Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 May 23

= May 23 =

How to change the title of an article?
The article titled Faded horizon   should be titled  Faded Horizon

How do I fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have AfD'ed the article. Why do you want to move an article that you have nominated for deletion? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems the article was incorrectly AfD'ed in an attempt to rename the article. Could an Admin please have a look at that? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article to Faded Horizon, as per the original request. The AfD does look like a mistaken attempt to get the title corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Boerebetrokke Groep
Good Morning. We are Boerebetrokke Groep, a Conservative social pressure group based in Bloemfontein, South Africa. As the internet becomes more widespread in South Africa, more and more young persons are visiting the Wikipedia website.

We are unhappy at how some of the articles on Wikipedia are biased towards the Boers and Afrikaners. There is too much of a biased towards our people. We wish to lodge an official complaint and we want to change some of these articles, particulary on Apartheid, which makes the Afrikaners look really really bad.

Thank You. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you find a problem with an article, you need to raise the issue on the article's talk page, in this case at Talk:Apartheid. Be aware that changes are not made merely because you assert that they need to be made, you need to provide reliable sources which document the changes you wish to see be made.  Also, your account will likely soon be blocked, because Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by an organization.  Every individual person needs their own individual account that represents them as an individual.  No editing at Wikipedia may be done on behalf of an organization.  See FAQ/Organizations, especially topic #11.  -- Jayron  32  00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I am a person, who is a member of an organisation.


 * 2. I do not need sources or proof, my arguments are common sense.


 * 3. I am not a member of an organisation.


 * Thank you. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't your points one and three inherently contradictory? doom gaze   (talk)  00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Yes you do need sources, it doesn't make any difference how common sense your arguments are. All information must be verifiable to reliable sources.  GB fan (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations User:Doomgaze, you have just been banned from our organisation. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You too, User:GB fan. What a coinsidence.. You are from Great Britain. Boer-hater and starter of 2 wars. Anglo-Boer Wars. Get your queen to apoligise. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I am from the United States and a fan of the Green Bay (GB) Packers. Thank you for banning me from your organization.  GB fan (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are serious about making some changes to Wikipedia then you seem to be going about it the wrong way, some civility would help you out no end. If you have some specific concerns and have reliable sources to support your viewpoint then I suggest the article talk page would be a good place to start. PS please reconsider my ban, I would very much like to join your organisation. doom gaze  (talk)  00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will also note that the articles do not make all Boers and Afrikaners look bad; just those who practiced and advocated racial hatred and discrimination. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a troll--  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  02:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Cresap article
Who is the author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.60.79 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this the most frequent contributor is User:Conaughy. doom gaze   (talk)  00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are edited by many - often hundreds - of people; nobody owns an article, as anyone can edit it.
 * If you go to Thomas Cresap and click 'History', you'll see this page - which shows every change to it, who made the edit, and when - right back to the first version (6 May 2007).  Chzz  ► 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Citing Wikipedia, for information on citing Wikipedia articles in other works. For example, if you want to give credit to Wikipedia for information you use as a reference in something you are writing.  -- Jayron  32  01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

question regarding the appropriate use of blocks
Hi Wikipeida. I asked this over on my talk page with a helpme, but I didn't get a real answer, so I thought I'd try here.

I've been here on Wikipedia for about 10 years now, and I've never really had an account I kept more than two weeks or so. If you could collect my entire edit trail, though, you'd find that it consists of about 50% productive editing, 25% trolling, and 25% wikilawyering. Assume that I won't change my behavior for love or money. Should I be permablocked by an admin?

24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please let us know your user-names, or at least your present ones, and any others you might be able to remember. It's not possible to really assess the question without that info.  Chzz  ► 02:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remember. I've been IP-only for several years now. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assume that I won't change my behavior for love or money." Sounds like trolling.  Ignore.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or honesty. You're very quick to dismiss me. You should WP:AGF instead. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If all you ever do, from today forward, is edit productively, there's no way for anyone to connect you to your past misdeeds, unless you start behaving in a predictable manner (editing the same way as you have before, returning to the same patterns of behavior, etc.) If you never do anything wrong, and never behave in a manner which anyone can connect to a past account, how can anything be done?  If you do anything that allows someone to positively connect you, by your behavior, to blocked accounts, expect to be blocked. -- Jayron  32  04:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really my question. I'm not engaging in sockpuppetry, and there are no outstanding blocks on any account/IP I've previously used. I have no intention of changing my behavior. Per Wikipedia's policies, should I be permablocked? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT, thank you for playing. – ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Italicizing web site titles
I'm finding a great deal of conflicting policy assertions, and not much consistency across Wikipedia. Basically, these are my three questions: 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Under what circumstances should an article about a web site italicize the name of that web site?
 * Should an article about a web site consistently italicize or not-italicize the name of a web site within that article?
 * Should references to a web site external to the web site's article match the italicization of the title of the article about the web site?


