Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 January 4

= January 4 =

Inappropriate Article
The article at this address:

Arabid race

relies almost entirely upon "theapricity.com", a white-supremacist website. Of the 9 sources cited, 7 of them are "theapricity.com".

The article claims to be part of the "WikiProject Anthropology", but every degreed anthropologist on the planet would laugh at the claims made in this article. The article needs to be deleted. This article is specifically why students are advised against using Wikipedia.

The entire article relies on eugenicist views with no supportive research which were considered outdated in the field of anthropology 80 years ago, but were taken from a white-supremacist website and revived in a Wikipedia article.

Seriously, the entire article needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please open a discussion at WP:AFD. Please document your assertion that the referenced site is not a reliable source as we define it: see WP:RS. You probably should also show that the other two sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability (WP:N) if they do not. Note that a subject warrants an article if it is notable even if it is pseudo-science. If this is true here, then scientific criticisms should be referenced and added to the article. In any event, this mess is too complex to handle here on the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TheApricity is a self-published amateur site, and shouldn't be cited. I wouldn't open a deletion discussion since the topic is notable (so we should have an article about it), but we would welcome it if you were to rewrite this article from scratch using scholarly sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I axed the bunch that was unreferenced of referenced to WP:SELFPUB or WP:UGC source. Can you opine on what's left? Wakari07 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's the entire article- "Arabid race is a historical term once used by eugenicists during the infancy of anthropology, as anthropology was emerging as a field of genuine scientific study. The term has not been used in the academic study of anthropology since the 1960's, and the ideas the term represents were overwhelmingly abandoned by anthropologists at the same time."


 * That's extent of this article's relevance. And the terms "caucasoid" and "negroid" and all the other "oid" terms, if you use those terms in a paper submitted for peer-review, it would pretty much be the end of your career as an anthropologist, because no matter what you did afterward, every anthropologist on the planet would have a copy of the paper in which you used that ridiculously antiquated, eugenicist terminology, in which you've made a laughing stock of yourself, and no one's going to take you seriously ever again. If you were to use that terminology in an academic paper submitted for a class, the instructor would sit you down and say, "listen, we need to have a talk", as he tried to hold back his laughter.
 * The ideas of "race" represented in this article have no relevance in anthropology. I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology with minors in Archaeology and GIS. I've been around the world the world on archaeology digs and have contributed to numerous articles which have been submitted for peer-review. Prior to reading about it on Wikipedia a few days ago, I had never even heard term "sub-race" before. This is not a legitimate term in anthropology. This is not a legitimate idea in anthropology. This is not a legitimate anything in anthropology. It doesn't exist in actual academic, scientific anthropology.
 * The idea of trying to categorize humans based upon perceived phenotypic characteristics has been abandoned by the anthropology community for more than half a century, especially with the advent of modern genetic analysis. The reason for this is simple Mendelian genetics. I can't explain to you how Mendelian genetics work in the talk section of this article. It's literally an entire semester's worth of material. But overwhelmingly, phenotypic typology has been abandoned by anthropology because as demonstrated clearly with simple Mendelian genetics, every combination of every pairing of alleles is going to manifest with 100% likelihood, 50% likelihood twice, and 25% likelihood. This is why siblings have different hair colors. This is why siblings have different eye colors. This is why one sibling may have a larger nose while the other has a smaller nose. This is what makes attempted phenotypic classification based upon perceived physical traits completely irrelevant in anthropology. There's no science behind it. And now, with the advent of modern genetic analysis, attempted phenotypic categorization based upon visually perceived manifestations of alleles, is a joke. It's beyond a joke. It's idiocy, and the only people doing this, on all these websites, are idiotic armchair "anthropologists" who have no degree in anthropology, no background in anthropology beyond what they've read on Wikipedia, and who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
 * The point is, the only relevance of this article to actual modern anthropology, is that the term "Arabid race" was once used in the infancy of scientific anthropology, but hasn't been used in 70 or 80 years, and has no relevance to modern scientific anthropology. It's like this, if you were going to write an article about the antiquated medical term "consumption", what would you write about it? Tuberculosis was once called "consumption", back before the advent of modern medicine, when people believed that the cure for tuberculosis/consumption was moving to a drier climate. Other than that, the term "consumption" has no relevance in modern medicine. This is what the term "Arabid race". Except that "Arabid race" is way less relevant than "consumption" because far less people were familiar with the term. It's nothing. It's a footnote to a footnote to a footnote in the history of the infancy of modern scientific anthropology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLYT!!!! Have you actually looked at the two remaining papers cited in this article? One of the papers dates to 1974, and the other one, which claims to be dated to 2017, was actually written in 1913. The entire second paragraph of what's left of this article references a paper WRITTEN IN 1913!!!!! This is what Wikipedia is? The first sentence of this article relies on a paper written almost half a century ago, and the entire remainder of this article relies on a paper written ONE-HUNDRED AND SEVEN YEARS AGO. There's nothing in this article that's of any relevance to anthropology AT ALL.
 * This article is a prime example of why instructors steer students so adamantly away from Wikipedia. "But teacher, Wikipedia says this is modern information dated to 2017." "No Billy, the reference on Wikipedia is dated incorrectly. You've just wasted your time learning about what people believed in the early 1900's. Unfortunately, that information has no relevance in this era. Please Billy, never use Wikipedia again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're going to allow the two remaining sections of this article to remain intact, then you need to include disclaimers so that students referencing this material don't face disciplinary action at their schools. If you remove those two sections, then what? The article is empty. As I said before, this article should simply be deleted instead of presenting ideas which have been outmoded for half a century and more than a century and which, if used by students, are going to get those students into trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk)

