Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:24, 28 September 2014

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Suggestion for a "current event" on the main page

Jens Voigt set a very important cycling record. See also Hour record. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC and add your opinions there. This is already under discussion. --Jayron32 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is inaccurate information acceptable for inclusion if it comes from a self-published source?

Example - a questionably "notable" organization includes false and misleading information about its own legal status on a self-published website. The inaccuracy is later exposed by two different secondary sources after each conducted their own investigations of legally filed, public information documents exposing the inaccuracy, (a non-profit's tax exempt status, and date the organization was formed). They published an exposé and provided copies of the documents for verifiability. Is it acceptable for editors to base the organization's Wiki article on the self-published information that is known to be inaccurate, or do we use the correct information published by secondary sources and verified by legal documents in their reports? Is it not the responsibility of editors to strive for accuracy? Atsme☯ 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer is, where there is a conflict between sources, speak in the sources voice rather than Misplaced Pages's. State unequivocally "the organization claims XYZ, while "source 1" and "source 2" state that ABC us correct". When you directly attribute statements in the text itself, you are stating verifiable facts (that is, it is verifiable that the organization claims fact XYZ, while it is also verifiable that named sources 1 and 2 states ABC). If you do this, you avoid any accusation of bias: you simply are stating what each source claims, and leaving it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Direct, in-text attribution (where the prose itself states the source of the information) is the BEST way to deal with conflicting or controversial information. --Jayron32 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and would that apply to the first sentence of the lead (even if the lead is only one sentence long)? Atsme☯ 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would it being in the lede make any difference? The lede is supposed to summarise article content, not present one side of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The real question being if a source from an organization claims to be founded in 1995 can it be considered reliable if another source claims otherwise?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask the 'real question' - citing the relevant sources, and the material they are being cited for - at WP:RSN. Asking vague hypothetical questions here isn't going to achieve much... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to consider the remarkable variety of meanings for "founding" or "starting" an organization. Filing legal paperwork isn't always the first step. Especially for small, grassroots groups, officially incorporating may happen years later, or only when they want to handle money. Saying "the soup kitchen was founded in 1990, when Sister Mary Holy Water started offering bowls of soup out the back door of the church kitchen every Friday" is just as legitimate as saying "the soup kitchen was incorporated in 1995, shortly after a lawyer and an insurance agent wondered why so many people were lined up out back". Neither of these dates is factually wrong, and both could be called "founding" the organization, but only one can be verified with government paperwork. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. After careful study of policy, I am convinced that it is not our job as editors to draw conclusions, or make assumptions about a company's founding, or consider a self-published source reliable, especially when there are reputable secondary sources that have published legal documents proving the inaccuracy of the self-published source. The actual date of organization is of the utmost importance because it establishes when the determination for notability should begin. The entity itself must meet the notability criteria for inclusion - see Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). The first paragraph defines it well: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. The organization's services must be worthy of a separate Misplaced Pages article dedicated solely to that organization or product. No inherent or inherited notability, therefore a famous founder does not a famous organization make. A history section can be included in the article, but the organization itself must stand on its own, and meet the notability criteria, excluding the notability of its founder(s). Atsme☯ 17:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"The actual date of organization is of the utmost importance because it establishes when the determination for notability should begin"? Absolutely not. Notability is determined by significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Coverage now, not at some arbitrary time in the past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A self-published source is generally considered quite reliable for facts about itself. When the self-published source conflicts with a non-self-published source, then you present both sides: Joe Film says that he was born in 1965, and Gossip Magazine says he was born in 1955. The organization says its name is IPT and it was founded in 1995; Reporters R Us says its name is IPTF and it was founded in 2006. What you don't do is say that you just happen to know which one of those sources is telling The Truth™ and refuse to include the other side entirely.

It's true that the unexplained (though not inexplicable) discrepancy is going to make the org look like a bunch of liars to a few readers who see conspiracy theories everywhere, but until someone decides to explain the difference, we can't say anything beyond the fact that there is a discrepancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance someone could say what this is all about? WhatamIdoing has provided some excellent advice above, but specific details (a link to an article and a description of the exact problem) are needed to avoid wasting more time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Investigative Project on Terrorism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Investigative Project on Terrorism and Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation; notice the sandbox draft at User:Atsme/Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, too. This is all based on a very quick skim, but the basic story is not very unusual: IPT largely gets its funding from IPTF (the ACLU Foundation that largely funds the ACLU; the Human Rights Campaign has the HRC Foundation; I'd be surprised if every Roman Catholic diocese in the US didn't have a similar setup after their sexual abuse scandals ). The IPT website claims that IPT was founded in 1995. A pair of sources say that the IPTF was incorporated in 2006 (or thereabouts). Lo, the numbers do not match! Scandal! Headlines!