 * See MOS:ITALICS. That seems to answer your questions.  Dismas |(talk) 05:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Read MOS:ITALICS and try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is WikiProject Websites/Sample. I don't know how much that can be regarded as a guideline though. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a great deal of inconsistency. I quote, "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should also be italicized." However, for a reason that has always mystified me, we don't actually italicise Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia article. Even featured articles seem to be inconsistant with general–website–italics–related formatting. I personally put italics on sites replicating italicised material (The Telegraph online etc). Do whatever looks right. doom gaze   (talk)  08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed: Assigning religion categories to BLPs according to WP:EGRS
Dear Help Desk,

Wikipedia editors would like a bit of clarification as to when an biographic article should be assigned to a religion category. WP:EGRS states the following: "Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic." However, at the same time, List of French Jews states the following: "The following is a list of some prominent Jews and people of Jewish origins,[2] among others, (not all of them practice, or practiced, the Jewish religion) who were born in, or are very strongly associated with, France." Which of these two statements should be taken into consideration? If the EGRS statement is more important, then shouldn't List of French Jews be greatly trimmed to only clergy French Jews? How about Category:French_Jews, should that category be greatly trimmed to only self-identified believes?

Thank you in advance for any clarification. Xionbox₪ 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The descriptors "Jew" and "Jewish" presents a special situation because it is well known that being Jewish is not necessarily a religious distinction at all but an ethnic and cultural identity more akin in some ways to saying "I'm Italian" than "I'm a Buddhist" (though I'm oversimplifying). See, for example, Judaism and Who is a Jew?. Many Jews are atheists and yet still self-identify (and are identified by others) as being Jewish, regardless of their lack of religion. In your question you see a conflict, but I think you base that on an assumption that a category named French Jews is inherently a religious category, when I don't think it is. On a side note, I would delete this article, and others similarly situated, as a poorly defined, unbounded list, far to indiscriminate as to who should and who should not be included, with thousand of potential entries possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As per today, the category "French Jews" comprises religious Jews, Christians of Jewish ancestry, as well as self-proclaimed atheists, and so do the categories "German Jews," etc. It is interesting to note, for instance, that Marcel Proust, a Roman Catholic of Jewish ancestry, is identified as belonging to the category "French Jews," and so is Jean-Marie Lustiger, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church! For consistency, similar categories/lists, including German Jews, British Jews, Jewish musicians, Jewish writers, etc. will have to be deleted as well. This is a huge task; at least 100 categories/lists are concerned. Nidrosia (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about terminology. The category for French Jews is Category:French Jews. The article we are talking about is List of French Jews (and what I talked about deletion of). German Jews is a redirect to History of the Jews in Germany; British Jews is an article about Jews in Britain and is not a list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuhghettaboutit, please note that I am refering to categories and lists. I am not referring to the articles you mentioned. Issues relating to the category "French Jews" apply with equal force to the category German Jews, the category British Jews, the category Jewish musicians, the category Jewish writers, etc. (My links are not "redirects.") Nidrosia (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You fixed your links to point to categories after they had pointed to articles! Then and even after the fix you seem to misunderstand that I was talking about deletion of the categories when I was very specifically talking about deletion of the list article. The points I raised for its deletion are utterly inapplicable to categories.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Hopefully, this time I'll get it right. You are arguing that the List of French Jews, an article, should be deleted. You are not arguing that the category, "French Jews," should be deleted. Does the same logic apply to the List of German Jews, the List of American Jews, the List of British Jews, the List of North European Jews, etc.? Nevertheless, in view of the discussion found here, several categories and several of the various "lists of Jews" are probably good candidates for deletion. Nidrosia (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets also be clear; categorization by ethnicity, race, gender, and sexuality should only be done if BOTH of the following criteria are met: 1) It is a self-idetified characteristic of the person (the person can be positively and reliably and without any ambiguity confirmed to be self-identifying as a member of that category) AND 2) It is highly relevent to the reason the person is otherwise notable. The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother who lived in France at one point is not enough to classify someone as "of French ethnicity" even if it is true, if it is not also a self-identified AND relevent to the person's reason for having a Wikipedia article in the first place.  Exactly the same if you replace "French ethnicity" with lesbian, jewish, catholic, black, asian, or likes-ketchup-on-his-hotdogs.  -- Jayron  32  13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron32—you say, "The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother…"


