Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AC

Here comes the Spiderman!
(No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!

No Legal Threats-mitigation of damages
WP:LEGAL contains the following sentence:

"But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels."

As I wondered on the talk page: wouldn't someone who needs to take legal action also be obligated to edit Wikipedia because of mitigation of damages?

(We don't seem to have a Wikipedia article on the subject.) Ken Arromdee 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "wherever possible" comes into play. We do not intend to make it possible for users who are taking legal action to edit the encyclopedia. --Improv 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the page is phrased as "we ask that you" and not "we don't let you", implying that Wikipedia doesn't prevent people from doing such editing, but rather considers such editing a violation of policy and punishes it after the fact. Moreover, that *is* the case. Someone who sues Wikipedia can still edit anonymously or through a sockpuppet. And it's quite possible for someone's lawyer to tell him that he's legally obliged to violate Wikipedia policy and mitigate damages that way. Granted, I don't think that anyone has done that yet, and the article would probably get edited via WP:OFFICE anyway, but something seems strange about a policy telling people not to do something that the law may demand that they do. Ken Arromdee 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't provide legal advice, but I suspect that applying a "reasonable person" test might suggest that if we make efforts to block you, you won't be obligated to get around them. Phrases like "we ask that you" are part of an overemphasis on politeness that lead to lack of clarity on policy (which has grown to be a problem.. sigh). The law doesn't provide a must either though, AFAICT, although IANAL. --Improv 13:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should prevent people editing from editing Wikipedia while engaged in legal action... for example, if there's a violation of WP:LIBEL, why should we stop them from removing said libel? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because throwing legal threats around makes for a very unpleasant editing environment. And if you don't agree with me, I'll sue you for terminal boneheadedness. --Carnildo 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's quite a different between throwing legal threats around and actually going to the courts once. If someone came and wrote on Wikipedia that I eat children for breakfast, and I decide that that's reason to sue them, does it then make an unpleasant editing environment if in the meantime I increase Wikipedia's knowledge of Afghan pottery? - Andre Engels 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit and threats/discussions involved make for the unpleasant environment and is the thing that is not tolerated that would result in the ban, regardless of what other edits the user is doing. --Improv 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone on Wikipedia is judgement proof starving college student. To many people a frivilous lawsuit is a terifying prospect even there is little risk of the attacking side winning. As such the use of legal threats creates a chilling effect. Furthermore, legal activities can and do happen without any help on Wikipedia, so legal threats don't even help the threatening person except to the extent that they chill acceptable behavior. Furthermore, the use of legal threats in argument will often drown out arguments which are actually reasonable and based on fact. There is no advantage to the project to permit legal threats or the people who insist on making them and substantial potential for harm, and as a result we do not tolerate them. As far as mitigation of damages goes, they are free to come make their legal threat, be blocked for it, and then tell the court that they attempted to mitigate but were blocked as a result. Honest attempts to mitigate, however, do not need to involve legal threats, for example: "Stop doing X because X is wrong and illegal" is not the same at all as "Stop doing X because I'll sue you!". The first example is worthy of our consideration and would not give us any cause to block, the second is just disruptive.--Gmaxwell 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my scenario the user is not trying to mitigate damages by making a threat, but rather is trying to mitigate damages by editing the offending material out of the article; the conflict with the policy happens because users who sue are "asked" not to edit articles. No threats need be involved at all other than the actual lawsuit. Ken Arromdee 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou!

Dfrg.msc 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a slave to Google
I have seen the argument many times that a title, or even a word, be used over naming conventions because of the Google hits. What do Google hits have to do with Wikipedia and its policies? As far as I know Wikipedia is an independent entity from Google. It doesn't matter if the American spelling gets a billion hits while British spelling only gets a quarter billion. Wikipedia does not need to be shackled to Google searches. Google searches should get shackled to Wikipedia and other sources instead. And like other search engines, Google is biased, per their article here. Wikipedia tries not to be biased, so that means that Wikipedia articles and categories should not have to adhere or even take into account Google searches.

Using this argument in any name procedure or word choice seems to be a last stand move. Take it away so that the real issues over a name or word choice can be handled. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, due to the number of sites like answer.com that gobble up wikipedia's information and cut and paste it, you can hardly google anything anymore (unless you disallow wikipedia as a search term) without finding the first 25 hits made up of wikipedia clones. So you have a bizarre chicken and egg situation where you google up a term, and because it is already on wikipedia, even if incorrectly, the clone sites boost up the hit count dramatically.Michael Dorosh 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael, can you provide an example? I have not observed that behavior on Googel SERPs (Search Engine Result Page) ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be limited to arcane topics; I just did a couple of searches on general knowledge military history stuff and while both wikipedia and answer.com come up, they were not overwhelming. I'm at a loss to provide the example I was thinking of - but the open source license is an interesting byproduct in that regard, as webmasters looking for easy solutions to content problems can perpetuate articles at wikipedia and in some cases skew search statistics. I'll see if I can recreate the search over the weekend - can't remember the specific topics I was researching at the moment when that behaviour exhibited itself most obviously.Michael Dorosh 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got one. On the Eric Clapton page there's a bit about when, during a gig, he said something about voting for Enoch Powell to stop Britain becoming a "black colony", which has now got a tag after it. I googled a few different things along the lines of Clapton "Enoch Powell" "black colony" and couldn't find anything substantial that didn't refer to Wikipedia as a source.  MightyMoose22  > Abort,  Retry,   Fail? _  17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Google is one tool to demonstrate the popularity of one term or expression or another. It's not perfect but then neither is taking a poll of your friends.  --JeffW 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A search of that nature is might not fulfill WP:V, but it could be used to demonstrate to another editor that a word is in use ("informations", for example). Terryeo 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is a position that google is biased in favor of American usage. This is a problem in discussions that involve naming choices when two different usages exist.  Vegaswikian 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Google is biased, it just relfects what's happening online. What's biased here is the world of english speakers.  It's just simple math...  [[Image:English dialects1997.png]]
 * Almost 75% of English speakers are North American. This means more american english is on the internet, and more people use american english to communicate with each other.  -Quasipalm 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That chart refers only to native speakers. Not to the billions of people who speak English as a second or third language. It does not represent "the world of English speakers" in any way, shape, or form. 81.178.65.121 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of order - Canadian english is still closer to British than American, but 68 percent is still respectable.Michael Dorosh 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "Point of information?" Besides, there are many Canadian spellings which use the British and American versions interchangably.  Google, interestingly enough, is in fact biased to return local results - therefore, the version which any residents of the United States happen to be using is in fact biased significantly to American English spellings.  But I still don't see why this matters: both spellings are quite legible, and this is the English wikipedia, not the American wikipedia.  Falcon 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Awwwww come on. American English and British English are pretty much  Identical .  We spell most things the SAME.  Occasionally there are strange things like the word colour (color?) and the fact that Americans cannot say the words Tomato or H erbs properly.  Other than that we are the same.  I am with you guys on the word THRU. Mostly Zen 11:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ref Google test. It's just a heuristic. Don't take it too seriously. Deco 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * returns only 6 hits. So clearly, this idea is non-notable.  :-)  Dragons flight 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:3 (Soulfly album). It was renamed (from what I can tell) purely because most people don't know how to type ॐ, and I still disagree with that decision.  MightyMoose22 > Abort,  Retry,   Fail? _  17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is customary on WP not to use peculiar fonts and capitalization because some advertising executive has decided they are the "official look"; the company might change ad agencies tomorrow. While this is a weaker argument in the case of an already printed album, the album might be reissued with new artwork; so I think it applies. Septentrionalis 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you're assuming that the actual title is 3 and that ॐ is just a fancy font (or whatever). I'm saying that the title is ॐ (as in aum) and that 3 is just the ignorant/simplified version. It's like claiming that the greek letter sigma ( Σ ) is just a fancy way of writing E, etc. etc.  MightyMoose22 > Abort,  Retry,   Fail? _  02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Widely-unreadable fonts are not used in article titles, even for official names. Otherwise, any number of pages would logically have to be in totally incomprehensible writing systems; People's Republic of China, for instance, would need to be at 中华人民共和国. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If this was the reason given I would've agreed, but the argument for renaming was that Google (or iTunes, or whatever) gets more results from typing "Soulfly 3" that from "Soulfly ॐ" because to the ignorant masses it kinda looks like a 3. As I said on the talk page, I don't care about the actual move itself, but claiming that 3 must be the correct name because Google says so is equatable with the idea that "probly" must be correct because it gets 2,070,000 hits (try it).  MightyMoose22 > Abort,  Retry,   Fail? _  02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That rationale, if indeed it was the one used, is faulty. That doesn't change the fact that apparently everyone agrees the page should be moved. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't care that it was moved, I disagree with why it was moved, which was based entirely on a Google test.  MightyMoose22 > Abort,  Retry,   Fail? _  15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a post-script to my opening remarks, I have to say that I prefer the links provided by Wikipedia articles more than I do the search results from Google. If every article had an external links tab, like the talk page tab, and that was filled with all of the external links imaginable relevant to the article, I would never have to use Google again. - LA @ 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But if every article had all of the external links imaginable, it would wind up being a lot like Google (or dmoz.org, anyway) and it would lose whatever it is you like. FreplySpang 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point FreplySpang, so let me qualify that statement. If every article had all the best of the external links imaginable. I can live without some of the pages out there, like those which are so bad grammatically they are hard to read. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, then we'd be a link directory, which is a good and useful kind of thing, but not the purpose of this particular project (i.e. Wikipedia). Keeping a good link directory going is a lot of work. FreplySpang 22:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the stats on this pie-chart are remarkable. It says that only about 1 in 20 people outside Australia, Canada, the US and the UK speak English. I work outside these four countries. English is the official language at work. We usually work with our partners in India, China, Philippines, Singapore and KL. The official language is still English. I would also be suprised if 94.5 pecent of contributors to English Wikipedia are from these four countries too. Wallie 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The chart is of native speakers only. Most English speakers are non-native, including a large percentage of contributors here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly right.
 * Also, many Americans speak three native languages, i.e., Spanish, English and Italian, which means these people are counted three times.
 * If you are a Canadian, and live in Germany, you are also not counted.
 * All this makes the chart absolutely irrelevant and misleading. Wallie 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As a post-post-script to my opening remarks, I say that Wikipedia naming conventions should trump Google searches every time. The naming conventions are there for a reason and should be adhered to. Also, I was not only referring to the Americanization of Google search results. I was also referring to the fact that Google will censor out searches depending on the locality. According to the article here, Google censors out all sites that show any political unrest in China from the Chinese people using the local version. If they do that there, what are they censoring elsewhere? &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Google only censors content in China. It was quite controversial when they agreed to start doing it (obviously the alternative was to be blocked, as we are), and they may eventually decide to stop.  (By the way, it's best to use &amp;mdash; for an em dash, not a numerical entity, and certainly not a Windows-1252 numerical entity.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Usage is an important part of Wikipedia naming conventions, and Google is one (but only one) evidence of usage. Reliable secondary sources in English are more important; the consensus of native English-speakers, knowledgeable in the topic, is as good as any.


 * While I am on the subject, the problem of Wikipedia mirrors (like answers.com) is vastly reduced by the simple method of including -wikipedia in the search command; also, there are other search engines than google. If they agree on a distinction, it is almost certainly web usage. Web usage may not be English usage as a whole; but there should be evidence and argument to overrule it. Septentrionalis 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The names of articles and categories should be what most people expect them to be. If "Wikipedia naming conventions" result in non-obvious titles then they should not be followed, at least in that case.  (BTW, I'll respond to your comment on my talk page when I have time to gather my thoughts, but probably tomorrow).  --JeffW 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is probably all based on the User:Lady_Aleena's failure to get her way on category:Disaster movies. She's American and she wants it to be films because that's Wikipedia standard for film categories. But Wikipedia should be flexible and a good number of users, some of them British like me, think that writing in normal English is more important, and disaster movie is normal English in the UK. Piccadilly 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The phrase is equally normal in the United States. In reference to theatrical motion pictures, the terms "film" and "movie" are used interchangeably over here.  When applied to made-for-television productions, "movie" is considerably more prevalent.  For that reason, combined with the fact that many commercial motion pictures are no longer shot on film, I disagree with our naming convention.  &mdash;David Levy 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the following section, in which it's indicated that apart from the phrase "disaster movie," the term "movie" is not commonly used in the UK. I was unaware of this when I wrote the above reply.  &mdash;David Levy 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we're playing slam Google as a metasource, let me add my own issues:
 * Google is biased towards now and many users really doesn't grasp the fact that a lot of history pre-dates the Internet, the web, etc.


 * Google is subject to being gamed: see Google bomb, Googlebait, Argumentum ad Google and the other articles in the Category:Google patsw 01:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Google is frequently used because it provides THE best ratio of effort to usefulness out there. It is very quick (far faster than saying "polling your friends") while also being extremely useful (way more useful than any "polling your friends" could possibly be). It is not perfect, so stop trying to attack for not being perfect. Perfection would take forever to reach. Rather recognise it for what it is, something anybody can easily use and very quickly use while at the same time provide information that is of some use (unlike "polling" your friends, which would provide inoformation of very little benifit. As would most other methods that you could try to come up with, I'd expect none would quite reach the powerful ratio google provides.). Mathmo 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any source for the pie chart used above, but I ran my own slap-dash search and came up with these data (which are virtually identical with the values given in the pie chart, but referenced):

United Kingdom (2004) 59,834,300 (Wik) (about 26% of Wales speaks Welsh – CIA) (Wales: 2,900,000 in 2001 –Wik) United States (2006) 299,058,932 (Wik) (82% English speakers – CIA) English Canada 33,000,000 (59% English speakers - CIA) Australia 20,000,000 (79%! - CIA) New Zealand 4,000,000 (CIA. No data on how many, but 70% Europ; 8% mixed, so that could be a fair guess for English) Ireland 4,000,000 (CIA. No lang. data, but non-native English speakers are very few in number) Caribbean islands Jamaica 2,7 million (CIA) T&T 1,000,000 (CIA – langs not ranked) Bahamas 3000,000 (CIA –almost all English) Barbados 300,000 (CIA – English) Belize 300,000 (CIA - ?) South Africa 44,000,000 8% - CIA) Uk 18.8%, US 69.9%, Canada 5.5%, Aus 4.5%, ... (ca. 350,000,000 total. As already mentioned above, this excludes English-speaking people in Nigeria, Ethiopia, India, etc., for whom the language is either first-language level (or even first-language) or nearly so. Kdammers 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Disclosing "conflict of interest"?
I own a company that makes medical devices. In an article about a medical disorder I wrote a short summary of a scientific study that used my company's devices. The study was done independently by a university hospital and published in a peer-reviewed journal. I didn't specify the name of the device or the name of my company. Someone told me that I should have put in a "conflict of interest" disclosure. I'd be happy to do that, but a complete disclosure would specify the name of the device and the name of the company, which someone else might think was advertising. A vague disclosure, such as "a person who edited this article works in a field related to the subject of this article" would be so broad that half the articles on Wikipedia would have such a disclosure. People who work in a field tend to be experts in that field.

Is there a policy about disclosing a conflict of interest?--Tdkehoe 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In all sincerity, who is "someone" and why are you listening to them?Michael Dorosh 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy may differ, but if the independent source was cited, and the article is not POV, I don't see any problem. BTW, it's generally good policy to leave a link to the article you're asking about when bringing it up on VP.SB Johnny 18:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article in question, and the "disclosure" someone named "Bardi" added: Stuttering.--Tdkehoe 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody should be placing disclosures in article space (as was done, before I removed it). If something's bias, it should be fixed, or a POV tag placed, which gets other editors involved.  Sometimes, a disclosure of bias on a talk page is appropriate.  If something favors your company, you should ask for a change on the talk page.  But regardless, this doesn't go in article space.  --Rob 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the "disclosure." I agree with you: if something is biased (wrong, out of date, whatever) then fix it. Don't disparage the author. E.g., if I saw something that was out of date, I wouldn't post a warning: "The author of this material hasn't kept up with the latest developments." If I saw wrong material, I wouldn't post a warning: "This author doesn't know what he's talking about."--Tdkehoe 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic, but I have to say the graphics in that section are pretty awful. The 3-D nature of them distorts the numbers (in the first one, what's the actual comparison after 4 months?) and adds non-data ink (per Tufte), and the actual data comparison is trivial--two or three pairs of numbers. Way too much screen space is used for such a small amount of information. Just thought I'd point this out while people's eyes were on this article.  &middot; rodii &middot;  18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would recommend that if there's a possible conflict of interest, you post the suggested addition on the talk page and ask if anyone thinks it merits addition, rather than adding it yourself. I don't think there was a strong conflict of interest here, but it's better to at least try that first. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My feeling about using the talk page is that the disclosures might well be removed if the discussions are active and lengthy unless they are associated with some talk-page box that asks that such should not be removed. Two alternatives given available tools could be a subpage in the main article space (not a good idea, because disclosures are intrinsically not appropriate for main article space) or a subpage in the talk space (would be ok -- would effectively isolate disclosures from on-going discussions -- could be 'standardized' in title, i.e. Talk:Stuttering/Disclosures or Talk:Stuttering/Editorial Disclosures). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all about making good articles. IMHO, it's best to simply leave a regular message in prose on the talk page, something along the lines of "I wrote this article, but I'm tangentially involved with the subject matter, could other editors please take a look?". If the message gets archived, it will be archived because a lot of new discussion was held after that, which probably means that the article was looked over and the message is no longer necessary. Zocky | picture popups 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The legal position in some countries (I am thinking of Ireland, where the libel laws are ferocious) is such that it probably does represent a threat to Wikipedia. Never mind the editing environment, that is far from the main worry - you have to be able to let people remove or amend offensive articles, or you are contributing to the damage by continuing to publish the libel. However, I suggest a variety of ways around this;

Make it a condition of use (including reading) that any disputes are settled under the law of a free speech jurisdiction like the US

Make it a condition of use that disputes are the subject of arbitration rather than law - Wikipedia providing the arbitrator

Permitting a "Two sides of the story" article until the dispute is resolved. --Jpmills 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your idea about attaching such "conditions of use" would not be an effective way to circumvent Irish libel law, because the person who claims to have been libelled is not necessarily a "user" of Wikipedia. --Cinematical 13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Em and en dashes in article titles
I have noticed that a large number of articles with hyphens in the article title were recently moved to titles using em or en dashes. The relevant MoS entry about dashes in article titles indicates that em and en dashes in aritcle titles are to be avoided (unless it's absolutely necessary to use them for some reason).

Policy issues aside, is a move request for the affected pages necessary, or is moving the pages something that can be done by an administrator without going through requested moves? – Swid (talk 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving pages can be done by any editor who has had an account for more than four days. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the linked MOS entry that I read as a desire to generally avoid en-dashes in titles. Jack-in-the-box ought to be typeset with hyphens (as the MOS wishes), but Hasse–Minkowski theorem is correctly titled using an en-dash. The MOS entry simply says that in this context, there needs to be a redirect from Hasse-Minkowski theorem. Arbor 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, using em and en dashes in article titles should be generally avoided, as the use of dashes in article titles provides a very small increase in the "perfection" of an article's title over the same title using a hyphen, while sharply increasing the probability of linking to a redirect page. The vast majority of casual (and a sizable percentage of experienced) editors will see that using a hyphen creates a valid link and won't bother to see if that link is being redirected. For an article that has a lot of articles pointing to it (for example, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln), using an em or en dash guarantees that most of the links to it will be made to a redirect page. While I'm a fan of tpyographic accuracy, I believe that this is one situation where the tradeoff between absolute accuracy and ease in casual/everyday use should be resolved in favor of the latter.  – Swid (talk 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Swid on this. I use en- and em-dashes in the article body where they seem called for, but using them in article titles should be avoided.  It wouldn't create a great burden if they were used, though, as someone could compose a bot to conduct routine maintenance to resolve redirect references in articles, but the benefit gained seems kind of small for the overall cost. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about em and en dashes either way, but just chiming in that there's nothing wrong with linking through redirects. That's what they exist for. Zocky | picture popups 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, it's not a good idea to have non-ASCII characters in article titles, because it makes it difficult to type them. This applies also to letters with accents and diacriticals, like ĝ. If editors use such titles, there should always be redirects from an unaccented version. --Runcorn 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Date formats
As a resident of the United States, I am used to seeing dates as month/day/year and they tend to be formatted on Wikipedia as such (which, I admit, is rather counter-intuitive.)

