Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:39, 29 July 2006

Archiving

moving all outside comments to /Archive1 and /archive2 Archived on 16 Jul 2006 /Archive3

Expert editors

I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History Biography. Let me quote the No original research page: '"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages.' Wjhonson 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Baha'i Faith

In my experience, some Baha'is resent any attempt to cast their founders in any light other than the one "approved by the House of Justice". From my research, the history of the movement, going even as far back as the Shaytis gets re-writen with every new generation. Deliberate misstaments are passed on, to the mostly US converts who cannot read the original languages, and do not have the perspicacity to delve into the controversies that have raged in this community since it's founding. I do not ever anticipate getting a Baha'i Barnstar or whatever their stupid *medal* is called, even though I have done more research than probably 98% of them. In fact, I think I'll look into creating my own medal. Maybe I'll call it a "Baha'i TRUTH medal". Wjhonson 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user can blank their own talk page, see: from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "

And furthermore this: from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."

And again this:

Per this official policy, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazon link

Hi, I removed the link to Amazon from the HPB page, because commercial links and links to Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services should not be linked to (). Cheers. --Mallarme 11:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Christianity

Hi - sorry I didn't reply to your post on the talk page sooner as somehow I missed it. I've added this and I hope it explains things - if not let me know and I try to clarify further. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTCF 11:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources fully

As a courtesy, Wjhonson, please provide page numbers when you cite your sources. According to Harvard referencing practice: "When you can (or should) provide a page number, the convention is (Smith 2005: 73)". Most other style guides consider that an integral part of a citation. MARussellPESE 15:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. Virtually all of the citations have page numbers and direct links. Not every citation in the encyclopedia has to have pages, but when you're citing work that controversial It's at least a courtesy.

And it's not vandalism when edits are discussed on the talk page and . I'll be reverting back to the substantiated version. I am making a good-faith effort to document on that page the various points. Your referring to anything that you disagree with as vandalism is not helpful, or civil. Please update your edits so that they can be checked. That's not my job. Thank you. MARussellPESE 17:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the verifiability policy. Point 3.: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." You've been asked to provide page a source that can be verified. The burden of evidence is yours. Your objection to the removal is noted, but, repeating yet again: Please provide at least a page number so that your sources can be verified. MARussellPESE 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Test Misplaced Pages:cite sources

I see I am not the first person to bring the requirement for adequate citations to your attention. You can stop pretending that you don't know that you need to cite page number for verification. -999 (Talk) 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Again you use a non-existent *rule* to support your own view. There is no *policy* that you *must* cite page numbers, so get off your high horse. Thank you and have a nice day. Wjhonson 15:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Babi and Baha'i articles

I think I'm beginning to understand your perspective on these topics. It appears that you're relying principally, if not exclusively, on W.M. Miller and Maulana Muhammad Ali. True?

Both confabulate the two religions very badly. Browne certainly did — is MMA's sole source, and one of Miller's primary sources. It pretty clear that Miller does so too when he spends about half of his book talking about the Babi's when it's titled the Baha'i Faith .... This would explain the idea you seem to be pressing that there is a grand arc from the Bab through Azal and then Baha'u'llah is some Babi usurper. That is the Azali perspective, and one that Browne pressed. This is not the Baha'i perspective. (As an aside, Baha'is do venerate the Bab, but use His writings about as much as we use the Bible or Quran. He is not a central scriptural source. Sociologically at least, these are quite different religions.)

Browne's maintained correspondence with both Azalis and Baha'is throughout his career, but published the Azali works he received as genuine Babi documents. He never really got the fact that Baha'u'llah had started another religion before he'd even taken his "year among the Persians" in 1887. It's these one-sided sources that form the basis of MMA's work. (Moojan Momen's Selections from the Writings of E.G. Browne on the Babi and Baha'i Religions is an excellent read, if heavy, and provides interesting background on him and his work.)

