User talk:Jossi/Archives/2006

Thanks for your help at the Black people article. The article needs you!
This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ '''a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.'''”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[], the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is a confused mess, although there is some good content there and more could be included. I think that dividing the article up and listing a numbering of conflicting definitions about what is a "black person" might help.--Filll 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have experienced some of it, I am prepared to believe that it is almost beyond help.

Too many people are angry about too many things.
 * There are people who want to edit the article who want to lecture everyone about how awful white people are and how white people are the cause of all their problems.
 * There are people who want to include a wide range of dark skinned people around the world as black.
 * There are people who do not want to be called black.
 * There are people who think that people should be proud to be called black.
 * There are people who think that people should be uncomfortable with being called black and that black is an offensive term.
 * There are people with narrow definitions of black.

And everyone is angry at each other and positive that their definition and writing is correct and everyone else's is incorrect.--Filll 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am even more discouraged with the current attitudes that are being displayed in the Discussion section of this article. It just makes my head spin. It is clear to me that no input or assistance is welcome by those who want to push it in the direction of a diatribe against white people and other black people who do not agree with the point of view of some of the most aggressive contributors. --Filll 05:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to think there might be some hope. I am pushing and pushing people to compromise and to allow contradictory and ambiguous points of view in the same article, as long as they are well referenced. Maybe we are making slow progress. I have to get people to stop fighting for concensus, because that will never happen. There are too many divergent viewpoints. The bottom line is, no one really agrees on what a "black person" is. --Filll 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is, Filll, that what editorts think about "black persons", is of no consequence, as our opinions are not what articles are based upon. Describe what reliable sources say about the subject. That's it. Simple. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After a few days of trying to inject some rationality into the situation, I am starting to recognize how difficult this is. I think that a person visiting an encyclopedia article on "black people" will want to know about 1. people that have been referred to or are referred to as black currently and 2. that there is disagreement about what black people means.


 * It is INTERESTING to know that some definitions of "black" include only africans. I never knew that before. It is also interesting to know that there are groups around the world that have been called "black". It is also interesting to know that there are political movements to try to form "black unity". It is also interesting to know the history of the term. There is a LOT of interesting stuff associated with this that I really did not know. However, we have to capture it and organize it for one or more encyclopedia articles. And with the editors trying to exclude other viewpoints, it does not look possible to me. Should not an encyclopedia be inclusive of ALL the viewpionts, even if they are contradictory, so the reader can follow up on them if they want?


 * One or more editors want to use this article or envision this article as a "rallying point" for black people all around the world to unite them in some sort of cause. Well that might be ok for an article on black unity or something, but we have to show the disagreements as well that exist. Ugh it just makes my head hurt.--Filll 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Shashi Tharoor
Jossie, can you kindly look at this issue and comment on it? On the Shashi Tharoor article, there is a discussion on Talk:Shashi Tharoor, it appears that some editors think that an online email bulletin from a rationalist site is a reputable source that can be cited on the Tharooor article. See the bulletin here and the page where the bulletin is described as nothing more than an email bulletin sent to subscribers of the site. There is also some contention on whether or not an interview that has not been published by secondary sources or by reputable media can be cited. Tharoor's site links to the article in question, but the article itself has never been officially published. It is purely an internet source published on belief.net. See about Belief.net. Your feeback would be appreciated. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Tortoise
According to the history page, you are one of the editors who helped create the Green Tortoise article. Right now, somebody is trying to destroy your work. A self-indentified Green Tortoise employee signing in under the name "Here" has stated, on a page linked to from the Green Tortoise discussion page, that his employer "freaked out" about the article, feeling that while it was OK for some of the authors we cited to have written articles critical of his business, it was not OK for others to know about those articles or for us to tell people about them. On this basis "here" has demanded the right to remove links to any material critical of his employer, doing so in the name of NPOV!!!

How far has this gone? We've already seen pro-Green Tortoise graffiti posted to the references section, ad copy taken directly from their site used to overwrite the article, and the employee, in at least one case, create a sock puppet account (GTWebmaster) and then try to claim that somebody was supporting his position. He has threatened to file frivolous complaints against anybody refusing to go along with what he wants, as he engages in vandalism.