But I also know that many other countries (most?) use the day/month/year format. Is there any set Wikipedia policy on it? An example of an article with many dates formatted like this is A_Bigger_Bang_Tour. I think there should be a policy such that dates have to be formatted to avoid ambiguity, with perhaps even the use of a template so that users could have a personal setting or so that they could all be changed easily in case of a future policy change. --Stellis 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you wiki a date, like so (10 February), it'll be formatted according to the prefences you have set. In other words, what you suggest exists.
 * Of course, wikifying every date isn't done because it's irrelevant to most articles, so in general consistency should be kept throughout a certain article. Dates are understandable in any case, since the format is to use actual month names, making each field unique regardless of placement. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where all-numeric date formats are concerned, my own preference is YYYY-MM-DD, like 2006-06-18. That has the advantage of sorting correctly in a pure ASCII sort, and can be extended with time like 2006-06-18 00:47:06 (using 24-hour time; time zones can still be an issue, however, if UTC is not used). *Dan T.* 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I too prefer the YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS format, for the very same reasons. By the way, why did the default date used with "~" end up being the way it is? One can always change the format afterwards, but it's irritating to have to do that. --Cultural Freedom (Talk) 2006-06-18 07:13 (UTC)
 * Probably because by specifying the month name, it's impossible to confuse it with anything else. But with your format the day and month could be mistaken for each other. For example, is 2006-03-08 the 8th of March of the 3rd of August? I think it would be better not to change it, because it goes away from the standard format, makes more work for you, is slightly more confusing and it might cause problems for bots that are expecting dates to be in a certain format. Icey 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen YYYY-DD-MM, so it's probably not very common at all, which means it's unlikely to confuse people. But we could also change the format to 2006 June 18, at least (very) automatic sorting would get the years right, and with a slight tweak for the months, the whole date and time would be easily sortable. And note that "the" standard format is not at all standard for a lot of readers.... --Cultural Freedom talk 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My choice of words was a bit dodgy, by "standard format" I meant a format that can't be confused with anything else. "18 June 2006" can only refer to one day. I like the YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS format as well, but it could be mistaken for something else. If it would be useful to you, I could write a PHP script that will sort lines based on various date formats. Icey 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can just modify the ancient Word macros I use for things like sorting (I do almost everything in Word, oddly enough).
 * But wouldn't it be relatively easy to modify the software so that the dates created with "~...~" commands were wikied, and thus their appearance could be determined by a user setting? That capability already exists in other contexts, right? (I'm new here, so pardon my possibly not quite correct use of the relevant terms to describe this stuff.) --Cultural Freedom talk 08:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. An example was posted earlier in this thread. I agree though, I think that would be the best option, because we could have dates in our chosen format. It would lead to a whole lot of date links in comments, but I suppose the idea is to change them to the chosen format, so they wouldn't need to be linked. Icey 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * <-- How can one try to make this happen? (Unfortunately, I'm an expert in neither Wikipedia policy formation nor Wikimedia software....) --Cultural Freedom talk 09:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * File an enhancement request at Mediazilla. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Cultural Freedom talk 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Figuring out which bits of text are dates and should be converted is very hard - sometimes you need to cite date formats, there are people named April, etc. The long-standing solution has been to link all dates, and since the extra links do not present any kind of a practical problem, it's likely to stay that way. Zocky | picture popups 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am astonished to see someone insinuate that the date format recommended by both W3C and IETF (RFC 3339), is "not standard". The ISO 8601 standard is the international standard date format. Please join me in pointing my finger and laughing at anyone that claims ISO 8601 is "not standard". :-). -- User:DavidCary --70.189.73.224 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been laughing for a long time at the Europeans (?) who rammed this decision down my throat. I'd like to see it changed. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 20:51Z


 * "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from". ISO 8601 may be an international standard date format, but RFC 822 and RFC 2822 both also specify standard date formats, and I'm sure I could find a half-dozen more among the various RFCs. --Carnildo 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is the preferred format among astronomers. I think that there is an IAU resolution to that effect (a body with plenty of American members). --Runcorn 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification
On the page which explains policies and guidelines it states that guidelines are "actionable." Does this mean that users must follow them or face blocking? Is it ever permissible to refuse to comply with an official guideline? Exploding Boy 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

....Anyone? Exploding Boy 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * no see WP:Block.Geni 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the blocking policy. I'm looking for something specific about guidelines. For example, what, specifically, does "actionable" mean if not "blockable"? Exploding Boy 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Who knows. It isn't covered by blocking policy so admins can't block you for not following it. I supose arbcom could wack you but they can pretty much do whatever they like.Geni 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true either. Users can be blocked for things not covered by the blocking policy. Exploding Boy 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any records of such occurences? If so, could you please provide such? --Folajimi 03:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of which? Blocks for things not mentioned in blocking policy? No. People refusing to comply with guidelines? Yes, but I'd rather not identify them at this time. Exploding Boy 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Users can be blocked for "disruption". Persistently going against generally accepted guidelines without good reasons can sometimes be considered "disruption", and thus might be a reason for a block. There's also the "exausting the community's patience" clause on another page. --cesarb 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, "actionable" means "unlike essays, or random notes people put in their user pages, it is generally considered a Good and Sensible Thing to take action to follow guidelines", i.e. if take action in accordance with a guideline, you are more likely to have more support from the comunity at large than if you act without one. It has nothing to do with blocking at all. Make sense? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I always read that to mean "guidelines shouldn't be about general philosphical issues, but rather about how things are done". Zocky | picture popups 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably WP:IAR also covers guidelines. --Runcorn 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When a user is probably never coming back...
Hi, I was wondering if there is any sort or deletion policy for users who have abandoned Wikipedia, but whose userpages are still taking up space. For example, User:Billcica was here for a total of three days back in early April, broke just about every rule in the book, was subsequently blocked for 48 hours, and never came back. Is his usepage just going to stay for an indefinite amount of time, being modified now and then by bots and other automatically generated changes, or is there something that is usually done in such cases? Thanks, rom a rin [talk ] 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you say with absolute certainty that said user will never return to the project? There is a list for "Missing Wikipedians"; it might be appropriate to include that user's name on the list. --Folajimi 01:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that inactive accounts have almost never been deleted before. There's a proposal to delete inactive accounts, but that's only if they've never edited at all.  So deletion in the case of an editor who was once active probably won't happen for a long time.  --Allen 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I question the notion of "taking up space." Space in some notional "login space," file storage, what? It's a vanishingly small number of bytes in the larger scope of Wikipedia, and it uses zero bandwidth or close to it. But it's a potentially useful addition to the history--if someone says, hey, this case reminds me of that Billcica thing, or wants to investigate an incident that Billcica took part in, the information is there. So the cost of keeping seems almost infinitesimal, and the benefits are potentially real. This question seems to come up on every site that allows users to login, as if there's a risk of running out of accounts.  &middot; rodii &middot;  01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, this information helps clarify things. As for the "taking up space" thing, you have a good point, but I was only bringing this up because there seems to be a lot of argument lately about using space, bandwidth, etc. (such as the policy against unnecessary images, the importance of subst'ing templates, those who want to delete userboxes based on their taking up template space, just to name a few). I just wasn't sure if unused userpages were important enough to become a part of this dialog as well.

Regarding the list of missing Wikipedians, as i mentioned, this particular user broke just about every rule in the book (vandalism, personal attacks, page blanking, using wikipedia for advertising, uploading unsourced images, among others) in a matter of three days before disappearing, so I don't think he really warrants a place on that list! Thanks again for the comments, rom a rin [talk ] 02:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A user involved in conflict we have all the more reason to retain the page of, for the purpose of documenting that conflict. A user page is not a shiny reward they get for good contributions and that we revoke if they misbehave; everybody gets one and they help keep track of users and information about them, bad or good. Hell, even User:Willy on wheels still exists. Deco 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who cites space or bandwidth concerns for anything whatsoever should be thwacked. Virtually none of us know what effects anything will have, since we haven't run benchmarks (or have you?).  There's a Chief Technical Officer appointed to make decisions like this, and he's said we shouldn't generally worry about it.  There is no policy against excessive image use for space reasons (as opposed to fair-use or aesthetic reasons), there is no policy to subst anything on the basis of server load (except signatures . . . but there, you'll notice, the developers installed a hack themselves to make it outright impossible to transclude them, something they're perfectly capable of doing without much effort for high-use templates if they felt it was important), and anyone opposing userboxes on the basis on server load deserves to be smacked with an enormous cluestick. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Around 6,000 accounts are created each day now, and that will probably continue to rise. Deleting a few to save a miniscule amount of space would be a total waste of time and effort. CalJW 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be possible to delete the user and talk pages, but it isn't possible to delete the account. See Right to vanish. If the user has made edits, you can't delete the account, because they still need a username to appear in the edit histories. You can change their username, providing they have made less than 200,000 edits, but not delete it. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

verifiability, not truth
I am having difficulty in an argument over differing points of view regarding some definitions.

I have provided two citations from textbooks directly supporting my definition. My opponents are primarily reasoning from indirect sources to support their definition.

The problem is compounded by the fact that they all know more and are smarter than me. One participant in particular has repeatedly stated his disrespect for me.

My point is that their reasoning, while perfectly valid, is not as important as providing citations, since citations can be used to improve the quality of the article. So far all my opponents have been unable or unwilling to provide citations that directly support their definition.

Nevertheless, since I am alone, I am prepared to yield the point and try to reach some compromise wording that accomodates both definitions. My problem now is that no one seems to want to discuss with me. The wording as it presently stands is in line with their definition and I am frankly afraid to edit it due to the history of conflict. But I also cannot see why my definition, with two directly supporting citations, should be completely ignored. Ideogram 05:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you provide some context, like what article are you talking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article is programming language but I wouldn't recommend trying to read the (archived) debate as it is very long and tedious.


 * If you are familiar with computer science, the debate is whether we should say that programming languages are by definition those that are all equally powerful in a mathematical sense (Turing-complete) or whether less powerful languages like SQL and HTML are also programming languages. Ideogram 05:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never heard it asserted that a language must be Turing-complete to be a programming language, but if you have two citations, you have two citations. On the other hand, I can see your fellow editors' point: the term, "special purpose programming language" is often used for non-Turing-complete languages, as well as languages whose Turing-completeness is not obvious, and the term would be purposeless if your point were universally accepted.
 * Technically, their proper response should have been to cite sources. On the other hand, I can sympathize with their response, "Come on now!  We use these terms every day and that is not how the term is used on a daily basis."  A simple check of some tertiary sources would have confirmed that they are not talking nonsense.  For example, the Brittanica lists SQL and HTML among its programming languages, and AbsoluteAstronomy.com lists several programming languages whose Turing-completeness is not known.
 * Verifiability is one of our three touchstones. It is non-negotiable, and tertiary sources are not normally considered reliable sources.  On the other hand, the policy wasn't created to make people run around finding secondary sources for statements that can readily looked up in obvious places.  My view only. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have long since abandonded any attempt to favor my definition over theirs. My points are:
 * They really should provide citations for the good of the article.
 * We should be working towards a compromise that accomodates both points of view, not ignoring my citations.
 * Thank you. Ideogram 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I read the current lead, the Turing-complete point is mentioned, but I haven't gone through the citations. Perhaps more "For the good of the article" and less "verifiability, not truth" might get more cooperation?  Robert A.West (Talk) 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point I am feeling very timid and avoiding the article, but when I return I will keep your point in mind. Ideogram 07:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One point about html (or xml). A markup language is not a programming language as VB. You need yet another program - a browser, using parsing and rendering (?) subprograms -, to use html, and you can't do much with it alone.
 * Some languages deal with information and data and metatext. Others with calculation, true information processing and "things to be done" which is the core of programming. Such distinction could be first clearly explained, then one may enter into Turing properties. What do you think ? --DLL 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have managed to come up with a phrasing that is acceptable to all sides. Thank you all for your contributions.  Ideogram 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Html and the many languages encoded in xml are programming languages just like javascript and even VB. It's true that html is not a very good example of a programming language, as it doesn't have any looping constructs, but the fact that it needs a browser to interpret it doesn't mean anything. VB needs a dll to run, just like html and javascript need a browser, and as programs in C need libraries, daemons, and an operating system in general. Zocky | picture popups 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "One participant in particular has repeatedly stated his disrespect for me." Isn't that a violation of WP:NPA?--Runcorn 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventinos for Portals?
There is currently a heated debate at Portal talk:Taiwan concerning the name of the portal. One editor believes the portal should remain Portal:Taiwan, though another believes it should be Portal:Republic of China. I filed a RFC, but I came here to ask is there any policy or naming conventions for portals that might assist in this matter? The argument is basically whether the portal should be the name of the geographic location or the government, and one editor proposed that two separate portals be created as well. If anything a wider consensus is all that's needed, so people are welcome to throw in their two cents as well. Cowman109 Talk 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard seems to be that "Taiwan" is used to refer to the island, while "Republic of China" is used to refer to the country occupying that island. Which subject is the portal supposed to cover? --Carnildo 07:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The portal is supposed to cover the island. But the opponent believes "Taiwan" by itself is too easily confused as a term for a separate country, which Taiwan is not.  Thus he insists on appending ROC in some form to the portal name.  Ideogram 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Myself, I think it is distasteful and non-productive, the manner which China gets along with Taiwan. But, unless a portal can somehow communicate with a piece of geology, I think we have to admit that people have put the hardware and software in place, which means a recognition of people which means a recognition of their government. Terryeo 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, Portals aren't used for communication with a specific group; they're pages that try to link together Wikipedia articles and projects on a specific topic. You can't communicate with a sport (Portal:Cricket), a branch of knowledge (Portal:Physics), or a dead civilization (Portal:Ancient Greece).  The question of who governs – or who installed servers on – the island of Taiwan is a red herring&mdash;the portal in question is apparently set up as a hub for articles related to the physical island.  Yes, the island has people on it, and those people and their governments should be discussed in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think every portal should be where most readers expect it, which is in this case Portal:Taiwan. That is not the official name of the country, but it is the most commonly used name for both the island and the country. Kusma (討論) 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Unless there's a good reason, I'm all in favour of whatever makes it easiest for the average user to find what he or she is looking for. --Runcorn 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent thought, I agree with that. If I'm going out to research the place, there's about no chance "Republic of China" is the first place I'll be looking. All PRC/ROC political dickery aside, "Taiwan" is almost invariably the search/index term I've used and seen used. Ease of browsing is important. Luna Santin 09:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Discussion/survey re proposed amendment to general naming conventions for categories ==

Please contribute your thoughts to this discussion/survey. Thanks, David Kernow 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC), updated 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, is this what you meant to link? SB Johnny 16:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes – have amended title above accordingly. Thanks! David Kernow 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominating group
I have been told that no individual is in charge of an artcle's content but what about a select group of individuals who may share some religious or other common denominator in addition to the article in question? I have been told that the Wikipedia is not a social club. Does Wikimedia policy forbid such groups and associations from dominating the content of an article or is the idea that they do not just a false illusion being promoted for the sake of financial contribution and gain? ...IMHO (Talk) 07:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's situational. If they come to the article through innocent means and their article contributions are best explained by care for the encyclopedia, a problem is unlikely to be present. There may be a problem if either of these are not true -- it's true that we don't want Wikipedia to have articles owned or dominated by groups long-term, but also true that when we have a very good article, the better it gets the less likely that some random person's edits to it are going to make it better. What matters is some combination of the combined understanding of encyclopedic tone, knowledge of the subject, interest, and skill at phrasing things well in individual editors. When an article has enough of any of these working on it compared to its current state, it tends to get better (asymtotically). Sometimes entrenched editors are simply protecting an article from degenerating back into crap, and sometimes they're pushing a POV (sometimes both). It's more productive to bring more experienced folk in than to try to ask the Village Pump for rules that would be substituted for judgement. --Improv 13:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Experts. Hummm... When the "New Math" was introduced back in the late fifties early sixties many parents said it was bunk and wanted it removed from the cirriculum along with sex education. Experts were called in to assure parents that their children were not waisting their time learning either topic. You might think that experts could somehow overcome the genuine concern that parents had about what their offspring might be learning, but no. Experts in fact only made matter's worse since both topics seemed to fly in the face of more cherished ideas held by the parents and their parents before them and so forth back many, many generations and years. In many towns the solution only came through the creation of "new" and "special" schools and sometimes only through elective or optional classes. Experts are great but that is not what solved the problem - at least directly. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the relevance of this anecdote. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See: "...to bring in more experienced folk..." above. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean topic experts so much as long-term Wikipedians, although there are cases where we want topic experts too. It may be true that unorthodoxy is sometimes the path to great leaps in science, but far more often it's a sign of either honest research on a dead-end or someone pretending to do science. --Improv 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add: If you have a specific instance in mind, that would be more helpful. One reason that Infestation failed as a proposal is the fact that good, knowledgable, careful editors get to know who one another are.  It is not infrequent to see one of them asking others for help against someone who is pushing a crank theory or a political viewpoint.  The difference is that the good editors are defending verifiable material that is based on reliable secondary sources and where the article expresses a neutral point of view.  If you ban both fire brigades and fires, only the firefighters will pay attention. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can be more specific but as an eidtor I am a bit reluctant due if nothing else to the shear number of other editors in apparent opposition. I almost feel like one of the outsider kids in the movie "Lord of the Flies." Anyway you may wish to read the article on Half-life computation and voice your opinion and join the side that you support on the page set aside for the article's deletion. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you gave more specifics, then perhaps others could suggest proper actions: dispute resolution, third opinion, whatever. And there is also Cromwell's advice: "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think ye may be mistaken." I believe it was Learned Hand who wished he could engrave it over every legislative chamber and courtroom in the land.  Wikipedia could do worse than to make that a slogan.  Robert A.West (Talk) 14:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In that regard I have already expressed such a commitment on my user page which may now that I think about it actually be part of the basis for the opposition I fear that I would be quite upset in the stomach if that were the case. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pce3@ij.net (signing as IMHO) has spilled a tremendous amount of virtual ink over his personal opinion that the article half-life is being censored by a cabal academic guild of scientist-technologists who are trying to obscure the topic so that we (I think I'm counted as part of the cabal by now) can maintain our power over the uneducated multitudes. He created half-life computation as a fork of half-life because the editors at the latter article weren't willing to incorporate his material. He's now been to the Science Reference Desk (multiple times), the Help Desk, and here at VPP.

Earlier I tried to help him, and laid out steps he might take to resolve his dispute:. At this point, I'm afraid that he's not going to be satisfied, and he has a history of believing that he is being persecuted on Wikipedia (see also Articles for deletion/Rapid sort). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've run into a similar situation. In the Scientology articles, a group of anti-scientology editors, including people who have been expelled and declared suppressive persons by the Church, and who have communicated for some years on alt.net.scientology (anti-scientology news group) control the articles.  I would think anyone reading them would immediately see they are written in a very anti-scientology sort of way, the information of them is mis-presented, controversy is present in nearly every sentence and altogether the presentation raises controversy rather than discuss the information which comprises the subjects.  Yet, it is their point of view, it is the subject as they understand it to exist. Terryeo 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Real names of porn actors
Recently several porn actors have written to Wikipedia to request that their real names be removed from their articles, citing various reasons, including safety. There is apparently a practice in the industry of holding in confience the legal names of actors who choose to use a screen name. There are also rumors of an active campaign by some right-wing groups to "out" porn actors. In many cases, the legal name of the actor is listed on IMDB. What should Wikipedia's policy on the use of real names of porn actors be? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hm, if the names are on IMDB, what use is it to anyone to keep them off WP? I suggest we say "according to IMDB" in such cases, making clear that we took the name from there without making a judgement on whether the information is correct. In no case should a name be accepted just on grounds of internet rumour; the source tying the pseudonym to the real name should always be mentioned up front. dab (&#5839;) 15:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You realize IMDB is a user editted source, as well, so those claims need not be reliable. Dragons flight 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, we have no legal obligation to do so, but in the case of clear and imminent danger to the persons, it's sometimes prudent. There is precedent for cases like this in Wikipedia, although I'm not able to locate the references right now. Nevertheless, in this case, I do not perceive any such danger. Deco 15:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should ever withhold information that's so relevant to a topic, regardless of danger, unless we are legally obligated to do so. --Improv 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But then the porn industry is not owned or operated by children who I am sure could easily find where Jimbo or others associated with the Wikipedia live and follow their interpretation of the Golden Rule which I have heard as being "Do unto others as they have done unto you only next time do it first." ...IMHO (Talk) 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Standing practice on enwiki following the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone affair (somewhere in the ANI archives) is to not allow claims about the real identity of porn actors and actresses unless they can be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources. If someone's name has already been outed in a major source, I don't consider it Wikipedia's place to try and put the genie back in the bottle, but at the same time, Wikipedia should not be used to "out" actresses based on innuendo or the claims of someone they may have gone to high school with.  Dragons flight 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, I also don't really consider IMDB or the porn equivalent a reliable source. I saw this quote somewhere attributed to Jimbo. "We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies." I really agree with that. See also Brandy Alexandre (porn star) (the last line of that article) Garion96 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased she lost her job and don't think she should have received any compensation. People who succomb to the temptation to participate in porn shouldn't be able to do so without consequences. They have corrupted others for cash and deserve to suffer for it. Chicheley 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that really was a pointless remark in this regard, wasn't it. Your personal feelings about porn don't have anything to do with this. Garion96 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bite anyone, but I agree with Garion here. This should be a forum for discussion of the topic, not a soapbox for personal views. --Doc Tropics 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. -- Captain Disdain 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've stated my opinion succinctly. This should not only apply to porn actors, but to any person that works under a pseudonym. --GraemeL (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit hypocritical that an organization that allows users to remain anonymous behind both a user name and a nickname would have a problem with barring the use of real names when not doing so could cause injury or just embarrassment to another. Suppose as a result of such action the courts eventually upheld a law that required all Wikipedia users to identify themselves with their real name? ...IMHO (Talk) 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It'd be a bit difficult for such a law to be effective, considering that WP is multinational. Unless you're positing a world government, which I doubt. DS 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The concensus seems to be to not publish such personal info unless it has already been made public by a reliable source. In any event, I don't think the courts make their rulings based on WP policies. Doc Tropics 16:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with most of everything that was said above. The IMDB is most definitely not a reliable source for anything at all. They make mistakes even with name actors - for example, slight mistakes with Kate Bosworth and Kate Hudson's legal names. If we can cite a reputable source that publishes a porn star's legal name, then that porn star's issue is with that reliable source, not with us. We're just the messenger. But anything not cited to a reliable source should be cut. Mad Jack 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to state, where applicable, that "according to IMDB, the real name of N is Jane Smith". We use IMDB as an information source for a lot of less pertinent, useful information.. --Improv 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. For something which could perhaps cause harm (as Kelly mentioned) we really have to be sure before mentioning it. And for that I don't think IMDB is remotely good enough. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be tiptoing around the truth out of fear of offending people. We have two orthogonal issues -- whether it is offensive, and whether imdb is reliable. I don't see any reason the two should interrelate. If we don't trust IMDB, we should not trust it for anything (from birthdays, listing of actors in a film, etc). It is, however, currently used for a lot of this kind of stuff -- I would imagine that the majority of the moviecruft we're importing comes from IMDB. If we do trust it, then we should use it for relevant content. As for truthful but offensive things, either we include them with just as much gusto as other truthful appropriate content, or we don't. What I see here is people saying "Well, we don't want to offend, so let's bend the rules for reliability in order to specifically let us not piss someone off with the truth". That's a shoddy attitude to building an encyclopedia, and intellectually less than honest too. --Improv 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree, on that count. Suppose your friend is named Kate. A man on the street tells you, "Hey, Kate's birthday is on Saturday," and you're probably more or less inclined to believe him. Suppose the same man tells you, "Hey, Kate starred in fifty porn films," you're going to have a different reaction, and you'll probably look for corroboration somewhere. More dramatic information requires more scrutiny, especially when that information is potentially damaging to its subject. But, I do respect your opinion. Luna Santin 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why this would be an issue. If we have a  reliable source, we're not doing any outing, merely presenting what's already available.  Technically, nothing we don't source should be here, and this subject shouldn't be any different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite aside from any ethical or legal issues, as well as issues of accuracy, I don't see the point of adding (purportedly) real names. This would just be pornactorcruft, trivia. -- Hoary 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they have an article, their name is by no means trivia. I don't know if we really need articles on porn actors, but if we have them, their name is one of the basics of a biography. --Improv 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How to request a citation ?
I requested a citation. After some discussion, my the action of my request is being called "trolling". Talk:Thetan My request for a citation is in regards to the statement inserted at this edit. Thank you. Terryeo 19:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just put at the end of the sentence. SB Johnny 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo is indefinitely banned from editing Scientology-related articles. I've commented at the link in question. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Images with free licenense and commons
Images with free licenense should be required to be uploaded or periodicaly moved to commons. On the upload page we nicely ask to this end but why not go a step further? Images will still be able to be accessed from commons.
 * Some images, such as images containing English text, are not particularly appropriate for use on multiple Wikipedias. A language-agnostic version of the image, generated by removing such text, could be uploaded there, but we would still want the original. Also, since it's additional overhead creating a second separate account on an unfamiliar wiki, some users might choose to not upload an image at all rather than upload it to Commons, which would be very bad. Deco 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