Miller's new material from Jalal Azal, the Cypriot scholar he refers to I presume, is interesting, but deserves critical evaluation. He's very likely a descendant of Mirza Yahya, so this material would certainly present only one side. A brief review of Miller's Appendix 2 should suggest that at least some of these documents are suspect. The very first item: How would a genuine letter from `Abdul-Baha end up in Cyprus? Why did it take till the mid twentieth century to materialize? The bayanic.org site also includes this, but doesn't say even to whom it was addressed. Its provenance isn't at all clear. And the fact that it supports the holders' position but is out of character with anything else attributed to him should not inspire confidence.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over these items of Jalal Azal's — just point out only one example of documents that both sides accuse the other of forgery. Azal's appointment letter is another one. (How come his copies say "Then testify that there is no God but you ..." but the one in the Bab's family's own possesion says "Then testify that there is no God but me ..."? The first version is used extensively by the Azalis, the second supports the Baha'is. At most, only one can be right.)

But Miller bought the Azali work hook, line and sinker — these points support his bias as a Christian missionary. (Denis MacEoin, no friend of the Baha'is himself, refers to the book as biased. Elwell-Sutton's review in the JRAS is even more explicit on the shortcomings and bias here. The fact that Miller uses few, if indeed any, Baha'i, or even secular, sources is clear evidence of this.)

Also, Miller seems to have even ignored Browne when inconvenient. Regarding the Akka murders, Miller, p. 101: "And could he not have disowned them, or at least punished them, for their deeds? As far as is known he did neither."

This is in direct conflict with Browne's Materials, p. 45: "But His Holiness our Master Baha'u'llah, ... did nevertheless abandon them to their legal punishment, and did not seek to obtain for them any release or mitigation, because their action was taken without his approval or consent, and contrary to permanent and decisive commands ...". If that's not evidence of bias, even being deliberately misleading, I don't know what is.

I also think that Miller is demonstrably wrong in at least one particular discussed so far. He doesn't jibe with Browne's primary sources on whether there was a successor. But I'll take that discussion to the article's talk page.

I don't mind at all presenting the dilemma. You've thought, and frankly have acted as if, we Baha'is had thin skins and are having a hissy fit when these are even mentioned. (Some would. These are likely the very same who remove Baha'u'llah's picture regularly from his biographical article and claim wikipedia is insulting them. Tough beans. Cuñado, Jeff3000, me, and most of the regular Baha'is here race each other to put it back up.)

Actually, I'd rather present both sides on these controversial topics. And, I'd also rather provide neutral sources to support either side. That's why I avoid Baha'i sources in Mirza Yahya's and the Babi/Baha'i split articles at almost all costs.

I'd like to see both sides because the more I learn of the characters of the people involved, and what their various enterprises produced, the more it vindicates the Baha'is. (In my opinion.) I think this is the perspective of the Baha'i institutions generally as well.

Miller, Cole, MacEoin, etc., assert that these are hiding things but have yet to produce any smoking guns. They seem to think we're afraid of people "really seeing" what these people were like.

Nonsense. There are easily corroborated facts: Baha'u'llah attracted the overwhelming majority of the Babis to his side. Mirza Yahya died in relative obscurity and was buried with Muslim rites. Abdul-Baha's and Mirza Muhammad Ali's respective careers are equally striking in their differences. The list goes on.

At the end, I'd like you to consider that Miller and MMA are not unbiased, or even authoritative, which it appears you've been pressing. Their notes are useful, but I think it'd be better to use Browne in lieu of them as these are biased secondary sources. Please note the rare use of God Passes By in these articles for the same reason.

Damn, this is bloody long. Appreciate you're reading this far. Apologies for the verbose post. It'd been better to split a pot of coffee I think. Hope this is helpful. MARussellPESE 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

format

I keep correcting the same points, so I thought I'd mention it. In the opening paragraph you should use the page title in bold, followed by the dates they lived (1893-1895), and briefly state why they are notable. Example:

Wjhonson (1820-2003), born Willy James Honson, is a wikipedia editor who hasn't read the Manual of Style.

