Is the lede paragraph of White privilege sufficiently NPOV?[edit]

Hi,

There is a great deal of discussion, both recent and historical, on Talk:White privilege about the lede paragraph of the article. Good-faith efforts to address the core issue of WP:NPOV have tended to fall short, leaving a number of editors clearly frustrated with the process. Intersecting concerns about WP:UNDUE have arisen in these discussions as well.

So the core question is, as currently written, does the lede paragraph of the article adhere sufficiently to WP:NPOV, or at least closely enough to work from as a starting point? If not, would a previous revision or a revision proposed on the talk page be a better starting point?

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the lead section of White Privilege, it is my opinion that the lead section is sufficiently neutral as per WP:NPOV. Hope this helps. smileguy91^talk 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normal practise to put a list of alternative definitions in a footnote to the first sentence, is it? Also I find User:Iselilja's comment that For instance it says "The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal". This will not be true in for instance Mexico, where according to our Wikipedia article "national identity [is built] on the concept of mestizaje" rather persuasive. Still need work IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete own user pages[edit]

Here is a proposal to give the user permission to delete his/her user pages and subpages. Else they have to nominate them for deletion and an admin have to delete it for them. Too long process. Herald talk with me 14:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, general Wikipedia proposals like this should be made instead at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Also for the record, I see multiple problems with this idea. The most glaring, perhaps, is the fact that this enables users to delete any Wikipedia article by simply moving it to their userspace. Besides, what's so hard about placing ((db-user)) at the top of the user page you want to delete? Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want to find any family of Julius Krycki, born in the late 1800's and moved to america in 1900'sGalloping stallion (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]

I am the grand daughter of a very brave man named Julius Krycki. He emigrated to America in the early 1900's. Lived in Union, Missouri (America)and married and had 4 children. He worked in a shoe factory for years. Very loving and kind. Before he left he had brothers and sisters and parents. I guess there may be nieces and nephews still there. A priest helped him leave the country. I'd love to have contact with any of his relatives still living or who knew of him. Louise

Could someone write an article about this guy? He's inspiring and I want to write about him in my graduation speech.[edit]

He came and talked at my high school about entrepreneurship. He reminds me of Blake Mycoskie.

His name is Krish Himmatramka.

He recently drank dirty water in the USA to bring attention to the water crisis: http://myfoxhouston.com/story/24377190/2014/01/06/young-houstonian-drinks-dirty-water-raise-awareness

He is also the founder of Do Amore Rings, a social-enterprise that is giving a lot of money per purchase when compared to other social-enterprises. I don't mind being a contributor, but I don't know how to start an article. In order to quote him in my graduation speech, he must meet certain requirements... he meets all of them except the box where I'm supposed to put a link to his Wikipedia Page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzhilton (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use your speech research to write the article. Sign posts with four tildes (4x~), by the way. Britmax (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) It could be a great learning experience for you to start the article. Make sure that every statement is objective, though - encyclopedia style. Try to get the historical perspective on the subject, or his current cultural impact/influence. You'll make mistakes, and perhaps earn certain editors enmity, but you can learn a lot, and editing Wikipeida articles can definitely make one a sharper writer. Go for it!

RfC notice: Superpower article[edit]

I opened an RfC entitled "RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV" on the superpower articles talk page. Please join the discussion. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply there too. This is a lot of sources on the Superpowers that were removed Dec 28, 2013[[1]] on that article that has been under a lot of heat since Dec 28, 2013. I find it offensive to an editor to call Russian Nationalist for POV pushing (I'm not Russian but the comment made is racist). I stated in my earlier comments on a thread left on Acroterion[2]. The point is, there's a problem with the newer version, it removes too much sources and clearly is sending the message in the wrong direction on edits made by one editor[3] 23:14, 30 December 2013‎ by Antiochus the Great (talk | contribs)‎(37,169 bytes)(-4,976)‎(tidy-up, re structure and paragraphing). I will note, there was no prior talk on these edits, it was push with discussion. Too much at once, is clearly wrong for this article.

Comments here left on Acroterion:

You can start another dicussion but you appear to be in the mess of the edit war Antiochus the Great. Acroterion I sent Antiochus the Great on his talk page to appear of using another ip and engaged in an edit war using the ip 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great of POV pushing but he quickly removes my comments[4]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers [5] and Superpowers talk[6] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[7] and the discussion has been minor on there part. If you start with an edit, then talk first but the action Antiochus the Great has taken has been too much and no real discussion for such. There are disagreements but that is not stoping edit push. I think there is no resolution if this continues like what I see here[8][9][10][11] as this matter was never discussed, it just appeared without any talk, this is a problem.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Where did you get Russian national POV? I'm born and live in America. I have read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining POV and appeared to be using as required. This was my comments over there but no reply.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of military occupations[edit]

Should the Hawiian Kingdom (Currently the state of Hawaii of the United States) be removed from current states occupied by a military power? Do the sources to justify it seem reliable? The proponent for it's inclusion suggests the Apology Resolution is a legal admittance that Hawaii was illegally annexed and later illegally made a state. He claims one peer reviewed source. The source being a David Sai Phd. One of the lead proponents as I understand for what I'd call a Hawaii secessionist movement which seems rather fringe. The proponent for the inclusion insists that his sources must be completely refuted for it to be removed. If anyone has any reliable sources for the inclusion of Hawaii or opinion on the removal of Hawaii it would be appreciated.198.45.184.25 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

politics behind me.it is very important to note one thing.according to the research I made from the MEMORIOL LIBRARY at the university of Nairobi,ECONOMIC POWER IS THE AVENUE TO ATTAIN POLITICAL POWER,through empowering our people,on the need to stabilize themselves,economically we are able to have an inflencial political move were the people understand the relationship between economics and politids— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggrey ndeda (talk • contribs)

You know we often face the limitation of online sources being strongly skewed toward current and more recent topics. I tend to think a reasonable assumption can be made that reliable sources do exist in the history of Hawaii on the illegality claim. How ever ridiculous it may seem, I feel the claimant is correct in light of the current WP:NPOV not clarifying its application on yes/no (or inclusion/exclusion in cases of listing and categorizing) situations where WP:UNDUE cannot handle well. I wish if I could support your argument, but insisting on the fringe nature of the particular source may go against the spirit of NPOV as long as no qualifying statement or adjustment is made to WP:NPOV.

I am requesting for comments on a similar NPOV situation with wider scope in how to describe people from disputed areas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Nationality of people from disputed territory/country/colony/region and your comments would be welcome. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help with Medical Research issue - not sure where it goes.[edit]

I am looking for a little help. We've been talking about the Qigong article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qigong for quite a while now, and seem to be stopped by a few people who don't appear to want to allow any changes at all. I've been asking them to provide some alternative wording that would be acceptable, but am having difficulty getting past the discussion. Here is what I set up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qigong#Another_Attempt_at_Consensus_-_Intro_statement_on_Research

Was this appropriate? Is there anything else I can do to make the situation clearer? I'm not sure how to tag the discussion with rfc or I would do that. But most especially I don't know which page this issue should go on under request for comment. Math and Technology? There doesn't appear to be one for Health or Medical issues.

Any help you can give would be most appreciated. CJ (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iOS 7[edit]

In the Reception section of the iOS 7 page, a user is insisting that it read, "iOS 7 has received positive reviews". Yet, I can cite numerous reliable sources that state clear negative reviews such as Mashable and Digital Trends. Should we compromise that "iOS 7 has received generally mixed reviews"?

Need editing help pls[edit]

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

front page news of many papers indictment money laundering. need assistance adding pls http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.575555

Israel attorney general announced would indict a major rabbi on many serious charges - and have been unable to add to lead of his story. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Rabbi-Pinto-to-be-indicted-for-bribery-341240 http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1037567

This rabbi has claimed he predicted 9/11 http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4487744,00.html http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/new-york-republican-accused-of-blackmailing-rabbi-called-isr

Pinto & wife were previously arrested http://english.themarker.com/the-life-of-a-rabbi-diamonds-suits-and-hamptons-summers-1.402506

Pinto & Financial Mismanagement http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/

There are many sources and was hoping for fair eyeballs. 65.112.21.194 (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with bithdate of many people[edit]

Hi,

I'm not a wiki contributor but I've seen this problem :

There's a lot of errors in the information toolbox, where the number of the month of year and the number of the day is inverted. Example

Eminem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem) : October 17, 1972 What is in the bday span related to the toolbox : 1972-10-17 What is displayed : October 17, 1972 -> Great !