how to gain consensus for a proposal
I was wondering how I should go about gaining consensus or support for a proposed guideline (WP:NNOT). I'm really in the dark as to how people are supposed to notice a new guideline proposal. Can anyone help? Fresheneesz 04:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you haven't read How to create policy, start there. The bottom line is that it is extraordinarily difficult. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a page that is more guideline-specific (rather than focusing on policy)? Fresheneesz 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The basic procedure is that people discuss and refine it until it's pretty clear that the proposal is stable. Then a straw poll is typically held, announced here.  If there's clear consensus in favor of it, voilà, guideline. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Restrictions on non-registered and newly-registered users
Is there a policy page that lists what can only be done by registered users, and what can only be done by users that have been around a certain time? (I recall seeing 96 hours in some contexts, and I know that we restrict the abilty to move for newly-registered users, but I am not sure if these are the same thing.) I have tried to find this information, but have been unsuccessful. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have the move restriction, but User access levels lists all the access types and what account groups have which permissions. As far as I know, the ability to move pages is the only one that is sensitive to account age. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I note that Help:move notes that move privileges can be denied to the newest 1% of registered users.  Is that the actual restriction in effect, or is it 96 hours, as I have seen elsewhere?  This issue has come up on Wikipedia Talk:Requested moves, and I thought clarification on the page would be reasonable. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it used to be newest 1%, and at the same time as semi-protection was installed, permission for that and move-page got changed to 4 days. Shimgray | talk | 17:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly Shimgray is correct, but I think that it's actually the newest 1%, which at current user signup rates is roughly four days. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The ability to edit semiprotected pages is also, of course, sensitive to account age. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Equal Presentation of Views or Proportional Presentation?
The NPOV tutorial discusses two competing forms that NPOV can take. One form, the "equitable" rule of NPOV, involves presenting all major viewpoints equally, favoring neither side. The competing ideal, the "proportionality" rule, involves conveying each side "in proportion to the credibility of the experts".

In many cases, the two rules are conflicting. Sometimes, the credibility of the experts is deeply debated, with the result being that the desired proportions of the article can sway wildly depending on who is assessing the credibility of the experts.

When should the equity rule apply, and when should the proportionality rule apply? Should the equity rule hold in all cases of moraly/political issues, or should experts who have studied these questions be afforded more weight? Should the equity rule apply if there is no consensus about the nature and quality of the experts.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that this question was inspired by an on-going dispute regarding the article Opus Dei, and the support and criticisms for that religious organization (e.g. it is sometimes accused of being a "cult"). One of the many, many issues involved is which rule is appropriate: Some feel the issue is fundamentally a social science one, and therefore the article should be in proportion to the views of theologians, social scientists, and historians. Others feel the issue is fundamentally a matter of personal moral/religious opinion, and that both support and criticism should be presented equally. That dispute has been accepted for mediation-- so mediation, not this discussion, will govern the outcome of that particular case.

But that still leaves me looking for guidance about how to balance the two rules in general, in the other future articles-- when should the different rules be used? Is there a burden of proof or a burden of consensus-- i.e. without a consensus about which rule should be used, the equity rule shoudl be used?

On the one hand, we don't want to have to present oddball theories like Flat Earthers equally with views that the earth is round. On the other hand, we don't want to have unbalanced articles in which one side of a political debate dominates.

Any advice?

--Alecmconroy 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion: use equitable presentation for moral, religious or philosophical issues that fundamentally cannot be resolved. Thus, the various Jewish, Islamic and Christian positions on the moral authority of the Bible deserve to be presented with equal force, not by the relative population of the faiths (or of their theologians).  On the other hand, the scientific evidence for and against Evolution needs to be dealt with in proportion to the scholarly support each has.  In the case of a no-longer-extant organization (i.e. Knights Templars) there should be no doubt that the evidentiary-weight rule should be used.  In the case of extant organizations (i.e. Opus Dei]]), I would say that the same rule should apply, although one should take additional care to properly document and attribute negative evaluations.  Does that help? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Overriding font-family
(Note: this hasn't gotten much attention at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but I figured I'd give it one more chance on the pump.)

There seems to be a rash of customized font-family settings cropping up, especially in some templates. In my opinion, this is a mistake that needs to be prevented. Anyone who uses a different stylesheet than the particular editor who set those fonts will find that the text so marked stands out like a sore thumb. For now, they probably match the default style pretty well, but anyone who has changed it via preferences or with a custom stylesheet sees awful-looking pages. And if Wikipedia as a whole should ever decide to change the default font family, suddenly they would stand out to nearly all visitors.

In summary, I think there should be a policy against overriding the font-family in templates. --Yath 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where have you seen this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox Country - fairly widely-used. --Yath 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. Lucida Grande isn't even installed on a lot of computers (e.g., mine).  I've removed the specification again; let's see if it sticks this time. Anyway, I agree that font-family should in general never be overridden by anything, except to cover up for IE's stupidity and similarly important purposes.  We have a stylesheet for a reason. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with Simetrical entirely. --Improv 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Persian wikipedia
There are some users with specific political view that are mass generating articles about theire political party. Is there any policy or guideline related to this matter that limit users to write about materials related to theire own work? Hessam 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV likely has something, depending on the content. Biased articles can be deleted fairly quickly with a proper nomination. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the time problem with those articles is about notabality of that political party or people directly involved in theire activities. Source is another problem that sometimes they can solve! for example take a look Mina_Ahadi. Article in english is written by the person who writes the same articles in persian. He says as we have articles about them in de, en or fr so we can have it in fa!! I think people should be banned from editing articles they are directly involved in subject. what happened to the problem with US Senate staff members?! Hessam 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * edit conflict) I can't do much to answer your questions but I just reviewed Mina_Ahadi. The assertions of the subject's notability were unsourced, so I added tags. If no one adds citations to substantiate notability I would consider nominating this for WP:AfD. Anyone who is interested might review related articles to verify their content. Regardless of where an article might originate, I have concerns about unsourced WP:BLPs. Similar articles have brought negative attention to WP and possibly damaged our credibility in the public eye. --Doc Tropics 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I just spent some time reviewing "category:Iranian politician stubs" and I saw a whole lot of stubs there. I reviewed 12 of these Bio's at random and found that only one made any assertion of notability (most are minor Party members or mid-level functionaries), and none of them offered any cites at all. I don't want to jump in and start tagging things without discussion first; would someone with more experience please look at this potential mess and make a recommendation? --Doc Tropics 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern :-) I'd be glad if you have suggestion for Persian Wikipedia too.‍‍ We have the same problem there and we follow english guidelines and policies. Hessam 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hessam, I don't want to start a long winding discussion here so I'll post more comments on your Talkpage. Perhaps others will join us there to continue the discussion :) --Doc Tropics 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions for the benefit of authors and not readers - think about this...
When the wants of authors are placed above the needs of readers then other wiki's such as the Urban dictionary will begin to take the Wikipedia's place along with the potential of financial contributions. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by this? Is there some conflict you refer to? A specific deletion you are against (half-life computation)? You need to be specific. Things like this are just confusing without context. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Sorry. No, I left a specific case out intentially because their is an accumulation of such cases wherein the author or group of regular authors are making edits to clarify points amoung themselves and whenever a newbee comes along and adds a clarification which he feels is necessary for himself and well as for other users instead these regular authors reject his contribution on the grounds that it does not fill their needs. I would rather avoid citing a specific instance at this point in time although I know that doing so may allow only a general rather than a specific response. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 02:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you're just being overly paranoid about this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not here to give every minute detail about a subject including details examples of (in your case) calculations using various equations. That's what schools are for. It's just here to give you important or relevant information on a subject. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In many cases the topic is so mathematically oriented that in absence of a computational example the article is useless except as a reference for its authors. If all the Wikipedia wants to be is a window on the difference between charged based systems which focus on providing subscribers with what they need versus free based systems where unpaid contributors provide each other with only what they need then that is fine by me. ...IMHO (Talk) 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia can't be finished in a day, nor in one day can it be ruined. There is no clear answer to 'how detailed should we be', wiki isn't paper, reader time isn't free, reviewer time isn't free, etc... There are many arguments that can be made. Have confidence and patience. It is highly unlikely that whatever solution you think is perfect actually is perfect... Over time it will all be figured out. --Gmaxwell 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pce@ij.net, please let it rest. I don't think we want to hear about your dispute over half-life computation for months (years?) to come. So far, apart from that, and the signature that hides your username, that's the only impression you're leaving in your countless posts to policy pages. Please accept the community's decision and move on to other topics (and fix your sig!) --Improv 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you keep referring to there being a large number of cases where this problem has occurred. So far, the only case we're aware of is your conflict over half-life (and your fork therefrom).  Frankly, it would be much easier to persuade us that the problem you perceive exists if you were to cite specific examples.  It's getting tiresome, this being accused of being part of an ivory-tower academic-guild technologist-cult conspiracy.  A lot of editors – I was one – have tried to explain to you our policies, procedures, and culture.  All we're getting back is bad faith.  Tell us where the problems are and we'll try to fix them&mdash;if you're just going to come to the Village Pump to insult the good-faith work of other editors, please don't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm use to email correspondence primarily in a situation where a reply has a limited audience to whom you are directing comments which are taylored and intended to be understood by a very singular crowd. Even though I have been using bulletin boards for nearly 40 years I have still not gotten use to the idea of being in a discussion orientated forum where not all of the participants are visible until they are called upon from within to make a contribution. What you (user ten of all trades) seem to fail to understand is that although I may be knowledgeable and you may be knowledgable as to the topic of half life that as just one example there are countless other people who simply are not as fortunate to have that knowledge. While you see the Wikipedia as a place for experts to interact I see the Wikipedia as an opportunity to serve people who are not so fortunate. Consequently many Wikipedia articles need a bit of help in bridging the gap between the experts and others and this just happens to be the role I have choosen and the role in which I can best serve. While the experts are certainly needed and without which there would be no point the bottom line is that the State of Florida does not derive any sales tax revenue from the Wikipedia. Consequently the people of the State of Florida expect a little something in return for their kind generosity of granting a charter to the Wikimedia Foundation to allow it to operate world wide and solicit tax free donations from out of the State. Such beneficial compensation could be in the form of providing reference material or serving in some educational capacity for the citizens of the State. In absence of this the people of the State of Florida might prefer that the Wikipedia find some way to pay taxes instead of just being a community that receives tax free donations which the donator can then use to further indirectly reduce benefits to the State by using their financial contribution as the basis for Federal income tax deductions. In other words the people and the State of Florida may not like the idea of an organization living off of them unless the organization is going to make a contribution to the State in one form or the other. The State is already overburdened by educational institutions and prisons and prison inmates who likewise pay no taxes and cause financial losses without providing any financial gain. Perhaps you need to be thinking in terms of the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation which includes the Wikipedia Project is obligant to the State of Florida and its tax paying citizens and not the other way around. [See: Etatism and Dirigisme in regard to the basis for such clarification as to the relation the State of Florida and the Wikimedia Foundation have to each other.] ...IMHO (Talk) 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've been warned about legal threats before, and that comes awfully close. Wikipedia does not cater to the whims of the state in which is located, nor does your residency in that state give you authority over its dealings. Wikipedia is here as an encyclopedia, not a textbook. You seem to have trouble differentiating the two. If someone's not smart enough to understand an article, then they should go to school an learn. You've made clear with that paragraph that you want Wikipedia to be a textbook. That is not going to happen. It is up to the reader to understand a subject. Wikipedia is here just to provide important information about a subject. Numerous examples are not important. If people really cared, they could pick their own values and test the equations themselves. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Witnesses do not make threats on behalf of the State and it is up to the people who grant the charter to decide the fate of the Wikimedia Foundation. I realize you have no respect for that fact but fact nonetheless it is. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever read No legal threats? If you expect this to make even the slightest bit of difference in helping your argument, I'm afraid you're going to be let down. Your attempts at legally altering policy won't work, as Wikipedia has its legal bases covered in that regard. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest a different tack. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually this does not even qualify as a legal warning even though you have attempted to make a longer stretch. Statement of fact seems to be a problem in the Wikipedia. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pce3@ij.net perhaps you could try being less hostile and you might get more friendly replies. From what I can tell you're making an outrageous step above. You seem to be claiming that the people of Florida derive no benefit from Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not operated in a manner which you believe to be best. Am I mistaken? In any case, while your most recent statement might not be legal threats, they are none the less useless. No one on this page is going to respond to your vague saber rattling, so why not make a reasoned point if you are able... or has 'using bulletin boards for nearly 40 years' destroyed your ability to use anything but fallacious argument styles.  --Gmaxwell 04:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're using a legal charter provided by the state in an attempt to blackmail Wikipedia into being how you like. I'd call that a threat. In any case, those who granted the charter do not seem to mind Wikipedia's current state of operation, so what good do you expect to come of this attempt? Simply put, do what TenOfAllTrades told you to do in his comment and stop trying to use absurd situations to get what you want. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And exactly what is it that you think I want? ...IMHO (Talk) 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You've made that quite clear already. I see no need to reiterate it. I also see that this conversation isn't going to go much of anywhere. If you have a problem with how Wikipedia is run, then take it up with those who run. Don't just post these kind of messages in several sections, as you've done in Talk:Carbon-14, assuming bad faith of everyone around you. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have no clue as to what I want and are afraid this conversation might, if continued, reveal your motive for making false idiotic accusations. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of delving into personal attacks, I'll stop at this point. My accusations are in no way false. They are evident in your very attitude. Whenever you are contested, you assume it to be a conspiracy. You have made several personal attacks to those disputing you, that ivory tower quip being among them. You try to use legal documents over which you have absolutely no control to somehow get your way. You insist on making Wikipedia into a "Dummies Guide to" whatever an article may be (especially those mathematical ones) and forked that one article when you were stopped. What you want is as obvious as daylight, so I'll leave you to stir over that. As a piece of advice, I'd suggest you try something else, as this will never work. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pce3, I'll say just one thing. I tried to be extremely generous and tolerant with you, but you're still turning every single conflict that you encounter into a public show about some purported fundamental flaw in our policies or social structure. This is a dishonest and rude method of resolving disputes and it won't work. Please keep article-specific discussion to the talk pages, don't insult other editors, and try to work within the boundaries of the system we have constructed before you attempt to dismantle it. Deco 09:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So long as the Wikipedia is viewable by the public I am afraid that you will have to tolerate public opinion whether it is expressed here of not. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I will be blunt. If you want to write a GDFL textbook according to your own lights, Wikibooks provides you with a different forum, operating under different rules. I will, however, say quite bluntly that I don't think much of your approach, which is to use computer code to communicate the mathematics of the underlying idea.  That is just a bad way to do it.  Contrary to your contention, young people are not learning code as a fundamental language for the expression of ideas, nor is it a good language for the purpose.  It is true that many articles in Wikipedia can be made more accessible, but every one of your attempts (and I remember you from Law) has made the articles more confusing, not less.  I say that even setting aside your errors of fact.  I suspect that you have done active damage, because some poor SOB may have a great idea to make Half-life more accessible and be met with undue resistance ("Oh no!  Not again!"). Robert A.West (Talk) 10:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that your opinion is the reason alternatives such as Wikibooks and Wikia Academic Publishing sites have been created. However my role here is assessment not appeasing the crowd. Once my assessment is complete it is hoped that the "damage" I've done will turn out to be insignificant except perhaps for challenging a few egos. You and the rest of your friends need to get over the Half-life issue and move on to something else. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pce3, you were told a week ago the steps you can take to improve articles and resolve disputes with other editors.  I also took the time to explain how certain types of material might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, and how some of it might find a home at Wikibooks .  Several other editors have also tried to explain these concepts and processes to you.  You've responded by posting repeated vague complaints in a number of locations (just on this page I can see Village_pump_(policy), Village_pump_(policy), and this section: Village pump (policy)).
 * Now you've moved into making vague threats and insinuations directed at your fellow editors. You're on a self-destructive path here; I hope that it doesn't degrade into trolling.  If there's a policy issue that you'd like to discuss, illustrate it with specific examples.  We can't help you with problems that you refuse to describe in detail, and it's disruptive and – frankly – rude the way you've handled things up to this point.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps now upon reflection you can see why so many people have come to believe the Wikipedia to be nothing more or less than a gentleman’s social club. ...IMHO (Talk) 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. And I question the premise, too! --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Questioning a premise can be a good thing. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Suggestion: run along now, and create a blog somewhere about your concerns. Time's up on this issue (?); next issue please. -- Hoary 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've long since moved on... I just keep getting these emails that the section has been updated. Stop updating it and I will stop getting the emails. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy on filmographies, discographies, chronologies, etc.
Is there any official policy on which way items chronologically listed should be listed? I.e., are items to be listed from oldest to most recent or most recent to oldest. Personally, I prefer (and have seen more of) the former. If there isn't a policy on it, I'd like to see one voted on/made, as it's one consistency issue that would be (relatively) easy to solve and make things look better. 66.229.182.113 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The last time I looked, either was OK. I agree with you that the former is much better. For some editors, the latter has the advantage (???) that it makes it slightly easier to plagiarize from such sources as IMDB. Let's use the former. -- Hoary 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia feed trolls?
I think it does. Look at User_talk:205.188.116.139, for example. This AOLuser (or set of AOLusers) has accumulated white hands on red, white crosses on red, a "Final Warning" with a white hand on red on a splendid navy background, and finally (for the moment) an actual block. I'm not a pea-brained vandal (honest!); but I suspect that if I were, I'd be thrilled to bits by all this, as by the Very Serious Messages in boldface, and that I'd love to show my disaster-area talk page to my drinking buddies. I might even consider aiming to become a genuine Wikipedia celebrity, like WoW, whose every exploit is carefully recorded and who was even given his own graphic until some spoilsport got rid of it. Consider User:Willy_on_wheels: he's no longer with us, but what a cool memorial Wikipedia has constructed for him: a pink notice with red edges, citing "massive" vandalism (almost as impressive as "extreme" vandalism!), a really big white "X" on red, and mention of being "notorious" (just like this dude). WoW indeed!

I don't suggest that WP should let up on vandals. Far from it. I do suggest that, when it occurs, vandalism should be noted as coolly, simply, and boringly as possible. I'd do away with all the boldface, graphics, etc., in warning templates to vandals; scrap most of Willy's page (certainly his lists of accomplishments), as discussed in "Completely useless page"; and simply blank the pages of banned users, possibly adding the single word "banned" (in regular, boring lettering).

Or maybe all this typographic exuberance somehow manages to dissuade peabrains from recidivism. I can't imagine how, and I haven't noticed any such effect -- but I may be missing something subtle.

