Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 2

= January 2 =

IRC bot channel
Is #wikipedia-BAG still working? When I try to connect, Mibbit tells me "irc.freenode.net: Terminated". Lbertolotti (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is working.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Mlpearc What's the standard procedure for accessing IRC channels?Lbertolotti (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean but, this should help .  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

IPs at AN/I
At my AN/I, virtually all the non-involved admins/editors commenting are using IP addresses. I have not noticed this at other AN/Is. Why the cloak of anonymity here? P-123 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:P-123, you are forum shopping by raising this issue here after the WP:ANI thread has been closed. The time and place to have raised that issue would have been at WP:ANI before the thread was closed.  You could ask User:Callanecc, who closed the thread, whether the closure was heavily influenced by IP editors, and you will probably get the answer that it was not.  It also reflected the opening comments by arbitrator User:Dougweller and by editor User:Legacypac, who are not unregistered editors.  It appears that the length and aggressive nature of your posts may have also been a factor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an innocent question. I didn't know it was forum-shopping,  Length and aggressive nature of the posts I am sure played a part.  Would like to say something obvious but can't. P-123 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This question was raised by me, and later you, in the ANi. The answer's from several IP's and myself are there. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Was trying to find out more about it and why in that AN/I, that was all.  P-123 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, my feelings are hurt. What's wrong with editors editing with an IP, P-123? I mean as opposed to your fake username or even editors or admins using their real name? Also, P-123, you really need to stop forum shopping and wikilawyering and just go edit happily outside the Syrian War Topic you're banned from. You seem to delve into one area of trouble, get sanctioned, and you quickly delve into another area like forum shopping. Read WP:WIN and learn. 194.169.217.152 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just curious. I was not questioning the result at all.  I thought the Help Desk was the place for general queries like this. P-123 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A passer-by editing with an IP and saw this. Why the cloak of anonymity here? Really? Why don't you answer that? Why are you editing anonymously, P-123? Why don't you edit under your own real name if the cloak of anonymity here bothers you so much? I also saw your own Talk page. Stop attacking us and calling us trolls jut because we edit with our IPs, or you will soon find yourself on AN/I. Are you familiar with WP:PA? 23.27.252.213 (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed boxes on Safari
I am having trouble while using Safari on OS X 10.10. When I click the "show" link on collapse discussion it just takes me to the top of the page. I have I'm done. some searching and I can't seem to find a solution. Thanks. --Adam in MO Talk 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have JavaScript disabled. Scarce2 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is enabled. I just re-checked it.--Adam in MO Talk 13:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Khuzh village
Dear editor, i appreciate the way you are providing information to the people about things areas and people. However, about Khuzh village in Chitral district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa many necessary changes are required. The Hone and barren lands are the ancestral property of the Khushwaqt family,which was the ruling family of the region. I would be very thankful if the needful is corrected. thanks Sabir Aman, peshawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.16.89 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with a specific Wikipedia article, your best option is always to just click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article and express your concerns there. Scarce2 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * or, if you don't want to edit the article yourself, you could tell us which article you are referring to, and someone here might look into it (though it would help if you could supply a reference for the change that you want made). Maproom (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with language
Back in August, on the talk page for Julian Lennon, I saw a post that had some savory language. I posted about how that language should not be there. Well, I just went there and it's still there. Now, I, per se, don't usually have a problem with language, but I feel that there is no room for this type of language on Wikipedia, especially since kids use it for homework. Am I being a prude? Perhaps, but I believe in protecting kids from this type of language. I use those words too, but in the right setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rricci428 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, but if someone was being insulting towards another person, then it's a whole other issue. Could you link please? Also, I hate to say it, but many of those kids would have been exposed to far worse on the web by now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 11 Tevet 5775 14:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this is about Talk:Julian_Lennon? Maproom (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Commented there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 11 Tevet 5775 15:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It almost certainly is about that. It is a common garden-variety profanity, hardly worth making an issue about five months later, hardly worth worrying about its effect on teenagers, who hear much worse in the middle-school hallways anyway.  Anyway, it's on a talk page, which isn't normally seen by students doing homework, unless they have homework involving Wikipedia and know that Wikipedia is not censored.  It might have been appropriate five months ago to give the author a level 1 template for civility for unnecessary profanity.  It certainly isn't worth making an issue about it now.  I am sure that there are thousands of other pointless uses of profanity on other talk pages.  A trout to the OP for making something out of nothing.  If the OP is really that offended, then what he or she can do is to manually archive the talk page post, maybe learning something about the mechanics of Wikipedia.  If they still care, they can go off through thousands of talk pages and archive old garden-variety profanities and template new garden-variety profanities and get more of a reputation as a Comstockian.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sadly, we are still coming out of such dark times. Connecticut only just legalised the sale of alcohol on Sundays in 2012 after 350 years. Anyway, let's all edit according to common sense/courtesy! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 11 Tevet 5775 16:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note the offending IP has been successfully trouted. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 11 Tevet 5775 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As has the original poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When a secondary source has a factual error
Suppose there is one only secondary source which refers to a specific point.
 * 1) Suppose that this source has a factual error. or-
 * 2) Suppose that a secondary source has a error, but the error is dependent in the meaning of the used terms. e.g. The secondary source is mistaken if the used term "occupied territories" means that the "occupy" status does not expire even if the occupying force has annexed it.