Florienco Abad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florencio_Abad) : July 13, 1954 What is in the bday span related to the toolbox : 1954-13-07 What is displayer : January 7, 1954 -> No !

Rasri Balenciaga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasri_Balenciaga) : August 22, 1990. What is in the bday span related to the toolbox : 1990-22-08 What is displayed : October 8, 1990 -> No !

Is there a way to detect and automatically fix that in Wikipedia ? These are not isolated facts. I can estimate this problem on 0.07% Of the pages of category "Living People".

Regards,

SCUM Manifesto - Violence as a literary device or hate speech?[edit]

Requesting other perspectives in this debate over whether the SCUM Manifesto should be added to the category 'Violence against men' or if its satirical writing nature undermines this. Need NPOV to intervene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SCUM_Manifesto#Vote_for_categorizing_this_article_under_.22Violence_against_men.22

Talk:Azerbaijan[edit]

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" was described. Here we could see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well.

But user Divot claims that the map is wrong. I don't agree with him, because there are no any sources saying that "the map is wrong".

Hablabar and Roses&guns don't want to see this section in the article. They see there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. In my opinion the section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica).

There were a lot of discussion on this issue, but the result was the dead end. See:

The mediation was closed because two users (Hablabar and Roses&guns) didn't join. So the question is still open without argumented decision. --Interfase (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Khojaly Massacre Memorials[edit]

Users LGA and Hablabar without any consensus redirected[12][13] the article about Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin to the article Khojaly Massacre Memorials. The articles about this monument we have in Azerbaijani, German and Russian Wikipedias. As a result a lot of information about this memorial was just deleted. Also the image of this monument is unused and is going to be deleted. I didn't see any argumented and normal reason for redirecting. There were a lot of useful information about this monument based on independent and reliable sources. I think that the article about this memorial in Berlin must be restored. We can have both articles about the list of memorials and about each memorial (from this list) itself.

Discussion was on the talk page: Talk:Khojaly Massacre Memorials. I filled the request on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but neither user LGA nor Hablabar didn't join.

I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The question is still open. --Interfase (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do companies have an automatic right to have a link to their website?[edit]

External links policy allows links to company websites to show how a company sees itself. It does not say we have to have them or that there is any "right" to a link. If websites such as this which is under discussion at Talk:Ensignbus are pure advertising and seem to have no encyclopedic merit should they be included.--Charles (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "rights" article subjects have is not to be defamed or misrepresented. That said, it is rather unusual to have an article about a subject that does have an official website and not include a link to that site. Such an exclusion would have to be well motivated, but it has nothing to do with any "rights". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John kornblum deliberately left out the name of his first wife of 23 years[edit]

Kornblum was married to Birgit Schonefeld for 23 years but failed to include this information. It was she who enhanced his career.

Should a consumable item be characterized as "medicine" or "medicinal" if there is no peer-reviewed published literature indicating actual medicinal value?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seahorse#Medicine.3F

Thanks.

12.130.161.8 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning[edit]

There is a need for a third opinion from neutral editors on the lede of the article Stoning.

The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stoning.

An editor is removing sourced information from the lede; is removing a map on the legality of stoning; and is misrepresenting sources.

The originl lede included this:

Stoning remains a legal form of judicial punishment in Iran, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Terengganu in Malaysia, Aceh in Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan. Stonings after legal procedures have been reported only in Iran and Somalia; although several other countries practice extrajudicial stoning, while several others have sentenced people to death by stoning, but have not carried out the sentences.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

and this map:

Countries with stoning as a legal penalty
  In law but no longer in use
−
  In law and in use
−
  In law, not actively in use at a regional level

The user has removed much of the information, as well as the map. The user has added to the lede: "In modern times, false allegations of stoning become part of political propaganda, as in case of Iran^[5]^[6]

and has refused a compromise that would read:"Iran has claimed that in modern times false allegations of stoning have become part of political propaganda."

Some help here would be appreciated.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9E5E (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Batha, Emma; Li, Ye (29 September 2013). "Stoning - where is it legal?". Thomson Reuters Foundation. Retrieved January 26, 2014.
^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-09-14-stoning-aceh_N.htm
^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-15/adulterers-face-death-by-stoning-in-indonesia/1429366
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2116032.stm
^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
^ "The Sakineh scandal". Voltaire.net. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2014-04-03.

Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius[edit]

The work by Escondites (left), the updated one by Kingroyos (right)

Because of the difference in opinion of which COA should be used in articles, I am asking for a wider community consensus. Which file should rather be used on the english wiki, the work by Escondites or the updated one by Kingroyos? Kingroyos (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater[edit]

A request for comments on the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater article has been posted on the article's talk page. Please contribute your thoughts and ideas. 71.139.142.29 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should a link to the WikiMedia Foundation Shop appear in the navigation menu of Wikipedia?[edit]

NO ACTION

There was no consensus to change the status quo.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See this thread for background about this issue (help desk diff: [14])

A link to the WMF shop [15] now appears in the navigation menu of Wikipedia by default. The link can be disabled by individual users by changing user preferences.

The shop sells products such as T-Shirts, and all profits of the shop go to the WMF. In this regard, the shop has been likened to being no different to the long standing "donate to Wikipedia" link.

The shop link was implemented by the WMF with no previous discussion about whether it should appear in Wikipedia. WMF does not act based on Wikipedia consensus, but rather acts based on the consensus of the developers, who take Wikipedia consensus into account.

This RfC seeks to poll the community opinion regarding this issue, and when discussion has taken place to forward the consensus to the WMF developers for feedback.

Theoretically, there are 4 options:

No WMF shop advertising on Wikipedia
Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt in to see WMF shop advertising
WMF shop advertising appears by default. Individual Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt out not to see it (current situation)
WMF shop advertising on WP, no opt out option.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion (talk • contribs)

Support #1: No WMF shop advertising on Wikipedia[edit]

Support #2: Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt in to see WMF shop advertising[edit]

Support #2-- Shop link should be opt in, not opt out. Lesion 18:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support #3: Status quo: WMF shop advertising appears by default. Individual Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt out not to see it[edit]

Support status quo. I really can't see a problem with this. It's just another way to donate to the Foundation, just like the "donate to Wikipedia" link immediately above it, the Foundation does not make any profit from it, as all profits are explicitly used to support movement goals. I'm not sure the particular project they are supporting through it is that great an idea, but it certainly doesn't offend me or breach any of the Foundation's or movement's ethical principles. Users can already opt out from this via CSS, if they care enough, so there's no need for a specific mechanism for disabling this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per The Anome - this is much ado about nothing. The WMF has a long established right to solicit fundraising on the English Wikipedia - and any of the other websites that it owns. The link goes to the Wikimedia Shop which is simply a fundraising mechanism for the WMF. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support #4: allow, no opt out mechanism[edit]

I really don't think anyone is proposing this option: it would involve extra effort to remove the CSS opt-out mechanism, and I'm pretty sure no-one at the WMF is considering this, since they have already taken some care to make the CSS opt-out possible in the first place. -- The Anome (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:2014[edit]

Should calendar pages--especially of the current year--include a list of that year's major religious holidays (such as Easter Sunday, Yom Kippur or Ramadan? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins (and others that choose to comment) please note that a discussion here resulted in a clear consensus that the Holidays sections be removed from Year articles (they appear to only have existed for 2006-2015). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were only a handful of editors involved in that discussion, and the outcome was to remove because it was noticed that there would likely be disagreement on what constituted a major holiday, not because it was clear that major holidays do not merit inclusion. Easter, for example, is internationally and theologically significant and celebrated by billions, many of whom are likely to type a recent year into the search box to find when it was, or more importantly, will be. It is my viewpoint that those events should be reinstated, as these holidays are excessively covered by primary sources and are global events. Elassint ^Hi 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from "global". And have you actually checked our definition of holiday? HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Creation Narratives[edit]

Greetings! There is a discussion here that recently open up and it will be gaining notoriety in the near future as a hot topic. It is liable to cause some issues, especially NPOV related ones. Administrator and experienced user input is requested. მაLiphradicus Epicusთე 21:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that a self-declared Christian and Calvinist editor unilaterally shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that kind of behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhook (structure)[edit]

I have been attempting to write an article on Skyhooks on the Skyhook (structure) page, and have been running into non-stop vandalism from a specific wiki editor. I have attempted to engage this editor in rational discussion but to no avail. You can see it all on the Talk page for the article. Now this editor has locked the article with his vandalism in place. It is an issue that needs to be resolved and I would appreciate someone investigating the issue. I also tried taking it to the wikiproject spaceflight discussion board and was told by a police dispatcher there that my article "pays no heed to reality." I responded with peer reviewed references from NASA, Lockheed Martin, a former astronaut, and others, that are all to the contrary. Now all I am getting is silence. Is there anyone here with an aeronautical engineering/spaceflight background, who has the authority to resolve this?