None of which probably sounds like anything you'd want to be around for, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, but it bothers you to see your work destroyed and replaced by ad copy posted by someody who has come out and said that he is a corporate shill, now is the time when I hope you will speak up. I hate to see companies find that they can turn Wikipedia into ad copy, in this case quite literally, but I can't fight this one alone. If you'd be willing to help, your help would be greatly appeciated and needed. One lone editor vs. an entire company is not a fair fight, and sooner or later you know that this guy will bring in his coworkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.172.73 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting
Please do not revert edits with summaries such as (This is a formatting fix only)  If you not understand what the formatting problem was that needed fixing you really should ask first.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What edit are you referring to? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

formatting fix your revert of about three days worth of edits-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My revert was nothing to do with a formatting issue. My revert stands as these edits do no add anything to the policy, and as being policy any changes require consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see that I reverted as well a formatting change. That was not my intention, just an honest mistake. Anotehr editor already restored the formatting. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand it was a mistake, but it also seemed to be a pattern. You had reverted the same fix on WP:V, but I was trying not to bring that page up :P  Anyways this formatting problem was introduced on several policy pages by david gerard's nutshell edits, so I just want to bring it to your attention before more formatting fixes are inadvertently lost.  I had noted the wide-spread nature of the problem the talk page of WP:OR when I first made the edit.  Since you revertion included the fix in spite of the note there, I figured I needed to leave a note here.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If there is a pattern on my edits to policy pages, it is related to reverting changes that have been introduced without a vigourous discussion in talk, and that did not reach consensus. Apologies if in the midst of these reverts, some inocent edits get lost. Will pay closer attention from now on. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Attribution
A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
I reverted your removal of the 500k statement. It actually is in the source article, back on page three, second to last paragraph. Crockspot 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs to be attributed to the Wired journalist (which I did), as this is disputed by Jimmy Wales. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Youtube
Thanks for the help, Jossi. I just started reviewing a few articles, and found so far that most were innocuous to useless. I haven't found anything controversial yet.
 * I deleted one from Joe Lieberman (without even viewing it) because the sourced text wasn't particularly encyclopedic anyway. "Fox News aired a report showing the two candidates hugging."
 * I deleted another from Joe Lieberman because the full transcript was also sourced, and the link didn't go directly to whatever it was intended to show. "In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to publicly challenge Bill Clinton for the judgment exercised in his affair with Monica Lewinsky.Senator Joe Lieberman Attacks Clinton. AustralianPolitics.com September 3, 1998, Retrieved October 10, 2006. Youtube.
 * I don't know what to do with this one on Joe Lieberman:
 * Following his 2005 State of the Union address, President Bush, while shaking lawmakers’ hands, abruptly grasped Lieberman’s head in both hands and leaned in close to his cheek.Youtube.
 * A video helps support the text, but there are several other hardprint sources supporting the text, and the article has a Wiki content clip already. It's not controversial, but ... if you look closely at the clip and other uploads on the same site, they are clips gathered to specifically make it look like a real, smacking kiss.  Spin?  Should I delete, or is it no problem?

Now, on Christopher Shays, I find one that is a bit problematic, but not sure if it's worth going to bat over: It's not needed, because the content is also sourced to The Boston Globe, it adds little, but I can see where things like this could cause a problem. The clip could be designed to show only biased portions, and the clip could be subject to interpretation because of poor audio or video quality. I guess, all in all, I don't see a reason for keeping any of them, but there isn't an example here worth making a case over. But the other problem is, none of them seem to be copyrighted, and some of them link to other videos, which do seem to contain POV. Not sure any of these are worth ruffling feathers over, but in principle, it bothers me that unreliable sources are ever used anywhere on Wiki, and I'd prefer to make a case for deleting them, because that door is open too wide already. I'll follow your response on this page. Thanks, Sandy 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On October 13, 2006 Shays stated, "It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops....who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked, and they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."Youtube Boston Globe.
 * I reviewed some other articles, and don't find any Youtube clip that causes a BLP problem: if I come across one, I'll ping you, but these examples may help clarify whether something should be written at WP:CITE about the general use of Youtube as a source.  Sandy 02:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would delete each and everyone of these YouTube convenience links for these reasons:
 * YouTube and other video sharing sites are not reliable sources as it is very easy to edit a video clip to take out words, replace audio tracks, modify images or scenes, etc. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources, only if their authenticity can be confirmed; material on YouTube should be used with caution. Youtube is seldom, if ever, usable as a secondary source.
 * If you need a helping hand in removing these, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jossi. There's a lot of fuss at Christopher Shays right now, with a lot of new editors, policy problems, and AGF problems, so since it's not critical, I'll take it on when things settle down.  I'll let you know.  Sandy 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is zaph tolerated?
He recently reverted the edits you made to the black people article, and he took out the definitions section which is the only cited part of the whole article. I reverted back to your version and he reverted it again and then an admin protected the article. Why is he allowed to continue to edit the article? He constantly makes personal attacks on the talk page. His edit summaries are ridiculously confrontational and ideological. Everything he adds to the article is essay style personal opinion. He takes up volumes of space on the talk page with his ridiculous rants. And now he started an edit war and has his version of the article preserved. Timelist 04:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made some suggestions on the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the article's protected would you mind reverting zaph's recent edits. It makes me sick to my stomach to see the only cited cited section of the article removed and replaced with his ridiculous POV. It disgusts me that his disruptive behavior has been rewarded. Thanks.

