on what this thread was about. In fact you may want to read WHY this post started, not as a "simple discussion about a situation that Jimbo commented on" but instead asking Jimbo about actually changind policy so that the same situation doesnt happen again, it didnt start as a place to discuss and rehash Eric Ely again and again. I'm frankly done with this topic, any personal responses you have may be posted on MY talk page where Ill see them; personally I think if Jimbo was interested in getting involved in changing the relevant policy He wouldve commented in this thread to that effect already. Having this discussion here serves no purpose other than to keep it from the larger Community where more input could be sought for changing relevant policies.Camelbinky (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue, without mentioning the elephant in the room, emotionally involved editors with personal involvement in the person or issue to the detriment of policy decisions. One way of over coming such issues could be a professional panel of independent adjudicators who are judged to be well schooled and NPOV in regards to policy that could override users consensus, especially amongst editors in contentious decisions especially in regard to articles about living people.(or in situations like this where there was no consensus)  Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, honestly, ever heard of this? Looks very much like what you want WP to be: why don't you join them? -- Cycl o pia talk  23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have Jimmy's page watchlisted, which is my only connection here (aside from - in the interests of full disclosure - some previous unpleasant encounters with Off2riorob which I truly do not care to revisit) but after reading the archived discussion and the lengthy mass above which approaches WP:DR, my impression is that the discussion here has reached the point of diminishing returns. The community could not reach consensus on deletion of the article, and so it stays.  Some feel policy should be changed. I'd like to bemusedly suggest the participants either move on, or take this over to village pump (policy) as previously mentioned. Jusdafax   23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be nice if the person that didn't want the discussion to continue here had actually opened a discussion at the location he mentioned, the pump, I am stll waiting for the link...Personally Justafax, your coming here and mentioning that you lost a POV discussion about a worthless content in an article you where quarding is tiresome, get over it, you win some and you lose some. Oh and I just have to mention that I lost a POV discussion last year with off2riorob and I am still upset about it, move on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the discussion here has run its course. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion, listed in Template:Cent, and I suggest that any further community discussion can take place there. -- JN 466  10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Off2riorob, the reason I didnt take this to the Village Pump as I proposed is;