Business Page for: Globus Medical Inc.[edit]

Request a business page for Globus Medical Inc. They do not currently have a page and are a public company.

Lev Nusberg[edit]

According to most research materials, the name is primarily transliterated from the original Russian to spell Nussberg (although occasionally, but rarely, Nusberg). The main title of the wikipage should be adjusted to Lev Nussberg, while within the text it should refer to "also known as" or "also referred to as" Lev Nusberg.

The Deutsch page has it spelled correctly, except the "V." initial must be removed from the main title.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_V._Nussberg

Please assist.

Template Talk:Islam#Inclusion of Ahmadiyya[edit]

There is a discussion whether (oft-repeated) discussion whether Ahmadis should be classified as Muslims or not and hence whether they should be placed in the Template:Islam--Peace world 16:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Citizenship Issue for Spanish Catalan biographical articles[edit]

The discussion has not produced a consensus. Formerip (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Wikipedia community,

I'd like to ask what is the WP policy for biographical articles of notable people born in Catalonia. I have noticed that recetly, some biographical articles of Spanish personalities born in Catalonia have a lede that looks more or less like this:

-Whoever- is a Spanish Catalan -WhateverTheyAre-... Ex. Antoni Gaudí

In most articles however it is mentioned that the personality is Spanish only:

-Whoever- is a Spanish -WhateverTheyAre-... ex. Dalí

I think that in such a sentence in the lede of biographical articles, wikipedia generally referes to the citizenship of the person in particular.

Since Catalonia is not a state, as of today, I think it is not neutral to add Catalan next to Spanish because it might create the impresion on the reader that both are Citizenships.

in addition to this, I think that all these types of articles should follow some kind of uniformity or gidance to make them more neutral on these issues.

What is your opinion? Thanks Arcillaroja (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was randomly selected to comment on this. I agree that the wording should be clear about citizenship, but many articles are more specific about the ethnicity or specific birthplace of a person. "Spanish" before "Catalan" seems redundant, since I am assuming that all people born in Catalonia will be Spaniards. Maybe "a whatever title from Catalan, Spain" or some such? Please do not give too much weight to this opinion, since I am going only by the map, and know little about the politics of this area of the world. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, generally covers this field, which states lede should include "location, nationality, or ethnicity" as a part of context. It further explains that the context is mostly the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident in modern-day cases. The guideline does a poor job of explaining what a 'national' for the purpose of Wiki biographies mean (Wikipedia:Nationality is a redirect link back to this section in the guideline), but it is reasonable to treat the term including ethnicity and regional/cultural affiliation, in addition to "subjects under state and/or sovereign power and protection". As I see the use of the word 'country' in the explanation is causing a lot of confusion and mis-interpretation of the guideline, I am contemplating a change. (Please see this discussion if you are interested.)

WP:NPOV is clear on things that can be viewed from two (or more) opposing (or different) points of view, that they need to be described/presented as such, never to be presented with one-sided view point. So when there likely are two groups of reliable sources, one describing the person Catalan (as ethnicity or cultural/regional affiliation) and another describing the same person Spanish (as citizenship or legal nationality), it is in accord with Wiki policy (WP:MOS is a guideline, WP:NPOV is a policy with higher priority) to list both descriptions with due weight. So while I clearly see the poorly defined guideline is confusing, I would generally support the use of "Spanish Catalan". (When a biography article says "American Indian", I don't see many readers taking it to mean the person holding two citizenships, and to a less degree, the same with Spanish Catalan or similar description.) I agree that there should be clearer guidances in this field, and contributions to the above mentioned discussion would be appreciated. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! From what I read in the lengthy concussion and research conducted, I understand that according to guidelines for body text, a solution could be something like:

Antoni Gaudí i Cornet was a Spanish Catalan architect from Reus ==> Antoni Gaudí i Cornet was an architect born in Reus, Catalonia.

Is this an acceptable solution?

Please note that this is a highly controversial topic of Spanish internal politics, as secessionist movements in Catalonia are presently on the rise. I thought that circumventing the hole nationality issue could help to solve it. It does however bother me the wording as it is now since, it automatically implies that nationalistic views are pressed in the article. Spain is one of the most decentralized states in the world. Nevertheless, the concept of country as recognized by the Spanish constitution is very clear: there is only one country, Spain. The rest are carefully named as Historic Nationalities. Putting two adjectives (Spanish Catalan) in the same part of the sentence implies that both words are members of the same category. And there is where the discussion comes. I am in favor of removing this whole thing, and presenting only facts: Mr. X was born in Y. Arcillaroja (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC

Well, the solution you are suggesting may be acceptable to you and me, but whether it is acceptable to other editors concerned is a different matter. (I am not clear why "Catalan Spanish" implies "nationalistic view", and what this nationalistic view is. But I am not interested in the dispute, or how Catalan people consider Spanish constitution to be.) The important thing is that Wikipedia is not censored, and if your intention is to 'enforce' the suggested change, then I don't support it, and further I would strongly advise against enforcing it, even if the intention is to avoid conflicts.

Many Wikipedia articles are on politically sensitive issues, and one of the most effective solutions in avoiding edit wars and such has been to stick to the principle "Wikipedia tries to describe the conflict, not to engage in it.". (In a way, your suggested solution moves away from describing the conflict.) So my advice would be to:

1. Take a step back from your own view and try to see the other view point.

2. Try to describe the conflict from both view points, looking for ways to better describing the conflict with fair and acceptable words from both view points.

3. Refrain from (and discourage others to) using Wikipedia articles as a tool/venue to push your own view.

I know the above is much easier said than done, but to me, always reminding myself "Wikipedia does not care if an article is 'right' or 'wrong', as long as all relevant views and what they consider to be right are fairly presented." works. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Yiba. I think I'll take your advice. I feel nevertheless that this whole thing is being used to "internationalize" this topic (as nationalists form the Catalan side call it) by adding it on the lede of certain bio articles. In my opinion Wikipedia is being used tendentiously because we cannot clarify why this odd Spanish Catalan term is being used in certain articles and not in others. It would be totally out of scope of the topic described in the article. I was hoping for some kind of statement but it is clear that it is kind of a large grey area. So be it then! Arcillaroja (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's ethnicity (Catalan) should only be mentioned where a. it is properly sourced and b. it is directly relevant to the their notability. Other than that the person's nationality (legally defined citizenship of a sovereign country - in this case Spain) is sufficient. Wikipedia is not here to fight anybody's cause for them - we describe only what actually exists - not what some may desire reality to be. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I do agree with you. I think, that many time the ethnicity of the subjects in the bio articles is not directly relevant to the subject itself. But other could argue that that is indeed the case. Arcillaroja (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan ethnicity would be relevant in cases such as a author/poet/singer/actor who writes/performs in the Catalan dialect or a politician who supports Catalan separatism. On the other hand the ethnicity of an engineer or athlete who happens to come from Barcelona is not relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that in this discussion no consensus has been achieved yet, so I'd discourage Arcillaroja from starting to edit several articles just because the last comment seemed to agree with his ideas (like he just did in Salvador Dalí, Antoni Gaudí, Antoni Tàpies, and Joan Miró).

Besides, Roger (Dodger67) mentioned engineers or athletes, not cultural figures. Also, calling Catalan a "dialect" is inexact and scientifically incorrect (dialect of what? What does Wikipedia say?), so let's just not take the last comment as absolute truth (but don't read this as an angry response please, I just don't agree and everything seems to be far from clear-cut).

Also, the other wikipedians should be aware that Arcillaroja has been trying to remove the word "Catalan" from the Antoni Gaudí article for months, and other contributors have always undone his edits because of lack of consensus and because they think mentioning it is relevant for the article and not POV, as you can see on the talk page and edit history.

Remember that a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Thank you.--Fauban 17:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Miller[edit]

Consider that it's time for a bio on Hollywood humorist Grady Miller.

Frank Moorhouse bio article, mention of CAL disbursements[edit]

Contains the untrue statement:

"He has been a chairman and a director and one of the founding group of the Australia Copyright Agency (CAL) which was set up by the publishers and authors to coordinate the use of copyright and which is now distributes millions of dollars annually to Australian writers."

I only wish it were true. The sentence should end: "millions of dollars annually to Australian copyright owners."