At the bottom of any article the correct section titles are works, see also, references, and external links, in that order. Don't use the title of "sources", and even if it's a source, a website goes under external links. Anything under references should be published works, and linked to online text if available. Cuñado - Talk 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. At least for the linking stuff you showed me. Cuñado - Talk 00:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Horace Holley

Sorry about editing in the middle of you. I just wanted to throw in the categories and help with the layout before you got too far. Thanks for contributing. Cuñado - Talk 07:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can add this image, I just made it. Cuñado - Talk 07:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

]

Colloquy of Worms

Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements#New stubs. If you add more articles relating to Germany, feel free to add them there. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Reveal names"

Stop doing this. It's not what we do, and it's getting very annoying having to revert dozens of your edits. Proteus (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"We" is "Misplaced Pages". And no, "The Duke of Buckingham" is not an office. And yes, biographies everywhere call people with titles by the title alone. I suggest you go and do some research before making ignorant assumptions. Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset

Please be aware that you may be breaking the 3 Revert Rule if you make any more reverts to the mentioned page, just letting you know in case you didn't realise. If the reverts are over a dispute, I suggest you take this to mediation. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Message on my talk page.

That is fine, you will not be breaking any rules, but I suggest the most constructive way to resolve this is to talk about it on the article's talk page. This will mean we can come up with a compromise solution. If you believe you are right, you may want to get an administrator involved. Abcdefghijklm 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

Please be aware that you may be breaking the 3 Revert Rule if you make any more reverts to the mentioned page, just letting you know in case you didn't realise. If the reverts are over a dispute, I suggest you take this to mediation. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarisms and sources

It is indeed plagiarism to add text verbatim or ideas and research not your own, and then not properly quote and cite the source work. One sets large text apart by indenting and small section apart with quotes. In both cases a source is properly cited. See any academic manual of style for reference.

The William McElwee Miller article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=William_McElwee_Miller&diff=next&oldid=46414603 plagiarised this: http://williamcareylibrary.gospelcom.net/thebahaifaith/Preamble-Pages.htm by taking this text verbatim from that source: "He cooperated with Dr. E.E. Elder in translating and publishing the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the most important writing of Baha'u'llah. From a scholar in Cyprus he received a large amount of historical material about the Babi-Baha'i Movement which has not been published previous to this volume."

Likewise the Caravan of East and West article as of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Caravan_of_East_and_West&diff=53309991&oldid=53004044 plagiarized this source: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/notes/vol2/newhist1.html by taking the whole paragraph, editing part, putting other parts, but not all in quotes, and leaving only a URL as a source. The modifications weren't entirely correct either. The quote is not Julie Chanler's, but Stauffer's. Other parts of the this article were lifted from the H-Baha'i article and "tweaked."

Copying material from online sources and then tweaking them is very easy, but doesn't represent original work. You may want to see this.

An old saw is that borrowing from one source is plagiarism — borrowing from more than one is research. You do seem to have the habit of relying on one, and only one source, which compromises your contributions frankly.

And, by the way, the APA Publication Manual, 5th Edition, (2001) requires, for print sources, that your "give the author, year, and page number in parentheses" (p. 120). See "Citation" for corroboration of this for book citations. MARussellPESE 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article goes on for a bit further that just "passing off of another person's work as one's own". And claiming "improper citation" doesn't get around the issue. In both these cases you cut-and-pasted text from another source. In one you re-arranged a bit and dropped some quotation marks on other parts. In the other you just dropped it in verbatim – and left no citation whatever. The "Plagiarism" article also notes "failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas" as part of one definition. It's hard to see how cut-and-paste work isn't borrowing. And I wonder how much else there is out there of these.

Sloppy citation is another issue entirely. MARussellPESE 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct and indirect quoting is a normal part of authoring an article. Each fact you know, you learned from somewhere. There is no requirement to post a citation for every single fact you post. Of the 1.2 million articles, less than one percent has any citations whatsoever. Explain that.