 * one- it was a proposal, an option that no one else at the time spoke up in favor of and I wasnt going to forum-shop this discussion around and have duplicate discussions IF this one had stayed active (which I knew it wouldnt once I left anyways);
 * two- this topic frankly bores me, I have little to no stake in the outcome as I dont work on biographies;
 * three- any discussion that does happen, including the above mentioned by Jayen466 will most likely already have present those I've worked with in the past at various policy talk page and forums (I get around) and so my views will be amply represented by those that share my opinion anyways. I only like to get involved if I think its a divisive issue that could go either way. This is not one of them.Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that an article with 53 references gets a "no consensus" from AfD and they're still complaining about it. The proposals to set an arbitrary limit of 10,000 biographies, to delete little-read biographies, to delete biographies that wouldn't be in "any other encyclopedia" - they all get to the point that the deletionists can't stand the thought that Wikipedia could go beyond all other encylopedias - which it has, and which it should. But I'll ask you this - if tens of thousands of editors spend days or weeks or months or years of time editing and all they'd come up with in the end is a normal encyclopedia any normal company could have made, then doesn't that prove that people should just shut up and pay their copyright fees and reject public-domain work as a hopelessly inefficient Communist scheme? Which would finally give the deletionists what they really want. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. if you've seen BLP issues in the article then you could fix them, no?
 * Wnt, I can't think of anything much more unhelpful than this rant. I think you'll find it useful to step back and try to put yourself into the position of those you are critiquing, under an assumption that we aren't thinking any of these bizarre things you've put into our mouths here.  Do you really honestly think that my position on BLP's amounts to "people should just shut up and pay their copyright fees"?
 * In this case, we have a very sketchy biography with very poor referencing (albeit, with great quantities of poor references, yes!) about a marginal figure. A biography that is entirely and completely unbalanced, being primarily about one professional difficulty that the guy had, a biography which is very likely to be extremely damaging to his life and career.  It is a serious case of WP:UNDUE.  So, people are quite naturally, and quite correctly, wondering if our procedure needs to be changed.
 * I do think that arbitrary limits like "10,000" or "wouldn't appear in other encyclopedias" are not the right answer. But I think it is not at all helpful for you to ignore the real concerns that people have and to put strange arguments into our mouths.  Please reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — ! sorry, I meant plural "you" there, not you, Jimbo. You make a very eloquent argument for improving the article, and I'll agree, but I don't think deletion is the answer. Wnt (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, I agree with your assessment of the article. I do not understand why this article has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, since it is an obvious political attack piece. Further, I do not understand why the main editors Bearian and UpstateNYer have not been asked to resign their admin bits. If admins cannot be trusted to uphold the principles of Wikipedia, should they remain admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That may depend on whether you are a gradualist or not. The point of a collaborative effort is that we don't all need to be perfect at everything, which is why I didn't want to unduly distress these editors, despite opting for delete. Leading by example (as Jimbo has done here) is better than stressing editors out so much that they leave. I think Jimbo has moved the bar up a bit further for bios as a result of the AfD and subsequent discussion. For comparison, I have started a new bio on David Bell. There are ridiculously many biographical sources for this man (as opposed to passing mentions), and although I haven't glued them all together, researching for it had a very different feel to it than Eric Ely. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should be thinking about the distress we may be causing to the subjects of such BLPs as opposed to the distress we may cause editors by asking them to behave responsibly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps both. When people have chosen to put themselves in the public gaze, the understanding is that they generally take a more robust approach. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read Jimbo's comment below, it seems that this particular man may not have volunteered for public gaze, though an earlier post said that he had been increasing his profile over the last few years, which could be why this case attracted so much attention. I argued for delete because the sort of people I know with articles generally have a lifetime of outstanding achievement in their area of expertise. This man was mostly just doing his job. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen, while of course I agree with the 'delete' I think you give too much credit when you assume that this "case attracted so much attention". A relevant point is that the case has attracted basically ZERO attention outside of the small town media where the man lives.  He's just not that important, the case is not that interesting to anyone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is entirely possible for reasonable people to differ about where to cross the line, and these two editors are good editors who have put in a lot of work to construct the best possible biography. I would consider their work to be an incredibly valuable experiment seeking to answer the question: is it possible to create a quality biography on a small town school superintendent who would never have been heard of were it not for a WP:BLP1E situation?
 * I think the answer is clearly no. We've given it our best shot here, and we've failed.  Those who don't agree, I ask to engage in the following thought experiment with as much love and emotion as you can.
 * Imagine that you are Eric Ely. Everything that I am about to write is a view on the events from how it very likely looks from his perspective.
 * "I went to university with a dream of becoming a teacher and coach, and I did. And I worked with great pride at my job.  I advanced over time in the usual way, rising from teacher to principal to assistant superintendent and finally to superintendent.  At all of these jobs, I was a quiet ordinary citizen/teacher, widely liked by my students and colleagues.  I assumed that I would retire in this job."
 * "The issues I faced were sometime difficult - as they are for all school district superintendents. I handled them in a way that I'm proud - although I must say that I didn't do anything all that remarkable.
 * "At one point, I was surprised to learn of an investigation into one of my employees. No one told me that I wasn't to tell him about it, so I did what I thought was the best thing to do: I asked him about it, and he denied it.  People complain that I didn't fire him on the spot, but I take seriously the rights of employees, and under our current policies, it is not possible to fire an employee based on them being investigated.