The preponderance of educational publishers on the governing board of CAL and in the payout figures from CAL has never been clarified by CAL and is a source of great worry to writers. Educational publishers are notorious for taking all they can CAL and PLR payments via their contract terms with writers, and in some cases, all royalties as well.

Talk:Isis[edit]

The Isis article is currently directed to the Egyptian goddess page by default. However, the militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is referred to in the media as ISIS. Although the spelling of the militant group is punctuated by capital letters, not all readers are necessarily aware of that. Many readers just type in isis, or Isis. The militant group's page gets tens of thousands of views on a daily basis. People frequently type in "Isis", and the page is directed to the goddess page, and readers must click on a separate link to get to where they need to go. In addition, there are dozens of other pages that begin with the phrase Isis. The Isis goddess page is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anymore. Should the Isis page be redirected to the Isis (disambiguation) ? As a quick example, the Mercury page is directed to a disambiguation page since there are around three to four articles that appear to be primary topics. They are, Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (automobile). Qristopher (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. As you rightly note, the militant group "is referred to in the media as ISIS." If we enter the acronym "ISIS"—typing all capital letters with no punctuation—in the search box, we are directed to the Isis disambiguation page, where the hyperlinked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is at the top of the list. This does not strike me as an onerous inconvenience.

Moreover, ISIS has a short and unsettled history as a name for this group, having been adopted in April 2013. The same militants are also variously known as al-Dawlah ("the State") or al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State"); to the U.S. State Dept. as ISIL; and to detractors as Dāʻish or Da'esh. Just last month, the group abandoned the name ISIS entirely, establishing a caliphate and formally changing its name to the "Islamic State." Given this flux, it would be inappropriate to redirect "Isis" to any page other than the ancient Egyptian goddess, where anyone searching for "ISIS" is met with a prominent hyperlink to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Please, let's keep this as is, and wait to see whether or not the term "ISIS" is just a media flash in the pan, transitioning soon to "caliphate," "Islamic State," or some other name du jour. JohnValeron (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, if you type ISIS in capital letters, the Disambiguation page pops up. However, if you type Isis with just the capital I, then the goddess page springs up. It should be by the disambiguation page too for Isis as well. I don't think the military group is just a "media flash". Its been in the news for months, and chances are it'll be in the news for years to come. Qristopher (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The militants and their new caliphate will continue to make news. But under what name? That's the point. In six months or even six weeks, the acronym "ISIS" may be a faint memory, relegated to footnote status in a larger article with a different name. Better to wait and see. One thing we do know: Isis the ancient Egyptian goddess will still be around. JohnValeron (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Moreover, this move would not save any steps for the people looking up the militant group. Right now, if they type in "isis" without capitals, they land on the goddess page, and then have to click the link in the hatnote to reach the article on the militants. If this move were carried out, those people would land on the disambiguation and have to click the link there. For them, the minor inconvenience is pretty much the same either way, whereas for people looking up the goddess, the move would create minor inconvenience. Qristopher knows that and has said so in the talk page discussion. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, Qristopher, but in your comment here, you seem to want to put people looking for these two topics at an equal disadvantage, rather than minimize inconvenience. That's not the purpose of the guidelines on page titles and disambiguations. Otherwise, every search string that could lead to more than one article would lead to a disambiguation page. A. Parrot (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Mr. Parrot. You almost got it right, but not quite. The reason those two articles deserve to be at an equal disadvantage and not minimize inconvenience, is because those two particular articles are Primary Topics. They are not ordinary Isis-titled pages. Therefore, you want to minimize inconvenience and make one page at a disadvantage even though both pages are Primary articles. And as of now, there are a lot more people looking at the militant group page versus the goddess page. Qristopher (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Were it not for the capitalization difference and the uncertainty about the organization's name, I would have no grounds to disagree with you. As it is, I'm skeptical. Because WP:Article titles#Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles leaves this issue open to discussion, I don't feel justified in opposing outright. I'll leave this discussion alone now. If it reaches a formal tally of votes-that-we-pretend-aren't-votes, count me as neutral. A. Parrot (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see what I'm trying to get at. Thank you for your perspective. Qristopher (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the objections to the proposed move given above. The title of the terrorist state article is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" i.e ISIL and not ISIS. If that page is a primary topic (leaving aside for a moment the longevity of it) then ISIL (all caps) could take a person direct to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which could then have a "For other uses.." link to a disambig page. ISIS (all caps) might also redirect to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". The Isis page could also have a "For other other uses.." link. I don't think we should be changing things in order to accommodate every possible lazy viewer who cannot be bothered to type in the term that their media sources are currently using. Yt95 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're far and away removed from what's already been discussed. Nobody is "lazy". We're discussing how all readers can be accommodated through a positive change in terminology as has been done with similar articles like Mercury. As far as ISIS is concerned, it's been well established already through countless sources that the militant group is referred to as ISIS as well as ISIL. But most journalistic outlets refer to it as ISIS. Qristopher (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your lack any significant contribution to the project, your inability to hear what people are saying to you (see talk page), I find it difficult to accept at face value that you are little more than a troll who has centre stage for a while. You haven't supplied a cogent rebuttal to the constructive points raised but hey this Wikipedia so who knows if your persistence will pay off. Why not start with having the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" renamed and then work your way back to this issue but maybe that would involve patience Yt95 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've been having an intuitive discussion about the situation. Some people are neutral and others are considering changes. They must be doing that because I've thoroughly explained and detailed the issues. I'm sure you’re as smart as you look, but I'm not a troll. You can make a positive addition to this conversation by actually forming words, constructing coherent sentences, and ending them off with period marks. "to the constructive points raised but hey this Wikipedia so" ??? Maybe your grammatical piece warrants a good article nomination. That’ll be our next problem to resolve. Qristopher (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Qristopher writes, misleadingly, "Some people are neutral and others are considering changes." If my comments above are unclear on this point, please be advised I for one oppose the changes Qristopher suggests. JohnValeron (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RELAX John. I didn't write anything misleading. I support, and we have two guys who oppose, and one neutral opinion. Big deal. That's not the definition of a firm consensus. We need a lot more opinions and viewpoints to make a collective decision here. Qristopher (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as recentism. The goddess will still be primary long after ISIS has evolved into something else or been forgotten. There is no real problem to fix here.Charles (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC making a case which includes the "long-term significance" would have more weight. I've arranged the dab currently and resisted attempts at a "commonly referred" exception [16] [17]. Currently it works OK. ISIS could redirect to the article (as opposed to the dab) as a primary topic redirect and keep the rest as it is, but the case still needs to be made - a high bar for initialisms. There's already discussion about renaming the article Islamic State, so events are almost making this moot, as others have correctly predicted. Widefox; talk 13:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Times change. The goddess will still be around, to be sure, but Qristopher makes a good point. He doesn't appear to be trolling at all. His statement makes sense. And WP needs to keep up with what is happening in the world. Judging by their dominance in Iraq, I'd say ISIS is probably going to be around a good long time. And people will type in small case "isis," etc. Best to anticipate the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has failed to propose what name the current Isis article would have if disambiguated. I'm always wary of changing article names for the sake of redirects to other articles. If the name "ISIS" isn't even the appropriate title for the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, then it's hard to see why Isis isn't still the primary topic. A few months from now, it seems entirely possible that the acronym ISIS will have fallen out of usage for this entity. So while I'm remaining open to persuasion, I too would cite WP:Recentism. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't believe that particular point is of paramount concern. It's been noted a few times on the Isis talk page that the article could be named Isis (goddess), which is fine with me. That title already redirects to the Isis article anyhow. (I wish that was our biggest problem). As far as Recentism is concerned, it's a fairly weak argument. Although the group's name has officially changed to Islamic State, virtually every journalistic organization along with a chorus of politicians still refer to the group as ISIS. And saying that this group WON'T be in the news in a few months, or even in a few years is laughable and doubtful to say the least. This is an armed terrorist group that controls large swaths of some of the most important Middle Eastern countries in the world. It's not a story that's going to fade from the public in a few weeks. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc; they are all in the news on a regular basis now. They are not one hit wonders. A Primary Topic is not dependent on WHEN it became a principle subject of importance. Just because a militant organization came into being a few thousand years after the subject of the Egyptian deity, doesn't make it any less important. As I mentioned earlier, I gave a plausible example that if a car maker introduced a car brand called ISIS, and it became one of the best selling cars in the world, then that too would be an additional reason where another Primary Topic should be given equal consideration so as not to have the name Isis go to any particular page. We have two Primary Topics here. Therefore, it should be redirected to the Disambiguation page. Qristopher (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't believe that editors who state they are unconcerned about the correct title of the article to be renamed (Isis the goddess) should advance their preference without due consideration of the point. Sometimes disambiguation is more trouble than it's worth because the new title can compromise other principles of article naming such as "most common", resulting in a title that's counterintuitive. That isn't the case here, but the effects of renaming should always be thought through. My main concern is that if the current Isis article is renamed, it should be called Isis (goddess), and not Isis (mythology), a misconceived practice of titling deity articles begun in the dark heroic age of Wikipedia. I didn't vote "opposed" and said I was open to persuasion. But if I may make a suggestion, Qristopher, your combative stance makes it hard to want to agree with you. I follow news about "Islamic State" every day. Neither I nor anyone else here said the group was going away. I said the NAME might fall out of regular usage as circumstances evolve, since for instance usage by the executive branch of U.S. government is ISIL, causing the NYT, for instance, to flounder back and forth explaining the two acronyms. When this becomes too tiresome, they may change style. I daresay the appeal of ISIS as a name, and the reason it passed readily into usage, is the familiarity of the name "Isis". But you'll get much further with your proposal if you don't assume other editors are stupid or uninformed. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry if I played around with it before knowing there was an RfC. Unfortunately I think ISIS group will be with us for a while, and media is too lazy to change to ISIL and most people don't want to recognize the Caliphate as a state, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, leave it as is with ISIS group second after ISIS goddess and see how things go over the next six months. It may just disappear as Saddam's military guys reorganize and do a night of the long knives, or something. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cynwolfe, I don't know what your talking about or referring to when you comment that I "assume other editors are stupid or uninformed." That assumption is baseless. The bottom line is, we don't have a consensus yet. I've explained my position, and other editors are continuing to comment. I reiterate my stance when I stated that the actual name of the deity article is not the chief source of concern here. So if you want me to clarify that, I support a title change to Isis (goddess) for that particular article. Now getting back to the more important and relevant discussion that we were having, which was to redirect the Isis page to the Isis (disambiguation) page, I continue to believe that the phrase ISIS being utilized in the media is here to stay. Perhaps I didn't make that viewpoint clear, which is a good observation. The name of the militant group has officially changed. However, the moniker ISIS is still used every day by politicians and journalists alike. It is essentially the same as people referring to the "United States Of America" as the U.S. or America. Likewise, people don't refer to Russia through its official title of the "Russian Federation". People just refer to it as Russia. So the phrase ISIS has become a frequent alternative to the "Islamic State" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Qristopher (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Complete absence of making a persuasive case per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC making a case which includes the "long-term significance", even despite it being requested. Attempts at WP:CRYSTAL underline reality of this being WP:RECENTISM. Widefox; talk 00:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clear disconnect regarding the topic of Recentism. I don't agree with this particular assessment of Recentism. We need to be clear with what we are discussing. The civil war in Iraq is Recentism. The civil war in Syria is Recentism. The civil war in Afghanistan is Recentism. The Taliban is not Recentism. They are a militant political group that have been around for a couple of decades, and are part of the political/security landscape. The Syrian Government is not Recentism. They are a political entity who wield considerable power and influence within that geographic area of the word. Finally, this brings us to ISIS. They are not Recentism. They are a potent political militant group who are engaged in a violent conflict. In some form or another, they will be in the news for years to come. Qristopher (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost sight of the issue under discussion here, which is not how long the militant group will be around, but under which name they'll be known. You've offered no convincing argument that they'll continue to be called ISIS. Until you do, I shall OPPOSE your proposal. JohnValeron (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, perhaps you're the one who's lost sight of the issue. The name of the group is the Islamic State. But they are referred to as ISIS from journalists to every politician including Obama EVERY DAY. For you to even remotely suggest that the phrase ISIS will cease to exist from people's vocabulary is ludicrous. Read my previous comments, I've explained everything above. You're not listening to anything I've said. Qristopher (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that, in the UK at least, IS or Islamic State is now being used by the BBC and ITN and by government much more than ISIS. ISIS should be a redirect rather than primary topic.Charles (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, UK media is now using IS/Islamic State on a large scale and it's starting to creep into US usage as well. Tribune Publishing owned newspapers including The LA Times and the Chicago Tribune are now employing the term for any IS related article, as well as both major Washington papers. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are slowly introducing it as such. There is a discussion on the ISIL page to change it to Islamic State, especially as ISIL is now even more outdated than ISIS. Whereas Isis the goddess is firmly established, the name of this group/political entity/however you view it changes rapidly. Whamper (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I've always requested that the Isis page be redirected to the Isis (disambiguation) article. And that would be because we have more than one Primary Topic with that phrase. I didn't say that it should be redirected to the Islamic State page. As far as the terminology in the above mentioned newspapers, here is a list of articles from those sources dated within the last couple of days that still commonly refer to the group through its acronym ISIS:

Qristopher (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making instrumentalism relevant[edit]

I invite comments on a proposed revision of Instrumentalism, incorporating the conflicting roles of Popper and Dewey in defining the movement and its dependence on induction, and showing current practice of those roles. See talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas and Jonesy[edit]

I have helped to write an article about Australian explorers Cas and Jonesy, but am having some issues that I would appreciate help resolving. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_and_Jonesy

If anyone can help me it would be much appreciated.

Alex

New Israel Fund: Can we include press coverage on Wikileaks and Knesset discussions of the organizations, or should the material be censored from the article[edit]

Talk:New_Israel_Fund#RfC:_Can_we_include_press_coverage_on_Wikileaks_and_Knesset_discussions_of_the_organizations.2C_or_should_the_material_be_censored_from_the_article

The mainstream press-coverage of this organization in Israel and abroad includes substantial coverage of Wikileaks as well as Knesset discussions of the group. Can we include this material (quoted below) in the article? And if not, why not? I refer to this edit to remove the material. Avaya1 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might find that contributors would respond more favourably to a neutrally-worded request for comment - personally, I'm of the opinion (along with XKCD [18]) that crying 'censorship', or demanding 'free speech' does little to establish that proposed content merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marital rape - sections Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence and Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence; the map[edit]

There is a dispute at the article Marital rape regarding the accuracy of these sections and of the map. An editor with very good knowledge of legal issues (familiar with both common law and civil law legal systems) would be an ideal help. The questions are:

Should the sections stay?
Should the map stay?
What sources are appropriate (ie. sufficiently reliable)? What to do about contradictory sources?

The relevant problems are discussed on the talk page, in particular in the section:

Talk:Marital_rape#Countries_where_spousal_rape_is_a_criminal_offence.2Fnot_criminalized
Talk:Marital_rape#Questions
as well as several other sections on talk.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentalism in the 21st century.[edit]

GUIDANCE REQUEST: Instrumentalism in the 21st century. I propose updating the article on “Instrumentalism” to explain how John Dewey and Karl Popper have been reinterpreted, making instrumentalism an active part of the philosophy of science project relevant to inductive reasoning, technology, and pragmatism. Please evaluate my proposal at talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First mention of God[edit]

I have researching on the first instances of God or Gods. What they represented to them. Who was the first one who came with the concept.

I am about familiar with as far back the Vedas but I am searching for earlier cultures, and rites.

I used the name God just for dialog. Any name will do.

Thank you so much— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artatake (talk • contribs)

You want Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, this is where editors request that uninvolved editors offer insight on how to improve articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

File:Walter of Newburgh.jpg is used for illustration of en:William of Newburgh. This seems to be a mistake.

Also, this file is used in nl:Gerald van Wales (= en:Gerald of Wales) which seems also to be wrong.