That wikipedia is notrorious for lacking citation is a well-documented criticism, but doesn't set the bar there. Frankly, I consider this issue to be just about a fatal flaw for the project. But cut-and-paste work with, or without, citation isn't "scholarship". MARussellPESE 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I always cite my sources and references, I don't always use a citation *mark*. I post them in the references, sources or notes area. That is far above the standard behaviour for wikipedia, no matter what you say. And you know it. The vast majority of the Baha'i articles are *not* based on the user's own knowledge and have no quotes, no citations. So you want me to go remove every statement that doesn't have a quote off all those pages? Wjhonson 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What? Haven't you been to the Baha'i articles? Most have "References" sections more robust than "Islam" or "Judaism", and have links to online editions so the reader can verify them for themselves. The Bahá'í Faith article has fifty footnotes, thirteen "References", and fifteen "External links", most of which are not Baha'i. c.f. "Christianity" (with more) and "Islam" (with less). You might want to compare "Jesus", "Muhammad" and "Bahá'u'lláh" as well. Even the third-tier article "Badí‘", all of about ten paragraphs long, has three references and two external links. Those editors have been busting their chops making sure those articles are sourced. MARussellPESE 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but you're deleting sections merely because they lack a citation when a more cordial response would be to post a "citation needed" tag and post a note asking for a better citation. It's fairly obvious you're annoyed to learn that a block of white marble that was supposed to be used in the temple is instead in some library in NYC. That doesn't excuse you from deleting the quote over and over on first purely technical grounds, second on grounds that you have better sources which you refuse to quote, and third just out of pique (not sure if I spelled that right). Are we done pissing on each other? Are you going to post your quotes in the article yet? Wjhonson 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This is about a much broader issue: a pattern of cutting-and-pasting other sources and calling "scholarship". My problems with that article are on that article's talk page where it belongs. MARussellPESE 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Style/Format Edits

Wiki does have both a general Manual of Style and various specific articles to guide all users about agreed formats for various things. If you disagree with these conventions then the best thing is to raise the matter and explain what and why things should change at the appropriate sites like project peerage/MoS etc. Launching into mass edits of established formats, especially when your break the 3RR, is only likely to put peoples backs up.

As a general statement, things that matter in one format ie peerage aren't necessarily the format other wiki editors will accept on a global basis and, in the end the consensus rules. Alci12 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is a "general Manual of Style", I disagree that calling a person by their title alone, is in it. Wjhonson 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

-ists

Since Steiner continually emphasized that he was not a theosophist, and did not follow their teachings, it seems rather odd to force him into this category. I don't want a revert war over it, but do look at the talk page.

I have added further documentation to the article of Steiner's distance from the teachings of theosophy. Can we agree to drop the template and leave the category? (Especially since there is no documentation of the appropriateness of the template.)Hgilbert 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Frantz Hunt Coe

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Frantz Hunt Coe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Frantz Hunt Coe. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. The school he founded is ProDded as well. Fram 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it is deleted yet. I am an editor, not an administrator, so I don't have the power to delete pages. Normally, pages that are ProDded are left there for five daays to be discussed or improved if possible. Some other editor must have put it up for Speedy deletion, and some administrator must have agreed. The most probable reason for this is that they felt that the person was not notable. You can protest the deletion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

A general comment: While deletion of articles can be disappointing to their creator (certainly in your case, when you clearly have the best intentions), they are not directed aganist you personally or against the subject of the article. It is just that we have to maintain some "rules", some level of importance and verifiability, so that Misplaced Pages stays an encyclopedia and does not become a place where all info is welcome, no matter how trivial and unimportant (see WP:NOT for more of this). Of course, what is not encyclopedic for one person may be very important for another. We have e.g. currently discussions about the inclusion of hotels and of elementary schools. Fram 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, either go to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, or create an article with all the sources you can find (online and offline) to assert the notability of him, and then put it on Misplaced Pages. The way you are going now, I fear that not only the article will be deleted over and over again, but you may get blocked as well (see Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule for this). I think you haev valuable things to contribute and do not want to disrupt Misplaced Pages, and I can uderstand that you are getting frustrated, but please step back a moment and try a different tactic. Fram 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Randolph

Hi: don't be so pessimistic; it might be a great article!--Anthony.bradbury 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

underconstruction

My apologies. Have you thought of using an {{underconstruction}} template? PS I did not flag it--Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. All friends here.--Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)