 * No one is ever arguing that "The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother…" that therefore someone is Jewish.


 * I just need to point that out. That is a form of exaggeration that blows the whole issue out of proportion. At most, an editor may be arguing that since someone's mother (sometimes the argument is made that this applies to someone's father as well) is Jewish, that therefore the child is also Jewish.


 * In my opinion Jewish identity should be determined primarily by what reliable sources say. But at least the above argument—that the child of Jews is a Jew—has support in Judaism's definition of itself—called halacha.


 * Judaism's definition of itself never considers that someone whose "great-great-great-great grandmother" was Jewish has Jewish identity conferred on them across the generations. That is out of the question, and no editor seriously ever tries to present such an argument.


 * I haven't really addressed the issue here and I hope that no one takes umbrage at my slight aside but I wanted to make the above clarification. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayron32: Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (WP:BLPCAT). Ethnicity is not mentioned. However: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category [i.e., a special subcategory], then the category should not be created. The implication is that, because the article on the "History of the Jews in France is a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," the category French Jews is indeed allowed. On the other hand, the category Jewish writers should probably be deleted, because the subject is too vast to cover in a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," see "Special subcategories." Nidrosia (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:EGRS: "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." -- Jayron  32  22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayron32. This helps. I agree this is a valid argument . As for my other examples (Marcel Proust, Jean-Marie Lustiger, Bernard-Henri Lévy, etc.), I do realize that each case must be discussed separately. (For instance, it is not self-evident that the Jewishness of Lévy, an acquaintance of Strauss-Kahn's, is relevant to Wikipedia. The question will be posted on the relevant page.) Nidrosia (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, you say: "Judaism's definition of itself never considers that someone whose "great-great-great-great grandmother" was Jewish has Jewish identity conferred on them across the generations. That is out of the question, and no editor seriously ever tries to present such an argument."
 * The unfortunate truth is that the reality in wikipedia is far worse than that. For instance, there are examples where editors (with strong administrative support) are including information about ethnicity when it has no relevance whatsoever to the personality notability and the editors simply indicate "well, I guess I have heard that on television or I read it in a newspaper that I can no longer find" or that "my grandma when she saw the face of this singer told me she certainly must have ethnicity X". They have no other evidence and still go ahead and include it in the biography. I need to point out that having reliable information about "great-great-great-great grandmother" with respect to ethnicity is a few levels above in the good direction when comparing with what could be found out there.


 * Given the recent interest on this topic I drafted a proposal for amending the policy on Biography for living persons that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&action=edit&section=8