Care to discuss this here? Here? Somewhere else? -- Hoary 07:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On one hand, I agree with you regarding Willy that our own reaction is what drove him, and that the same may be true for some other repeated vandals; on the other hand, this information is also useful both for historical interest and to enable new admins to identify the trademark techniques of repeated vandals as soon as possible. Ideally such "battle plan" information pages would be visible only to admins, but that's not technically possible. Also, most vandals are not repeat vandals, although they do do more damage than most. Deco 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But could these lists have any historical interest? I'd say that WoW's individual attacks have the significance to Wikipedia (let alone the wider world) that, oh, the individual pustules of the young [insert name of pock-marked politician here] have to the politician decades later. The entire page could and I think should be replaced by something like If you notice that any username perpetrates more than a single jokey or inexplicable page move within a short period, report this at [link]; if you are an admin, permaban such a user. (We can and probably should argue about what to say and how to say it. My point is that this is short, simple, and doesn't aggrandize WoW.) As it is, however, we read among much else: Be sure to replace the userpage with and add them to the second list below. Which implies to me: "Be sure to chalk this up to our pet celebrity; we all need to keep score." As for the claim that most vandals are not repeat vandals, I find that hard to believe; but even if it's true I don't see how that invalidates my suggestion. -- Hoary 10:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem lies with the weak, watered down, useless warnings. That guy should have been banned after 5 warnings, not 15+. And why even bother inviting someone to "practice in the sandbox" or be a "helpful member of the community" when they're clearly just a dumbass after attention? The warnings should be harsh, devoid of images/symbols that could be seen as badges, and actually have some force behind them. It's something Wikipedia will probably never change, but I always try to ammend in my own warnings to vandals. 66.229.182.113 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a fine line between clueless newbieism and vandalism, and our policies seem to lean heavily on the side of assuming the former: Don't Bite the Newbies. For the first act, that is reasonable unless it is very blatant.  Or even the second, in some cases.  Dedicated vandals are relatively rare.  Were that not so, no surface in the country would be free of grafitti.  Robert A.West (Talk) 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If some amiable drunk cares to move "Sicilian Baroque" to "Sicilian Roque around the Cloque" in a one-off, I'll cut him a little slack. (No, do not try this. If you do, you will regret it.) If somebody does similar nonsense to three articles (let alone ten), then I, as an administrator, don't need a list of his previous exploits under different names to permaban him. A year ago, I, as a regular joe hereabouts, didn't need to read of his previous exploits to report him. Yes, dedicated vandals are relatively rare. They're easy to see. They don't need to have pedestals constructed for them. Meanwhile, repeat vandals are quite stunningly common; they amass splendid collections of warnings on their user pages. (Try this character, who incidentally disproves any notion that every AOLuser switches IP with every edit.) I half agree with 66.229.182.113 above: no images or badges, and fewer warnings. But I half disagree: no harshness. No, we should instead treat people politely, and give them the kind of clear, simple warnings that I (no child prodigy!) would have understood when I was 10. If they're too boneheaded (hopped up? drunk? sociopathic? [joking aside:] moronic?) to understand these, tough. I'm not advocating "zero tolerance" macho posturing. But neither do I think we need "five strokes and you're out, just for a little time, then five more strokes and you're out, but keep it to four strokes or less and you can waste people's time for ever -- and if you really work hard at it we'll lay on special templates for you." -- Hoary 11:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think treating IP's with kid gloves is part of the problem. For a logged-in user there is no reason to reset the clock in the manner you describe, but there may be real doubt about whether that borderline edit by an IP was the same as last week's vandal.  Robert A.West (Talk) 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Wikipedia actively feeds the trolls, but I certainly can't say that it doesn't happen, either. During RfAs people often make a big deal about warning vandals and claim that it's helpful, and I agree that in many cases it is -- but I also think that in many cases it's not. I mean, what, a guy who likes to add "he also sucks dick" or things in that vein to articles about random people know perfectly well what he's doing. It's not an accident. I'm all for not biting the newbies, but the idea that you should start with a gentle warning and work your way up to "no, seriously, stop now or your vandalizing ass is blocked, and this time I mean it" is just ridiculous. I think it's perfectly acceptable to firmly tell them to stop, and if that doesn't do the trick, block them and move on to things that are actually useful. (Or, in some instances, just block them without a warning; a guy who pastes "BURT REYNOLDS IS A FAG" to a dozen articles can just cool his heels for 24 hours and then come back, and if that scares the guy off for good, it's not a great loss to Wikipedia.) I like to assume good faith, but once Mr. "Let's add some genitalia to articles" is on a roll, assuming good faith isn't courteous, it's just naive and even downright stupid. There's a difference between biting the newbies and getting sucker punched repeatedly.
 * Obviously, this is not to say that there are no borderline cases and everyone should be blocked at the drop of the hat. I'd say that most of the vandalism I revert is just random stuff that doesn't really repeat itself; very few of those are cases where a more drastic approach is required. But even then the usefulness of a warning is questionable, since most people obviously just want to do that one edit and see their "bestest acter forevar lol" message show up on the article, and then they go and watch some TV or whatever.
 * Also, I have to say that the page you directed us to as an example is actually a kind of a bad example of feeding the trolls. Sure, it's got a lot of warnings, but it's an AOL IP, and most of the warnings are clearly either by different people using scripts, or on separate days. Since it's extremely unlikely that the IP is actually used by the same person from one day to another, I think it's entirely legitimate to warn them again, since most people who stumble on Wikipedia don't even know that they have a talk page until the "you have new messages" notice shows up on their screen. (Of course, there are obvious instances in there where I think the editors in question should have just sicced an admin on the guy, since it was painfully obvious that the guy was not working to improve Wikipedia.) -- Captain Disdain 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of the above. As for the rest, while it's interesting, I'd rather that this didn't descend into digressions. Simple questions, then: First, yes, I agree that white hands and crosses on red backgrounds look serious and all that; but does anyone think that they're actually more effective than plain text? My own guess is that sometimes plain text can put vandals right and sometimes it can't; when it doesn't, graphics won't help; and when graphics don't help they can feed the trolls. Secondly, how is anyone helped by a list of a celebrity vandal's past feats? Thirdly, when a user is permabanned, who benefits from a stern message on his user page? I'd consign permabanned users to oblivion: no memorial, nothing to show off to their chums, just a big waste of their time. -- Hoary 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you advocate making vandals unpedians? Wikiunpedians? Robert A.West (Talk) 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'm suggesting is making warnings simple and clear but uninteresting, and arranging things so that a permabanned vandal has nothing whatever to show for his efforts. Not even a trivial notoriety; instead, nothing at all. -- Hoary 10:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know quite what to think of your proposals, just yet, I'll hope to have better comments when I've had more time. But for now, I do think you've got some good thoughts, at least. I remember situations on some forums where warned users would always have their username bolded in an orange font, with every post... wasn't long before the orange name became a badge of pride. Similar situations arise when there are "top ten most warned users" tables, it becomes a competition. One angle I might suggest we also look at: how does the current setup (and how would these proposals) affect those who combat vandalism? Would counter-vandals get bored by boring messages? Do counter-vandals enjoy reading the history of significant vandalisms in the past? Do these articles have any educational value? I'm not drawing conclusions, here, just throwing out a few thoughts. Brainstorming, if you will. Thanks for taking the time to read my ramble! Luna Santin 10:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing an article while in AfD
If an article is nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is non-notable is it considered acceptable to carry on editing the article in question? I nominated a high-school article that hadn't been edited (until I naively put a speedy deletion tag on it) for over a month and suddenly this editor has showed up.--Stroika 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not edit? The article could be kept.  The edits could make it clear that the subject is notable.  The editor is obviously taking a risk that his/her hard work will be deleted, but that is the editor's business. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Editing the article while it is on AfD is fine, it even says so on the tag, and it is encouraged that people cleanup articles whenever possible. I don't even bother nominating some things for deletion, like cities, no matter how awful or short the articles are because they will just get cleaned up on AfD. I could "prod" them, but that's worse since the tag will probably be removed without comment and without even improving the article. It would be nice if we had a speedy cleanup system or something to deal with this, but people seem to be motivated most when something is about to be deleted. Latin American had a priority cleanup tag on it for months (the tag was only for featured articles and is no longer used). -- Kjkolb 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely think that articles under AfD should be edited if an editor thinks it's possible to improve them, if only because it's not at all unheard of for people who first vote to delete to change their votes when someone puts in some really good edits and establishes that an article that looked like a ridiculous waste of time can actually be useful and worthwhile. It doesn't happen on every AfD, and not even every day, but it's not exactly uncommon, either. I for one am very happy to change my opinion on AfD's. (Of course, most of the articles that go to AfD definitely deserve to go there; there's no way you can make an article about, say, some random teenager's private unfunny fart joke good enough to be kept...) -- Captain Disdain 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only acceptable but strongly encouraged. The ideal outcome of an AfD is that the article is improved to the point where everyone agrees that it should obviously be kept. At one point there was a project to "rescue" articles from AfD that looked promising. Deco 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am now better informed.--Stroika 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means! I've 'saved' a handful of articles from deletion through a bit of writing.  (Of course, such editing comes with a risk&mdash;even with your effort, it may be decided that the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.  If this happens, don't take it personally.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, do make the edits. Also note it on the AfD if there is any chance at all that your edits might switch the outcome of the discussion from "delete" to "keep". - Andre Engels 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Official guidelines needed for FA director position and what is needed for an FA promotion
According to the archive of the featured article talk page Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/archive_2, User:Raul654 was chosen to be the FA director with only 17 affirmative supports back in August of 2004. He has been director for two years. Millions of new Wikipedians later he is still FA director and, as there are no guidelines for the position or guidelines for succession, he is currently de facto FA director for life. This isn't kosher for a supposedly open and free website that claims "anyone can edit". Wikipedia is now the 15th largest website in the world. I feel the position should either be expanded into a committee of at least four Wikipedians with a chair position that is held for no more than a year and revolves among the committee members. Sans this, the FA director position should be term limited to allow other members of the committee to have a chance to participate and to keep the important position from becoming a personal fiefdom. As the position chooses willy-nilly what is allowed to be an FA and what is allowed to be placed on the main page of this website, it is one of the most important positions there are here and Wikipedia's credibility should not be left permenently in the hands of a single man chosen by 17 people (himself included) two years ago. Additionally, as it stands now, FAC instructions state that "Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." However, there have been cases when this unofficial guideline has been ignored by the current FA director who has sometimes allowed articles to be promoted with outstanding and unaddressed reasonable objections (See: Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Katrina for a recent example). This fluidity in promotion guidelines fosters anomosity and should be ended. There need to be concrete standards for FA promotion. The current process is unfair to those who work hard researching and writting articles only to have them fail over a couple of objections while seeing other articles also with objections pass. Thank you for listening to me. Regards, --Jayzel 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be a valid point. No mechanism is in place if, say, the gentleman suddenly found a megabuck in his hip pocket and took an extended vacation to a carribian island without a 'net connection.  Some mechanism should be in place to fulfill the position, should unforseen situations arise.  Jayzel68 says more than that, but at a minimum I would say a mechanism should be in place to replace FA director.  Of course it is normal for young, budding organizations to just go ahead and develop.  But as an organization matures then people begin to want some stability and some assurance that the organization will continue to be a stable one. Terryeo 14:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If Raul ever steps down as FA director, we'll select another one, by some means or another that will be decided at that time. Creating a procedure for doing that now seems silly, in the absence of any demonstrated need to do so.  Wikipedia can survive without a FA Director for a short time in the event Raul is hit by a bus. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am happy with raul at the helm of FA. FA is no big deal.
 * An objection on a FAC does not necesary improve articles quality. And a FAC is not the end of story. Issues that require further discussion can be addressed in articles talk page even after a FAC. We do not protect featured articles...
 * I do not believe FA ever existed to set standards. If wikipedia is going to be about "solid standards" why not let articles be written by a computer and block all editors?
 * A replacement for raul is only going to be necesary when a replacement is necesary. And no, you may not assasinate raul :p
 * -- Cat out 16:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The position is extremely aberrant for Wikipedia. As far as selecting the Main Page article, the fact is, Raul does such an excellent job that it would be absurd to throw it up to aimless community consensus.  As for deciding which articles qualify as featured, I'm not sure why we don't have the usual "any admin can close it" setup, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the people who helped establish the position in the first place. It was better than having edit wars on the main page (which started the whole thing), but I honestly don't know if we still need it. Things have changed since then, we have more editors, and the main page wasn't protected back then and it is now.

The position is indeed extraordinary, compared with how things are normally done on Wikipedia. The questions that need to be answered before anything is changed are what problems do we expect if this reverts back to usual wiki process and, will dealing with them be more trouble than it's worth? Zocky | picture popups 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, any FA article should be suitable for the Main page, and therefore it is not a big deal? —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The big deal was changing the main page FA once and only once per day. Zocky | picture popups 10:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interlingual Namespace
Please notify me if my suggestion is not right here. I am wondering why one needs a separate account for every language version of WP and every language version of every other WikiMedia project. Personally, I feel disturbed by the fact that I need multiple accounts to contribute to WikiMedia projects. On the other hand I see that with 1.6 Million members and a rapid growth of the number of users names would sometime became rare. I do also see the diffuculty to change the system since the same user names might be already used by different users on different language versions. Nevertheless, I think it is worth discussing whether new accounts should became valid for multiple WikiMedia projects or at least different language versions of Wikipedia. What is your opinion on this idea?

--Falk Lieder 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's being worked on. Please see this press draft for details. Angela. 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not too much to add, but I like the idea of having transwiki logins. I imagine the current setup came about primarily out of technical concerns, but I couldn't say for sure. The main argument against would probably be a resulting drop in the supply of available names, but I'm dubious of that argument's significance. Luna Santin 10:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists
I've been putting together an essay about lists of awards and the kind of lists that institutes, magazines etc. throw out and their presentation on WP. I'm not pushing this for guideline just yet, but past experience has shown that at least a few eds agree on most of it. The copyvio component is interesting and afaik hitherto largely unaddressed. So, wiki-deodorant at the ready, because here comes WP:BO. Deizio talk 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of articles should not contain uncreated articles
I'm not sure uncreated is a word, but...

There are lists (some of them long and consisting of extremely obscure content) that have many red links. I use specifically the example of List of bands and musicians by country. If there is no article about a band, why should there be a link to it on the list page? If the band is notable enough to appear on the list, someone will create an article for it.

I propose that it become Wikipedia policy not to include things in lists that are not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Otherwise you have people (again, I'm thinking of bands) adding themselves to lists to promote themselves.

The benefit of this is that people working on the articles themselves decide if the entry is worthy of appearing on a list: if the article is deleted because it is not notable, then someone will eventually remove the link from the list. --Stellis 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would say that list should be deleted, and replaced with categories. --Golbez 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lists are great for red links, and red links are good, not evil. There are very many notable things we don't have articles about and lists help us identify them. If a band is not notable enough to have an article, simply change the red link to plain text. Zocky | picture popups 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Red links in these lists are certainly not evil. But they attract a great number of vanity entries (often with external links). -- Hoary 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bare lists which are solely designed to help readers navigate around Wikipedia - otherwise their existence could not be justified as they contain nothing other than a collection of linked items with no further information, context or description - should NOT contain redlinks OR plain text when there is no proof that the item in question is notable. More at WP:REDBLUE. I also reject the notion that such lists should instantly become categories. Lists are fine, as long as they provide info about what they are actually listing. Deizio talk 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of including redlinks in lists is what distinguishes them from categories: surely List of municipalities in Zaragoza serves some purpose, even with the redlinks... Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That list DOES have a use, because 1) It is finite, Zaragoza is unlikely to add many new municipalities, and 2) The redlinks can encourage articles. On a list as broad as "musicians by country", it is NOT finite, and there is no guarantee any of the links on the list will be article-worthy. Also, the Zaragoza list is not a simple link list, like the original example, because it includes other information (population). --Golbez 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It also has the advantage that real world places are, by convention, inherently WP-notable, so each redlink on the list should one day become a fully-fledged article. In short, lists should:
 * have definite criteria for inclusion (and hence for non-inclusion);
 * be finite in length at a given point in time (OK, so there are only a finite number of porn stars with blue eyes, but we no means of knowing what that finite number is so List of porn stars with blue eyes would fail here);
 * contain additional information on the subjects beyond the page title;
 * only contain redlinks to subjects notable enough to merit a WP article (compare List of municipalities in Zaragoza with the list of municipalities at Jennersdorf (district): in the Austrian example, the subdivisions of a municipality are unlikely to get an article on English WP at anytime in the near future, and so are unlinked (they are linked on German WP)).
 * What do people think? Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lists should be allowed to have redlinks and poeple removing them are doing no service to Wiki. By having redlinks, the items go on the 'wanted articles list' which some editors review and then write articles about.  Thanks Hmains 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing an interesting redlink is usually the start of the process by which I start articles; they're not inherently evil. That said, I've also removed freshly inserted redlinks from, say, "year" articles (ie, 2006), and asked the editor in question to create a stub before linking... I'd say the difference there is in the visibility and current status of the list. Having a fair number of redlinks which are likely to end up being created at some point? Valuable. Adding redlinks to long-standing articles and lists, or FAs and the like? Probably not as good. Redlinks aren't inherently bad, but they're not inherently good, either; there is some distinction, and judgement of some sort is required. Hopefully somebody can extract a good meaning or policy idea from that. Thanks, Luna Santin 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Common sense is what is needed. Something should be redlinked if and only if the editor placing it thinks Wikipedia definitely should have an article on the subject.  It should be removed if and only if other editors believe the first was mistaken.  Whether the redlink is in a list or an article is unimportant.  Lists should exist if and only if it is clear why they exist as lists rather than categories.  More than this is instruction creep. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages in general
I just have a general comment about policy pages, so this seemed like the best place to put this, even though it is not about a specific policy.

I think that the policies can be rather difficult to navigate because of the number of pages dedicated to them and the excess of information included on each. For example, if a user wants to find out about how to go about having an article deleted, he or she would find at least 6 articles on the topic: Articles for deletion, Deletion process, Deletion policy, Guide to deletion, Criteria for speedy deletion, Proposed deletion. Each links to the others and seems to contain redundant information. This makes it difficult to find a simple explanation of the policy and the process, and may be intimidating. The intimidating nature of these pages may prevent some users from contributing when they see something that does not belong, or it may make them do something wrong because it is hard to follow a policy that one does not fully understand.

I understand the need for specific policies and procedures, particularly on a site this large (without some guidelines, I'm sure all heck would break loose). However, it seems to me that there is room for improvement. I think it would be helpful to reduce the number of articles and provide simplified guidelines, or at least use some kind of "quick reference" to the procedure (such as a step by step guide for determining which procedure to follow, such as speedy deletion versus proposed deletion, and where to go from there, while avoiding the circular links to and description of every process on each page). I would try to improve those pages myself, but there is just too much information there, and I must admit that I feel intimidated when it comes to editing such "official" documents. --Dan128 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a fairly complete list at Community Portal. It might be a good idea to have a "quick reference" giving a brief "in a nutshell" of each one. Generally though, I think our "you find out about it when you break it" approach isn't a bad one. Deco 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about creating a Wikiproject that deals with organising guidelines and make them more "reachable". If you want to create it, I'll join it immediatly. CG 08:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with picture upload
I wrote an article on Ignaz Schuppanzigh. I found a photograph of him from the Beethoven-Haus museum in Bonn. I wrote the museum asking permission to include the photo in the article. Here is their reply:

Dear Mr. Epstein,

We grant the permission to use this picture in this size on wikipedia. No bigger size or other picture is granted and you have to set a link to our website below the picture. (http://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de)

Best regards,

Boris Goyke

Can I upload this picture, and include it in the article, according to Wikipedia policy?

Your help greatly appreciated.

Ravpapa


 * Write back and confirm it can be used anywhere, and not just Wikipedia. We don't allow Wikipedia-only images here. Otherwise, it probably seems fine, though I'm not sure. --Golbez 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link requirement is also not kosher. I suspect we'll be unable to work things out with them. --Improv 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll skip the picture. I will add a link to the web page, so that the curious can see what the guy looked like. Thanks for your advice.

BTW, is this the right place to ask questions like this? Or is there some sort of help desk specifically for people like me who are new to W and don't know the ropes yet?

Tnx,

--Ravpapa 05:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the left side of your screen there is a "navigaton box" with a button for Help. Or click here for a useful menu. --Doc Tropics 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism.
Just an idea, but could a policy be devised wherby users/IPs who are blocked 10 times or more for vandalism (not including 3RR, NPOV, etc), automatically incurr an indefinate ban next time they are blocked. --GW_Simulations |User Page 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That could block legitimate users though, with services like AOL sharing the same IP amongst many users. Celardore 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose known dynamic IPs could be excluded. --GW_Simulations |User Page 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like this might be rule creep -- it seems like it'd be within the realms of discretion of an admin to do progressively longer/perma blocks as things progress. I don't think a policy authorising/mandating this would be necessary or useful. --Improv 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not like admins don't take action against persistent vandals. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a named account that gets to even 5 blocks for vandalism without at the very least being under some kind of arbcom sanction, and with a very long or perma ban explicitly promised for future infractions. People who go "off the reservation" and wage vandalism wars do so through IPs and / or a variety of usernames. Can you point to a named account that's had 10 vandalism blocks? Deizio talk 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

posting a link to your own page, with ads?
At Chi-square distribution there is a discussion of if it's OK for a user to link to his own page. User:DanSoper added maybe 5 links to his webpage (including 3 on one wikipedia entry) with text like, "Free Chi-Square Calculator from Daniel Soper's Free Statistics Calculators website. Computes chi-square values given a probability value and the degrees of freedom."