Yeah, well, they're legally separate organizations, so it's not surprising that they have neither the same name nor the same start dates. (Actually, the only surprising thing about this is is that it took them a decade to set this up. This is pretty much Exempt Orgs 101 for lawyers who deal with non-profits.)

If you'd like a little general background, orgs officially begin on whatever day you choose to begin them. Corporations (a subset of organizations) begin when you file the paperwork, and it is typical for a corporation to start its actual life as an unincorporated organization. Non-profit status is determined by the organization's setup; the IRS provides recognition of that status, not the status itself. Without formal recognition of the non-profit status, donations aren't tax-deductible and the org may not be able to take advantage of some tax benefits, but it is still a non-profit organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The IRS is the only entity that can grant federal tax exempt status, and designation as a public charity or private foundation, etc. under the U.S. Tax Code. Hopefully you've been watching the Lois Lerner fiasco. Corporations can incorporate as a not for profit corporation according to their respective State laws, but that doesn't mean the corporation is automatically tax exempt, or that it is designated as a charitable organization or foundation. The IRS makes that designation. Most States require the IRS designation before they will grant exemption from State franchise and sales tax. And yes, it is important to have the correct date of organization, and if/when exempt status was granted, especially when it involves millions of dollars in tax exempt charitable donations. It doesn't appear to me that anyone is considering the distinct differences between John Doe making tacos as an employee of Taco Bing, and John Doe setting up a proprietorship and selling tacos as Taco Bingo, dba, and Taco Bingo Grande, Inc., a C-corp with tax exempt status as a private foundation (which involves others) that accepts charitable donations the foundation uses to operate its taco stands to feed the indigent. Without question, this encyclopedia should strive for accuracy. I tried to keep this discussion neutral by not naming names, but now that the cat is out of the bag, yes, I was trying to get feed back regarding the issues facing IPT and Steven Emerson. Emerson's notability was inherited by IPT which makes the article noncompliant, and one of the reasons it needs to be deleted. Emerson was an independent reporter, and terrorism expert from 1995 until 2006, but it was his work, reputation and notability that created the current IPT article (which is riddled with inaccuracies and violations). The article is noncompliant, but until you jump in and try to edit the darn thing to get it beyond stub or starter, you won't realize the full scope of the problem. Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) is quite clear about the notability requirements for an organization, but you better be aware of what organization you're writing about before you begin. You cannot role everything Emerson did into IPT, and then role Emerson and IPT up into the legal charity because other people are involved, and to do so is a violation of WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a separate entity, it was organized in 2006, period the end. The baby wasn't born yet, so stop trying to put clothes on it. Now that it is born, let's get it dressed. Policy states that notability is not inherent or inheritable, therefore the real organization must rest on its own laurels from the day of organization. Atsme☯ 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to see a connection between the above exposition and the OP. The quick answer to the original question (as explained in the first reply) is that so long as an article on an organization exists, it should say what the organization claims about itself, along with whatever is said by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This can be oversimplified as Atsme saying she's decided that only the IRS-recognized non-profit organization "counts", so the article should ignore the existence of the existence of the other one (yes, "the other one" is the sole raison d'être for the IRS-recognized one that she wants to write about). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the IRS is the only entity that can grant federal tax-exempt status. However, "tax-exempt" is not a synonym for "non-profit". "Tax-exempt" is also not a synonym for "donations are tax-deductible for income tax purposes". (Tax exempt only means that the org itself pays no taxes.) You achieve the status of a non-profit organization by the act of deciding not to take any of the profits home. That's all that is required (assuming that you don't mind paying taxes and being unrecognized).