Could have a look? Thank you! -- Korkwand (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the incipient discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus should always be reached. Constrictive discussions are very positive. As I said before, the main interest in this issue is how to deal with Nationality/ethnicity in Wikipedia for bio articles. In my opinion, there should be some policy in Wikipedia to harmonize the bio articles in respect to this. It is strange indeed that articles such as Picasso do not mention his ethnicity while the ones dealing with persons born in Catalonia do. In addition to this, I might remind you that this Spanish Catalan issue has arise in a relatively short period of time and coincidentally, it comes together with the current uprising of independence movements. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to answer Fauban. First, please refrain from writing about me, who you think I am or what my motivations might be. Stick to the subject. Just to clarify, I tried to revert this and other articles to their 'original state'. I have been more or less active in Wikipedia for many years, and this Spanish Catalan issue was not there not that long ago. I do not see why bio articles of people born in Catalonia should be treated any differently than other Spanish bio articles. In my view, this is a way of pushing the Catalan Nationalistic sentiment in articles that do not have anything to do with it. If you notice the discussion above, we are trying to reach a neutral way to deal with this. In any case, preset political mood should not be a reasson to change the content of articles that have nothing to do with it. It's bad for Wikipedia. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish constitution recognizes Catalonia's Statues of Autonomy which define Catalonia as having its own national identity. Consequently, I do not see why Spanish Catalan would be problematic. "Spanish" identifies the country and "Catalan" specifies the national identity of the person who is the subject of the article. Politics are irrelevant as BOTH Spain and Catalonia agree that Catalan is a nationality. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Factchecker25. Arnoutf (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I feel that this is the core of the question as the agreement on nationality is not there. Nationality (in Spanish) is a term chosen very carefully. It has never officially been defined. You can have some background information here and here

As you can see, there is a conflict in the use and the meaning of this term. In English, nationality can mean, as talk rightly says, ethnicity among other things. This in Spanish is not always the case. And Certainly not in the case we are discussing here. I fully agree in that Catalan is a "Historic Nationality" but I don't agree in the way it is mentioned in the articles. This because in using it might seem that Catalan is a nationality in the sense of Citizenship. It also promotes nationalistic view by deliberately introducing this question into the lede of the articles. In any case, I advocate for getting rid of all this and just mention where the person was born. There is no need to mention if the person was Spanish, Catalan, both or what not... If you check Wikipedia in Catalan, you'll find that all these bio articles mention these persons just as Catalan as it is a political statement to do so. It would be very bad for Wikipedia if we let people use it for political purposes. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we have French art, Spanish art, the School of Paris and the New York School (of art). Styles seem to be associated with regions. Don't we inform the reader (potentially) by noting "Spanish" and/or "Catalan"? Bus stop (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wikipedia. How the term "nationality" is used in the Spanish language is not relevant. Stating that "there is no need to mention if the person is Spanish, Catalan, both" is an opinion. In an encyclopedia, the goal is to avoid opinion and POV. Spain and Catolonia both officially recognize Catalan as a nationality. Whether or not it is an ethnicity or whether or not it "seems" like it could be a citizenship are questions that are outside the scope. It is appropriate to indicate nationality in the lede, Spanish Catalan is a nationality, so it is appropriate to indicate it as such. Everything else is obfuscation -- it is clear that at least one editor here is pushing an agenda to remove Catalan, an agreed upon nationality, from being depicted as such. This does not reflect present facts and is therefore not appropriate for an encyclopedic project. 71.125.17.206 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to friendly discussion. Catalonia is not a nation (i.e. not in the legal sense, according to the Spanish constitution, which is the document that organizes and defines the territorial organization of Spain). And please refrain yourself, this is present legal fact, not my opinion. The question of "historic nationalities" is highly controversial. My opinion, is that we could avoid the whole thing by mentioning the place of birth. The whole question of nationality is contentious specially within Spain. It is also something relatively new in a historical perspective. I don't think that Wikipedia should take part on this. Spanish Catalan implies that there are two nations, and at this moment, according to the constitution, it is not the case. Arcillaroja (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But as the anon user above states. Spanish definition of nation does not matter, not even a little bit here. We are discussing in English, so the English definition should be the only one that has any weight. That the word is less loaded than in Spanish can be seen from Canada for example which recognizes more than 630 (!!)nations within Canada. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arnoutf, I agree with you that English is the language that we have to look at. And indeed, I'm not a native speaker and maybe I don't understand the full meaning of the word nationality in English. It is tempting to translate the word directly from Spanish since they both look very similar. But you might be right. I wanted to bring to the community's attention the fact that there are many "nationalities" recognized by the Spanish constitution (Not only the Catalan). There are also others such as Andalusia, for example. Yet, I don't see that Pablo Picasso is described as a "Spanish Andalusian" painter. Nor was Dalí until short described as a Spanish Catalan painter (perhaps because he was a notorious anti-nationalist). I see a tendentious use of Wikipedia in order to promote National identity. But that is my opinion, of course. What is not my opinion is the fact that the reform of the statute of Catalonia was rejected by the constitutional court because the word "nation" was mentioned in it. The articles containing this word were derogated. I honestly think that it is wrong to put all this issue in the lede of any Bio article. I think that there will be other editors and users that will find this odd. It is really ridiculous that the Spanish Wikipedia names them Spanish only, the Catalan wiki names them Catalan only and the English uses both. Why not setting a neutral wording? Just where they were born. Arcillaroja (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this kind of debates have been ongoing for years. As I said elsewhere, I would be highly surprised if English words (like nation) were used in any official Spanish text, so please provide a reference stating such claims. In any case in my view it would be best if Spanish editors (including Catalans) would just back off as this issues seems to be highly sensitive to all. Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf, Bus stop and Yiba. Obviously, the references provided to support the claim above are mostly in Catalan and Spanish. That does not mean they are less valid. I've found here the official translation of the statute. Unfortunately I was not able to find a translation of the draft proposed that was declared unconstitutional. To see the reference to support the above, please click on [19] and note particularly how the literal statement "First: Catalonia is a nation" was removed altogether and is not part of the present statute. Once again I think you are right and editors that are Spanish and/or Catalan should not take part in these edits. But I feel that it just does not happen in Wikipedia. So far I understand that:

* The word nationality/nation has a different meaning that its counterpart in Spanish/Catalan. And in this way the use of Catalan as a nationality is correct even though Catalonia is not a nation.

It is not clear to me:

* Why only in certain Spanish artist articles the subjects are referred as Spanish and others they are referred to as Spanish Catalan even though both have their own "Nationalities"

Thanks for your comments. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reiterates previous comments and really adds nothing new. This will not change current consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

huh? you asked for references and there they are... My question is also clear and I don't see any answer. Consensus is nice and all but it would be much better to elaborate with rational ideas. There is "No consensus" is rather vague don't you agree? Arcillaroja (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for references explicitly using the English term. A translation and removal from a text from the related term from a Spanish text does not provide that. There is only one person here not adopting rational ideas following the meaning of the English word and that is not me. Please accept this is going nowhere. Better to use your energy for other topics. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is the one hosted at the Website from the government of Catalonia. It's not my translation but the official document. The other reference, from wikipedia self is there to illustrate how that document came to be. I feel I posted legit questions. If you don't want to be part of a healthy discussion. Then just don't. As Yiba mentioned before, it might be a good idea to look at the Manual of Style regarding this topic. Does anyone have any suggestion to do on this? Thank you! Arcillaroja (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcillaroja, a rough explanation of what the word 'Nationality' could mean for the purpose of en-Wiki edits and categorisations is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Nationality of people from disputed territory/country/colony/region in which I pointed out that WP:NPOV requires us to present two or more view points, when there are two or more reliable (and not insignificant) sources with opposing, conflicting or disputed views on a description/categorisation. I agree that there should be clearer guidances in this field, but this NPOV requirement for presenting both (or multiple) views in cases of dispute has higher priority over MOS (because NPOV is a policy, MOS is a guideline).

I don't know the actual intention of the editors of the articles in question, because I didn't write them. However, leaving the issue of "'where' the attributes should appear in the article" aside, I'd say the move from "Spanish Catalan" to "Spanish" would be a step against this NPOV policy, if the articles do not present both Catalan and Spanish views in the dispute somewhere else. So the answer to your question may be that "Spanish Catalan" may be used where there is an significant (reliably sourced) dispute on Catalunia, and "Spanish" is sufficient when there is no such dispute in the region in question.

Your claim that "'Spanish Catalan' would give the impression that Catalan might be a citizenship" may hold true from Spanish language/cultural perception on nationality, but it does not hold true in English. So while I agree that MOS needs refinement in this field and that this is a very sensitive issue, I don't agree that the change from "Spanish Catalan" to "Spanish" is the solution. In my view, 1. A clearer explanation on how WP:NPOV applies on cases of dispute/conflict, and 2. A better definition of the word Nationality for en-Wiki biography purposes, come before 3. The refinement of MOS, in the priority scale. Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add to this very clear and to the point summary of Yiba. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yiba. Thank you for your comments. I first thought that removing the subnational entity would be the right thing to do since I don't think that it would be relevant to discuss this matter in a Bio article that is unrelated to this topic. I now think that you are right, and that we should look at the MoS guidelines. Also I think that it should be reflected all opinions regarding nationality. The question is where and when to do that. I think that it is interesting to look at [20] and [21]. Both sections of the MoS deal with the use of flags in articles in connection to nationality issues. In particular the first section is quite close, in my view, to the changes I would like to make. the use of flags and the use of nationality are not the same, but it could offer some guidance. What is your opinion? Thank you Arcillaroja (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion at this stage is that you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Best regards Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcillaroja, WP:ICON is a part of MOS, and it is a good guideline to look for ways to deal with nationality issues, as is the rest of MOS. My opinion is that the past efforts to make it better as a part of the guideline have stepped into the field that require more careful attention from the larger overall Wikipedia policy stand point. Namely, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations implies that only one flag should be used in general, from the view point of legal, or citizenship side of 'Nationality' (thus is in line with what you would like to see) on people from non-sovereign region/state/country within a sovereign entity. Although the intention is sound, I have a serious issue with that part from the NPOV stand point as explained above, and a change to that section to reflect the concern is a part of the above "3. The refinement of MOS" in my mind.