Previously Mentioned Inappropriate Article

Look, I'm not going to restate all of my innumerable misgivings about this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race

But for the love of God, as an anthropologist, PLEASE TELL ME WHY the only 2 sources for this ridiculous article date to 1974 for the introductory sentence, and then, for the second paragraph, even though the bibliography claims the second source dates to 2017, if you follow the actual JSTOR link, you'll see that the article actually dates to 1913.

As with all the other "sources" "cited" in this article, the references cite outdated sources no longer accepted by the anthropology community. These are 50 and 100 year old sources, cherry-picked by white-supremacists (think I'm exaggerating- look at the 7 sources recently deleted- all referencing "theapricity.com, a white-supremacist website).

I'm a white male. I also have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Anthropology with minors in Archaeology and Geographical Information Sciences. I've been all over the world on archaeology digs. I've contributed to numerous papers submitted for peer-review. THIS IS WHAT I DO. I AM AN ANTHROPOLOGIST/ARCHAEOLOGIST.

There is nothing in this article of any academic value. The two remaining blurbs date to 50 and 100 years ago. All this article is doing is preaching BAD pseudo-anthropology to students who are going to suffer the consequences for trusting Wikipedia.

WHY IS IT SUCH A STRUGGLE FOR ME TO GET BAD "SCIENCE" (not even pseudo-science, more like "fantasy-pseudo-anthropology) REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA, SO THAT MY STUDENTS, AND COUNTLESS OTHER STUDENTS, DON'T HAVE THEIR EDUCATIONS TAINTED BY THIS NONSENSE?

Why is it so hard to get nonsense removed from Wikipedia?

If I were say that the Earth is flat, and cite one of the endless nonsensical pseudo-science articles claiming that the Earth was flat, would that article be allowed to stand on its own on Wikipedia?

Yet, when I demonstrate to the Wikipedia admins that a current article is based upon nothing more than decades-old, centuries-old, hypotheses regarding a field I've spent the last 20 years of my life contributing to, Wikipedia ignores me, because, technically, I haven't followed the precise routes established for Wikipedia contributions.

Cool. Have no doubt, every student in every classroom I teach, will first and foremost be instructed, "even though Wikipedia is touted as the foremost online encyclopedia, bear in mind, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WHAT'S ON WIKIPEDIA IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. YOU CANNOT EVER DEPEND ON WIKIPEDIA"

And yup, I know that you're going to say, "then why don't you just write the article yourself?" 1) Because this topic doesn't merit an article beyond the sentence I've already provided. 2) I have more important things to do than make idiots sound less idiotic.

And, if your counter-argument is "if you're unwilling to contribute, how do you feel justified in criticizing those who are willing to contribute?" So, everyone who didn't write against Nazism had no right to speak-out against it? Everyone who didn't write against American slavery had no right to speak against it? Anyone who thinks the distillation of false information is a detriment to humanity, but who doesn't want to spend endless hours trying to convince the average IQ cretins that their moronic interpretation of outdated data is lazy? I can't waste my life trying to distill accurate information to morons. If that's what interests you, then DO IT ACCURATELY.

I don't have it in my capacity to waste the time researching the innumerable, peer-reviewed, modern papers describing how this article is laughably inaccurate. Truthfully, I couldn't care enough about Wikipedia to waste my time.

But, if you want to know why teachers/academic-instructors, tell their students at the beginning of every semester, "never use Wikipedia", well, this article is a prime example. Until I came across it, it was filled with nonsense cited simply to a white-supremacist website. That content was removed. Now it has 2 paragraphs, one cited to a paper written in 1974, the other claiming to be written in 2017, but if you follow the JSTOR link, it was clearly written in 1913, and has no relevance at all to modern biological anthropology. If Wikipedia is going to rely on scientific papers written in 1913, then I can create an entirely new category in Wikipedia of pseudo-scientific information. In fact, let's just go ahead and create an article claiming Sub-Saharan Africans are immediately descended from gorillas, because that was largely the belief among people of European decent (of whom I am one) during the 19th century. I guarantee I can find a couple of academic papers from 1913 which make that same claim. So, if I can find a couple papers from the turn of the century claiming that Blacks are just well-spoken gorillas, we'll go ahead and create a Wikipedia article saying as much, right? That's the argument you're making? Right? Of course, as I said, I'm white, and live in St. Louis, and if I were to make that claim, not only would I be disavowed from the entire academic community, but I'd also probably be murdered within the month.