 * "The newspapers made a lot of noise about it, calling me his "enabler" and so forth, but those allegations really don't make sense. The police and prosecution grandstanded about it, presumably for their own reasons. When I reflect on my performance at this time, I think I acted honorably and responsibly.  Of course I regret deeply, with the benefit of hindsight, that this guy went on to commit crimes in the middle of the night in other counties - but I had no way of knowing that, and don't know what anyone expected me to do.
 * "I was not charged with any crime. An internal report, which has now been released, exonerated me completely.  All of the information anyone could want is out there, and this all amounts to nothing.
 * "I am still seeking to do the honorable thing. I'm looking for work in another school district.  I'm doing my job.  But I've been smeared in the media and it's hard to find work because of it.  If you google my name, you get this bizarre encyclopedia article with a huge section on it that would leave anyone wondering if I'm some kind of terrorist accomplice myself.  It's sad, and it hurts.  I think what makes it hurt the most is that this one thing has such an undue impact on my life.  I didn't do anything wrong, I have the support of my school board, and yet I'm painted in this way.  I don't understand why I'm even in Wikipedia - were it not for this criminal doing these horrible things, no one outside my town would even know my name - and even inside my town I'd just be yet another government employee just doing his job."
 * Please take this to heart. As far as I can tell, having read the case, this is all just about perfectly accurate.  I don't know Eric Ely, I don't know if he is reading about this on Wikipedia, I don't know if his family or friends are reading it.  But I do know that he's probably right - our article is harmful to him, even if it is 100% accurate in some hypertechnical sense.  It's a bad biography because it is not a proper profile.  It's a hatchet job, written ironically enough with no malice on the part of the authors.  It's still a hatchet job, though, because that's what the press has done to him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there may be BLP1E concerns: yet to address that the only necessary thing is to rename and perhaps restructure a bit the article so that it concentrates on the event and not on the person. See WP:BLP1E, WP:ATD. That said, there are too much references and too much material to simply delete the thing altogether. User:Wnt concerns were meaningful in my opinion. Also, I am especially concerned about this comment of yours above, Jimbo: He's just not that important, the case is not that interesting to anyone. - That's in my view a superficially reasonable, but deeply destructive attitude. He's personally not that important to me too, but who are we to decide what is important to who and what not? We should avoid such personal selection biases. I am sure rhombozoa are not that interesting to anyone expect some odd specialized community of biologists -yet should we delete it? Of course not. We should collect reliably sourced information and present it as neutrally as possible -no more, no less. I understand the ethical concerns, but as much as we should firmly avoid to libel people, we should firmly avoid the opposite: to be negatively biased about everything bad sources say about people. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, I understand what you are saying and agree with you in principle, but I fear that I was not clear in my point. It isn't about whether I think he is important.  My point here is that the sources about this man's life and accomplishments and problems are just too thin for us to write a good biography - this is clearly evidenced by the excellent and detailed work that Bearian did on the article, which has still resulted in a bad article.  If the man were important, we'd have enough actual material to write a decent biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly I was wrong about moving this discussion on. Jimmy, you urge nothing less than a complete reassessment of WP:RS.  I for one consider this a tectonic shift in the way Wikipedia BLP articles are sourced and indeed allowed to exist.  How would you suggest a policy shift of this magnitude be brought forward to the community for discussion and potential implementation? Jusdafax   14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating for any "tectonic" policy shift at all, and absolutely no changes to WP:RS. This is a bad biography.  If I'm suggesting any policy shift at all, it is a minor shift to how AfD's are closed.  We have an article in clear violation of WP:BLP as it exists, with no obvious hope of fixing it.  (Indeed, I compliment the primary authors of this article for having done a stunning amount of work researching and documenting what little there is - thus demonstrating quite clearly that no good biography is possible here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: by my count, there were 14 delete votes, 10 keep votes--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to put in my own two cents that I agree with Jimmy Wales on this. I hope the relevant policies can be changed to reflect this approach. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are deletions done by vote count now. Weakopedia (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We still do them by Consensus. A vote saying "per nom" or something short is worth much less than one which has a long paragraph description. Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Note: Please start migrating this discussion over to Talk:Eric Ely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of taking this back to afd. It needs more than 24 people to reach a proper consensus on this one. Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination).--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Original Research now equals Original Thought. We need your input.
Dear Jimbo, For the last few days a huge battle has been waged over at WP:NOR about the correct meaning of NOR. Three well established editors who have basically been running the NOR article for some time, are now claiming that your definition of WP:NOR is no longer applicable, and that it has recently been 'refined' by them into something better. Here is what I mean, please see, "We are more 'specific' now." This 'new Wikipedia policy' according to their own new definition, and in their own words, means that we no longer, "distinguish between original research and original thought."source  As a result of this new 'expansion of the meaning of original research' that they have defined, now not only are edits and citations being routinely removed if they are incorrectly sourced themselves. Now if any wording or citation might somehow tend to lead a reader to merely "think" a thought that cannot be found nearly verbatim in the edit's supporting citation, it is being routinely removed. A mere unstated implication that the publishing of an edit or source may lead to, is now treated exactly the same as if that mere 'unstated implication' were 'in the actual wording or text of the specific edit itself'.