You marked a couple of facts in this article with the template 'citation needed'. Since both of these details were really relevant to other people rather than to Agnes, I have added the necessary citations at Alexios II Komnenos, checked that citations were already there at Maria of Antioch, and supplied cross-references in the Agnes footnotes to both these articles. OK? Andrew Dalby 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

I reversed my decision after the overwhelming consensus on the deletion review (which you also saw). If you want, you can bring up the argument again, but practically everyone in the deletion review argued that my closure was wrong. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wjhonson, do not revert back to restore the Kitty May Ellis texts. According to the deletion reviews, her texts are unverifiable, therefore they should not be in the text. Be careful that you do not violate the three-revert rule, because it seems like you will start to do so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Zsinj 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I will urge you again not to revert these edits. If you continue to do so, I will ask other administrators to review your actions, and they may block you for reverting these articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then put that information in the deletion review. What matters is that everyone else disagrees with you, and they disagreed with my closure. Regardless of how you feel, I follow consensus, and that deletion review examined your sources and dismissed them. If you can provide additional information in the deletion review, that would help, such as giving links to the specific articles that mention her name, giving ISBN numbers for the publications that you used as sources, and so on. If you cannot, chances are that she is not notable enough to be mentioned here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please present your information to the deletion review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did enough of this without you attacking my neutrality, thank you very much. I already faced almost overwhelming criticism of my actions in keeping your article. I will no longer defend it. As far as I was concerned, I came in to close the AfD at the end, was criticised by practically everyone who told me that I should have done other things in looking at the AfD, so I ended it. This Kitty May Ellis thing has caused me nothing but trouble, and I would thank you not to attack my neutrality on top of all that. Just please, go to the damn deletion review, present your case, and see what people will do. Don't use me as the focal point of this whole mess, just go to the deletion review and take up the cause yourself, if you want. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if you think I am neutral or not. My actions in reverting you ended the moment I posted on WP:ANI. Other people my revert you if your actions are wrong, but I'm done. Just don't violate the three-revert rule, in word or in spirit, even knowing that I won't revert you again. I am neutral in this: whether you think I am or not matters not a whit to me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be another argument about Kitty May Ellis, but I don't want to get involved in that, however, please write articles and then post them up, don't half start an artcle. Also if the article has been deleted often, don't be provocative! -Wser 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There's provocative and then there's fair. When I'm being treated unfairly I react. Wjhonson 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's anything that needs to be done for this article, I'm sure there are tonnes of other people willing to do it. I'm washing my hands of this whole matter, so please ask someone else. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this article, and I won't ever touch this damn thing again, even in a future AfD. So please don't write me about this article anymore. Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening style

You may want to review Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Article titles, because I have fixed 3 articles you have started in this regard. Please a) bold the name of the title by surrounding it with triple apostrophes b) make sure the opening sentence is a complete sentence. Your openings have lacked verbs. In general, if you are confused, you can always look at other articles and see what most of them are doing. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

x-Americans

I believe Mad Jack has misconstrued policy. He has posted with his viewpoint. Please come to discuss when you get a chance. He says he won't permit for inferences. MichaelZ526 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh,sorry...The talk page of the WP:NOR policy... MichaelZ526 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear boy,

Hi, before this goes completely out of hand, please see Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Is Rictor Norton's My Dear Boy a reliable source? --Francis Schonken 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

blogs as sources

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.--Crossmr 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

K. M. Ellis

Hi,

The Deletion Review debate on Ms. Ellis lasted five days, and concluded unanimously in favor of overturning the keep closure at the prior AfD on the basis of verifiability concerns. Community consensus is the arbiter of questions of encyclopedic suitability, and, in this case, the DRV consensus was based on a pillar of Misplaced Pages's policy. I simply enacted the will of the community. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The participants in the Deletion Review debate are all known to me to be upstanding Wikipedians, including several fellow administrators. They might be in error, or they may have been deceived; but, I find it very unlikely that they were lying themselves. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have concluded the AfD debate on Kittie May Ellis. This was an identical repost of content from Kitty May Ellis previously deleted at AfD, as reinterpreted by DRV, and is thus speediable under CSD G4. Any appeal of the prior determination of Deletion Review would need to be taken back to Deletion Review.