It is beyond fascinating that you said the article I cited never called the Formosa Black. And you cited a paragraph in your argument. Yet when you read the next paragraph there it is "black people". How did you miss it? --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph feels that just because he can find an example of someone somewhere in the world calling a South Asian black, he has the right state categorically that South Asians are black in the intro, ignoring the dozens of definitions that beg to differ. Of course this standard never seems to apply to the Black irish who are called Black all the time. Timelist 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Taipei times is not an extreme, and the other articles, one from Reed University, also indicting the same thing. Not extreme. You keep going back to that black irish. You find an article by a reputable source where the black irish were called "black men" or "black people". The "blackfoot indians" and the "pieds noirs" of Algeria have the word "black" in their name, but never do you see them called "black people". That's the crucial difference. If your not called a "black person" then your not included. I use the Grapefruit analogy. A grapefruit is never called a "grape", therefore it's not a type of "grape". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still on line
Hi Jossi, you are still on line. Will you be sticking around much longer? --BostonMA talk 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sleep well. --BostonMA talk  05:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am. But not for long... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you are back. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Black people
I moved what little cited information I could find in the racial boundaries section of the black people article to the multiracial article. Now that the definitions also have their own article, I don't think the black people article has much left beyond Zaph's uncited personal opinion essays. Timelist 04:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We can wait a few days, request unprotection at WP:RFPP, and then redirect that article to definitions of black people ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