Here is a specific example of what I mean. This edit: The historical context section of the Hutaree article completely deleted, was made using this specific logic, as in the words agreed to by the editor making the deletion: "the cite is OR because the implied conclusion is not in the cite."  You can follow the editor's reasoning on the article's talk page. When this edit was pointed out to the three editors running the WP:NOR article, they essentially supported the deletion, and I was harangued and told by one of these three that I might do best to consider leaving Wikipedia and go to WikiUniversity instead. I was told by them that I was confused, and simply incapable of understanding their 'higher logic'.

It seems to me that this new 'expansion' of the role of WP:NOR, which has apparently been gradually carved out by these editors over the last 4 years, is not what you had intended Wikipedia to do. The expansion of the policy particularly seems to focus on the WP:SYN aspect of WP:NOR. It seems to me that if this policy goes unchecked, Wikipedia will eventually be stripped of many good edits and many good editors. It will also eventually entirely change the fundamental nature of Wikipedia, severely reducing the amount of 'thought provoking' material allowed in it. I believe if not checked, this expanded policy will cause Wikipedia to be 'dumbed-down' in a very major way in the coming months and years. I have already noted some good editors who seem to have left as a result of this new expansion of WP:NOR. I may be amongst them (though I am sure I'm actually not one of the better ones to leave, but I guess perhaps that one editor's suggestion that I should leave may have been accurate after all.) The newly implemented WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy seems to me to have already caused a good deal of concern in Wikipedia talk-space. A simple search for the term WP:SYN on in Wikipedia talk-space points to many editors already expressing much disillusionment over the new WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy.

I don't think any one of the editors involved in creating or enforcing this new policy expansion has any hidden agenda, they are all just in some sort of a state of confusion over it for some reason. It seems to me that this expanded policy has been allowed to gradually creep in over the last 4 years, beginning with the acceptance of the "nutshell template" on the WP:NOR page stating that Wikipedia "does not publish Original Thought" back in 2006. At any rate, I was wondering if you might please be able to look in on this and if possible, to please comment on it either over at the WP:NOR talk page, or maybe here.

I wish you all the best of luck in convincing the Icelanders to get their darned volcano to behave more responsibly once again. :-) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Some additional dialogue that may be pertinent to this discussion at SlimVirgin's talk page has recently been posted. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jimbo, it seems that you're in a position that might not allow you to get back down into the 'trenches' and to deal with day to day policy debates. I can fully appreciate this. Still, maybe if I just ask you two simple questions here, that might help us all. So here they are, two very simple questions:
 * 1) Do you think that the current WP:NOR policy which has been expanded over the last 4 years to also include a prohibition against 'Original Thought', and which was expanded again last summer to specifically ban 'implications not specifically cited' is the same as what you first had in mind when you explained what you meant by 'Original Research'? Yes or no?
 * 2) Do you think the current policy regarding 'Original Thought' as it is enforced today is a Wikipedia policy step in the right direction, or in the wrong direction?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the text you are objecting to has been pretty stable since at least April 2008 your title text is missleading.©Geni 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NOR has never distinguished between original research and all the other originals&mdash;thoughts, arguments, opinions, implications, ideas; see July 2005, for example: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'


 * This has been explained to Scott by several editors, though it hasn't, as he said, been a huge battle, or indeed any kind of battle. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I wrote a long response to this, including a somewhat detailed analysis of the specific case in question, and then hit 'save' and went to dinner and neglected to save a 2nd time, and then closed the window when I got back from dinner. Therefore, my response was lost.