Alternatively, you may write an original, sourced article on Ms. Ellis -- as long as the text was not "substantially identical", CSD G4 would not apply. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't modify closed AfD debates. If you have an issue, bring it up with the closing admin. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you're looking for how to request mediation, check out WP:RFM. That should give you the info you need. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I hope mediation will take care of the problem. And as for the Wikisource thing, that would be an oops on my part. :P --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The new reposting was substantially identical to the previously deleted content. Misplaced Pages cannot endure endless AfD debates over the same content; that's why there is a CSD G4 for reposts. To request a Deletion Review, head over to Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review and follow the instructions there -- basically, place the request in the log for today, July 21. I'll warn you in advance that calling your adversaries "liars" will not help your case.

What would help your case is a mention of Ms. Ellis in some secondary sources. The article as you've written it is the beginning of something that might be published in a journal -- original research verified with primary sources. That sort of thing isn't really what Misplaced Pages is for. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wherever it may be published, the text of her diary is not a secondary source; the local newspapers are also primary sources for these purposes. Clearview Pioneers may or may not be a secondary sources, depending on its age, authorship, and audience. The fact that text is published or republished does not qualify it as a secondary source -- the level of critical detachment from the original subject is what matters. Local histories written long ago by those very close to a subject are sometimes useful only as additional primary sources. Having no access to Clearview Pioneers, I can't say for sure, but its relative inaccessability calls into question whether it can be called a reliable source. Data from the Census of the United States is a primary source. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mere republication of material does not qualify it is a secondary source. As I said above, the level of critical detachment from the original subject is what matters. The work of the local historian may or may not be a secondary source, depending on the quality of its scholarship. In the interests of fairness, it is most precise to say simply that its relative inaccessability calls into question whether it is a reliable source. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you really want to request mediation, follow the instructions here. (It involves using the big black box in the "Instructions" section which will lead you to fill out a form, not merely posting the request at the top of the new requests section. The form will automatically post your request.) Katr67 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This last point of yours is well-taken, and it is true that one potential systematic bias of Misplaced Pages is against obscure print sources. However, consider Misplaced Pages's difficulty. This is an encyclopedia available around the globe, trying to maintain a standard of usefulness and truthfulness for its articles. I have no doubt that your work is sincere, but think of a hypothetical case.

User:John Doe was born in a small village in India, and now lives in a larger city. He writes an article about the founder of his village, extensively sourced from print material available only in the local library near his birthplace, and from our books about rural India he has collected in dusty bookshops over the years. Unfortunately, the founder of his village is only of local note, and no sources widely published mention this man.

User:Tom Roe has too much time on his hands, and is mischeivous. He comes from a small town in India, which he knows few people outside of his region have any awareness of. He decides to fabricate a fine article about his town's founder, a complete lie, and post it to Misplaced Pages. Since, quite reasonably, there are no widely published sources about his town, he claims to have several local sources, available only in his region, and uses these to "verify" his fictive narrative.

User:Jim Poe is a well-meaning editor. He comes from a small town in rural India founded by his great-great-great-great grandfather, a fact of which he is proud. He thinks his ancestor deserves a Misplaced Pages article because there are no widely-published sources documenting the foundation of the town. He has lots of local sources to draw from (he descended from the founder, after all!), and so composes his article. Though done in good-faith, because he loves his ancestor, Jim ends up writing a bit of a panegyric, overstating the importance and general greatness of his subject.

Now, I don't know how to distinguish between these three cases -- for the good of the encyclopedia, the best solution to me seems to be to demand reliable sources strictly from all of them. All of your sources need not be widely-known, but one widely-available citation would be a great boon here. It is true that some Misplaced Pages articles "slip through the cracks" without having reliable sources strictly demanded for them; but, when a group of editors make that demand, it is generally honored for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.