There are two questions. The first is if this is an appropriate (encyclopedic) link. The second is if it is okay to link to your own page that has little use other than it's google ads. Blog spam mentions that it is possible to make ref="nofollow." but that does not appear to be possible. Any thoughts? 128.135.226.222 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, it is frowned upon. WP:EL is the relevant guideline. Off the top of my head, I'd say you'd be justified in cutting them. Cite the policy in your edit summary. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking over it, the links might not be a bad thing. I don't claim to fully comprehend the article, but it just seems to be calcuation links. If there's a duplicate link(s), delete that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)


 * Someguy0830 has it right. rel="nofollow" has been turned on for non-main namespace links, and Brion has indicated he plans to turn it on for articles once some things have been worked out. So that's coming, and it'll make a difference for people who want to use Wikipedia to raise their google pagerank. But it won't solve the problem of direct ad-revenue driven links. Anyway, it's all spam, and unless an editor can make the argument that his links add encyclopedic value that can't be gotten any other way, the links should be deleted. In this case User:DanSoper seems to be trying to do just that, so I guess you have to judge the merits of his argument. But the link definitely is driving traffic to a site that is selling stuff, and in that case I'm of the guilty-until-proven-innocent school.  &middot; rodii &middot;  01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the Wikipedia community soundly rejected the idea of using nofollow on external links in articles. Has there been a new community decision as of late that reverses the earlier rejection? &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 07:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a poll on Wikipedia talk:Spam (started by me), with notes about it on the relevant Village pump pages and on the Administrators' noticeboard. There was also some talk on the mailing lists prior to that.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's for non-main namespace links, and I think using nofollow on those is uncontroversial. Turning on nofollow for articles, which are in main, hasn't been approved as far as I can tell. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 17:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics
There's a new proposal at Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). Zocky | picture popups 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox topics
Exactly how many articles are there on orthodox specific topic, espeicially such topics only notable within orthodox circles, wikipedins that work in this area may be aware that another encyclopedia wiki Orthodox wiki exists for this area. On a related notem why does wikipedia (officially) render its aim over human knowledge as if it is going to be *complete* someday, and even claim that becuase it is "not paper" that there is "no practical limit" in terms of information, the printed Encyclopædia Brittanica already takes up enough volumes to fill a bookcase, though I must admit that I was surprised to discover how much info can be found on wikipedia, nevertheless wikipedia does have to complete with, and not defeat, other encyclopedias, such as Encarta, it's aim of being the "most complete encyclopedia in the world" and the aim of all the human knowledge being accessable for *free* seems like another example of America world domination (my father *likes* America and does not beleive in copyright, for example). Myrtone

Please don't America bash in mid-paragraph. Having a lot of information for free is world domination? Also, this is the English Wikipeida, not the American Wikipedia. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point, yes this is the English language *edition* of wikipedia, but it was founded in the USA and its servers are hosted in the US state of Florida, by the Wikimedia foundation which itself is was founded, and is still owned by,, who lives in the USA and was born and grew up there (though I am not sure about his background, I think his family came from somewhere in Europe, not that many generations ago). Also, America is responsible for so much world domination. Myrtone


 * You're just being paranoid. America doesn't dominate the world. Sure, we're pushy and annoying, I'll give you that, but we're hardly the dominating force you seem to think. Plus, I agree with Wikibout. How is information gathering in any way dominating, aside from that "knowledge is power" angle? This site, regardless of its home, is available to the entire world. You're reading it in Australia right now. How is it domination if its vast archives are publicly available? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the troll, guys.  &middot; rodii &middot;  16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. Good point. Very well, Rodii. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain, if wikipedia gathers only so much informatin it could practialcally take over the web (well, not the entire web, but if not the world, by defeating only so many information sources). The states is the world's most powerful nation and besdes, here in Australia there really is a conception that in the US "nothing happens outside your borders." The belief in "free stuff" has been associated with "cowboys" and US liberterianism, and the very fact that this is avalible to the entire world seems (to me) like an example. Myrtone
 * Wikipedia is a collaboration between people from all over the world and there is no sort of conspiracy behind it, any more than there would be if it had been founded in Iceland. Chicheley 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I got that point but what about getting back the the bit about Orthodox wiki and wikipedia redering its aim as if it is somehow going to be complete someday, does anyone realise that in "the days before computers," there was another medium for storing vast archive of information, it was microfilm, if a microfilm encyclopedia were to take up enough volumes (books consisting of pages of microfilm, did/do they exist?) to fill an entrie bookcase, how much information could it hold? Myrtone
 * I don't get what your connedtion getween Orthodox Wiki and collecting all knowledge. And of course wikipedia won't have everything, have you ever heard of an article being deleted because it isn't notable? If you havn't look at about 8 out of 10 AfD pages. Wikibout-Talk to me! 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have actually heard of an article getting deleted along these lines but before getting back to the startting point, no one has answered as to why wikipedia reders it's mission as if it is going to be *complete* someday? Now getting back to the starting point, wikipedians that work on Orthodox specific topics maybe aware of the existance of Orthodox wiki. Myrtone
 * Again, what is the connection between this and Orthodox Wiki? Just to clarify, your question is why Wikipedia says it will be complete when certain things could never be included because they aren't notable? Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is that wikipedia proclaims its aim to be to encompass *all* the human knowledge. Also, on that thing about "free stuff," I did not actually state that there even was a conspiracy behind (even if you think I was implying it). The fact is that it *has* been accosiated with US liberterianism, and that has nothing to do with cospiricies. Myrtone


 * Does this have a point? So Wikipedia wants to gather up all human knowledge like a primitive Brainiac? How does it affect you? Why should you even care? Though it may not be techincally possible, what's the harm in saying it? It's like someone saying "I'm going to be the best at [pick a field]." Realistically, this is something they could never fully accomplish, because there will always be someone better eventually. However, setting such a goal drives the person to do their best. It's the same prinicpal here. You wouldn't honestly have Wikipedia saying "to be as complete as is possible in an ever-developing world with some leeway given for subjects we deem to be unimportant", would you? This has nothing to do with liberterianism, because it's simply setting a goal. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"local" blocks?
posting this it occurred to me that it would be no problem, technically, to implement "local blocks", i.e. blocking certain IP ranges (or user accounts) from editing specific articles only: In cases of persistent trolling of particular articles, this might be useful for reducing collateral damage. As a possible objection, I can see that "locally blocked" users will be likely to indulge in indiscriminate vandalism out of spite, so that their range would have to be blocked "globally" after all, but how frequently such behaviour would occur would be a matter of experiment. Thoughts? dab (&#5839;) 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as a page can be protected yet still be editable by those with the right level of access, I don't see why a page couldn't be protected against just the users who have attacked it. To be more clear, any admin can modify a protected page, and anyone with a mature account can modify a semi-protected page.  This would just be an extension.  Al  16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * that's right, but would it be an extension useful enough to implement? dab (&#5839;) 00:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I have no idea of the technical issues at play, but I'd say the idea might have a good deal of merit. Luna Santin 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "local" blocks may be more useful on Uncyclopedia, where editors can get blocked for engaging in rv wars with admins. Myrtone

Need more eyes on proposed 3RR change
Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule and offer your feedback. Al 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Including fact tags
Over at Talk:Programming language we are having a dispute over including numerous fact tags. I tried to tag it to a level necessary for Featured Article status, but was met with howls of protest that this resulted in nearly every sentence being tagged. One editor in particular is refusing to discuss with me and has threatened to revert any such changes on sight. Please advise. Ideogram 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

--Kilvia linda@yahoo.com 11:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He, or you, cannot breach WP:3RR. Try getting a mediator, such as myself, or an advocate, such as myself. Computerjoe 's talk 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of three-dimensional artworks
There has been some discussion at WP:PUI on pictures of statues that are still under copyright. Photographs would be derivative works but using them for critical comment would easily fall under fair use. A tag for copyrighted paintings exists already, it's called Art. My proposal for a new tag is at User:Dr Zak/Statue, the discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags. Some eyeballs are needed. Dr Zak 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations...
I have started a new guideline on quotations within Wikipedia, Quotations. Nothing is really too new. Mostly common sense stuff with some stuff stolen from various other policy pages. I figured it would help centralize the information. I didn't include too much technical stuff, but wouldn't be too opposed to the idea. There is some room for expansion, and comments are welcome. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Now that all the preliminary steps are complete, need a competent administrator to make the move (the page is move protected). The steps are detailed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion.
 * --William Allen Simpson 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Handled by. Thank you! Hopefully, there will be less confusion about process naming and more useful discussion.
 * --William Allen Simpson 23:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"WP is not on a deadline"
I'm sure I read that somewhere... maybe in the archives of WP:NOT, but it could have been anywhere (possibly an essay). Anyone know where this can be found? SB Johnny 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've think I've quoted User:Steve block/Wikipedia is a work in progress in a couple of places. Not sure if there's another essay. Steve block Talk 11:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Curiously, "Wikipedia is a work in progress" is a meme that seems to have propagated itself among editors without ever having an official project page. It's mentioned on Avoiding common mistakes, Content disclaimer, Replies to common objections, Introduction to deletion process, General complaints, Wikitime, and a great many discussion page. Perhaps it's time to create one? Deco 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CHILL maybe? Mr Stephen 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, skip that. here.  Mr Stephen 11:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed The World Will Not End Tomorrow Ashibaka tock 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy (and perhaps technical) on transwiki issues
Came across this article the other day: Organic_lawn_management. It's definitely a how-to article. I'd like to transwiki it to WB where it can grow into a chapter or book (it has good information in it, but rather stubby), but not sure how to go about this. So a few questions... after some feedback here I'll bring up the appropriate parts on technical:


 * 1) What's the best way to get it discussed? Should there be a poll on the talk, or is the case pretty much a no-brainer?
 * 2) Is there a way to transfer it to WB with the history intact? I suppose one way would be to c/p it to WB, leave a link to the history of the page as a reference, and reduce the article to just "what it is, history, and external links". The article has had a lot of editors and good collaboration.
 * 3) Am I walking into an edit war with this?

SB Johnny 11:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunno, but ? Whose violation is this, their GFDL or our copyright?  &middot; rodii &middot;  21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weird site, but considering they also have copied other articles from Wikipedia, it's not a violation on our part. Garion96 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP article has a long history and quite a few contributors... I think I'll run a spam search on that site though.


 * Any thoughts on the transwiki issue? SB Johnny 12:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings
Comments are invited on the nature and purpose of the page Spoiler warning at the talk page. Thank you, Steve block Talk 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

moving a section
Shouldn't the discussion at Reference_desk/Humanities#Communism be moved to Talk:Communism? ...IMHO (Talk) 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You can wait until it's automatically archived (should be in a week or two), create a new section on Talk:Communism (called something like "Copied from Reference_desk/Humanities"), and copy the whole discussion's wiki markup to it (which preserves all the formatting). As long as you make clear where it was copied from, and don't change anything, there's no problem doing it and it can be useful to help finding it later. If you don't want to wait, you can copy it and add a comment to the original saying it's been moved (to avoid a split discussion). --cesarb 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably shouldn't be moved -- that's random chatter on the topic, not on the article. Wikipedia isn't a discussion board, and that content would be out of place on Talk:Communism. --Improv 14:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

New User - Article Submission Templates
{ { NewUserUnverified } }


 * Bitten Newbie I think the reason why I had a bad newbie experience is based on my own ignorance. I think a lot of embarassment pain and confusion can be alievated for the poor ignorant well meaning newbies, by creating a new user submission template. If we look at the process, Wiki-Pedia's current process is a process of exclusion, not a process of inclusion. Any one can submit, and then another must remove it if its not good enough. This causes pain and strife between those who submit and those who review. A minor change in the Wiki-Pedia process, can save the newbies from what appears to them as a severe bite. On the surface it may seem only a minor change in policy, but underneath it is a major change to the Wiki-Pedia psyche that will affect the well being of all those involved.


 * Wiki-Pedia, provider of light and wisdom to all for free. How does it work? The concept of Wiki-Pedia is to let anyone contribute. Something is better than nothing. On the whole it works, because on the whole human nature is good. That being said, human nature is not always good. The problem with allowing any one to contribute is that it allows the lesser side, the dark side of human nature to rise and voice its opinion too. This leads to garbage contribution: lies, malicious rumors, untuths, vanity and self glorification posts which have nothing to do with the purpose of Wiki-Pedia. We as contributors, and especially as editors must be vigiliant and constantly clean up these things.


 * Ouch, Bad newbie! Bad! The problem is that we newbies, good people new to the process, are basically ignorant of how it works. We are bound to make mistakes, and we are sometimes lumped in with the rest of the garabage. Feelings are hurt, and those who have great potential to contribute may leave and never return.


 * Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold Don't bite the newbies


 * Don't Bite, Lick. A suggestion and Possible Solution. Instead of tagging someones article as unverified after someone has spent time working on it, the suggestion is that all articles must start out with an unverified tag, and a note that it can or will be deleted. (This can be accomplished through code or perhaps a default template setting for new users) The editors job is now to remove the tags once they feel it is worthy of being part of Wiki-Pedia. We all mean well. We are all here for the dissemination of the truth, and basically put hard work in for free. We do this because we feel this is right, and because we believe in it. This kind of person should not be abused, either because they are doing their job as an editor, or doing their job as a newbie contributer learning the ropes.


 * Little things add up.  A minor change in the process can make a major difference. When the article is first posted it is automatically marked with a tag that it is unverified and subject to deletion, until it has passed editorial review. The newbie has been educated.


 * Much like this tag ...


 * { { Unreferenced } }


 * Only its inserted for them automatically when they submit the article


 * No ones feelings will be hurt by this. And... the best part is the editors are now viewed as the good guys by the newbies. They newbie hopes that an editor will come along and help him or her remove the tag. The Editors remove the unverified tag... or they submit it for deletion. The editor's main task now is to include the work. The whole of Wiki-Pedia changes from a process of exclusion to a process of inclusion.


 * Experienced User Submission Template when a user figures out how to change his or her template for submissions, I think its safe to say they have figured out enough not to get their feelings hurt by the process. Thanks --BrittonLaRoche 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical information
Historical information (WP:HIST) is a proposed guideline which is still very much a work in progress. I ask people to contribute to it and/or its talk page.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help on founding a policy
WikiProject professional wrestling has no clear cut consensus of this issue, so I throw this out to the world at large: should professional wrestlers be organized under their real names or the names that they adopt in the ring (this, of course, is moot for those that wrestle under their real names)? There are arguments to both sides of the equation. Consider the following arguments:


 * WP:NC says that the best-known name be used - these tend to be ring names (Triple H, Shawn Michaels).
 * If a wrestler is equally well known under two different ring names, using a real name may avoid the issue of debating over which ring name is more notable (Monty Sopp is equally notable as Billy Gunn and Kip James, both of which are more notable than his real name)
 * Others claim real names should be used to separate the real world and the kayfabe of professional wrestling - effectively forming a separate identity out of a person and the characters they portray. These cite articles on the film industry as examples (eg. Jean-Luc Picard is separate from Patrick Stewart).  Some note that this allows a clear separation of roles - a wrestler may use more than one ring name, and a ring name may have been used by more than one wrestler.
 * Still wrestlers themselves may prefer one name over another (CM Punk prefers ring names as he views that using real names are "elitist and arrogant", while Edge prefers to use his real name of "Adam Copeland" out of the ring, as seen in his autobiography, Adam Copeland on Edge)
 * Some wrestlers use a slightly misspelled or truncated version of their real names as their ring names (eg. David Bautista wrestles as Batista)
 * Some wrestlers have wrestled or currently wrestle under their real names, but are more notable under certain gimmicks (Mick Foley, who was best known as Mankind, now wrestles under his real name)

Your comments are welcome. kelvSYC 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unclear to me what it is that you are organizing but it seems to me that you ought to be able to do it both ways. You could decide to have the articles about wrestlers be either under their real or stage names and have the other name be a redirect.  If you decide to use the stage name but there may be more than one wrestler that used that name you could add the real name after as a disambiguator.  Or if the real name were used for the actual article you may then need a disambiguation pages for a stage name that had been used multiple times.  If you're talking about lists, there's no problem having two different lists for the different names.  If you're talking about categories, it is possible to assign redirects to categories.  --JeffW 07:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As most wrestlers use many different gimmicks throughout their career, I think the core article about the person should be under the real name, with redirects (or disambigs) as suggested by JeffW. It's not perfect, but then this is not a perfect world... --Stephan Schulz 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting the redirect pages in a category wouldn't work, would it? How can a redirect page be added to a category (unless it's a soft redirect)? --DaSchick 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that if the category tag is placed on the same line as the redirect tag that it will work as desired. --JeffW 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be on a case by case basis rather than one policy to cover everyone. Like people who are widely known under one name should be listed under that(like Shawn Michaels or The Undertaker) while others listed under their real names. TJ Spyke 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think totally case-by-case is actually workable. The problem is that it just all turns into a big debate and everyone has different criteria.  Several wrestlers' pages get started under their real names, and then a debate is proposed to move them to their ring name.  After that change, another debate gets going to move it back.  Then another debate.  And another.  And another.  And the result is that the wrestler will end up temporarily at their real name or their ring name depending on what users were really paying attention for the short time it was debated.  That will be stopped by the creation of an actual policy, with real criteria for determining which to use.  Those criteria can then be applied to each page, a decision made as to how to index the person, and that will be the end of it.

Here's my proposal:


 * PROPOSED POLICY FOR INDEXING WRESTLERS: By default, all wrestlers are to be indexed under their real names, or "Real Name (wrestler)" as appropriate. Character names should redirect to the page of the wrestler playing the character.  If the character name has multiple meanings (Example: Kane, Undertaker, Sting, etc.), then a note should be placed on the term's disambiguation page linking to the appropriate wrestler's page.  Exceptions to indexing in this manner should only be done if: 1.) The wrestler in question actually owns the rights to the character name in question; AND 2.) The wrestler in question regularly uses their character name outside of wrestling.  If those two criteria are met, the character name is more akin to a stage name, and the wrestler should instead be indexed under their character name.


 * Explanation: Many reasons, but here are a few:
 * 1. Their real name will not change, so you'll almost never have to change the indexing of the wrestler's page (e.g. less work for everyone involved).
 * 2. In 99%+ of situations, the characters and the wrestlers playing them are two different people. Steve Borden is not a surfer boy (or Crow rip-off); Mark Calaway is not an undead zombie/evil mortician; Mark Henry the person is not actually a 400lb. sex addict.  The article is about the person, not the character, and so it's normally factually incorrect for an encyclopedia to treat them as identical by indexing under character names.
 * 3. Other reference resources (e.g. IMDB.com) also index wrestlers under their real names and treat the characters as "roles" they've played on TV shows/PPV's.
 * 4. Almost all wrestlers will use multiple gimmicks over the course of their careers. Their "best known" gimmick today may not be the same tomorrow.  Their birth name is highly unlikely to ever change.
 * 5. If the person makes little or no attempt to use the character name in other media (music, books, acting, etc.), then it's difficult to argue that the character name is a "stage name" for the person. It's really just a character.
 * 6. If the person does not own the name...well, it doesn't belong to them. If it's not theirs, why are we using it to identify them in an encyclopedia?  They also wouldn't be able to use it at all outside of the wrestling industry (without serious kickbacks to the gimmick's owner or facing a trademark infringement lawsuit).


 * Application: Some examples (I swear I'm almost done...):
 * 1. Glen Jacobs (Kane): Jacobs does not own the Kane gimmick, WWE does. According to the policy, he would be indexed under his real name and likely never move.
 * 2. James Janos (Jesse Ventura): Janos created the character on his own, owns the name, received his acting credits as Jesse Ventura, and was elected to political office as Jesse Ventura. According to the policy, he would be indexed as Jesse Ventura and likely never move.
 * 3. Steve Borden (Sting): Steve owns the rights to the gimmick, but he does not use the name "Sting" outside of the wrestling industry. His acting roles are credited to "Steve Borden", not "Sting."  According to the policy, he would be indexed under his real name and likely never move.
 * 4. Chris Irvine (Chris Jericho): Irvine owns the rights to the name and makes extensive use of it outside of wrestling. He is credited as the lead singer of Fozzy as "Chris Jericho", and his acting credits are as "Chris Jericho."  According to the policy, he would be indexed as Chris Jericho and likely never move.

Apologies for being long-winded. Comments (or flames) appreciated. Tuckdogg 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with this idea is that it violates WP:NC on so many levels - a professional wrestler's real name is rarely the best known name of the person. Sting is better known as the single name, and only smar(k/t)s would refer to him by his real name.  As per WP:NC, the article belongs at Sting (wrestler).  Same deal for, say, Rey Mysterio.  The separation of the real person and the gimmick is largely irrelevant to the name of the article - that's an issue for the article's content. kelvSYC 07:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. The title/name of the article is, essentially, the subject of what the article will be about.  If you look up the article "Carrots", you don't want a discussion of apples.  When there's a disconnect between the wrestler and the character he plays (which there will be 99% of the time), the two are not the same person.  It's factually incorrect, then, for us to index the article under the character name since it isn't about the character.  I don't think it violates WP:NC to make sure the name is one that the person actually goes by, even if it's not as well known as a name they don't own and can't use.


 * As an example, I would bet that just about everyone knows Steve Urkel. If you polled a hundred random strangers, maybe ten of them would know that the actor who played Urkel was named Jaleel White.  Most people don't know him as Jaleel White; they know him as Steve Urkel.  Should we index the wiki article on Jaleel White at Steve Urkel?  Of course not.  Putting aside the fact that Jaleel White absolutely HATES being called Urkel, he's not the same person, he doesn't own the name or the character, and he never used it outside of Family Matters.  Regardless of how much "better known" he is as Steve Urkel, that doesn't mean we should index his article that way.