• The IRS does not "designate" anything as being "a charitable organization". They classify 501(c)(3) exempt orgs as being "public charities" or "private foundations". They classify other tax-exempt orgs in other ways. An org can be a charitable organization without having the IRS classify them at all (see, e.g., charities operating in the entire rest of the world plus thousands of tiny charities that don't handle money and therefore don't care about the official status). An org can actually be a charitable org even if the IRS classifies it another way, and a few orgs that are officially classified as public charities do not actually appear to be charitable orgs in any meaningful sense (see, e.g., the frequent scandals about fundraising machines that spend less money on actual charitable purposes than the typical breast cancer awareness marketing campaign).
• "Corporations can incorporate as a not for profit corporation" – yes, and you can also create an unincorporated non-profit organization. The moment of incorporation is not what makes you be a non-profit organization.
• "Most States require the IRS designation before they will grant exemption from State franchise and sales tax." – assuming that they even do that much, which is not true for all of them. The IRS designation is not universally required, nor universally respected, and going along with what the IRS says is mostly done as a cost-cutting convenience.
• "the real organization must rest on its own laurels from the day of organization" – This is the main problem you seem to be having. IPTF is not "the real organization" as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. The whole thing–the founder, the IPT, and IPTF–are the subject of the article. We don't have a policy that says you must only write about the IPTF and can exclude everything else. In fact, we have quite the opposite at WP:N, which says that editors may choose to merge closely related subjects into a single, comprehensive article. "The day of organization" is nonsense when you're talking about two legally separate organizations. This article needs both dates: both the date that's relevant for when the work started and the date that's relevant for government status. It does not need a fairy tale about nothing existing or happening in the decade before they (apparently/finally) talked to a decent lawyer about their corporate structure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes to part of what you say, but we're getting off point. I'll try to clarify. As it stands right now, IPT is nothing more than what the name implies - a project - a project created by Steven Emerson - an investigative project on terrorism created by, controlled by, and owned by Steven Emerson. It is not an organization. An organization is a "body" of people. It did not become an "organization" until it was organized as a nonprofit tax exempt sect 501(c)3 foundation in 2006. Prior to that time it was all about Steven Emerson, the terrorism expert. Therefore, information about the Investigative Project belongs in Steven Emerson, not as a separate article. IPT has no notability of its own. A project cannot inherit its creator's notability, and it has no inherent notability. Read the policy. However, if we are talking about a legally organized Foundation - a separate entity comprising other investigators, a Board of Directors, and an Executive Director - then we have a separate entity (corporations are not people), and potential for notability provided the "organization" meets the notability requirements. It's just that simple. Atsme☯ 07:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • What? There is no rule that says an organization needs to file any specific paperwork or get government recognition before they're considered an organization. By that logic, Al Qaeda is not notable and it should be merged into Osama bin Laden. It's true that notability can't be inherited and there is no inherent notability. But if there are reliable sources discussing the project or group by name, then it's notable, regardless of any paperwork they've filed. Strictly speaking, they don't even need to be an organization to be notable. Things don't have to fall into a well-defined classification to get an article. We can have articles about movements and abstract concepts as long as there are sources discussing them. Mr.Z-man 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • There are many types of organisation; the chess club at a school is an organisation, and I'll bet that they didn't file papers with The Man to get started. The method for "starting" an organisation also varies; for example, in the UK, a business partnership begins when the parties shake hands on the deal - they may get a solicitor to draw up a contract, but that's optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't get into the issue of Notability... but on the issue of accurately saying when IPT was "founded", the solution is easy... don't use that specific word. Instead the lead could say something like: "The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a Washington D.C.-based non-profit research group started in 1995 by counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson, and organized as a nonprofit foundation in 2006." I think wording along those lines would accurately reflect all the sources and viewpoints. It's a simple fix. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It should not be this difficult to understand what is at issue here. Al Qaeda is not bin Laden because it is a stand alone organization, involves others, and has notability on its own - it meets the criteria for notability - while Steven Emerson is IPT. It is Emerson "doing business as", a dba. Prior to his organizing the nonprofit private FOUNDATION in 2006 - we are talking about TWO different IPTs - it was all about Emerson, so the information belongs in Steven Emerson. IPT the dba has no notability on its own - it is Emerson's notability, and belongs in the Emerson bio under an IPT section. It may be possible to separate some of the information after 2006 and attribute it to the work of the FOUNDATION, but I question whether it meets the criteria for notability because of the sources we have available - most being self-published, and/or unreliable. IPT the dba should not have a separate article because it is Steven Emerson, and has inherited Emerson's notability - policy violation. However, the Foundation is a stand alone entity, and involves others, BUT the only way a 2nd article is worthy of inclusion is if it is written about the true organization, The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION, with a brief history note that Emerson is the Executive Director. The current article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, and includes more information about Emerson and his notability than it does any of the work the FOUNDATION has performed because there are no reliable secondary and third party sources writing about it or reporting it. Look at what a good job this whole affair has done to confuse you! That was Emerson's plan. He wants people to believe his organization has existed since 1995, when in fact, it was just Emerson. Believe me, as lead editor for the article, I know exactly what the problem is, but I can't seem to get beyond the resistance from editors who are spending more time trying to disprove what I say then understand what I'm saying. If you read the sources, you will find they refer back to Emerson, and the website for IPT which contains misinformation about itself which has been reported in reliable secondary sources with articles accompanied by legal documentation. The reason is simple - Steven Emerson is IPT which inherited his notability, and the organization is the IPT Foundation which has questionable notability, and why the two must be kept separated. You will find plenty of secondary sources that criticize Emerson, but only because of his own notability, and that info belongs in Emerson, not in an article about the IPT Foundation, a private charity. You will also find criticism about when and why Emerson formed the IPT Foundation in 2006, his prior work as an independent reporter, and self-proclaimed terrorism expert, and the extensive data base he maintains, and how he is funneling money to himself using the Foundation. That is not the kind of notability we can source to meet the notability criteria for the true organization. It belongs in Steven Emerson. Editors, PLEASE, try to grasp what I'm saying here. Read the policy - Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Atsme☯ 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It would have been a lot easier to grasp what you were saying if you had made it clear what the specific issue was from the start, rather than asking vague hypothetical questions. If the issue concerns the notability of the subject of an article, we don't need to get involved in complex, confusing and unnecessary debates about what exactly constitutes the founding date of the subject. A subject is notable if it has had significant coverage in third-party sources. It doesn't matter when it was founded. It doesn't matter whether it is a legal entity or not. It doesn't matter whether it makes misleading claims about itself or not. All that matters is that notability can be demonstrated through sources. If it is your contention that the available sources do not demonstrate that the Investigative Project on Terrorism has notability independent of Steven Emerson, then that is the argument you need to make. I suggest that you ask those claiming that the Project is independently notable provide a list of sources demonstrating this independent notability, and then start a discussion (at WP:RSN, or through a RfC?) over the question. This discussion here is clearly going to resolve nothing, as it seems to be asking the wrong question, in the wrong place, and not to be involving one side of the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. Whenever I try to seek help, collaboration in improving the article(s), or even feedback, I get accused of canvassing. I simply tried to avoid that issue. I did not intend for this discussion to grow into such confusion. However, it has served a beneficial purpose in that it helped me to better understand what I'm facing regarding the issues with IPT's notability being directly linked to Emerson's, and the IPT Foundation notability being a sourcing problem. I thank all of you for your input. Atsme☯ 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"" BUT the only way a 2nd article is worthy of inclusion is if it is written about the true organization"