Suffice to say, this summarizes it: 1. I don't think policy has materially changed in a very long time - others have now already said the same thing. 2. I don't agree that this policy loses us good authors. Well, perhaps a few good authors would do a great job of original research, and we do lose those. But at the same time, we lose a lot of really bad authors who would drag us into endless and irresolvable conflicts with their original thoughts. 3. In the particular case, I don't understand what the 3rd century remark has to do with this contemporary hate/terrorist group. I mean, it does make sense - and is easy to do with reliable sources - to point out that this group's views are fringe and not within the mainstream of Christian thought. But a throwaway line about 3rd century Christianity... what's the link? I wouldn't reach the question of OR before I'd remove it - even if a source happened to say it, I would still question whether it would make sense at that point of the article. (It is possible, but it would have to be written in a more comprehensible fashion, so that the reader is not left wondering "huh? 3rd century?")--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for responding Jimbo. So in summary, you seem to agree primarily with SlimVirgin's position, but you still think that the editors probably used the wrong rationale to delete the cite, no?
 * Actually, I can now clearly see your reasoning, Jimbo, now that someone has actually pointed this out to me. I agree with you about an apparent relevance issue regarding that 3rd century cite, and of course, that the cite wasn't truly OR.
 * But, here is where I feel that the policy has changed ever so slightly, and I feel that this slight change is what is causing folks some difficulty. Last summer was the first time, to the best of my knowledge, that the WP:NOR policy wording first started trying to incorporate specific wording about 'implications'.  OK, perhaps there is a need to deal with them  in the policy, but the subject of dealing with mere implications in the policy wording is where I think the differences of opinion about OR really began.  The fact that so many editors, all of the regular WP:NOR editors, and the two other editors at the Hutaree article, all agreed that the cite was OR, is to me a sign that there may be something about the current policy that is somehow causing folks to get confused about the true meaning of OR.
 * Personally I think it is because for the first time in 9 years there is now wording in the policy that attempts to specifically deal with implications. Like I said earlier, maybe the policy does need to deal with implications specifically (despite my personal preference that it not) but if it is going to deal with them, then I definitely think that there is a clear need for the policy wording to be made clearer than it is now.
 * I think that the whole idea of a good or a bad implication is generally a much harder concept to work with than dealing with a good or a bad written phrase. It seems to me that good policy regarding implications is much harder to write, and it is also much harder for a typical editor to understand.  Thus what seems to me to be this confusion, no consensus on whether or not the 3rd century cite was OR.
 * That is why I proposed taking out the fairly new "implication" wording from the policy page altogether, at least until a broader consensus and understanding on it might be reached. That is all.
 * Scott P. (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be more clear: I do think that 3rd century bit was OR in that context. What I mean when I say "wouldn't reach the question" is something I've picked up from reading too many Supreme Court cases over the years (my geeky hobby).  One principle that courts wisely follow is to avoid "reaching" a thorny question, in case there is an easier and more obvious principle to be applied.  In this case, it doesn't really matter if the 3rd century stuff was OR or not, simply because it wasn't relevant (or at any rate didn't have any obvious relevance) to the article at hand.  The beliefs of 3rd century Christians is simply not relevant to the beliefs of contemporary self-styled "Christian" terrorists - not unless there is some specific link between the two which we didn't give.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I can see what you are saying. One reason I chose to highlight this particular cite to discuss here was because it is what I would call a slightly 'loaded' cite.  Whenever questions of religion, belief, and faith enter in, it seems to me you almost automatically have what I would call a 'hot button topic', from the start.  Questions start to automatically enter in like 'is this guy trying to preach to us?'  If so, then obviously OR,.... or perhaps not I say.  OK, you might ask yourself, does this editor have a 'personal agenda'?  In my particular case, this is how this edit came about.  Someone asked me to insert a cite about the Baldwin fellow, this 'Christian' pastor who is a sympathizer and a vocal supporter of the Hutaree.


 * After inserting the Baldwin info, I reread the article and said to myself, "now any kook could read this and think that the Hutaree might be the best thing since sliced bread". So, I thought, we need to balance something against the Baldwin info......  Walaa, the 3rd century cite.  Next thing you know, the 3rd century cite was deleted as OR, leaving only the Baldwin info as the most supposedly 'certified christian expert' speaking on the page once again.  OR policy apparently favored publishing info about Baldwin over info that would lead readers directly to the teachings of the founder of the Christian movement.  Fortunately some other editors have since fixed the imbalance that the removal of the 3rd century cite created.


 * I don't believe that the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus tended to very strictly eschew violence is very common knowledge. Since by definition, the Hutaree position begs us to ask if their supposed 'militant-Christian' philosophy might somehow be fundamentally sound, I still can't see why the article should be kept from trying to address this question in a well sourced and logical fashion.  Jimbo, do you think it might be possible to somehow work the 3rd century cite back into the article?  Or is it simply too 'preachy' to be allowable here?


 * Perhaps any in depth discussion of religious issues should simply generally be kept out of most Wikipedia articles, as a topic that is generally too much of a 'hot button topic' to be reported on in any great detail here? I don't know.