The point is, after removing all the sources for this article which referenced a white-supremacist website with no additional sources, the only 2 remaining references for this article date to 1913 and 1974, and the one dating to 1913 is dishonestly listed as being referenced to 2017. I'm a white male. C'mon. Is this what Wikipedia is? A forum for white-supremacists to try to indoctrinate children who rely on Wikipedia as a source of genuine information? Is this what Wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c40:4a00:1d00:f1c3:b77b:3fab:ce2f (talk) 06:23, January 7, 2020 (UTC)

Auckland Metro Line
This is let people know that Auckland New Zealand will soon be having a underground metro line by 2024. It will run between Britomart Station & Mt Eden Station. You have this on wikipedia but not in your list of underground rail being build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitboi (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the list article so our hardwroking volunteers can more easily help. You may also edit that list yourself or suggext an edit in its talk page, if you can cite a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

date of Birth of Doris Day
Hi Wikipedia says Doris Day died last year at the age of 97. I have her autobiography Doris Day - Her own story, and chapter 7 starts with " On April 3 1951, my 27th birthday ...' which would have made her 95 when she died. Also her birthday was April 3rd not 2nd. I find Wikipedia as interesting as Google and use it continuously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.140.118 (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Doris Day has reliable sources showing she was born in 1922, not 1924. She apparently didn't know her real birth year (or lied about it during her career?). See e.g. https://time.com/4722766/doris-day-actual-birthday/. I don't know where you see April 2nd. Our article says April 3.PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Persons are actually mediocre sources for information about themselves, even -- altho this seems counterintuitive -- their own birthdays. People who have two (or more) reported birthdays include Stan Kenton, Jackie DeShannon, Gene Tierney, and many others. Sometimes the person was lied to about their birthdate (to cover a pre-marriage conception, for instance), sometimes that the person has played cute with their birthdate to seem younger or older, sometimes there's a family story that the person was born on a day they actually weren't, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia with Chrome
I am No longer able to bring up Wikipedia using my Google Chrome browser. I get this message: "Your Browser's Connection Security is Outdated" I am using the latest Google Chrome. What gives? Stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.114.44 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I also use Chrome and I don't have this problem. You could try Village pump (technical). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This might be because TLS 1.0 and 1.1 got deprecated with the start of the year. Normally Wikipedia should also be able to use 1.2, but I think that chrome might not attempt to upgrade to 1.2 but simply refuse the connection. If it is that, you have to wait for A software update on Wikipedia servers, and possibly for the change of Certs in October. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

CONTRIBUTION TO FEATURED CONTENT
Hi, Please how do I contribute my content to featured content, also how do I register my profile and cv here on wikipedia, I desire a step by step guide to resolving these issues. Kind regards

Chuma Ikeazor snr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuma Ikeazor snr (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your complete request, but I'll do my best to answer them. You have already signed up for an account. On Wikipedia, we don't have CV's. To edit articles you simply have to press "edit source" on the specific page. However, when editing articles, you need to make sure everything you write is grammatically correct and backed by reliable sources Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If you mean that you want to create a WP-article about yourself, don't, see WP:AUTO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are asking about helping to bring an article up to "featured" status, see WP:FA. It's hard. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have "profiles". Wikipedia has articles. If you want to write a profile of yourself, you should use social media.  Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, only in what third parties say about them. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

not sure if I'm asking this right?
Back when this old issue happened. The user was blocked and I mentioned a concern about how the user was editing on this and I later asked at a wiki project as a heads up. (In replying to this, on my talk page.) So after they were blocked, an ip was editing almost like Rahmadiabsyah. But at the time, the ip edited once and I didn't think this was an issue. (The part where I said; "I don't think this sounds important?" from the report.) But since then similar ip's from the same region added WP:OR English titles to the book's chapters. Then I'm not sure what I would do next time if see similar edits on either Black Clover (season 3) or List of Black Clover chapters. (The type of editing where they edit once and came back a few hours later or days. One example where the book's chapter was called some "X name" from a random web-site, but from the licensed book's company the name to it was completely different. If the time between that was about two days. Like this and the proceeding two edits.) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you better paraphrase your last few sentences? I can understand about how someone is blocked. But if ip's are doing things. Shouldn't you go to WP:RPP or WP:AIV. 2601:640:C680:2E10:A9EA:964A:2037:1664 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But that's only for; if someone's editing for the time being over a few minutes or an hour. But what if it was once every few days to a week and the ip number changed. Then well? I'm not sure? I've been busy with a job and as I gotten busy, I can easily forget what is there to do instead of asking. Like my last question. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)