There are issues we need to consider including:

1. Recognizing/presenting/stating that there is a conflict/dispute could be deemed to be siding with the minority view. (It is a common practice in a dispute for the majority to denounce, or not recognise, the existence of the dispute.)

2. The act of categorisation is like an on-off switch that we need to make the person in the description group or out, that the concept of "due weight" in NPOV is difficult to apply. ("American Indian" might apply to a person with only 1/16 of his/her blood to fit the ethnicity description. A British politician may have worked on one law concerning Wales out of hundreds on UK in his life time, but might be known as a Welsh.)

And I see that your view would have problems with these issues. I do, too. I agree that most biography articles do not deserve to be involved in otherwise unrelated dispute, and the "presenting both sides" may create otherwise-unnecessary frictions. However, WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy that we need to adhere to no matter how difficult/problematic the application of it may prove to be (or no matter what guidelines may state). I consider a certain level of 'messiness' is built into Wikipedia in its efforts not to be subject to censorship, a rigid editorial policy, or a particular editorial view point. It's a price we pay for not working for a competent Editor in Chief. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcillaroja—I think that if you feel that a change in wording is called for at an individual article, such a change should be suggested there. I don't think that the "uniformity" that you are calling for in your opening statement is really a good idea, as each of these biographies presents an individual (artist) with a different relation to a Catalan background. I think you are taking a political stance against what you may be perceiving (rightly or wrongly) as an opposing political stance. (I am largely ignorant on the issues.) My stance is that these are merely artists' biographies. I'm interested in providing the reader with sourced information. But of course information can be alternatively worded. In all my statements I am referring to wording as found in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

psychological torture -{ 14 April 2014 }-.[edit]

96.254.150.37 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 96.254.150.37 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)the text on psychological torture was shortened removing what forms of torture are.Restore text please. see older page on psychological torture,on wiki. before April 14 2014 .[reply]

additional field to which request for comment applies[edit]

Talk:Malakia

Complete alteration of an article by a single editor

Esoglou (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Null[edit]

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

He is an apparently galvanizing figure who is a New York Times Bestseller and award-winning broadcaster and producer of documentaries. Looks like his article needs more editors to give a better presentation than what is currently being offered. There appear to be editors with biases that are more interested in letting a previously biased article stand than have a fairer tone adopted.

hello 01:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Romania (political concept)[edit]

Would you please tell us your opinion on this matter? All comments are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negroni Cocktail[edit]

My problem is that I do not agree with the theory of the invention of the Negroni Cocktail listed in the Negroni Cocktail page. The theory is based on a marketing book by a bartender who claimas that a certain "Count Csmillo Negroni" invented this cocktail. In our Negroni Family genealogy going back to the 11the century there is no one by that name. Our Family's theory of the Negroni Cocktail invention is just as valid as that theory invented by bartender Luca Picchi.

In the interest of fairness, the invention of the Negroni Cocktail should also include the following:

"There is an alternative story regarding the origin of the Negroni Cocktail but certain ignorant individuals refute to accept it and still cling to the "legend of Camillo. In the genealogy of the Negroni family going back to the 11th century there is no one by the name of Camillo Negroni. This Camillo may be a legend or the invention of someone that has a private agenda to promote this legend. It is impossible to prove that someone did not exist but those who claim the existence of Camillo Negroni should provide at least a birth certificate and not just a book by a bartender. The true inventor of the Negroni Cocktail is General Pascal Olivier de Negroni, Count de Negroni (Born: Castle of San Colombano, Rogliano, Corsica, 4 April 1829-Died: Alencon, Orne, France, 22 October 1913). The newspaper article, “Corse Matin, dated the 2nd of February 1980 Sunday Edition mentions this invention by Pascal Olivier de Negroni. Pascal Olivier invented the drink in Saint Louis de Senegal ( French Colony at the time) as a present to his bride and a digestive aid for himself where he was married and lived from 1855 to 1865. He married in 6 May 1857 in Saint Louise de Senegal to Blanche Elisa Gerard Fontallard (Paris 6 March 1834-Paris 23 April 1879). She was the daughter of Henry Alexandre Gerard Fontallard, a famous painter, and Adelaide Elisabeth Hellant. Later the Negroni drink was adopted by the “Cercle Militaire” (Officers Club), in Paris."

I would like to talk to you about the Negroni Cocktail wikipage.

You can check out my bio at wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Héctor_Andrés_Negroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanegroni (talk • contribs)

You need to cite independent academic or journalistic secondary sources, preferably with links. What newspaper? Just giving the article without saying what newspaper or its date is honestly just plain useless. If you read WP:Identifying reliable sources, you'll notice that your family's theories are not mentioned there.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't present overtly biased commentary in articles, as you're proposing with lines like "This Camillo may be a legend or the invention of someone that has a private agenda to promote this legend. It is impossible to prove that someone did not exist but those who claim the existence of Camillo Negroni should provide at least a birth certificate and not just a book by a bartender. The true inventor of the Negroni Cocktail..." etc... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

status of airport transit zone Edward Snowden was allegedly stranded[edit]

The Associated Press and The Atlantic quote a law professor, one James Hathaway, saying that airport transit zones in a nation state do not in fact have any status that that nation state is compelled to recognize. In other words, if Snowden cannot leave a Russian airport transit zone to some other part of Russia, it's because the Russians do not want him to leave, not because some third country like the U.S. or international law forbids such a movement. The article Talk page discussion has stalled at the contention that Hathaway's observation is "trivial." I happen to think it's not trivial when many are saying that Snowden was "stranded" in a Moscow airport not because of his or Russia's actions but because of the actions of the U.S. Does the rest of the community agree that Hathaway's view that the Russians were "pretend[ing] that airport transit lounges are not part of their territory" should be excluded from the Snowden bio?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that Hathaway's analysis is easily countered by recognized examples of airport transit lounges being treated as extra-territorial. So in this case, Hathaway states the theory, but the practice is entirely different. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, airport and other (e.g. port or railstation) transit zones are part of the territory of the country these are located in. However they have a special status because these zones are "pre-customs". This means that the country has not yet given persons in the transit zones access to their territory, and until they do so they can limit movement.

In the case of Snowden there was pressure from the US to Russia not to give Snowden access to Russia (proper) and until Russia decided to give the visa Snowden was stranded as he did not fulfill Russian law for exit of the transit zone into the rest of Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? I don't see why the US would much care where he was in Russia, whether at the airport or in Siberia. Either way, he wasn't available for prosecution in the U.S., which is what the U.S. really wanted.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Russians could practice otherwise. And in Snowden's case probably did, as no one actually saw him in the airport transit zone. Regardless, I note that the Associated Press and The Atlantic believe the point important, without Wikipedia:No original research finding greater importance in the "practice" than in the law.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rightscorp editor continuously removing good faith comments on criticism and labeling good faith efforts as vandalism[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rightscorp,_Inc.

Editor stlrbrt is removing documented criticism and labeling it as vandalism. A request to a third party agreed that this is good faith and is not vandalism. The information has attempted to keep a neutral tone, but keeps being removed. This is the information being removed over and over for nearly two months.