According to the rules we must always follow the mistaken source, but that does not make sense. So ? Ykantor (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a second secondary source pointing out the mistake, so can we (or delete it). If there's one with contradictory info only, we can say both things, without stating which is truer. If the mistaken source generally isn't reliable or the claim gets undue weight, we can go that route toward removal. Once we get into semantics, determing what's a mistake and what isn't gets complicated, and is best nitpicked toward compromise on the article's talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Per NPOV and WEIGHT, points of view should be included in articles in rough accordance to their prominence in secondary sources. If a secondary source is simply factually wrong, then presumably its factual claim won't have much prominence (i.e. won't be repeated by other secondary sources).  A simple error, never repeated, can usually be ignored.  In other words, we aren't required to say "the sky is green" just because one author happened to say that.  However, if lots of sources started saying that "the sky is green" then we would be required to mention that point of view alongside "the sky is blue" (or whatever other facts are being argued).  Since, you mentioned changing conditions, it may also be appropriate to qualify secondary sources with information on the time period being reported.  For example "in 2010 it was reported that...", or similar constructions to reflect a source's information that is appropriate to a particular point of time but may no longer apply.  In general, use your judgment about what makes sense, and if you are confused or have disagreements with other editors then use the associated talk page of the article to discuss them.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is only one secondary source on a point, how do we know that it has an error?
 * If there is an inconsistent or contradictory second source, we know that there is an error, and, as Inedible Hulk notes, we can note that.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * However, some of us prefer not to answer abstract questions. What article are you actually asking about?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thank you InedibleHulk and Dragons flight
 * - During the discussion user:Jeppiz said that " whether the statement is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. Once again, Wikipedia is about sources, not truths". In my opinion this not true, as Wikipedia must not have known factual errors. If there is such a contradiction, we have to ask for advice how to solve it. BTW I want to stress that at the moment it is a hypothetical question, since apparently some users do not accept that the source has a factual error. Ykantor (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should not have known factual errors. At the same time, known factual errors can only be identified based on reliable sources, obvious contradiction (e.g., saying both A and not-A), or logical error (e.g., saying 2+2=5).  How can you say that there is only one source, but that it is incorrect?  If I misread you, please explain, but it appears that you are stating that there is one secondary source, and it is wrong.  How is it wrong?  What is the nature of the factual error that you are saying some editors do not acknowledge?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, some editors at this Help Desk are deeply wary of being asked hypothetical questions posed as hypothetical questions. I do not want to answer hypothetical questions posed as hypothetical questions.  Too often they are asked by editors who know what answer they want, and pose the question (possibly with an almost accurate but not entirely accurate statement of the issue) in order to get the answer that they want, and then to use that answer to wikilawyer a dispute.  Please either ask us about specific actual issues, or recognize that some of us are deeply suspicious of hypothetical questions (as well as of statements about factual errors that don't refer to the reason for saying that there is a factual error).  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - I am sorry that it seems to possibly be a indecent usage of the help desk advise, but that is not my intention. I asked it as a hypothetical question since the discussed issue is not yet final, so it is not yet justified to bother the help desk volunteers with the specific issue. I asked for your advice because one of the editors presented it as a Wikipedia principle, which I could not believe in. I was worried and wanted to show him your advice if it was like yours- "I agree that Wikipedia should not have known factual errors". Otherwise, it would have been a shock for me and I am not sure what I would have to do.
 * - It seems that I have to discuss the specific issue although it is not mature yet. Some editors, based on few wp:rs (later they have added more of them), want to add this supported sentence:" Longest military occupation in modern times" to the article. In my opinion, this sentence is factually wrong because:
 * --- I listed some older military occupations elsewhere. Those editors replied that the other occupations expired, when the territories were annexed. I asked them to provide support to the "expiry" arguement.
 * --- The term "modern times" is not defined yet. When it was started?. They have not replied yet.
 * - I proposed a compromise " long occupation" rather than "longest occupation".
 * - Am I write? Is there a factual mistake in this sentence: "" Longest military occupation in modern times"''? Ykantor (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification On the talk page of Israel, a user has presented some sources (three, I think) using "the longest military occupation in modern times" concerning the Israeli military presence in the West Bank. Most users have been in favor of adding this to the article, given that it is the claim found in several sources. Ykantor has resisted this, arguing both about the interpretation of "occupation", whether it really is the "longest" and suggesting we should modify it to say something different than the sources say ("long occupation" instead of "longest occupation"). I agree that if a source has an obvious factual error, we should ignore it. I seem to remember BBC once called Stockholm the capital of Norway, but of course we have thousands (and then some) sources saying Oslo is the capital of Norway. In the case in question, it is not an obvious factual error but rather one user who disagrees with the sources and disagrees with all other users.Jeppiz (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Jeppiz- you yourself wrote that "I'd say Tibet myself, but as I told Ykantor above, our personal opinions are irrelevant". It seems ( at least to me) that you agree that the source has a factual error, depending on the undefined starting point of "the modern times". Ykantor (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you're confounding 'factual error' with 'opinion'. In my opinion, the Chinese occupation of Tibet is the longest military occupation but that is my opinion. That Oslo is the capital of Norway is a fact, saying something else is a factual error. But in this case we're not talking about an obvious factual error, we're talking about different interpretations. I happen to disagree with the interpretation the sources do, just like you, but where we differ is that I accept Wikipedia's rule that sources trump my personal opinion about what the truth is. We'll get nowhere on Wikipedia if any user can veto inclusions of sourced claims based on personal disagreement. That's what I mean when I wrote " whether the statement is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. Once again, Wikipedia is about sources, not truths". For an obvious factual error, we find other sources that are correct. But when it's a matter of interpretation, we stick to the sources.Jeppiz (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)