 * We can disagree as to just how closely wrestlers resemble other TV characters, but the analogy is largely sound. In both cases, the character and the person playing them are not the same.  People know many actors on TV shows simply as the name of the character they play but are clueless as to the actor's real name, same as with wrestlers.  Neither one (usually) owns the rights to the characters, or uses the name in other media.  In those situation, I just don't see how we could factually equate the two.  It's not an issue of "better known" names, it's an issue of whether or not the indexing is even accurate.  Sting is a perfect example of someone who should NOT be indexed as his character name, since he does not use the name at all outside of wrestling and has referred to his real name many times on wrestling shows.  Put kayfabe articles at the character names; leave the wrestlers under their real names.  In situations where the two are not disconnected (Jericho, Jesse Ventura, possibly CM Punk), then sure, index under the character names.  In all other situations, though, it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedic resource. Tuckdogg 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By your logic, Snoop Dogg should be moved to Cordozar Calvin Broadus Jr., given that Broadus is presumably somewhat more law-abiding than the character he depicts in music videos and self-referencial works. The policy that the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject has used thus far is to have an article at the real name of the wrestler. We have diverged from the policy where the wrestler in question has used a given ring name for the bulk of their career and appears unlikely to change their ring name. Your arguments show a lack of understanding of the wrestling industry, given that wrestlers frequently used the same name regardless of what "character" they are depicting, and that wrestlers frequently prefer to be known by their ring names. McPhail 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apply my proposed policy. Snoop owns the name Snoop Dogg and regularly uses it outside of the rap industry.  It's his chosen stage name for all things.  He'd continue to be indexed as Snoop Dogg.  I have a quite good understanding of the wrestling industry, thank you.  If they own the name and use it outside of wrestling, that sounds like a stage name to me, and so they should be indexed like that.  But if they don't even own the name and have no right to use it, it's a character.  If it's a character and is distinct from the person playing it, they should be indexed under their real names.  Just because you don't think they'll change gimmicks doesn't mean they won't; most probably would have thought Monty Sopp would have been Billy Gunn for the rest of his career.  Most probably would have thought in 1996 that Bret Hart would be with the WWF forever.  Things change in wrestling on a dime.  Their real names won't, and if they own the name and make use of it outside of wrestling that won't change either.  Amy Dumas will not always be Lita; Glen Jacobs will not always be Kane. Tuckdogg 00:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The legal ownership of names is somewhat irrelevant in the long run. Wikipedia should not based naming conventions on trademarks, which are both a fairly modern creation and which do not last indefinitely. McPhail 01:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm...actually they do last indefinitely. As long as you continue to use the mark/name/label/etc., you get protection forever.  In the context of wrestling, as long as Vince is pumping out videos and marketting old footage with his trademarked characters...well, let's just say he's gonna have valid trademarks for a LONG time.  But this isn't necessarily about trademarks.  They factor in, sure (thanks, Vince...*grumble*), but that's not the main issue.  It's the disconnect between the character and the wrestler.  That disconnect isn't there for people like Jesse Ventura, CM Punk, etc., who've adopted their ring names more like stage names.  But when someone else owns the trademark on the gimmick (or you do, but voluntarily choose not to use it), you don't even get the option of adopting that name for your own.  The disconnect is there, and likely will be forever.  Unless you're The Rock, since according to him he basically said, "Hey, Vince.  Gimme 'The Rock.'"  And Vince said, "Sure, why not?  Here you go!"  Vince must've either been stoned, or Rock's got some SERIOUS dirt on him.  Tuckdogg 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism final warning template
While reverting some vandalism, I noticed that on a few users' talk pages were multiple vandalism warnings that say, "final warning." Many of these accounts have never been banned, and not even for a short time. Having dozens of "final warnings" makes the control system of Wikipedia look rather useless, and, in my opinion, encourages people to vandalize more. The change I'd like to see is either an elimination of these "final warning" templates, or something that notifies the admins when a final warning is given. I know that this seems like a cosmetic solution to vandalism, but I believe putting up a strong front is a start down the right path. I apologize if this doesn't seem very well written. - Mirage5000 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are not an admin and don't have the power to give a block, you can go through the test1 to test4 templates, skipping when appropriate, and then post to Administrator intervention against vandalism to have the user or IP blocked. The blocking admin will check the evidence to make sure that it is appropriate. As for multiple final warnings, the person may have been blocked after each final warning was given or may have stopped for a while and then started vandalizing, resulting in another final warning before being blocked. When dealing with a vandalizing IP, the editor doing the warning may start over with the templates, or at a lower level than they would otherwise, if they do not know if it is the same person doing the vandalizing. This can happen when a significant period of time has passed since the account edited and/or vandalized, when the IP might be dynamic and when the IP is static but could be shared by other people. I think it might be nice to have a template for accounts and IPs that have had repeated warnings and/or blocks so that the older ones can be removed, though. -- Kjkolb 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kjkolb has replied for IP numbers. For logged-in users, I agree with much of what I think you're saying. I'm not interested in "putting up a strong front", though, and indeed, I'm against impressive-looking, colorful warnings. Instead, warnings should be short, simple, uninteresting (see this discussion above) and of course acted on: rather more bite, a lot less bark. -- Hoary 10:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources that require a fee to access
The issue concerns the citation of sources. If the only reference source given in a particular case requires the reader to first pay for a subscription to the site, is this fair in a free encyclopedia? As far as I can see, the present policy regarding the citation of sources does not cover this. I believe, in a free encyclopedia such as this, a reader should not have to pay for the information; most especially if the source is the only one given.

Michael David 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not at all pleasing, no. But if that truly (and credibly) is the source, then it should be credited as the source. Certainly the writer should not pretend that he or she used other sources instead.


 * I'm not opposed to pay websites, even though I don't happen to subscribe to any right now. Actually I'd rather pay money to a good website I use a lot than have it inflict advertising on me. Any policy against linking to pay websites should I think raise the question of linking to websites that perpetrate pop-ups, irrelevant Flash animations, etc etc etc. -- Hoary 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A consequence of your principle would be to disqualify most books and journals, as they require buying/paying a subscription fee, or at least getting a library card or enrolling at a university, either of which may require a fee, in some countries and places quite a substantial one. We will basically be stuck with what's freely available on the web already. You can't build an encyclopedia from that. Tupsharru 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict, and I see I'm repeating much of what Tupsharru said) This issue has come up before. The problem is that editors using university or big city libraries often have access to these subscription sites because the library has a subscription. Most of those editors see no problem in using the subscription sites as sources. Those of us that do not have access to libraries with subscriptions to those sites tend to object to their use. On the other hand, I've used books that may not be available in every library as sources. Magazines/journals are often used as references, and they also require either a subscription or access to an institution with a subscription. Similarly, to verify the information cited in a book, you either have to buy the book or find it in a library. IMHO, verifiability does not require that every source be easily available to every editor and reader, just that it is available to a decent sample of all editors/readers. --  Donald Albury ( Talk) 12:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is a better source than the others sources available or is the only source that can be found, I would go ahead and use it. A lot of references are very difficult for readers to check out themselves, such as cites from rare books that cannot be found online or in most libraries or library systems (libraries that share books). Some books and magazines might not be available in libraries at all and must be purchased. I don't see why a pay site would be much different than those situations. Even if the cite is from a not so rare book, you would still have to go down to the library to get it and possibly have to wait while it is sent from another library, if they don't have a copy. Also, some readers may not have a local library or may not have transportation to it. However, I would stay away from the extremely expensive sources, like the ones that cost tens or hundreds of dollars for a subscription, or even just a single article.
 * However, the Wikimedia Foundation likes to use free things, even when it is detrimental in some respects (although it is sometimes much better to use something that is free, I don't think it is always worth it. also, we're here to build an encyclopedia and should not let the promotion/use of free software interfere with our mission). I would guess that they'd strongly favor free sources or even prohibit unfree sources if it were at all feasible to do so. I doubt that it is unless we are willing to greatly reduce the quality of some articles, though. -- Kjkolb 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of human knowledge still remains offline. The question of whether to allow reference to pay-sites can be expanded in principle to whether to allow reference to information that is not online at all.  The answer to this is most certainly 'yes'; therefore, the answer from my point of view regarding the pay-site question is 'yes, such links are useful and don't conflict with the goals of the encyclopedia'.  One thing to consider is that many pay-sites provide access to content abstracts, such as in the case of scientific journals by and large; linking to the abstract is useful if an indication that the information being referred to in the article actually exists in the article by way of inference from the abstract, but this is not always possible to demonstrate. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have cited on-line abstracts without being able to see the full article. You really can't base an article on abstracts, but they can be useful for saying things like "so-and-so supports/proposes an alternative to/etc. such-and-such position/theory/etc." --  Donald Albury ( Talk) 14:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kjkolb's position. Nearly all sources available on pay databases (like the very expensive LexisNexis) are available offline in paper form, though they are much harder to access. I would stay away from things on Lexis or similar high-end databases that are not generally published in libraries on paper, such as the InfoUSA mailing address database for all living Americans or the deed/mortgage index for nearly all real property.  Those things don't show up on WorldCat, so you can't retrieve them through interlibrary loan! --153.18.106.170 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The objective is to provide the best information in Wikipedia, and sourching issues should never stand in the way of that. Calsicol 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "we" and/or "you" in articles
I notice some articles I've run across use.. I'm not sure the literary term for it, but use the words we and you in reference to the reader, or presumably humanity as a whole. A generic example might be something like:

"We can determine, due to recent research in the field that X is true" "Though it is theoretically possible to do X, you will find it realistically unfeasable"

Or similar such constructions. Is there an official policy on such things? I would think that constructions in that sort of tone should be rewritten, I just want to be sure before I reword those phrases I come across that fit that old. Errick 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in the Manual of Style, specifically Avoid self-referential pronouns and the next section. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I'd skimmed that but I must have overlooked that section.  Errick 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another term is second-person voice. See grammatical person.--153.18.106.170 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists
See Fair use/Fair use images in lists for a request for comment about the use of fair use images in lists. This RFC arose out of a dispute about the use of images on list of Lost episodes and has grown beyond that article to have broader significance for lists generally. Please join the discussion if you are interested in this issue. --bainer (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move protection on major Wikipedia namespace pages
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to limit the moving of major Wikipedia namespace pages to admins. My apologies if this is a perennial proposal that I've just never seen before. Also, this proposal is assuming that it is difficult to move the pages back, that moving and/or fixing them is a strain on the servers or that the pages are frequent targets of page move vandalism. If it's no big deal, then forget it. I'm referring to perhaps a dozen or fewer high-profile pages like Articles for Deletion, Criteria for Speedy Deletion, Deletion Review, Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents. The pages are few in number, and their names change very infrequently. Therefore, I think that there is not much of a drawback to protecting them and that it should be considered if page move vandalism is a significant problem. -- Kjkolb 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Who is 'me' on Wikipedia and (2) What is credit policy?
At the top of Strategic Air Command Aircraft it currently has the phrase: Joseph F. Bauer, Norman Polmar and Timothy Laur have granted me permission to use their copywritten material as long as they are give credit for that use.

1. Phrases like 'me' and 'I' appear to make no sense on Wikipedia. Do others agree?

2. With thousands of contributions to an article, do we permit them all to have prominent credits at the top? What is the policy on this?

bobblewik 13:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Click the History tab at the top of an article to view the creation of the edits which lead to and include an article as it presently appears. An examination of SAC history shows that the first edit of the article,  by R.E. Mixer, on 16 Mar 2006 at 11:45, included the phrase, NOTE: Joseph F. Bauer, Norman Polmar and Timothy Laur have granted me the right to use their copywritten material as long as they are give credit for that use.  So that's the answer.  R.E.Mixer is the "me" referred to.   That user's discussion page, User_talk:R._E._Mixer has already received a few comments and will probably receive more.  I'm not sure what policy or guideline is directly violated by his claim to exclusive ownership of permission, but it doesn't sound right.  On a discussion page, in a discussion, a user might make a statement like that, but it seems inappropriate to me on an article's page. Terryeo 13:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I will watch and learn. bobblewik 13:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * no, stuff like this should be removed, or as a courtesy, copy-pasted to the talkpage with a request for clarification. If R.E.Mixer complains, point them to Verifiability. I can post all over Wikipedia that the Dalai Lama himself gave me personal permission for stuff, and none of you could prove otherwise :) dab (&#5839;) 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the policy that's violated is in fact the GFDL. When you license a contribution under the GFDL, you can't retain any rights, including the right to require credit (at least, that's my understanding, but this is a confusing area for me). And even if the sources agree to license the text, they have to do it themselves in a proper way, not through a third party. So as it stands, that article has copyvio problems. Also, the word is "copyright", not "copywritten" (sorry, pet peeve).  &middot; rodii &middot;  17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm right, the GFDL does actually require attribution to be given to the original authors, but as a matter of convention we give that attribution through the page history and not in the article itself. If we are using external material licensed under the GFDL, we would have to include - probably in the article - attribution for those authors. However, this can probably go at the bottom along with the references. Deco 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is deductive reasoning original research?
There is currently disagreement over the use of the WP:NOR policy to exclude people from lists of Americans by ethnicity. A user has claimed that they think that if an American is described as having an Irish parent/grandparent etc., unless they are described somewhere as an Irish American they absolutely cannot be included in a list of Irish Americans, even though Encarta and many other reputable and reliable sources describe Irish Americans as Americans who trace their ancestry to Ireland. Is this a correct interpretation of policy? Arniep 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No original research says "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." We know that Irish-Americans are Americans of Irish descent. That's A. We know Person X has an Irish grandma. That's B. Joining the two together to declare that person an Irish-American on Wikipedia is original research - forming "C" on our own to advance the position that Person X is an Irish-American. We're running an encyclopedia here. If we have a list of Irish-Americans, the people on it must actually be Irish-Americans, as described by reputabline sources. Not people with some kind of Irish connection who in the opinion of Wikipedia editors are Irish-Americans. We're not here to label people who have not previously been labelled as exactly that. Nor is Wikipedia here to publish the "deductive reasoning" (i.e. subjective thinking) of editors. Only to publish facts as stated elsewhere. Mad Jack 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not set out to define the usage of Irish American. Encarta lists Irish Americans as Americans who trace their ancestry to Ireland. It doesn't say an Irish American is only someone described by somebody as "Irish American". Arniep 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We do not make our own definitions for an Irish American. We only list people who have already explicitly been defined that elsewhere. No one on earth considers everyone who has some Irish ancestry to immediately be an Irish-American (there is such a thing as a non-hyphened American, you know). An Irish American is some who is of Irish descent. But not every American of Irish descent, however thin, is an Irish-American. And as you've said, we do not set our own criteria and do not do the A + B = C math on our own. Every part of Wikipedia has to be published elsewhere first in order to be included. The lists and people we explicitly label as Irish-Americans are no exception. Mad Jack 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where would one find a published list of Irish-Americans? Does this train of thought limit Wikipedia's list of Irish-Americans to current members of Societies with published membership lists? Is this what "no original research" really means? --Wetman 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't about an already published list. What it means is if a person has been described as an Irish-American in a good source (or "Irish" if they are American), we can include them in a Wikipedia list of Irish-Americans. If not, it's only our opinion that their Irish grandmother automatically makes them an Irish-American, even if no sources have applied that particular label to that individual before. Mad Jack 16:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This might be a silly question, but are we talking about users calling themselves this-or-that, or are we talking about (non-auto-) biographical information? I'm Irish-American, but also Scott-American, German-American, Dutch-American, and "an American with Jewish Ancestry"... which really just means I get to feel home at all sorts of heritage festivals, and could probably have all sorts of funky userboxes cluttering up my page if I were so inclined. Unless it's St. Patricks day, I generally don't consider myself Irish American just because my bloodline is 17/32 Irish, and wouldn't think it appropriate for my biographer to call me such. SB Johnny 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is about Wikipedia lists (and categories of people, not users). If a person is explicitly asserted to be, say, Irish-American, then we can/should include them on the Irish-American list. If they are asserted to be anything else, like "having an Irish grandmother", then it's just the opinion of whichever Wikipedia editor that they are Irish-American and belong on the list. I.e. we can't foist labels on people that haven't been foisted on those exact people in a good source. Mad Jack 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the short answer here is that previously unpublished deductive reasoning, like any other reasoning, is indeed original research? There seem to be a lot of editors who feel that very pure, logical deductive reasoning doesn't fall within the novel synthesis section of WP:NOR. Right now, WP:NOR doesn't contain the word "deductive". Perhaps we should add a few words to the synthesis section to make it clear that even the purest logic counts as OR if unpublished? The Irish-American example is not a case of pure deductive logic -- there are all sorts of implicit assumptions -- but perhaps a clarification of the principle would still help? --Allen 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right - it's not "pure" logic in this case because there are disputed and various POVs on who is or is not Irish-American. I suppose it's possible that pure deductive reasoning could exist - but it would have to be some case where basically absolutely no one would disagree with this logic. I suppose that could be put in the NOR policy, but it would have to be stated that it must be completely undisputed logic that anyone would agree on. (Which doesn't appear to be the case with labeling a person X-American) Mad Jack 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, active thread. Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that pure logical deduction be allowed, but rather that it be explicitly disallowed just like any other novel synthesis as described in WP:NOR.  --Allen 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The main problem seems to be is that "logical deduction" and what exactly that would entail in every case is up for a lot of debate. Which is precisely why it should be disallowed. Mad Jack 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Irish American has an accepted definition in reputable reference works- an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. You are the one doing original research in asserting that an Irish American is only someone who has been referred to as an Irish American. Arniep 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK! So someone says they have an Irish great-grandmother and no other Irish ancestry. This person is now an Irish-American for Wikipedia. Let's foist as many labels as possible on everyone, especially if no one else has foisted it on them. Read the policy. I have quoted this to you time and again. It explicitly states that we can not add A and B to make C. Yet you keep saying we can in the face of it. Mad Jack 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition in reputable reference works is an American of Irish descent. There is no limit as to how far back that descent can be according to reputable reference works. It is not original research to say that an Irish American is an American of Irish descent, it is the view of reputable sources . Yes, this may mean the lists have a large possible scope and ultimately question their validity. I really don't see why we have to class everyone on Wikipedia by ethnicity, could we not include just a few examples of people with a name of that ethncity on the relevant page i.e. Irish American? Arniep 17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I will say it again. What we need is the view of a reputable source on the person you wish to add to the list. We can not and will not connect A, the definition of Irish American (which is vague, regardless) and B, information about a person you wish to add to form C - that the person is Irish-American. I thank the Wikipedia Gods for inserting specifically that into the policy precisely because of this, to stop people from inserting their own thoughts and foistering their own labels on people who have not been so labelled before. Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia do not make judgments. We report exactly what was said about every person. No tweaks of it to fit what we want to say. Please do not answer this post without reference to the bit of the original research policy that I keep quoting to you over and over again, which explicitly states that we can not "Connect the dots", so to speak, to promote a point - in this case the point being that "Person X" or whoever is an Irish-American. As for your idea on a complete reform of the lists (i.e. delete most of them), sure, that could work, but that needs to be discussed in a separate post. Mad Jack 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and also, you are correct, "It is not original research to say that an Irish American is an American of Irish descent, it is the view of reputable sources". That is true. We can define an Irish American this way. The original research comes in when we decide every single person with any Irish ancestry is an Irish-American and label them as such, even if no reliable sources have labeled that person as that. Mad Jack 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that people of proven Irish descent do not belong in the Irish-American category is bizarre. I don't believe that simple obvious deductions were meant to be excluded by the No Original Research policy and even if application of wiki-lawyering can lead to that conclusion, my understanding is that it is long-standing wikipedia practice that if a policy or guideline leads to an undesirable outcome that the policy or guideline should be ignored. --JeffW 17:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should put anyone with any Irish ancestry in the Irish-Americans category? That's what you call an undesirable outcome? Does this mean that there are no non-hyphenated "Americans" anymore? Everyone is labeled as a "something-American"? What the outcome has been so far is that we have people listed on these lists who are actually Irish-American, Polish-American, etc. instead of any random person with some kind of Irish or Polish connection. This is perfect for an encyclopedia, which is not a random collection of information and does not make lists of people based on their great-grandparents' nationality. Mad Jack 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, my opinion is that the category and all other ethnic categories should either be deleted or renamed to something like Category:Americans with near Irish ancestry and limit it to one or two generations. --JeffW 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is the way you are implementing the policy is unreasonable. You say your implentation is ensuring that only people who actually ARE Irish-American, Polish-American, etc are listed. Firstly, what do you mean by "who are actually" (given the definition in reputable sources that it i s any American who traces their ancestry to Ireland) and secondly, many of those people are sourced with completely vague statements such as I'm part Irish, xxx has Irish eyes etc. What we need is some accurate detailed sources about their ancestry so we can verify that it is correct. Arniep 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are actually means a reliable source that says they are Irish-American or Irish. I am not aware of any people who are 100% Irish, for example, who are not on the list. If someone is "actually" Irish-American in whatever way, they will sooner or later be described as exactly that. I did not source the whole Irish list. I'm sure there are some sources there that are dubious and need be removed. I am iffy on this whole "half Irish" thing and unsure how it relates to the policy. On one hand, the person is clearly saying they are "Irish" themselves, not that they are of Irish ancestry or have an Irish grandma. For instance, we would probably list someone described as "part-time politician" on a list of Politicians. But as I said, the "half" bit is iffy, and seems borderline to me. I am unsure. Mad Jack 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As to JeffW - well, what difference does it make between what is going on now with this NOR thing to what you're suggesting? We're gonna end up with roughly the same amount of names if we do it the way you suggested or if we do it the NOR way. A person can definitely be Irish-American and consider themselves as such even if their ancestors left Ireland a long time ago. There's no point in "Americans with Near Irish ancestry". "Irish Americans" is a perfectly fine labe acknowledged in reliable sources and should be user here if it is used on those same people elsewhere. Mad Jack 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again the problem here is people trying to set their own definition of Irish American when there are reputable sources that give a definition in that they are Americans who trace their ancestry to Ireland, without any specific limits or qualifications. I really cannot see a problem here apart from people who get upset when someone with a Jewish surname appears on Irish Americans or with a German surname on Hungarian Americans- people are related to their mothers and grandmothers you know! Arniep 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack O'Lantern/Mad Jack, you are clearly missing the point. NOR does not mean "turn off your brain completely". If someone is of Irish ancestry, and is of American nationality, they are an American of Irish descent, an Irish American, however it is phrased. I cannot believe you argued for however many thousands of words with Arniep about this. for future reference, Arniep is so strict on sources that when we've disagreed on that topic, it has always been his very disdainful dismissal of a source I consider acceptable for what is being cited. This is not a sourcing issue. This is a logic issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point here is not about people who are, say, 100% Irish. Are you telling me that a person who is 1/64th Irish is an Irish-American? Really? How about 1/256th Irish? Still Irish-American? The problem is we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to come up with a cut-off point for Irish ancestry. Another problem is that "Irish American" is a label. We cannot and should not apply labels to people that have not been applied to those exact people by reliable sources. We don't make judgments on who is or is not an Irish-American. We just report what reliable sources said. Since nothing hangs on any of these people being Irish-Americans, especially those with lesser ancestry, we have no reason to call them that if no one else has called specifically them that. Mad Jack 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Arniep, we are precisely avoiding any of our own definition. We are putting in only those who have been defined as Irish-American by reliable sources. You forget that Wikipedia is the messenger, the reporter - we report the definition and we report the people that sources have said fit the definition, not who we have decided fit that definition. No one on earth, including most likely you, would describe a person who is 1/128th Irish as an Irish-American. The definition for Irish-American (which you are not allowed to mix with anything else to create a "C" anyway) does not say it defines Americans of 1/64th Irish descent, or Americans of Irish, French, Swedish, Jewish and Dutch descent. It is possible for people to be just "American". "X-American" is a label that refers to a combination of a cultural, ethnic, national and self-defined identity. Where and to whom specifically to apply this label is not for editors here to decide, just report. Mad Jack 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack the problem is you are so obsessed with excluding people not specifically identified as Irish American, believing that will somehow make the list "better", that you seem to be throwing WP:RS out of the window. Going by your method of "improving" these lists, we are getting rid of people for whom we actually have exact names, places and dates relating to their ancestry, but including people who are identified as "Irish" or "Irish American" in the most frivolous and unreliable way without any specific proof or evidence to back it up. Arniep 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to not include both kinds of sources, if you wish to give more detail about someone's Irish heritage. But for the most part, the deletions have been of people who have an X grandfather, which in most eyes would frankly not make that person X-American, or at worst, one X parent. If you think the sources are unreliable you should question them specifically and/or remove them. As for documented ancestry, if you can prove say, Person X had an ancestor who left Ireland in 1752, and this is the person's only Irish ancestor, what does that have to do with the person themselves being Irish-American? Nothing. It's a distant fact in their family tree and no one, including themselves, would consider themselves Irish-Americans. So this whole "family tree proof" is something that may be relevant to the person's own Wiki page, but how is it relevant in labeling them with a tag that refers to an ethnic, cultural, national and self-defined identity? As you told me before, if someone has an X-American parent that they have never met, how are they an X-American except in the most vague ethnic sense? Mad Jack 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are talking about date limits and self identification- I thought your only argument was about not including people who haven't been referred to as Irish Americans? The fact is many of the sources that you are using I would consider unreliable, and that includes statements from the person themselves (unless there is some kind of evidence is backed up by verifiable research). Arniep 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok that is it. Now you are saying statements from the person themselves are unreliable! I'm sorry, but this is not a geneaology site. If a person describes themselves as Irish American, then they are Irish American, regardless of what you think. I'm talking ancestry because you are talking ancestry. You seem to be trying to justify listing people of distant ancestry. If a person who is .0001% Irish is described as Irish-American, they should be listed. I am tired of this discussion, and tired of you trying to bring in this "family tree"-based POV, going as far as saying that if a person says they are Irish-American, that's not sufficient. There is no better source for a person's ethnic, religious and cultural affiliation then the person themselves. As I have told you before, an Irish American is a combination of ethnic, cultural, national and self-described identity. It is not even close to being strictly ethnicity based. We do not decide who fits these criteria. Only external sources may point us to exactly who is or is not an Irish American. There is no clear-cut definition of an Irish American, and quite obviously, if a person says they are Irish American, they are a reliable source for themselves, regardless of what your family tree says. Mad Jack 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to pipe up my opinion here. I'm fully in agreement with Mad Jack, and was in agreement before I read his arguments here. Arniep's note that a person who has provably one ancestor of a certain nationality is a good one and in this case, I would not remove the nationality category but would never add it myself. I am, I believe, one-thirty-second Irish (possibly 1/32 Scottish instead) but as I have never been to Ireland and as Irish culture does not make up a significant part of my identity, I believe it would be inaccurate to describe myself as Irish-Canadian (or Irish-English, or however you want to describe me). Once again, though, I would not remove such a category from a Wikipedia article. Apart from that, I think we should only add the category if the person identifies themselves this way or if a reliable source identifies them as such. --Yamla 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck in their right mind is going to label someone who is 1/50th or 1/125th Irish an Irish American? No one is arguing that, Mad Jack, except for you using an extreme to prove your point. Most people using logic or deductive reasoning would consider an American with an Irish mother or Irish father, and who is described as being of Irish descent by a reputable source, as an Irish American. I think that the interpretation of the policy and perhaps, the policy itself is just flawed and needs to be re-evaluated. I also believe a section for those of mixed heritage would be helpful since Americans have such diverse roots. This is just an daily exercise in semantics for you folks, isn't it? --IsisTheQueen 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping it was over as of yesterday, but Arniep - a blast from the past for me - showed up today to renew this "fascinating" dialogue. It isn't completely unreasonable to list someone with one full parent, but there were plenty of "people with grandparents" listed, including Ms. Leoni on the Polish page. However, the more I write on this, the more I realize that "X - American" is a specific label, and Wikipedia can't apply labels to people if they have not been previously applied to that same person. Since nothing hangs on calling someone an "X-American", why would Wikipedia do that if no one else has? How do we know that "Person X" considers themselves "X-American" if no one has told us specifically that? What if they just want to be identified as an "American"? "X-American" is not specifically ethnicity based. As I keep saying, it's a combination of an ethnic, cultural, national and perhaps most importantly, self-identified identity - just like any other "label" or "identity" we would choose to use on someone. We should only use it when told by external sources. Mad Jack 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, I think you are getting too upset about this. You clearly thought that applying a fixed rule was better, however many people here clearly do not agree. Again, you are saying you are deciding for yourself that X American is "a label" whereas reputable sources just say they are any American who traces their ancestry to X Country. I agree that we need some guidelines, but this guideline is not it. For example, it would be silly to, on the basis of a published genealogy put a person in X American category if their great x 5 grandmother was from X country. However, if a person actually spoke of that ancestor, that might be sufficient for a mention in the list, if a closer forebear was not mentioned. I would personally limit the inclusion to grandparents if they hadn't spoken or written of them themselves, and no limit if they actually have (presumably it would be highly unlikely they would speak about any ancestor much further than a grandparent's grandparent). Arniep 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Arniep, we can not have any of these rules to determine who we can "label". If we want to "label" someone as something, we need a reliable source to label that person that first. I can not forward you to the Original Research policy enough times. It explicitly says that you can not take A and B and mix them into C when the sources don't explicitly mention C. You can not take the (unsourced) statement that you seem to be saying is "Every American of Irish descent is Irish American" and mix it with statement B - "John Doe has an Irish grandmother" and emerge with labeling that as an X-American - statement C - when no source explicitly labelled that person as that. I do not understand why you continue this argument when the policy explicitly forbids this kind of "math", not to mention that we should be especially careful when dealing with "labels", and even more careful when living people are involved. As for who does or does not agree with you, we have one or two people who did not understand the question, one person who agreed with me, one who seemed to suggest criteria of his own, one who seemed to say that everyone who is at all Irish should be Irish-American, one (Yamla) who agreed with me, and one (Isis) who seemed to say at least people with one parent should be included, and noted that she seems weary of this (on that last point I agree with her). Your problem here is that you did not suggest an alternative method for doing this which would override Wikipedia policy, so you can never gain consensus on anything because you have nothing to gain consensus on (not to mention that editor consensus can not override Wikipedia policy). I, on the other hand, plan to continue enforcing the very specific Wikipedia policy, and am not going to let editors put labels on people based on their opinions on the subject matter. If you want to label someone, you had better make sure a reliable source labelled a person as exactly that. "deductive reasoning", whether allowed or not, is not "deductive reasoning" when there is disagreement on what the reasoning should be. Mad Jack 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack you seem to be ignoring just about everyone who has posted here who do not agree with you that original research applies in this case. You keep saying people do not agree what an Irish American is- however reputable reference works agree that it is an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland, not just on the male line, or less than a grandparent or insisting that the person has spoken about it. You are the one making the original research that an Irish American is only someone that has been referred to as an Irish American. Arniep 22:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot quote this enough, can I? You seem to be making the mistake outlined here: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. First, you have no reliable source that anyone with any Irish ancestry is Irish-American. Second, even if you did, you can not join this with point B to make point C. The sources tell us the definition of Irish American and then the sources tell us specifically who fits this definition. Nothing else. We don't get to decide who does or does not. And next, if I am ignoring everyone who agreed with you, then you are ignoring everyone who agreed with me. And besides that, even if you had 100% consensus, which you don't have anything close to - Wikipedia policy can not be overridden by three editors. You know very well that I will paste this part of the policy, which you seem to be ignoring, in my next reply. We do not pass judgment, Arniep. We just quote. Mad Jack 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And another thing. You can not possibly accuse me of original research because if I directly quote what a source said specifically on the subject, that is the complete opposite of Original Research. Original Research is combining two separate pieces of info into a brand new one that has not been published anywhere else specifically on that topic. Mad Jack 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said it is original research to decide that an Irish American is not an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland, but someone who has been explicity referred to as an Irish American. Arniep 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to continually misunderstand this. If we wish to define the term Irish American on Wikipedia as whatever you just said, that is fine. Find a source that defines an Irish-American that way and add that definition. However, there's quite a difference between defining the term Irish-American and defining people as Irish Americans. AGAIN, we do not connect A (the definition) and B (the person in question). They are separate points and they are sourced separately. Reliable sources tell us what an Irish American is. They also tell us specifically which people are Irish-Americans when they label them as that. Wikipedia editors do not get the authority to make that labeling themselves. We do not form C by ourselves, just quote it. Mad Jack 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum.. People might want to check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_French-Americans where we can see all sorts of frankly wonky original research going on in regards to this very subject. There is a reason we don't allow original research. If we are going to list someone as a X-American - got to have sources.