Basically, I would like stronger wording to be included in WP:BLP to forbid inclusion of information about ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation (and now I realize this list needs to be expanded to include "likes-ketchup-on-his-hotdogs" or any other categorization) if such information has no significant relevance to the notability of the person who's biography we are talking about. kARom (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's cut straight to the chase here. Wikipedia has got to decide once and for all whether it is (a) an online encyclopaedia, (b) a tabloid newspaper, or (c) a database for whatever 'reliable sources' tell us about anything and everything. If it is (b) then we don't need to do anything other than copy the juicy bits about whatever takes our fancy. If it is (c) then we need to organise, categorise and shove everything into neat litle boxes - using brute force if they won't fit, because the category is more important than the thing being described. If on the other hand, our objective is actually (a), and we are attempting to construct an encyclopedia, we need to stop pretending that the fact that there is a 'reliable source' for anything is of any relevence to its inclusion in articles, and stop creating articles based on vague social constructs, solely with the purpose of then fitting people into them. Nobody should be included in the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that. The category 'French Jew' is a hybrid involving ethnicity and nationality, and just because someone is of French nationality, and self-identifies as Jewish by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that they identify with the hybrid - in fact they need not even recognise the existance of the hybrid as a 'group' - they after all will have many other attributes that contribute to their self-identity. Do we have categories for 'French Males', 'Jewish Taxi-drivers', or 'Male French Jewish taxi-drivers'. No of course not. They are self-evidently categories that no encyclopedia will include. "Ah yes," I expect that someone will reply, "but the category 'French Jews' is notable, it has had books written about it". Very likely true, and we can (and probably should) write an article about the concept of 'French Jewishness'. However, we should note that recognising that a concept exists isn't the same thing as recognising it's universal validity. By creating a category 'French Jews', Wikipedia is doing exactly that. Imposing a particular concept of 'identity' on individuals, for our own convenience. That is not only unencyclopaedic, it is downright offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, you wrote, "Nobody should be included in the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that." It would be helpful to identify at least one person who fulfills your new criteria for inclusion into the category. Could you please name one such person? WP:EGRS demands that "[c]ategories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." A French Nobel laureate in Chemistry who happens to be Jewish should not be placed in the category called "French Jews," as her/his Jewishness is irrelevant to why she/he is notable. A person qualifies for the category "French Jews" if and only if her/his notability is in some way or other related to her/his Jewishness. This is a very strict condition. (Hundreds of biographical articles should be re-checked.) Adding further criteria will increase the threshold even further.
 * Gilles Bernheim is a possible candidate, but I have not been able to find a reliable source according to which Bernheim officially recognizes the existence of "French Jews," this "hybrid group" (your expression). Nidrosia (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nidrosia, I suggest you learn the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'race'. WP:EGRS states "while a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People". Or to put it into simple language, it is a violation of WP:EGRS to create a 'racial' category for people. Note also that I said that "nobody should be placed into the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that". I didn't say that everyone who meets the crireria should be placed in it. In fact, I've made clear that I don't consider the category valid. What about my viewpoint is it that you are querying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a "French Jew," according to Wikipedia, is a member of the Jewish population in France; cf. History of the Jews in France, where there are 21 instances of the term "French Jew(s)" in this particular sense. It does not follow that, by using the term "French Jew," we are "imposing a particular concept of 'identity' on individuals." The latter proposition requires several extra steps, and is based on your original research. Secondly, according to WP:BLPCAT, "[c]ategories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (italics mine). Ethnicity is not mentioned here. Hence, it is irrelevant whether or not the ethnicity of a given person is a "self-identified characteristic." Thirdly, it was Jayron32 who introduced the term "race" into this particular context; see above. I should not have used the term at all. It was a great mistake. Nidrosia (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'A "French Jew," according to Wikipedia, is a member of the Jewish population in France'. Exactly. Wikipedia contributors have created a synthesis from 'nationality' and 'ethnicity'. Wikipedia isn't WP:RS for itself in any case. And if you bother to consult the experts (social scientists), self-identification is precisely what defines an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you are failing to recognize that in some, or most, instances, the individual in question neither objects to being called a "French Jew", nor provides any other reason (in reliable sources) for us to believe that they might not be properly categorized as a French Jew. We adhere to what sources say. If an editor can bring a source that calls into question the validity of that categorization—that would carry weight, and would tend to serve to disqualify the subject of that biography from inclusion in that category. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump: This seems highly logical. Thank you for elaborating. (The refs listed in "Ethnic group" seem useful.) However, in order to avoid similar discussions in the future, I would argue that the term 'ethnicity' should be incorporated into the following statement: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (WP:BLPCAT). One could write: "Categories regarding religious beliefs, ethnicity, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief, ethnicity, or orientation in question." Nidrosia (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been attempted on several occasions to get WP:BLPCAT revised to make self-identification a requirement for statements regarding ethnicity. However, this has been opposed strongly by contributors more intent on boosting one group or another than on adhering to Wikipedia requirements regarding OR and synthesis. In any case, the change you propose doesn't solve the particular problem here, which is the creation of a new category from the intersection of two others. It is entirely possible to agree that one fits into both categories, and yet refuse to recognise the intersection as being a part of one's self-identity. A well-documented example of this arose regarding Richard Feynman and the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. He identified as ethnically Jewish, and as a Nobel laureate (which he was), but insisted that one had no connection with the other, and that he not be included in a book about the subject. And yes, he is in our 'List'. Like I said, not only unencyclopaedic, but downright offensive. Still, if we are going to compile an 'ethnic' database, why should we care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say, in reference to Richard Feynman, that "He identified as ethnically Jewish…" No, he did not. Please show me a source supportive of that contention. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I wrote that I wasn't going to reply to you, but I'll make an exception here. Are you suggesting that Feynman's inclusion in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is incorrect? Or are you suggesting that the list isn't actually one of 'Jewish Nobel laureates' at all, but instead one of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia contributors consider Jewish? And if your reply includes the ridiculous assertion (which they usually do) that a 'reliable source' doesn't have to indicate what it means by 'Jewish', I can only assume that everyone will recognise your agenda here - to turn Wikipedia into a 'database of Jews' (except those you'd rather not include, if they do something embarrassing). The utterly facile argument that Wikipedia should report what 'reliable sources' say (or rather what a synthesis from reliable sources says), regardless of whether it has any significance to the subject, is precisely what the problem is here. Yes 'reliable sources state that Dominique Strauss-Kahn has self-identified as being of Jewish ethnicity/heritage, and yes, he is clearly of French nationality, but is that grounds for calling him a 'French Jew' or not? Actually, I got the impression that you were less than convinced that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are changing the subject. Do you have a source supportive of your contention that "He identified as ethnically Jewish?" You said that in reference to Richard Feynman. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—Richard Feynman is not found saying that he is "ethnically Jewish" in the link you provided. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, if you think that you are either incredibly stupid, or being intentionally obtuse. Either way, you have nothing constructive whatsoever to add to this discuission. Take your ethno-bureaucratic Wikilawyering agenda elsewhere (I'd recommend Metapedia, they like labelling people as 'Jewish' too) . AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—thank you for bringing Metapedia to my attention as I was not aware of their existence. They apparently espouse "white nationalist and white supremacist, extreme right-wing" views. You say of Metapedia that they "they like labelling people as 'Jewish' too'". I have no "likes" or "dislikes" in this regard. But I think that the noting of attributes of identity in articles is a generally accepted part of writing biographies. And when reliable sources point out such attributes of identity I think that bolsters support for the inclusion of such information, if it is not contested. If reliable sources are found to be contradicting one another in this respect, I think it may be best to omit such information, or to include a balanced addressing of the points of contention. By the way, those Metapedia views are not in any way consonant with any corresponding views that I may hold. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Those Metapedia views are not in any way consonant with any corresponding views that I may hold". Yes and no. You are clearly not an antisemite. You do however share with Metapedia contributors the view that labelling people as 'Jewish' is inherently meaningful, regardless of context. And cut out the crap about 'reliable sources' providing 'attributes of identity'. That is pure nonsense. Ethnicity can only be an 'attribute' if it is self-attributed - this is what 'ethnicity' means. Anything else isn't an 'attribute of identity' but an opinion held by others - and Wikipedia articles should not be representing opinions as facts, even if it suits your relentless ethno-tagging agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "Ethnicity can only be an 'attribute' if it is self-attributed…"