 * I hope that I'm not just beating a dead horse here. If you want this to be my last post on this topic to your talk-page, just say so, and I'll be glad to finally shut-up.  If I am just being the "jerky squeaky wheel" here, just say so.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is fine and interesting. What I would suggest here is that the point you want included in the article is a sensible one to include.  A reader may well wonder to what extent Hutaree beliefs or "Militant Christian" beliefs reflect mainstream/historic Christian belief and practice.  I don't personally see any reason to privilege 3rd century (or 6th century or 12th century) variants in that analysis, but the general idea of making sure that the reader does understand that Hutaree beliefs are pretty unusual and not consistent with mainstream understanding of Christ's beliefs and teachings is of course a fine thing to include.
 * I believe, though, that the observation you want to make is not particularly original or creative (no disrespect intended, of course, I think you know what I mean!)... it's just a sensible point. As such, therefore, it must be easy to find plenty of contemporary critics of violent Christian sects who will make this sort of obvious point?  No need for us to make it ourselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo we have been over this with him but he keeps trying to put his point point in to the article with his OR, then complaining and trying to change policy when he can't put in what he wants said in his way. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that we're not here to judge or direct the thoughts of any kook that might happen by. Whether you agree with their opinions or not, this article is not the place to debate them. You won't find mention of Einstein's theory in the Newton article. The goal of an article is to define the subject, but not to define what it should or should not be. An analogy would be adding to the Elvis article that so-and-so dislikes peanut butter and banana sandwiches. That would be irrelevant to defining the subject ... Elvis and his own views. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Zaereth, I know some may see me as beating a dead horse here, but I am hoping to find out if Jimbo would agree with that assessment. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are times when original inferences seem like they should belong, but this is a case where they don't. 3rd century Christianity and Hutaree Christianity might not be the same religion, after all.  Remember, many 3rd century Christians were Gnostics, thus heretics worthy even of execution under Christianity as founded by the Emperor Constantine I.  Early Christians viewed polytheistic gods as the Devil while Constantine equated God with Apollo; early Christians believed the only authority came from God while later they were expected to believe that anything the government promulgated was authority coming from God... I could go on and on - what seems like a simple comparison sometimes isn't.  When the comparison is simple and direct it should be allowed IMHO. Wnt (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even when the comparison seems "simple and direct" to one editor, it may not to another. This is why, per WP:V and WP:NOR, we require a reliable secondary source directly supporting any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged, including a comparison. Crum375 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand why this difference of opinions. When the Christian church was essentially "Romanized" under Constantine in the 4th century, its doctrines were also "Romanized" to a certain extent.  One of the reasons that early Christians were persecuted for the first three centuries is because they typically refused to serve in the Roman legions, as they were forbidden by their religion.  By the time of Constantine, after 3 centuries of struggle between the Roman empire and the Christian church, it seems both sides were ready for a "compromise".  So under Constantine, the earlier Christian proscriptions against military service were gradually removed from Christian policy.  Naturally, making such a major policy change in the Church required a little "revisionist license" on the part of Church historians of that period.  But the earlier record remains.  So essentially, what happened was that the Church's shift in policy amounted to a certain type of 'OR', claiming something that was not true.  Now for the last 1700 years, almost all Church policy has permitted military service by Christians, and almost all Christian confirmation students are taught absolutely nothing about the early Church's policy on military service.


 * So, essentially what has happened here, from my own perspective, is that editors here have had an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to seeing this information about the early Church's position on non-violence. Instinctively they say to themselves, this cannot be true, and delete the information as OR, because of this.  Most editors, following their instincts here, have become defenders of the OR of the Church of the 4th century, without even knowing it.