This is not true.

Look, let's take this from a different approach. You keep going on about what WP:ORG says, and I keep telling you that you're interpreting it incorrectly. So before we go any further, please click here and scroll down to the list of the all-time top editors for that particular guideline. After you find my name in the #2 slot and Blueboar's name in the #3 slot, then come back here and read the next two sentences:

The notability guideline does not require that any organization have any official existence. The notability guideline does not require that any organization have more than one person involved. You will not find anything that says anything in that guideline (or any other) that says anything remotely like, "If a consulting shop turns out to only have one person involved, and it's not incorporated, then we can't have an article about the consulting shop and you can only write about the person, even if the sources mention the name of the business instead of the name of the person." We have no rules against treating doing business as organizations as real organizations. We do not treat them as something different from incorporated businesses. In fact, a major theme of the guideline is that all organizations—big and small ones, local and international ones, non-profits and for-profits, incorporated and informal—all get treated exactly the same. Coca-Cola, Inc. get treated the same as your local dba-only plumber.

There are two organizations here, with two (slightly) different names and two different starting dates. You need to mention both.

And if you don't like the fact that we have an article about the main person behind it and an article about the organizations, then propose a WP:MERGE. Don't try to pretend that the organization that's mentioned in sources for a decade before the foundation was incorporated never existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow - truly impressive, and I mean that with all my heart. However, you are not correct in this situation for the following reason -- there's that darned old WP policy that keeps getting in the way. Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. Gosh darn it. See it here: Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). If you want to actually help me in a collaborative effort, please stop trying to disprove what I'm saying, and do a tiny bit of investigation. You will be surprised at what you find (and that doesn't include skimming). I don't have any other agenda than to correct the problems, and there are many. It appears few editors want to get involved with Emerson or IPT. Just view the edit history for both, and you'll see what I mean. I would love to work with an editor of your caliber, but first, you need to understand the issue. The main violations include WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and unreliable sources. And FYI, Steven Emerson existed as Steven Emerson, reporter/terrorism expert, and then with his think-tank, The Investigative Project, and then he invented the common name The Investigative Project on Terrorism as the umbrella for his work as a terrorism expert - but the so-called organizations inherited HIS notability. The longer we allow the misnomer to continue, the harder it will be to correct. The legal entity which is NOT soley Steven Emerson dba, may actually have notability provided you can find reliable sources, will separate it from Steven Emerson's IPT, and then strive for accuracy by including only FOUNDATION related activities in the article....which is what I've been working on. Unfortunately, too many editors are quick to judge without studying the situation, and they end up jumping to conclusions. Tells me they got tired of thinking. Atsme☯ 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

One person with a dba is called a sole proprietorship. If you check the quotation above for the word I'm underlining, you'll find that proprietorships are included in WP:ORG. Similarly, US corporations frequently involve only one person, and they, too, are included. (The main point of that particular sentence, BTW, is to define informal multi-person groups out of BLP.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not about WP:ORG. It is about Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). If you consider IPT a sole proprietorship, then you just validated the reason to merge to Steven Emerson. Atsme☯ 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a moment and click the link that you just posted for WP:ORG. It's a redirect for Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies).Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be making up rules that don't exist. There's no reason a sole proprietorship can't be notable separately from its owner. The only thing I can think of is that you're using an overly literal interpretation of WP:ORG and assuming that an organization that doesn't consist of a "group of more than one person" can't ever be notable. But A) WP:ORG is only a guideline and B) It is not the only notability guideline. If a subject meets WP:N, it doesn't matter whether it meets any subject-specific guideline. Mr.Z-man 02:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, just look at the article as it was created by Firefly322 back in November 2009, . Look at it now, and read the Funding Section. Do you see the conflicts? Atsme☯ 05:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that could have anything to do with notability. The only relevant question is: What topics are the sources discussing? If secondary sources treat IPT as a distinct organization, then so do we. To do anything else would be original research. It doesn't matter whether the organization only consists of 1 person. It doesn't matter whether it's doing anything unethical or even illegal. Notability is only concerned with how secondary sources treat the subject. If all IPTF does is funnel donations to IPT, then it's IPTF that probably doesn't need an article, since most sources are really discussing IPT. For some strange reason, you seem to be hung up on whichever organization has filed more paperwork even though that has nothing to do with notability. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that they do not treat IPT as a distinct "organization". They treat it distinctly as Steven Emerson. Editors who have researched the sources understand the problem. Those who just see the name IPT in a Google search do not understand the problem, and simply conclude the cited sources are reliable. The fact that Emerson is the focus, and IPT is just another name for Emerson validates the need to merge. The fact that readers cannot distinguish the difference is also a problem because there IS a difference. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is the only organization that is actually a separate entity involving a group with a managing director, and Shillman Fellows who provide testimony at Congressional hearings, not just Emerson, but even then, most of the sources are questionable because they are self-published press releases. Reliable sources are a major issue because most make trivial reference to IPT but the focus is Emerson. There is also the undue weight issue because of the problem with sources, POV, and lack of reliable independent second and third-party sources. See the following articles (not a reliable sources) which mentions IPT as a group, but refers only to Emerson. . . None of them distinctly distinguish notability for IPT to the point of notability not inherited from Emerson. IPT is worthy of mention as a section in Steven Emerson, but not as a stand alone article. The only substantial information that meets the criteria for establishing IPT as a "group" originates from their website, a self-published source, which does not meet the criteria for notability, and neither does trivial mention of it in secondary and third-party sources. By keeping IPT a stub, or starter article because it lacks reliable sources to expand it, makes it a Coatrack for the template, raises a BLP issue because IPT is Emerson, and fails to meet both the notability and neutrality requirements. Atsme☯ 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Dating comments in the edit window