This may or may not be true as concerns Categories…Lists, Navigation templates, and Infobox statements". I say "may or may not" because WP:BLPCAT does not include "ethnicity" as requiring "self-identification". Please parse the language found at WP:BLPCAT carefully.

But this is not my real concern. WP:BLPCAT is formulated to cope with the truncated spaces available at the parts of the article enumerated above. The problem is that we cannot say very much in the name of a Category. Ditto for the space in an Infobox. Indeed WP:BLPCAT alludes to this, saying: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources."

But your above statement, that "ethnicity can only be an 'attribute' if it is self-attributed", is not applicable to material as may be found in the body of an article. Material being considered for placement in the body of an article avails itself of the full expressive capacities of the English language. You cannot argue that someone cannot be said to be a green man from Mars in the body of the article if reliable sources support that.

Wikipedia is not censored. Other factors may come into play. For instance WP:BLP imposes certain restrictions. Furthermore, sources have to be reliable, and sources should not be in contradiction with one another or we may find ourselves in a quandary the only solution to which is to omit the disputed material. But in general attributes of identity of a wide variety of sorts can and indeed commonly are included in descriptions of the subjects of biographies. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Blah, blah, blah. Reliable sources, blah, blah. Same old nonsense, blah, blah... Wikipedia isn't censored? Well really? The Moon isn't made of green cheese either, but that is about as relevant as censorship to this debate. And if you are still asserting that somebody else's opinion about a person is an 'attribute' of that persons identity, I can only conclude you are a fool, a madman, or a liar (or any combination of). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you refer in your post above to "somebody else's opinion about a person". Biographers and a variety of other writers do not provide their raw notes to the reader. A writer digests material and presents it in a readable form. Writers are often considered capable of evaluating the raw notes that they have gathered and relaying to the reader that an attribute of identity is applicable to an individual. You are considering this to be merely "opinion". Nevertheless standard Wikipedia policy calls for adherence to reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the body of the article is the most important part of an article. I think we have to recognize that precise fit in "categories…lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements" is an unrealistic goal.


 * WP:BLPCAT explains why precise fit is not likely: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers…" And: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements…"


 * Well-intentioned editors can disagree over placement in "categories…lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements". I'm not going to express excessive optimism about resolving such disputes.


 * But a little bit of perspective I will express: those parts of an article are, at least in my opinion, far less important than the body of an article. If we can't express the type of person that reliable sources articulate a person (the subject of a biography) is in the body of the article—then we've got a serious problem. We have the full functionality of the English language at our disposal when writing sentences in the body of the article. We can use all the "disclaimers" and "modifiers" we like, when writing prose in the body of an article. In my opinion that is where we should focus our energy. The daily fracas over inclusion and exclusion in categories and Infoboxes is something we should all step back from. It's not the most important part of an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, the only 'reliable source' for whether someone should be described by Wikipedia as a 'French Jew' is the person him/herself. I don't give a rats arse what other sources say, 'reliable' or otherwise. 'French Jew' is a hybrid social construct that we have no business propogating about people unless they accept the construct as valid. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—why wouldn't "French Jew" be a valid category? You say two posts up that "…I don't consider the category valid." And in your post immediately above you say that you consider "French Jew" a "hybrid social construct" and therefore somehow suspect.


 * But I think reliable sources establish for our purposes entities such as "French Jew". You express skepticism that reliable sources are the means by which we might identify someone as for instance a "French Jew".


 * You say, "...the only 'reliable source' for whether someone should be described by Wikipedia as a 'French Jew' is the person him/herself. I don't give a rats arse what other sources say, 'reliable' or otherwise."


 * I find at WP:BLPCAT that "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources."


 * One thing that I am not clear about is whether your comments are confined to just "Categories" or if you are extending your reasoning to the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, given your ridiculous double standards regarding this issue I have no interested in debating with you. You are clearly more interested in pursuing your own agenda than in contributing to the encyclopaedia in a constructive manner, and you persist in spouting exactly the same points time after time, even when they are refuted. I will post no further replies to you on this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My "agenda" is to adhere to what reliable sources say. You say, ''"You are clearly more interested in pursuing your own agenda… As concerns my supposed double standard, please provide an example. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If his Jewish ethnicity is put at all, you'd have to make it Sephardic and Ashkenazi (Alsatian Jewish translates to Ashkenazi) then as a single Jewish ethnicity doesn't exist. I personally don't think it is that relevant and should not be included at all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie. There should not be such vague, and potentially offensive, category. In particular, the DSK article should not be listed nor in List of French Jews, nor in the French Jew category. It's not relevant and reliable sources don't seem very reliable.
 * I propose the following (wording should be changed for the final proposal):
 * List of French Jews be deleted and Category:French Jews mentions that only BLP articles where at least two separate sources quote the BLP as clearly identifying himself/herself as of French Jew (hybrid) ethnicity are allowed in the category.
 * I hope summarizes the above debate and that we can reach a consensus soon.
 * Xionbox₪ 07:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eric Alterman, a Professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and media columnist for The Nation, argues that "Strauss-Kahn's religion has proven relevant to only two types of people: Neo-Nazis and Ann Coulter" (The Daily Beast, May 19, 2011). Article online Nidrosia (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Xionbox—you seem to be suggesting that Category:French Jews is "potentially offensive". If that is what you are saying, I fail to see that, or at least I fail to see how that Category has any more potential for offense than any other Category. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nidrosia, I would have to agree with your source. ;-)

Bus stop, offensive may be replaced with prejudicial. In fact, assigning such a BLP to this category may prejudice that person in [Antisemitism#Current_situation|several part of the world]. This is why I propose this category be strictly monitored. In another debate we could extend my proposal to any religion category.