--Charlesknight 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles, of course we should have sources! I think that many of the sources currently used for the ethnicity lists are not reliable sources at all. But, to say, as Jack has done that to say an American who has been shown with clearly reliable facts, names and dates to be of Irish descent is not, by the definition of many reference works an Irish American is completely unreasonable and many people who have posted here agree that that is the case. Arniep 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Arniep, you seem to be once again saying that if some has a verified Irish great-grandparent, they are Irish-American for Wikipedia purposes. And that is something that is not only ridiculous, but conflicts directly with our policies. Neither you nor I get to apply these labels to people. Only reliable sources do. Mad Jack 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another nugget from the NOR policy: "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supposed by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Mad Jack 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, the majority of the people that have replied here clearly do not agree that it is original research to say that an American who in a reliable source is shown to have an X parent or grandparent can be included in a list of X Americans. It is not against policy to propose guidelines, and I have already proposed guideline above which does not include people by great grandparent as you said, but only by grandparent which would agree with Jeff's suggestion to limit to 2 generations, unless the person had specifically identified with an ethnicity further back than a grandparent. Arniep 23:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What "the majority of the people that have replied" think is irrelevant. Their "thoughts" are not backed up by logical expression of policy; Jack's (and Charles' and Yamla's, for that matter) is. This thread was originally about the generic, and Jack is clearly right there: we cannot add two and two and say that they are four. But on the specific issue of labelling people, we cannot do that, either - it is opinion and must be sourced. Being "Irish-American" is not simply a matter of holding an American passport and having an Irish granny. I'd be p*ssed off if I were Notable and someone wrote a Wikipedia article saying I was English - even though I was born here and have always lived here. One's identity is more complex than that. --JennyRad 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jenny, of course it matters what people have said here. Neither Charles or Yamla have expressly supported Jack's stand that a person with an a X parent or grandparent should not be listed on a list of X Americans. The fact is the meaning of Irish American is given in reputable reference works as an American whose ancestry traces to Ireland without any qualification that that person must have commented on it or have knowledge of it. One must apply some sort of deductive reasoning for most lists, and this is no exception. Arniep 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Arniep, I don't understand you. Must I quote the passage again? It is irrelevant what the meaning of Irish-Americans is when it comes to labelling specific people as that. That's one. Next - it is irrelevant if four editors think we can go over Wikipedia policy. And Yamla explicitly said he "Agreed with me". Anyway, I am going to simply quote this every single time when I debate this with you. I am tiring of writing. But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Mad Jack 23:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I and others have said, thst example is not directly comparable to the example I gave. The term Irish American is defined in reputable reference works as an American of Irish descent, just as American is defined in a certain way. We do not specifically require that a person is referred to somewhere as an American to put them on a list of Americans, merely that they fit the accepted term of what is an American. I obviously do not think that every person of Irish descent should be listed in the Irish American list which is why I suggested the guidelines above. Arniep 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as "I and others" have said, plaigrasim too has a definition, and a definition that is much, much clearer than that of Irish-Americans. Regardless, we can not use either definition to support our opinions on who is or is not a plaigarist, or on who is or is not an Irish-Ameican. That's what the policy says. You can not just say "Plaigraism" has no clear definition but everyone agrees 100% on what an Irish-American is! As the policy says, no definitions allowed unless they have been applied by reliable sources to the specific subject you are discussing, i.e. wether person A is Irish-American or whether that same Person A is a plaigarist Mad Jack 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just gave you a passage from the NO policy that explicitly forbids this kind of thing. I do not understand why we are still discussing this topic. We do not represent Arniep's opinion, nor mine, nor anyone else's. Only the reliable sources' opinion on what an Irish American is and their opinion on specifically which people are described as such. Mad Jack 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are still discussing it as you are refusing to acknowledge the fact that people do not agree with you that the WP:NOR applies in the cases I cited above. Arniep 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR applies on all of Wikipedia. No exceptions are noted. Please do not mis-represent user opinion with phrases like "the fact that people do not agree with you". I do not care what you think. Do you understand? As per WP:NOR, the opinions of Wikipedia editors do not matter one bit and are not represented in articles. We aren't going to make exceptions in the XXX-American lists. If you enjoy listing people there, then please find a source that explicitly says the person in question is X-American, per WP:NOR, which, in both paragraphs that I have given you, forbids you or anyone else from expressing their own opinions by inserting content in a way that it has not been inserted on that particular subject - i.e. whichever person you are inserting - before. That's all I can really say. I thought this was over yesterday and now I had to spend another day on this nonsense. Read the policies. Until and unless they are changed, I will remove anyone who I can not find a source to as being X-American, as much as I am able under 3RR. I am not going to allow editors to place labels on people that have not already been placed on them. I don't know why you are so eager to do so, but I guess that's irrelevant. Please follow the policies exactly as outlined. Mad Jack 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a collabarative project and many people do not agree with you that the original research policy applies here. Do you understand? Arniep 23:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. The Original Research policy - as far as I know - applies everywhere on Wikipedia. We don't make exceptions for it, as far as I know. And stop acting like you have the majority backing here, which, factually speaking, you do not. And please do not reply to this message with a vote tally or anything similar. This has been a very unpleasant conversation, frankly, especially after I produced passages from the NOR policy that directly forbid what you are trying to do, and you ignore them. Mad Jack 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, I am sorry if you find criticism unpleasant but that is the point of a collabarative project. I realise you have put a lot of effort into these lists, which I congratulate you on. Yes, a WP:NOR policy exists, but as KillerChihuahua has said "This is a logic issue" and "NOR does not mean "turn off your brain completely". If someone is of Irish ancestry, and is of American nationality, they are an American of Irish descent, an Irish American, however it is phrased.". The common usage to describe anyone of X ancestry in the United States is to call them an X American, just as it is common usage to call a citizen of the United States of America an American. It is not original research. Arniep 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, the policy is there precisely to stop editors from using definitions on particular subjects that they have not been used on. I do not really care if you or anyone else thinks that an Irish-American is a "logic issue", while Plaigarism is such a heated and debated topic in comparison. They are both concepts that have definitions attached to them, and we are explicitly forbidden from using these defitions according to the policy, regardless of what might seem "logical" to you or anyone else. The policy states no exceptions to this rule. That's all I can really say to you, and all I will keep saying to you. The policy is clear, and I am sure you understand it. If you think you can make edits that are somehow exceptions to it - that's your business. But I will continue enforcing it. Mad Jack 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this countless times with Arnie. The short version is that the policies of Wikipedia are clear enough. Unless you have a source saying X is a foo, you may not say X is a foo. How difficult is that to grasp? And KillerChihuahua, you are simply wrong. You may not employ your brain. That is precisely what WP:NOR forbids. You may not take item A and item B and create item C from them, no matter how "obvious" or "logical" item C seems to you. How much clearer could the policy be? It specifically forbids synthesising new theses from the sources. If you don't recognise that deducing a thing from two other things is precisely synthesising that new thing, you need to give it more thought. Neither can you employ the "everyone knows" line of argument. You cannot say, for example, "everyone knows that the population of Paris mostly speaks French". If you want to write that in an article, you must be able to present a source that says so. (Which would not be difficult, of course, but the careful reader will grasp the point here.) So Arnie may not say "everyone knows x is a foo" (as he and his cohorts are prone to do). We should not care that everyone on this planet knows them to be a foo: if no one has seen fit to publish it in a reputable source, we do not say it. It really is as simple as that.

How easy disputes of this nature should be to resolve! You either have a source or you don't. It's no more complicated than that. Find something that says x is a foo or you cannot say it. That's the whole of it. You cannot deduce from their love of smoked salmon that they're Jewish, or from their enjoying the polka that they're Polish, or from their having been spotted at a Mass that they're Catholic. -- Grace Note.