I have come across many a comment in edit windows with no indication of who put it there or when. Could I please ask that editors be requested to sign and date such comments. I realise this may require typing out the username instead of using the 4 tildes but it would be useful if someone wants to remove the comment. They may wish to communicate with the originator of the comment first. Jodosma (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of users that don't sign their talk page comments are usually new editors that have no prior experience with talk pages, or find it strange that four tildes would do anything. SineBot does this happily. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Jodosma was referring to <!--comments like this--> in the article. Adding a user name and date could be useful in some cases, especially in articles with large edit histories where it would be time consuming to go through and find the edit where the comment was originally added. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It would need to be typed manually - 4tildes doesn't work inside comments, as I shall demonstrate: --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

...which is why most people don't bother. Not to mention it probably didn't occur to many people that this would be a good practice. I never sign and date my HTML comments, and it never occurred to me that I should until reading this. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is something that should be brought up with developers, perhaps by having the little in the edit window actually insert your signature and timestamp instead of just the four tildes. It's a thought. VanIsaac_WS 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting graphic flow chart on plagiarism

Credit to Patrick Allan at Lifehacker for this: . --Jayron32 01:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find, we should steal it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of a Misplaced Pages

Just wondering, what kind of notability does, for instance, the Zulu Misplaced Pages have that justifies its article? I don't see it in the article, and the general notability criterion (be the subject of independent published works) doesn't seem reached to me...

Sure, I'm addressing the issue via an easy target, being one of the smallest Wikipedias to have an entry here; but in general I'm trying to understand if a Misplaced Pages has any "intrinsic" notability (because it's widely used, because Misplaced Pages in general is very notable...), or if it should be considered as any other website for notability purposes. And in that case, am I the only one feeling that many Wikipedias having an article here do not have the corresponding notability?

Thanks, Cos-fr (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there are reliable sources about said encyclopedia in the Zulu language. Remember, the concept of notability doesn't require that the article actually has to cite source; merely that the sources exist or are presumed to exist. I have no feeling one way or another about this one article; but in general notability is not about citations currently in the article, and it isn't confined to the English language. It's quite possible that sources exist in Zulu to establish notability, but we just don't cite them in this article as yet. Not saying that is the case, but just noting that is one possible answer. --Jayron32 22:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories of US Senators by mandate

I don't understand why there are no categories of US senators by mandate. For example John Edwards was a US senator in the 1998-2004 (or 1999-2005) mandate, if I understand right. I don't understand why there are no categories like Category:United States Senators 1998-2004 or something like that. Something similar with Category:MEPs 2004–09. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. senators are not categorized that way. In the U.S. senate, senators are organized by "class", of which there are three. See Classes of United States Senators. Unlike Parliament, the U.S. Senate never elects all of its members at the same time, only 1/3 stand for election in any given 2-year cycle. --Jayron32 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand that. But if a senator was elected for example in 1998, then he had the 1998-2004 mandate. Say we are in year 1999. At this moment in time, a third of the senators have the 1998-2004 mandate, another third have the 1996-2002 mandate, and another third have the 1994-2000 mandate. Replace „mandate” with another, more suitable word, like „term” for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is a mandate? I've never heard "mandate" used to describe a Senator's (or a House Representative's) term in office. Sessions of the US Congress are always named (ordeal) United States Congress. For example, the current session is called the 113th United States Congress. Next year will begin the 114th United States Congress. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's not a classification or categorization that has any meaning in American politics. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the word mandate is not important. I translated it wrong from my native language. John Edwards for example was elected in 1998 and he was in office from 1999 to 2005. He was not the only one in this situation - a third of the senators (more or less, 33) were in office from 1998 to 2005. So, I was thinking that it makes sense to have a distinct category for those 33 senators - but I'm not American so you know better than me if it makes sense or not. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If we do it for all United States Senators‎, we should also do it for all Members of the United States House of Representatives‎ as well. The problem is that the number of terms is not limited, a Senator may serve any number of six-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 3, Clause 3), not just one; and similarly a Representative may serve any number of two-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2), not just one. This is in contrast to the President, who under Amendment XXII is effectively limited to ten years: two full four-year terms plus the unexpired portion of the previous incumbent's last term. A politician elected to the House at, say, the age of 47, and who is re-elected every two years until the age of 79, would serve sixteen terms in total; that would mean sixteen categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just overcategorization. Each member of the Senate will have a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office and the categorization doesn't provide anything useful. And for someone like Robert C. Byrd, who served 9 terms (51 years), would be in 26 such categories. And with 30 categories already on the article (which could already use a trimming), how would throwing 26 more categories be beneficial to the reader? —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand Ark25's suggestion, a Senator wouldn't be in a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office, only for those six-year periods for which they were elected. Byrd was a Class 1 Senator throughout, so would be in the cats for 1959-65; 1965-71; 1971-77; 1977-83; 1983-89; 1989-95; 1995-2001; 2001-07; and 2007-13, but would not be in the cats for Class 2 or Class 3 terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence

I've just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Misplaced Pages and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions, or requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

who wrote this flyer advertising wikipedia?

I found a copy of this at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

It appears like it was not done by a lot of editors as it can be written better. For example one of the revert edit sentences stands out as not being very clear. Thewhitebox (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with it, it says on the page who wrote it. :)

Version 2.3 — July 2013 prepared by User:Groupuscule & User:FutureImperfect using OpenOffice. Edit talk page if you want a copy or have questions & comments!

Given that it's over a year old, they may have an updated version? In any event, they seem to be open for comments. However, neither of them looks to be very active at the moment. --Moonriddengirl 12:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors considering RfA

Are there any editors considering RfA in the next 2 years? If yes, please just indicate "yes". If the answer is no, a short response with a reason would be appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• No I am not qualified, I don't want the job and I don't like the acerbic tone at RfA in that order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think so in the near future - depends on if I gain the courage to face another RfA. Dusti 02:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

Okay, not a lot of responses. Oh, well. I posted here further to:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#RFA is dying
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Is two weeks of inactivity here normal?

Basically, some say that all of Misplaced Pages is dying, and the low RfA is a symptom. Others (me, mostly) think that the low RfA is because it is a scary gauntlet. I was hoping this post would shed some light. It didn't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Give it time Anna. Responses are coming through.Irondome (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Does RfA matter any more? Misplaced Pages is not dying. It is transitioning from a project to write a great encyclopedia to a playground for social networkers. The partly written encyclopedia will have to be enough. What matters now is that Misplaced Pages is becoming a great platform for users who are here to be important or to push moral agendas on drama boards. This process started some time ago with the foundation and their efforts to flood Misplaced Pages with users who are not equipped to write useful articles. Now Jimbo is furthering the transition to the new order by sanctioning attacks on the remaining serious content builders. It seems that among this group are content builders who some people believe are toxic and dishonourable. Apparently this is the real problem on Misplaced Pages. It is a mistake to think this group are any more useful or should be treated differently from other groups, such as vandals. There are over one thousand admins, far more than actually needed to block and ban the serious content builders that social networkers decide are offensive. Then peace will descend. There will be little left for admins to do apart from bathing in love and kindness with the social networkers and their special agendas. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The users who are really important are those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards because they have got better things to do. In short, the trolls who were determined to destroy the frail fabric of Wikpedia management by disrupting RfA as much as they could, and by sowing mean rumours around the site that all admins are are rotten, are losing their credibility (did they ever have any?), increasing their block logs, and . sounding like the crackling of thorns under a pot.

If anything, by yearning for a management-free structure, the anti-adminship campaigners are inviting the very anarchy that will lead Misplaced Pages into being a free for all for political POV pushing despots, spammers, rappers, and and vandals. Of course Misplaced Pages is not dying but it has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia.

Any serious contender for adminship today has a very fair chance of passing and getting a reasonably clean environment for their RfA. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and do their homework. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Autopromo?

Hi! This article http://en.wikipedia.org/Pablito_Greco seem to be written by one person, the numerous sources seem to refer only to blogs or private websites of the same Pablito Greco (or dead links) who seems to be only present on the web through his own sites. So I wonder if the article meets the criteria of admissions of wikipedia?... Aleyo fr (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pablito Greco--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links