There are some who feel that Rightscorp's settlement notices are extortion attempts. Although the letter prevents a lawsuit for the specific download only, paying the settlement is an admission of guilt.[10] Although Rightscorp is then unable to sue for that infringement, not only can they sue and press charges for subsequent downloads, but they have the original settlement as admission of guilt of previous infringement. [11] It should be noted that Comcast, the largest internet provider in the United States has continually refused to forward Rightscorp's DMCA settlement notices in the form in which Rightscorp sends to them. Comcast removes the threatening language and the settlement offer and instead simply forwards a letter to their customer that basically reads as a incident report. [12]

Every piece of this information is cited and has been labeled as criticism not as truth. the criticism is documented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbarking (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article and the source formatting, did some copyediting and added sources for some statements; I added information to the infobox as well. I deleted the "extortion" language, as that is not supportable in the sources unless you read the comments on the articles cited, hardly a good source. We'll see if the other editor leaves it alone; it would be helpful if you could link to the request to the third party; it's not on the talk page of the article, which is where it should be.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put the link into the talk page. I understand and agree with the extortion language being removed, after going back and forth so often, my memory likely erroneously attributed it to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 23:42, 3 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your last sentence; also, it is customary when responding on a Talk page to use colons to indent your response. Each colon indents the text one level, so you want to use one more colon for your response than the person who posted before you. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user went back and reverted all changes made by D'Ranged 1 and labeled D Ranged 1's changes as vandalism. Foxbarking (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foxbarking - In case you missed it, the user has been blocked for one week. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring##User:Stlrbrt reported by User:D'Ranged 1 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention[edit]

All parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates shall include at least an alias which is in lowercase that has separations with hyphens between English words, between (not within) acronyms, or between English words and acronyms. The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates. Establishing this uniform parameter name convention does not preclude the existence of any other alias for a parameter, merely that a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter.—D'Ranged 1 ^VTalk 22:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC (88F2C65) did not originally include the designation; could it please be added at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates? I attempted to add it myself, but it was removed by the maintenance bot for the page. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 20:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been done. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Sign-In and back-tracking[edit]

Sometimes while I'm looking something up in a hurry i notice something that could be improved and add a few words to the talk page of an article I was using. It's not unusual for me to be preoccupied with getting back to what I was doing and sometimes I forget to sign in. I later get a message reminding me that I should have signed in after it's too late and without an obvious way to find my way back and do it retroactively. (Note I said obvious. It may well be there but not obvious. The layout of messages is not always as clean as they might be, but that's another discussion.) It would be nice to get the reminder in real time with a really quick and easy way to do it. I would also be nice to get a checklist of recent unsigned changes along with reminders to make it easier to go back sign unsigned comments.

Ericfluger (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zip code for Harristown, IL[edit]

Correct zip code for Harristown, IL is 62537 not 62522 which is Decatur, IL

Arranged marriage[edit]

There is a problem in regard to the lede of the article arranged marriage, in regard to the use of historical terms, and factual accuracy. More details here: Talk:Arranged_marriage#RFC_-_Lede.2C_timeframe.2C_use_of_historical_terms. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:5679:AED5 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Isis[edit]

Now you see what I'm trying to get at. Thank you for your perspective. Qristopher (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as recentism. The goddess will still be primary long after ISIS has evolved into something else or been forgotten. There is no real problem to fix here.Charles (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC making a case which includes the "long-term significance" would have more weight. I've arranged the dab currently and resisted attempts at a "commonly referred" exception [22] [23]. Currently it works OK. ISIS could redirect to the article (as opposed to the dab) as a primary topic redirect and keep the rest as it is, but the case still needs to be made - a high bar for initialisms. There's already discussion about renaming the article Islamic State, so events are almost making this moot, as others have correctly predicted. Widefox; talk 13:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Times change. The goddess will still be around, to be sure, but Qristopher makes a good point. He doesn't appear to be trolling at all. His statement makes sense. And WP needs to keep up with what is happening in the world. Judging by their dominance in Iraq, I'd say ISIS is probably going to be around a good long time. And people will type in small case "isis," etc. Best to anticipate the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has failed to propose what name the current Isis article would have if disambiguated. I'm always wary of changing article names for the sake of redirects to other articles. If the name "ISIS" isn't even the appropriate title for the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, then it's hard to see why Isis isn't still the primary topic. A few months from now, it seems entirely possible that the acronym ISIS will have fallen out of usage for this entity. So while I'm remaining open to persuasion, I too would cite WP:Recentism. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry if I played around with it before knowing there was an RfC. Unfortunately I think ISIS group will be with us for a while, and media is too lazy to change to ISIL and most people don't want to recognize the Caliphate as a state, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, leave it as is with ISIS group second after ISIS goddess and see how things go over the next six months. It may just disappear as Saddam's military guys reorganize and do a night of the long knives, or something. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Complete absence of making a persuasive case per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC making a case which includes the "long-term significance", even despite it being requested. Attempts at WP:CRYSTAL underline reality of this being WP:RECENTISM. Widefox; talk 00:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qristopher (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

arrogant, unconscionable treatment of those who try to edit articles[edit]

It appears that the people who write articles feel they have absolute control over the content, and are almost always unwilling to permit any change.

The other day I added a sentence to the Ella Fitzgerald article, pointing out (the objective fact) that she almost always sings a song's verse (which is uncommon). The change was immediately reverted, without discussion. A Talk comment in an article on philosophy was not only ripped out, but marked as vandalism.

The "article honchos" (or whatever you call them) I've come in contact with have struck me as among the stupidest people I've ever met. (And that's saying something, if you belong to any UseNet group.) In only one case did the person finally admit he was wrong, and put my changes back.

One of the reasons for permitting public edits is that "no one knows everything". It also provides -- where appropriate -- a broader perspective.

I have decided I will no longer make any edits. I hope all those reading this will join in no longer making edits, thereby "boycotting" an organization that has no collective respect for the people trying to improve it. Constantly being kicked in the teeth just isn't worth the trouble.

PS: Many articles are wordy and contain unnecessary material. I've been tempted to fix some of them, but why waste my time? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of one sentence was lacking in context. It was a true statement, sure, but you did not make it clear that it was a fact that is considered important to Ella's life. You could have referred to Tad Hershorn's piece in JazzTimes where he says "Granz also leaned on Fitzgerald to sing all the verses to the songs—'She had to spend time learning the verses and she didn’t want to,' he recalled—to feature the full scope of the lyricists’ art and make the albums that much more distinctive and authoritative. The songbooks required a different approach from what Fitzgerald had been used to, when she went into a studio with a trio and reeled off tunes in two to three takes before quickly moving on." The reversion by SummerPhD of your addition was not impolite; it simply questioned what you were trying to convey, which was a fair question because of the lack of context.

I don't see much reason here for you to quit Wikipedia. A thicker skin for this sort of normal collegial friction will go a long way. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamSommerwerck, I see that you have been editing Wikipedia since May 2010. That's way too much experience to squander by quitting now. Please hang in there.

As for your edit to Ella Fitzgerald, I agree that SummerPhD, who reverted it, did appear musically illiterate in his edit summary: "Er, what? unclear what this is supposed to mean." If an editor does not know what a song's verse is, he has no business doing anything other than reading an article about one of the premier interpreters of the Great American Songbook.

However, I agree with Binksternet that you ought to cite a reliable source for your addition of how her performances almost always include the verse. Moreover, your secondary clause ("which most singers omit") is much too broad a generalization to stand by itself without at least one supporting reference.

The other reversion you mentioned, by Jayaguru-Shishya at Talk:Subjective idealism, was completely unwarranted. I restored your comment. JohnValeron (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reverse cervical lordis[edit]

I am looking for information on reverse cervical lordis. I am trying to find out as much information about this article as possible . I am suffering from this medical problem and there bis so little information online about it.

You might try searching for "reverse cervical lordosis" not lordis. JohnValeron (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Vandal Rollback?[edit]

I only edit Wikipedia infrequently, please be kind.

I am the author of the Young_Living article. It was nominated for deletion in June and survived. Now, the prior person nominating it for deletion has put in all the edits they wanted to begin with. I feel the article is no longer factual or accurate. Is this an example of vandalism or should I simply let it go and asked for speedy deletion at author's request rather than leave what I feel to be a substandard article in place? I do not have time for edit warring. Thanks all!Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not eligible for speedy deletion, as there have been substantive edits by other contributors - and neither were their edits vandalism. If you have issues with the article as it stands, you will have to discuss them with other contributors, per normal Wikipedia practice. Being the creator of an article gives you no special privileges regarding content decisions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Herman Melville page[edit]

Talk:Herman Melville#Article_organization My request is for some direction or suggestions for the organization of this page. I notice that all FA biographical pages for writers (Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, Ernest Hemingway) discuss the life first and the writings in a separate section. Is it advisable to do so for Melville too? MackyBeth (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FFA Cup[edit]

Sentences in this article have been subject to dispute, between myself and an IP Address editor. Attempts to mediate this issue through the talk page have been ignored, and the page is still being constantly reverted, despite my attempts to talk and reach a consensus. J man708 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]