 * But, Grace, that is not what is being done. A quote from someone may say, "I am of Polish-Irish descent," yet Mad Jack will not accept that, as the person does not use the wording, "I am Polish and Irish," or "I am a Polish and Irish-American".  Personally, if I am citing my heritage, I might say: "I am Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Austrian, German, Russian-Jewish, and French".  Then again, I might say, "I am of Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Austrian, German, Russian-Jewish, and French ancestry."  It means the same thing.  To ignore such, we would be remiss in our duties.  On several pages, Mad Jack, you have said we cannot apply our own definitions, but, to be honest, it seems that you have developed your own definition as to how such should be applied.  No one says we should add someone who has 1/256 of a certain ancestry to a list, but to deny that someone is Italian-American, because they say, "I am of Italian descent," or even to deny that someone with a grandparent of a certain descent should be excluded from the lists (even if we note that it is only through a grandparent).  No one is asking to go back farther.  When a definition reads, "A Polish American is an American of Polish descent," that does not allow you to twist that to mean that someone can really deny the fact that they are a Polish American.  It's a fact.  You seem to only wish to cite it as a feeling of being Polish, but when an American states, "I am of Polish ancestry," that means, "I am a Polish American."  It's that simple. Michael 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Grace Note the whole issue with the list of British Jews was that people were adding people with a distant Jewish ancestor, which is not the commonly accepted meaning of Jew- I agreed that the title did not support the inclusion of these people. However, every reputable reference work states that an X American is an American who traces their ancestry to X country, without any qualification that they must identify as an X American, just as a citizen of the United States of America is commonly described as an American. This is in no way an original research issue. Arniep 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not, and I am not spending any more time discussing this. People who are familiar with Wikipdia's policies, including me, have already explained exactly what we do here. If we have a source that something is X, then we may call it that. Not anything else. I've quoted two bits from the NOR policy that directly apply here, and I refuse to quote them anymore because certain people seem to want to simply ignore them. Well, you can't and I won't let you. If you say "I am Polish, Irish, French, Welsh and Dutch" or whatever you are not saying you are "Polish", you are saying you are "Polish, Irish, French, Welsh and Dutch", which is a strange sort of thing that has nothing to do with a page called "List of Polish-Americans". As Grace Note said, you either have a source that says exactly what you need it to say, or you don't. We do not make our own synthesis on anything. Mad Jack 06:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we are certainly not in agreement here. I advise you to go change the definitions as to what every ethnicity is if you are to continue under your current pathway.  As it is, a person of "x-ancestry", if an American, is an "x-American".  We cannot contradict ourselves, so why don't you go revise that, providing sources, to re-define it, because presently, it supports inclusion of such people who say things to the effect of, "I am of Polish descent," or "I am of Italian heritage."  How do the definitions not support this? Michael 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you really the policy? No original research says "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Do you understand? Mad Jack 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If those are your feelings on the matter, then perhaps you should revise every page that defines what someone of a certain background is, because as it is right now, they do not support your viewpoint, saying that an American of a particular heritage is an "x-American". I'll bring up my point from last night...What if we have a woman who is a lawyer is listed in a category as a female lawyer, yet she says nothing to expressly identify with this?  We're making an inference in this case, aren't we?  Does that negate the fact that she is a female lawyer?  No, it does not, nor does it refute it.  It's the same thing. Michael 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Every page and category should be under this. We can not make up labels for people if they have not been labelled specifically that, even if the definition of that label matches the person in our opinion. This is, mercifully, specifically forbidden in the policy, using the example of an editor inserting that something "is not plaigarism", and backing that up with a definition of plaigarism. Unless that specific definition and opinion was used specifically on that person/subject, we can not use it. Anyway, the lawyer wouldn't have to describe herself as a female lawyer. She can be described as that by a reliable source (i.e. not the IMDB:) ). That is perfectly fine. I.e. Gloria Allred. Says here she is a female attorney. Other sources call her a "lawyer", etc. You get the point. If something is worth noting, it will be noted in exactly that format somewhere. We need not draw our on conclusions, and will not ignore policy. Mad Jack 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you believe that Gloria Allred, for example, could only be defined as a female attorney with documentation, even though her gender is known, and it is a known fact that she is an attorney? I believe that such things are classified as common knowledge, and I'm certain that when you have written research papers, you have had to cite sources.  Sources are only required for specific facts that may not be well known.  If you look at literally any article out there, I assure you that not every sentence has five citations following it. Michael 06:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not every sentence has a citation on it. But when an editor challenges the factual accuracy of something, it must be sourced or it can (and will) be removed immediately. So, I challenge the fact that the people listed on all those lists are X-Americans. Therefore I set out to source these lists under Wikipedia's policies. You are free to query any bit in any article we have, and remove it immediately if it is not sourced, and keep it removed until it is sourced. That is every editor's right. Mad Jack 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, in that case, you would need to erase the definitions laid out on the specific pages, as they do not support your argument in whole. Find me a reliable source to define a Polish American and each other ethnicity category, because as it is, the current definitions do not support your actions.  Michael 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you reading what I'm writing here? We can have a definition of X-American from a proper source, just as we can have a definition of plaigarism. What we as Wikipedia editors can not do is pick who does or does not fit the definition for plaigraism, X-American, homosexual, gardener, career criminal, etc. I just gave you this example from the policy page. We quote the description of the term from a good source, and then we quote which people good sources have decided are fit to be included under this term. We do not make our own decisions on who is or is not included based on the definition. This is so clearly outlined in the plaigarism example that I don't see what's left to discuss. Mad Jack 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to your inquiry on citations...Why not just use to request a citation?  Wouldn't that be better than potentially using a fact in the mess by just deleting it? Michael 06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, seemingly discourages this practice here (and this is now quoted in the "BLP" tag). Not only does it make the page look unprofessional - i.e. explicitly saying we don't know for sure and we need help - but I find most of the time it doesn't get cited. It can just as easily be on discussion, which in my opinion is fair enough. Mad Jack 07:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is not the case if it never makes it onto the discussion page for some reason. Michael 07:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that has happened, but I believe I saved everything, except maybe the people that were already listed as Cajuns when I removed them from the French Americans page. But if you want me to be extra careful when removing names - I will be. Mad Jack 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not the french page in particular. I've noticed it on quite a few occasions...pretty sporadic, actually...Of course, let's ensure we stay on the main topic here so as not to lose the previous arguments. Michael 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, let's not. I just know Arniep will show up tomorrow and continue this, using the absolutely brilliant argument that Wikipedia policy somehow does not apply to this and that his "deductive reasoning" on this must be bought as undisputed fact. Well, he's wrong. Wiki policy applies to everything. This is why, when he returns with more of the same tomorrow, I will simply copy and paste the parts of the policy that apply to this as my reply. Maybe I'll even set a bot to automatically paste these policy parts every hour or so, as a reply, because I am sick and tired of this argument. I have honestly nothing left to give to this discussion - the policy specifically says what it says, and you either want to follow it, in which case I thank you, or you don't, which means I'll have to go running around Wiki cleaning up after Arniep or anyone else who wishes to enforce their opinions on which person is X-American according to what they think, as opposed to what sources have said specifically on that person. Sigh. Mad Jack 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mad Jack. If the fact that someone is an X-American is relevant, some outside source will have mentioned it. That source should be cited. If no reliable source has found their nationality important enough to mention, we needn't mention it. In regards to Michael's comment about stating someone is a female lawyer, because we know that she is female, and we know she is a lawyer, that is a completely different situation. In that situation, you know darn well she's female. With the example Arniep is using, the conclusion is being drawn that someone with one Irish grandparent is perceived as "Irish-American," even though they may only be 25% Irish. If the other 75% was, say, Kenyan, most people (and most sources) would probably perceive them as being African-American. In the case of your female lawyer, it's unlikely she's only 25% (or an even smaller percentage) female. You have to bear in mind, most Americans are mutts. If I'm ever famous enough to rate a Wikipedia article, you'd have to list me as an Irish-American, Native-American, British-American, German-American, and probably some other random stuff as well. I have an Irish grandfather, but I'd never call myself "Irish-American," and I'm willing to bet no reputable news agency would either, even though I have a fairly common Irish surname. I'm only really Irish on St. Patrick's Day (like a lot of my fellow countrymen, even though some of them don't have a drop of Irish blood). DejahThoris 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Deja, the entire problem is that the sources used by Jack are not reputable or reliable. A reliable source has to show that they have had some kind of expertise in the field on which they are reporting. Being an X American is specifically about ancestry- I am not aware of anyone suggesting that one can identify as an X American but not be of X ancestry, therefore the claim must be verifiable, and in the vast majority of cases it is not. Arniep 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite bemused by this but actually looking at the sources on these lists it appears that they do not actually say a person is an X American, and Jack is just making subjective judgements about what statements seem to qualify a person as an X American! Many of the entries do not say that the person is an X American, but was "born into a family of X Americans", or "born to an X father", or "is X on her father's side", or the amazing "I was born with the Irish virus. That's easy. I came by it honestly through centuries and centuries of ancestors" (from List_of_Irish_American_musicians! Arniep 09:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From Lists of Irish-Americans: "I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but I'm not Irish. I'm not even Irish-American. I am American, period." Now, are we going to actually agree on some sensible guidelines or keep on pretending that everyone in these lists is explicity sourced as an X American? Or alternatively delete all these lists and just have a few examples on the actual X American articles? Arniep 10:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Example: Grace Note made this edit to change east to south-east. Grace Note could have seen this on a map - That is not OR. A source is not needed which specifically states "approximately 9 miles south-east of the town of St Ives by road" (and if one is used, its probably a case of copyvio). A map would work. Or a source which states that St Ives is approximately 9 miles north-west of Hayle. Or a source which gives the difference as 9.17203 miles as measured by road surveyers - we would not jump on Grace Note and state: Oh, that's OR, that's not what the source said! Because Grace Note does not need to turn off all brain function. Rephrasing is a good deal of what we do here. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No; by Grace Note's own logic, he can only say that A is south-east of B if he has a source that says so explicitly; deducing it from "B is north-west of A" is original research. After all, Grace Note himself said that just because David Miliband's parents and brother are Jewish is not proof that he is.--20.138.246.89 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have a reliable source connecting person Y to X,Y,Z ethnicity/ancestry, then the person is X,Y,Z-American, no matter how thin the connection is. Anything else is an WP:OR interpretation of... WP:OR! :N i k o S il v e r:  13:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

From NikoSilver: "If we have a reliable source connecting person Y to X,Y,Z ethnicity/ancestry, then the person is X,Y,Z-American, no matter how thin the connection is. Anything else is an WP:OR interpretation of... WP:OR! "!!!! Yes! No, Nikko. We don't use "THEN" here. That is your opinion and it needs to be kept away from articles. As I keep quoting, the policy explicitly notes that you can not make this "then" or "in that case" connection based on your opinion, even if the defintion for X-American agrees with you. You need to quote the definition of X-American from a good soure, and then you need to put in the article those people that the sources explicitly labelled as being X-Americans, not anyone who in your opinion feets the definition. From WP:NOR (and this will be pasted instead of subsequent replies, since people enjoy ignoring it and making up their own rules): "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Greek-American, NikkoSilver is saying that, given a certain definition of Greek-Americans, that person is Greek-American. Regardless of the fact that NikkoSilver's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Greek-American, it remains NikkoSilver's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. And as for Arnie's quote, the person explicitly says they're not Irish-American! Who gives you the right to list them as that? Why is that important to you? If you think some of the sources are dubious, feel free to replace them or remove the name. A lot of these were sources a long, long time ago, and some not by me. The page definitely needs a clean-up to be brought fully under Wiki policy, which I would do, and will do soon, if I wasn't stuck here "debating" this. However, Mr. P, if you think a person's own words are a dubious source, which you seem to, well - that might be your problem. Mad Jack 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jack, but you have somewhat hoisted yourself upon your own petard here. It's not just a few, but the majority of the sources for people on the Irish American lists do not explicitly say that the person is an Irish American. Therefore you have subjectively decided what wordings qualify a person to be an Irish American which by your own and GraceNote's arguments is original research and therefore not permitted. Arniep 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've told you, arniep, I am positively certain that there are people now listed on the Irish page, and others, that do not fit under the policies and should be removed. An overhaul is definitely needed. Mad Jack 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me say it is not my own problem that a source is unreliable, that is why we have policies such a s WP:RS and WP:V. Frankly, insisting that a person must have been identified as an Irish American is really not going to make these lists any more acceptable as there will almost certainly be somewhere on the net with big lists of Irish Americans that have all these people on. There is no way to say what is and what is not a reliable source as the whole idea of Irish American is subjective according to the listmaker. Arniep 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it definitely will. We will get people who unquestionably identify as Irish-Americans, or have been identified as such, not just anyone with any random Irish ancestry. There are so many people with Irish roots of some kind - who really cares that Vince Vaugn or Frankie Muniz have Irish ancestry? They've never been called Irish-Americans, it clearly isn't a big part of their heritage, and putting them on a list because of their grandparent (who was no doubt American, not even Irish-born) it pretty silly and of little to no encyclopedic value. That said - this whole paragraph is just my opinion - it has nothing to do with the policies. But I believe the policies were designed specifically for this purpose - to blurt out random nonsense or editor's assumptions that would lead to a generally unproductive or misleading list or article. Sure, we may "miss" a few people who consider themselves Irish-Americans but haven't explicitly said so, but that's part of the difficulty of editing a major encyclopedia. Mad Jack 18:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mad Jack is entirely correct in his use of policy to ensure that original research is not used to decide just who is or is not "Irish American". Wikipedia does not make these kinds of decisions, but simply relies on reliable sources which make these claims.  Attempts by Wikipedians to classify various individuals based on "blood" are not only against policy, but verge on something quite unpleasant. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, editors, then, do not have discretion to make such decisions, yet Mad Jack has, on several ocassions, defined what one must classify as. How is it that if an American explicitly states, "I am of Italian descent," that that does not mean the person is an Italian American?  Look at our own definitions of what an Italian American, a Polish American, a German American, etc. is, and you will see that the definition means (not just implies) that an American of x-descent is an x-American.  As I said before, it's the same thing with a female attorney.  If she is female and an attorney but the two are never stated, how then can we put them in the "Women lawyers" category under that logic?  The definitions in place on Wikipedia directly contradict the practices of certain users. Michael 06:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Of Italian descent" is an ambiguous phrase; the speaker may view themselves as being of Italian, Irish, Welsh, German, and Congolese descent, all simultaneously. Furthermore, even if their ancestors were 100% Italian, they may resent being described as "Italian-American"; their view may be "even though I am of Italian descent, I am American, plain and simple, not a hyphenated American." Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Say, do you really want another link to the policy, which explicitly states that we can not take and match definitions? Like, y'know, the plaigarism example, which explicitly demonstrates that, even if the definition for plaigarism supports your opinion that someone is a plaigarist, it is still your opinion and we can't use it unless a good source used it on that particular topic? So, like, if the definition for X-American supports your opinion that a particular person is X-American, it is still your opinion and remains and as such until a good source uses that term on the person? Must we continue this? Almost every single long-time editor here who is familiar with the policies has just stated the same thing. Enough already. I'm sure you completely understand the policy by now, so I'm just repeating myself for nought. BTW, check out List of Welsh Americans, which, as of 3 minutes ago, completely and totally fulfills Wikipedia policy. Please use it as a model for others page. Every name on that list has a proper source that states the person is X-American. It even has some family history details for good measures, to show people like Arniep that the reliable sources weren't just fibbing when they said the people were Welsh-Americans. Mad Jack 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be two positions here:

1) You should not classify someone as Irish-American unless they have been described as such, because the definition is fuzzy and could be disputed, so someone making the connection between Irish descent and "Irish-American' could be expressing a POV or just be completely wrong.

2) You should not classify someone as Irish-American unless they have been described as such, period. It doesn't really matter whether or not anyone disagrees with the definition or whether you might be making a connection that other people disagree with--you're just prohibited from doing it, regardless of such considerations.

These are *very* different. And the whole long thread above seems to be full of type 1 arguments disguised as type 2. If all that matters is that a logical deduction is being made, then the female lawyer example is perfectly valid. If you know that someone is female and a lawyer, you're not allowed to deduce that they are a female lawyer. On the other hand, if you say that the female lawyer example is different because "you know darn well she's female", then you're really not making argument 2 at all. If you were really making argument 2, how certain you could be of an unsourced deduction is of no relevance.

I find it absurd that we need sources to say that someone who is female and a lawyer is a female lawyer, or that if one town is northwest of another, the other is southeast. The George Bush article says that he is a businessman and politician. If you have separate sources for him being a businessman and being a politician, do you need a third source for the claim that he's a businessman *and* a politician, since going from "he's A" and "he's B" to "he's A and B" is making a logical deduction? That's Wikilawyering. Ken Arromdee 06:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. 1 and 2 seem the same to me - it's not the reasoning, it's the result. The reason it isn't logical deduction here is that no one would disagree that a woman is a female, and you can likely find plenty of sources to support both descriptions. And as you said under 1, whether a person is or is not an Irish-American can not be a logical deduction, because, like plaigarism, it isn't a 100% clear cut issue, and definitely fits under OR. Mad Jack 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 are differet here precisely because of the reasoning. There's a big difference between "you can't deduce that someone is Irish-American because the deduction isn't 100% clear cut" and "you can't deduce that someone is Irish-American whether the deduction is clear-cut or not".
 * If being clear-cut doesn't matter, then *don't try to argue that it isn't clear-cut* because that is completely irrelevant. Ken Arromdee 16:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what difference does it make? Positions 1 and 2, in execution, are the same thing. I believe, as I have stated down below somewhere, that a certain basic logical deduction is always required. But logical deduction is always, always, always, something that is 100% agreed upon and something no one could ever even think of debating. Neither plaigraism, the example given in the OR policy, nor Irish-Americanism are clear cut, undebated, terms. You can't just say "oh, in this case it is clear that the person is Irish-American" but in other cases it isn't. Mad Jack 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, you've given up common sense for Wikilawyering, in your attempt to get people to mention facts of significance with regards to ethnicity. I'm sure a majority of people are behind you with regards to the mention of X-ancestry when it is significant, but I don't see how following a simple if/then statement in concert with a commonly understood definition is conducting original reasearch. -Freekee 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't about mentioning X ancestry, though. That is fine, I am all for that, when cited in the person's own article. This is about sticking people on lists or in categories of X-American and applying specific labels. As for the "commonly understood definition", it is about as commonly understood as the definition for plaigarism. If that one is strictly prohibited from being applied if no one else has, I can't see how this is any different, bar our desire to please those who want to stick as many people as possible on these lists. Mad Jack 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated above, phrases like "of Italian descent" are ambiguous; the speaker may view themselves as being of Italian, Irish, Welsh, German, and Jamaican descent, all simultaneously. Furthermore, even if their ancestors were 100% Italian, they may resent being described as "Italian-American"; their view may be "even though I am of Italian descent, I am American, plain and simple, not a hyphenated American."  Alternatively, even though their ancestry may be 7/8 Scottish, they may insist that they are "Navajo", not "Scottish-American".  Ethnic identity is a complicated thing, and it's not up to Wikipedians to "deduce" what someone's ethnic identity is.  Instead we follow the very sensible WP:NOR policy, and simply quote what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: Sorry, but I refuse to find out by reading all the long text above: Apart from Mad Jack, is there anybody else who agrees that if someone is sourced to be partly X and wholly Y, they cannot be listed in category X-Yians because 2+2=4 is considered "original research"? Really, is there anybody else who makes this WP:OR interpretation of... WP:OR, apart from Mad Jack? :N i k o S il v e r:  00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NikkoSilver, those people would be Allen, Yamla, JennyRad, Grace Note, DejahThoris and Jayjg (sorry if I missed anybody...). Even if no people agreed on it, the NOR policy has a very clear and unambigious example of matching definitions with people's names when no such matching has been done by anyone else. Mad Jack 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if others agree that this example violates the original research rule, it's important to figure out *why* it violates the original research rule. "This violates the rule because it's an unclear deduction" might make sense.  "This violates the rule because it's a deduction" makes no sense. Ken Arromdee 18:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, to take an example remote from ethnic lists, if I have a source that a man's parents had two sons and two daughters, is it OR to write "he was one of four children"? Would Mad Jack subscribe to that, and would the other editors he mentions?--Runcorn 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." That principle can't be absolute. If I have a verifiable source that says that Alan Smithee was born June 1, 1968, and a verifiable source that says he was married June 1, 1990, isn't that enough to say that he was married on his twenty second birthday? TheronJ 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The two examples offered above - the marriage and the children thing - are cases where absolutely no one on earth would disagree under reasonable grounds. I am not 100% certain, but that indeed does seem to be deductive reasoning that is allowed - or at least not identified as not allowed. This is not, however, the case for "Irish American", because, as you can see, its meaning and where the term can be applied is definitely not agreed on. Mad Jack 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, let's presume an article says, "Mary, born in New York, is of Italian descent." She is an American, and she is of Italian descent, thus making her an Italian-American.  Isn't that logical?  You cannot implement your own definition as to what an Italian-American is.  Wikipedia defines it in a certain way.  If you don't agree with that, I implore you to find a source and re-write all the ethnicity articles to conform to this or your arguments are baseless. Michael 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's it. I'm calling the police on you - you're going to be a convicted "phrase repeater". Someone who repeats the exact same argument over and over, despite the fact that it has been specifically refuted. It's been explained to you, and will be again and again and again and again, ad nauseum, that we can not mix and match definitions. The NOR policy explicitly uses the example - if you think Jones committed plagarism somewhere because the Wikipedia or other definition of plagarism matches what Jones did, and you put that in the article, that's original research. You can not look up definitions and match them with what people have been described as. It's that simple. That's what it says. There is no "Own definition" of Italian-American, except one that you are trying to use. Wikipedia reports the definition of Italian-American from good sources, and then if we wish to have a list of Italian-Americans or call people that, we report specifically which people have been called that by reliable sources. In summation - we report everything, from the definition to people who match it - from the top down. At no point do we go around looking for people who match the definition of a term but have not been labelled with it. It is that simple. Can you not use that "definition" argument again, then? Explaining this over and over, while good for my finger muscles, is really stretching my patience. Mad Jack 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the truth, though. You seem to have taken your own definition as to what an "x-American" is when it is laid out on Wikipedia and by other sources as mentioned earlier herein.  Were it another case (my female lawyer example, for isntance), I highly doubt you would object to a female who is an attorney being put in the Women lawyers category.  How is this different?  If we cited a woman who happens to be a lawyer as a woman lawyer, but no source explicitly stated that, would you object?  Her gender may be known, and her career may be known, but under your mindset, she could not be included without a source directly saying she refers to herself as a female attorney or a source calling her a woman lawyer. Michael 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have a source that she is a woman, and a source that she is a lawyer, that is fine. That is A + B = AB. There is no "C" created and, this is the crucial part, we do not have to consult any definitions and mix-and-match them with the description. Now, read the below excerpt from No original research very carefully, and if you want to reply to this message, please explain how "Plagarism" in the below case is any different than "Irish American": "in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." Mad Jack 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider the same argument made for a female lawyer example. "in an article about (name), the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of "female lawyer", (name) is one. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, it remains the editor's opinion."
 * It is not true that "we do not need to consult any definitions". A female lawyer is defined as someone who is female and a lawyer. If you only have separate information about someone being female and being a lawyer, calling them a female lawyer is OR by your definition.  If the OR policy actually says that that is OR, then it's worded improperly, and going by the letter of the policy is Wikilawyering. Ken Arromdee 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. A definition would be "a female human who practices law", and we aren't using that. If a source says someone is a woman and that someone is a lawyer, that is perfectly fine. We need not consult any definitions. We simply are repeating what the source said. Mad Jack 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a response to a particular comment above but more a response to the whole ... a point which I think is being slightly overlooked:
 * Some things are more than the sum of their parts - the hyphen in "Irish-American" (or any similar term) makes it a whole new term which means more than the sum of its parts; "Female lawyer" lacks the hyphen, isn't a new term, doesn't have the same problem.
 * If Person A is American and we have a verifiable source saying his father is Irish, we could (in my opinion) put him on a list of "Americans of Irish descent", but we cannot (again in my opinion) put him on a list of "Irish-Americans". Because "Irish-American" is controversial, does not have a fixed definition, and in short, means more than merely "American person of Irish descent". Or at least, some people think it does (me, for example!) and therefore its controversial nature is established.
 * --JennyRad 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, there's the question: is it OR because it's a questionable deduction, or is it OR because it's a deduction? Ken Arromdee 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As for hyphen or not, apparently there is a move to remove the hyphen from page titles, though I can't tell the difference. There's no encyclopedic value in "Americans of X descent". Listing people who are, say, 1/16th X or even 1/4 is a random collection of information, which is not allowed by Wiki policy. Mad Jack 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)