Do you agree with my aforementioned proposal?

Xionbox₪ 06:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References in disambiguation pages (again)
Per WP:PTM, disambiguation pages should not contain references (see also previous help desk topic WP:HD above). I found an entry in a disambiguation page tagged for needing a citation. The page in question is BLA, containing the following statement:


 * an abbreviation and a slang word for an African-American

According to WP:PTM I assume I can simply remove the citation needed tag. Is my assumption correct? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't remove the tag without knowing the expression or searching for a source (which shouldn't be listed if you find it). Race slang is potentially controversial. I Googled and found no signs of this on the first pages but three others about blacks: "Black Leadership Forum", "Black & Latino Achievers" and "Black Liberation Army" (also listed on the dab page). There is also "Black Lawyer Association". I have never heard of this slang and whether it exists or not, it seems unnecessary and confusing to list. I would remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

tiny font size
Why not fix the font size problem? I can fix it every time I open Wikipedia, but then when I exit the site, the font size in my browser (Firefox) and on other sites is too big. That leads to more recourse to Tools, Options, Content, Fonts and Contents, Advanced. What a bore. Olderschool (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing this issue with Firefox 3.6.11 and Windows. Are you running with a plugin such as NoSquint, which remembers separate default font sizes for each web site? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try changing your theme. If you're using a custom CSS or custom javascript within Wikipedia, it might be affecting how you view wikipedia. Try clicking under My Preferences > Appearance and then changing your skin to something different. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Any one here good with templates?
I am currently doing a Good Article review and found a section that could be better done in Prose. I was wondering if some could create a variation of Template:Prose to specify "sections" as well as whole articles? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It already has an optional unnamed argument to replace "article", for example "section". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * oops look right past it, thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You can use, where you would replace section with the section title. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

libellous and hate inducing entry - 'List of Zionist figures' Please amend
You have an entry -called List of Zionist figures that needs to be quickly looked at as it is actually being used to spread hatred. Its first line says the entry will speaks of people who have played an important part in the modern zionist movement It includes my name.

In fact, however, it reproduces a fascist antisemitic internet libel that was closed down by the Italian police in 2008 on the orders of Italian minister of Interior Giuliano Amato. What actually happened was that a number of people – jewish and not – had signed an open letter arguing that boycotting Israeli universities ,as was being planned at that time by the UK university teachers union, was not the best way to helping peace in the Middle East. This was manipulated into an accusation that a cabal of jewish professors dominated the Italian university system for their own purposes. -- Expressing an opinion of this sort (which is compatible with criticism of other elements of Israel's policies and sympathy with Palestinian concerns and suffering) provides no basis for the accusation. ( In fact the planned UK boycott was eventually cancelled on legal grounds of infringing rights) --- The evidence concerned comes from an entry in wikipedia on ‘lobby ebraica ‘

Nel febbraio 2008 un blog anonimo pubblicò una lista[11] nera di 162 professori di religione ebraica con cattedra in diversi importanti atenei italiani, tra cui, principalmente, l'università La Sapienza di Roma. La lista riguardava grosso modo un ipotetico «baronaggio ebraico nelle università italiane» attraverso il quale gli studenti iscritti in esse sarebbero «vittime della manipolazione mentale di professori infeudati alle caste regnanti negli atenei, di cattedre affidate nelle mani di professori arruolati in base all'asservimento politico ai partiti, alle ideologie politiche, alle lobby di potere».

Il blog fu oscurato qualche tempo dalla polizia postale su decisione di Giuliano Amato, all'epoca dei fatti ministro dell'Interno. Le reazioni del mondo politico sia governante che dell'opposizione furono all'unanimità in sostegno degli insegnanti ebraici segnalati nella lista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.58.64 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Link: List of Zionist figures. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No hateful content is contained within the article. Please check again. Meph talk 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the complaint, but I feel that list is too open ended and subjective to be useful. Contributions to the development of Zionism could be discussed in an article (perhaps it already is) but the group "People who played important roles in the definition, development and growth of the modern Zionist movement" could have hundreds of members, some controversial. Not sure whether I feel strongly enough to take it to AfD, what do others think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall removing a giant pile of crap from that article yesterday; could it be this that the OP is referring to? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the article I see no grounds for concerns over the spread of hatred. However the page is completely unsourced, and I have added an appropriate tag at the top. I also removed a external link per policy. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FisherQueen, based off the time stamps, probably. Nice catch and correct. Dear 87.9.58.64, thanks for bringing this to our attention. FisherQueen has already taken care of it. If you notice anything missed, you can leave any of us a message directly on our Talk Pages, and we will look into it. Also, sorry for the confusion up above, but, by the time we got around to checking it, FisherQueen had already fixed it. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing revisions
It's been a while since I've been active on the project, so things may have changed but could someone explain what happened here.