\ I have submitted a request for arbitration. You can view it here. My request is that the arbitrators agree to retain the inclusion of asian groups long historically considered to be black, with no prejudice. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Request for arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. It is unlikely the arbitrators will accept this case. See Dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hannity
USER:plange said you might be a good person to ask about reliable sources. I'm new and wondering what sources are good on a BLP. I got involved with the Sean Hannity page because it had a clean up tag and I noticed there seemed to be a lot of criticisms on the page with no citation to a transcript of Hannity saying them. Now, I'm not saying he didn't say the quotes (I'm sure he did) it just seems there should be a citation showing he said them if there is a criticism for it. I'm just trying to get the rules on this and I'm staying out of the warring and just trying to copy edit but I keep asking for citations and I don't know if I'm correct in asking for them. Also, is Media Matters a biased resource when it comes to Hannity? Sorry to be long winded. If you need more info my talk page has some discussion and the Sean Hannity page as well. --PTR 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it looks like PTR beat me here. I am an editor currently involved in editing the Sean Hannity article, and there's currently a dispute surrounding this very issue. The essence of the dispute at present is, if it is acceptable for the article to say that Sean Hannity said "X", as long as we have a reliable source that Sean Hannity said "X". Specifically, (and here's where the gray area is, I think) the source that says that Sean Hannity said "X" is a political reporting organization called Media Matters. At a glance it appears to be a reporting website that reports stories regarding current political debates and the media, and controversies.
 * As it happens, one of the statements in the Mission Statement of Media Matters is to "monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Other than this specific statement, the organization appears to be legitimate, fact-checked, and edited independent of the individual writers. Because Media Matters reports mostly on errors, etc. that Conservative media outlets have made, the other editors and I at the Hannity page wanted to know your opinion on the reliability of them as a source.
 * For your convenience here's a link to their "About Us" page: About Us. Thank you for your input- editing conflicts always give me such a headache; I try to stay as far away from edit wars as is possible when working on NPOV. Anyway, thank you for your time. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch my comment below: if that's their mission, they are a biased source, and may be reporting only part of the story.  Find a transcript, or an unbiased source, to source critical comment.  It should be obvious that a reliable source would "monitor, analyze, and correct misinformation in the U.S. media", whether liberal, conservative, or anything else.  If they have a slant, the information they present will be slanted.  Sandy 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. My take on it was, at least as far as the policy on WP:RS is concerned, that sources such as the one in question are not necessarily unreliable- specifically, that it says that "bias itself is no reason to declare a source unreliable". Is there any clarification as to how one can discern one from the other you could give? --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Specifically, in the above comment, I was referring to using the Media Matters source specifically as a source to say that X said Y, because none of the original transcripts of the incident in which X said Y are available due in the most part to the fact that since Hannity's show is on television, transcripts of the show are not (as far as I'm aware) publicly available, and so secondary sources must be used. If there is some way to get ahold of an original transcript that I am not aware of, that would be good too. Google returned nothing in the way of an alternate source, however. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll see what Jossi says, but re-focusing the discussion on what an encyclopedic biography looks like: if the issue isn't mentioned in any other reliable source, and can only be found in an admittedly biased source, does the content really belong in an encyclopedic bio at all, or is it POV-pushing ?  Sandy 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PTR, ping me if you need help there. Jossi can give you a more thorough answer, but you can delete, per BLP, any poorly-sourced criticism, not subject to 3RR. Use your judgment, though: if you think the content is most likely accurate, and could be reliably sourced, you can show good faith by not deleting it, merely asking for a source. I'm not sure on Media Matters: don't really know what it is. I see there is a related question floating around about Criticism sections: Jimbo has specifically said they are to be avoided, as they are POV magnets. It's better to weave pro and con commentary into seamless prose (in how many hardprint bios do we find a "criticism" section?) Check the Wikipedia:Criticism talk page. As elections are approaching in the US, there are a lot of shaky, liberal sources being used to trash candidates all over Wikipedia. Sandy 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Media Matters is a partisan source and would not be considered a reliable source for a BLP. Same would apply to National Review on the other side of the political spectrum. Anything worthwhile should be also available from a reliable source such as a maintsream newspaper. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the Log Cabin Republicans shouldn't be used too, right? --plange 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Nation is on the mix on Hannity as well. Sandy 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone. That made it much clearer. --PTR 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look
  Hi Jossi, could you please take a look at the above edits and give your opinion on the civility and over-strike issues. Thank you --BostonMA talk 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. For my own edification, what is your opinion of my overstriking comments which label me as Muslim?  My gut feeling is that that is appropriate, however, that was contested by another editor.  Thanks again.  --BostonMA talk  19:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have refactored these comments completely, not only strikeout. But that is only me... Some admins are of the opinion that refactoring anything from talk pages is not correct, but I beg to differ. As an admin, my duty is to protect Wikipedia from disruption, and these type of comments are highly disruptive, and unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. I guess I am not quite as WP:Bold as you, and I probably will remain so for some time.  Thank you again for your time.  Please drop me a note now and then.  --BostonMA talk  19:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any time. I'll keep in touch. You may want to take a look at WP:ATT, IMO a great effort to combine WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into one easy-to-understand policy≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @
 * I'll take a look. By the way, I think you did a good job with WP:BLP.  --BostonMA talk  19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Cult/Cult Leader CfDs
To help with reaching consensus on these CfDs, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group here and hereAntonrojo 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is a good idea. Keep just two reasons: "Keep" or "delete". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Best is to leave the recommendations on what to do with the CFD to the admin closing the case. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sappho
"Little is known of Sappho" is a much more factual (non-opinion) statement than 95% of the ancient biographical fantasy that fills the section "Life." Without such a disclaimer, the accumulation of dubious material, to which scholars give little historical weight, is not helping the Wikipedia's credibility. Wareh 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the text in that article is fantasy, then challenge the text and ask for references. You can use the unreferenced for the article or any of its sections, or ask for references to specific claims by adding fact to these. Adding the wording ""Little is known of Sappho" without a reference or attribution of who make that statement, is helping neither the article, nor Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The material was widely believed by experts in prevous generations. It's not garbage content so much as out of date.  I'm doing my part to modernize Wikipedia material where & when I can, but I feel something like this should stand until replaced by a more informed (and well-referenced) account.
 * All right, I suppose I should thank you, since your insistence on a point I had regarded as Common knowledge and a fairly obvious negative claim, has moved me to improve the Sappho article by adding what is, as of now, the only reference to a scholarly source for the entire Sappho article. Everything else in the article is still unsourced, but the statement that scholars don't believe a whit of that biography (and it alone) now has impeccable references.  Thanks for keeping us honest, but I hope you may give some further consideration to my earlier argument (that you removed the one sentence of the whole section that is in fact least disputable).  Sincerely and respectfully yours, Wareh 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have coommented on the article's talk page. Note that there are references provided, but unfortunately the editors did not use inline citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nearly a consensus"
I meant that significant majority was saying keep, but just not enough to form a consensus. So the CFD was closed as no-consensus (keeping the category by default). I can clarify this at the CFD log page if it's helpful for future reference. Conscious 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)