 * I feel I've said all I need to say, and I think I've probably finally reached the end of my rope on this one, so to speak. I simply won't write again about early Christian pacifism on Wikipedia, or any other potentially controversial topic where it is likely that a majority of readers might tend to have an instinctive reaction to want to disagree. Thank you Jimbo and all others here for taking the time to hear me out. Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, nothing to do with the Church's early history. If you find a reliable secondary source which directly compares the Hutaree to any other group, you can cite it. If there is no such source available, you can't make up your own home-brewed comparisons, as that would violate WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Similar to this old discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dont insult poor fellow by comparing him to Grundle2600, I think this guy is trying to defend his fiath becuase he see it being slandered by Chuck Baldwin, thus need to balanced by OR. What he hasn't paid attention to is we already have a Catholic deacon saying basically what he wants his OR to emphasize. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
and thanks for taking the time of chatting with me. It's kind of an honour. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the policy pages be changing that much?
Jimbo Wales, I'm curious what you think about the constant changes to the policy pages. It seems a lot of things get changed back and forth by just a small number of people who argue constantly until one side gets their way. Very few people actually participate in these things. Years go by and not a single policy or guideline page seems stable. Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia wide vote on major changes, or at least approval from the Wikipedia Foundation on the policy pages? Right now a group can gang up and force through whatever changes they want.  D r e a m Focus  23:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't well equipped at all to have any say-so on the details of policy pages. And in fact, policy over time is generally quite stable overall, although the details do evolve.  Finally, I don't think it is true that a group can "gang up" and force through any significant policy changes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dream Focus, your suggestion couldn't have come at a better time. See the next topic below! ;-) Scott P. (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Verify has a part that reads: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This has been added and removed and added again time after time.  Do you agree with this change?  There are hundreds of thousands of articles without references.  Many books are on the New York Times bestsellers list, but don't get reviewed, either because newspapers don't bother with their genre, or just don't have time to review all of them, or don't believe their audience would be interested.  Notable things sometimes have no third party sources to be found, and they do get deleted at times.  There is a daily effort by some to delete articles about notable fictional characters, because even if they appear in different cartoon series, video games, comic books, and toys, they don't always receive any coverage in third party sources.  Also, a manga might be very popular in Japan, featured in one of the most popular manga magazines for years, with that magazine having millions of subscribers, but since it is rare for any manga to be reviewed at all, it still gets deleted.  I've seen that happen far too often.  And even if you say to ignore all rules, some still insist on following the policies, and have cited this bit as a reason to delete something.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. To take the example of a popular book that receives no reviews, what kind of encyclopedia article could you write about it?  You could write an original review, but that isn't an encyclopedia article.  You could write a plot summary, but that isn't an encyclopedia article.  You could do some kind of original research, but that wouldn't be an encyclopedia article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you can't publish your own original research, but quoting the original research of someone who published it first in a newspaper or magazine makes it an encyclopedic article? The articles would be nothing more than a quote page then.  Especially if you eliminated the plot summary and other information(original research about characters, technology, etc) which is 99% of the articles.  You can learn what a book was about from a plot summary, far better than reading a brief mention of it quoted from a news source.  Same way with episode articles and whatnot.   D r e a m Focus  09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't think that a gang can work against an established consensus, check out the Ely AFD and all the "delete per jimbo" votes. Weakopedia (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the "established consensus" was no consensus last time. Since then some of us have had a long discussion and the article has been considerably amended. Perhaps we are now ready to form a consensus (for the first time). Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weakopedia, if you had to spend time answering the emails the foundation gets from hurt, angry, upset, bewildered people who can't understand why a bunch of anonymous teenagers insist on documenting one stupid moment in their life then you would have advocated deletion as well. This is not a role-playing game, Eric Ely is a real person who did what he thought was right in a no-win situation. If you can't empathise with the guy then I think that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This had nothing to do with that. Real life people are a different matter entirely.  They should have the right to make their cases if they have a problem with an article about them.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Guy, what I wrote seems to have nothing to do with what you just said. I don't mind you soliloquizing about your woes, but please do not use my words as some kind of basis for that. If you really think Wikipedia is just a "bunch of anonymous teenagers" intent on "documenting one stupid moment" in peoples lives you should find a different hobby, one that doesn't leave you quite so uninformedly cycnical. Weakopedia (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen it happen on a guideline page. A group of editors, mainly admins, jointly decided that articles shouldn't be forced to define/explain what the article was about in their introduction, and removed the requirement. This was like that for a couple of years maybe. The only reason that it was changed back was when it was pointed out that there was a relatively obscure bit of wiki policy that specifically mandated it... so eventually they backed down. Before that they would not listen and would intimidate and revert editors that assumed it was a mistake.- Wolfkeeper  23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So I find that There are worrying weaknesses in wiki policy/guideline development because there's no references needed to mandate an objective stance, and a lot of the people that develop the policies/guidelines claim that the policies/guidelines are not bound by anything at all.. not even the principles of the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper  23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first rule of Wikipedia is ignore all rules. In the end we are supposed to be a cluocracy, not a bureaucracy, democracy, Jimbocracy or anything else. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I try telling that to people in AFDs at times, but they never listen. If its on a policy or guideline page, then some will insist on following it no matter what.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)