About ten minutes ago the page Blackpool F.C. was vandalised - there were two IP edits in succession, the outcome being the text "Blackpool are relegated lol" added to the page - petulant, sure, but nothing particularly vicious or that would require oversighting or whatnot. After logging in with the intention of performing a rollback, I reloaded the edit history, and these changes were gone - not undone, or rolled back - gone without a trace. This wasn't usual when I was last involved here, so could anyone enlighten me? Cheers, AJ  Cham  16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bah, never mind - those edits were actually from yesterday - I guess I may have been looking at a cahed version of the edit history the first time, which would be why they appeared at the top - I had read this page yesterday. AJ  Cham  16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

School hymn copyright
Would it be considered a copyright violation if I posted a midi/ogg version of a university hymn that was composed in 1961? Philippine copyright says applied art (such as music) are copyrighted until 25 years of its creation. copyright law I am rather unsure if whether to add it because I think things like this are under perpetual copyright. I am no copyright lawyer obviously. Moray An Par (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See this. Are school songs considered trademarks? Moray An Par (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer, but I think I know the next questions to ask - when and where was the performance recorded, and who owns the copyright in that recording of the hymn? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this, it was composed in 1961. It's copyright should have expired in 1986. What I was thinking to include is a midi. Not really a performance by anyone so the only attribution should be to its author. It's a machine encoding of the notes. But I read the first link and that made me think if its considered as a trademark. Moray An Par (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: the hymn was composed in California according to this. Ok now I have five questions. How long does it take for a song to be n the public domain under California law? Is it legally possible for an institution to claim ownership of something not within their country? Is it a trademark? If yes, and trademark protects the song, does it extend worldwide? If not and it is considered public domain in the US, is it free enough for Wikipedia? Moray An Par (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't get a good reply here, I suggest you try WP:MCQ where the experts live. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trademarks are not an issue here, it is purely a matter of US copyright law and JoR is correct, WP:MCQ is the right place to ask. – ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A song's text falls under copyright and I would expect that to last the lifetime of the author +70 years in the US. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where it was composed does not matter, what counts is where it was published. When it was published did it have a copyright statement applied? (important if it was in USA).  The tune can have a different copyright to the words.  A midi will just be of the tune, so that is what you need to consider.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Edit Disappears
Hello, I've been having a problem posting on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige. I posted the edit at the end of the "Tom Cruise section" and found that my edit disappeared on Firefox. I tried viewing my edit from another computer and it was gone. I re-posted it once again at the bottom of the talk page, and I still have the same problem. I could see my edits just fine on the Chrome browser, however, even after I cleared my cache.

I've also checked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&action=history and my edits are recorded. When I go to the main talk page however, I cannot see them. I've tried purging the cache of the page too, and the problem still remains.

Please advise. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All your recent messages (here & on Talk:David_Miscavige) are visible (with IE9 and with Firefox). As I can see them, and you can see them with Chrome, the problem obviously isn't with Wikipedia or with Firefox in general, but presumably with your own Firefox setup.  If you've cleared the cache and that doesn't work, I don't know what to suggest. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I've deleted the second copy of your post here. This may be related to WP:VPT, but there's no solution listed there. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:John of Reading and User:David Biddulph. I feel like I'm going crazy here. I've tried checking this post from my personal computer (Apple) and work computers (PC) in IE, Chrome and Firefox, and still do not see this post reflected. I've asked friends to check their computers and they do not see the posts reflected either (though they are not logged in to Wikipedia). I saw it reflected once via Chrome but now it seems like I can't get back to that point. Is there someone else we might be able to loop in on this? Help! NestleNW911 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)