One suggestion for you: publish an article about Ms. Ellis yourself in a peer-reviewed journal, or as a monograph. An encyclopedia should never be the first widely-known source to "discover" an historical actor or event. An encyclopedia documents things that already have been vetted in their original field of scholarship. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have remarked at the Census discussion, you seem to have an odd way of reading. Nothing I have said remotely suggested that the census was unsuitable for use -- it is a primary source, which (among other things) means that it couldn't be used alone as a source for any article.

Likewise, nothing I have said suggests that you are a liar. I have suggested only that your claims in the article fail a strict reading of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. They are unproven by the standard required. WP:AGF emphatically does not require anyone to accept claims in an article that cannot be verified by reliable sources, simply because we must assume that the contributor is correct. All contributions to Misplaced Pages must be subject to editorial oversight. You may be in complete good-faith, and yet wrong on the facts (in manner of hypothetical #3, given above.) I have told you that the place to file an appeal of the deletion is Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review. I will not unprotect the pages under any circumstances without a review in that forum. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You say, "An editors opinion about whether a source is reliable, when that editor has no knowledge whatsoever about the source, is WP:OR and should not be used as evidence in a review."

This is incorrect. To require an editor to have read a source before making a judgment on its reliability would create an even greater problem with "private sources" (those that only the contributor and those in a geographically-narrow range have access to.) In practice, scholars judge the reliability of a source quickly, based on (among other things): its authorship, title, audience, age, distribution, and the quality of an excerpt of its prose. Misplaced Pages is no different: we must (and do, successfully) make reasonably quick judgments about the reliability of sources. In the judgment of the prior DRV consensus, and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source -- hence, its failure of WP:V, and its deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I said, "In the judgment of the prior DRV consensus, and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source..."

The Snohomish Tribune is not a reliable secondary source, because it is a primary source. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Local history

Just so you know... I actually take a hard line on notability... I feel that we should only include people of more national significance (there are far too many articles on wikipedia that I do not consider notable) ... I would vote do delete your article Mrs. Ellis on that ground. That said, I also object to mis-using WP rules and guidelines to push a POV, which is what I think is happening in your case. Blueboar 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from... I simply disagree. Mostly this is just a way to tell you that I can not join your local history project... because I don't find most local history to be notable enough for my concept of what Misplaced Pages should be. I also know that I have a minority opinion on this... which is why I have not filed hundreds of AfD requests.  :>) I do wish you luck on your project, and offer my (qualified) support in any future AfD - (which you may not want since, while I will happily support you on the verification issue, I will make it clear that even with all those good sources I don't find Kitty worthy of inclusion.) Blueboar 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

What was the intention behind this edit of my talk page? The edit added a non-existent template. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... well, I don't believe I qualify as a party to mediation. I merely closed a DRV and an associated AfD; I have no view of the article independent of those processes. My explanations to you earlier were an attempt to communicate why I think the DRV consensus made the decision that it did. I reiterate that the appropriate place to take an appeal of a deletion decision is deletion review, not mediation. On the other hand, if you truly feel that opposed editors are engaging in an organized effort against you, then I suppose mediation might be appropriate. I will happily provide a statement of clarification to the mediators if they wish, but, as I said, I don't think I really qualify as a party. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the page does not block further review. Page protection is standard procedure when a G4 repost is made, pending an appeal to DRV. If you wish to compose the article anew, or to have the deleted text made available to you, either of those may be done at a subpage of your own userspace. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking this is what you're after, I have userfied the last draft of the Ellis article to User:Wjhonson/Ellis. Feel free to work on the draft at your userspace, if you feel improvement can be made prior to DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't me you're having this argument with: I am trying my best to explain what the DRV consensus decided and why they did so. I happen to agree with them, yes, but not at all passionately.

Do you want to make a request at DRV for appeal? Type something up on my talk page, and I will gladly place it in the proper form for you. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request is here Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 22. I made a few prefatory remarks explaining the circumstance, but tried not to be argumentative. Now that it is set up, I trust you can edit your remarks freely as you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

You had the request right, you just needed to remove the paragraph you reinserted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Pending. I've fixed it now, all you need to do is go to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Kittie_May_Ellis#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate and sign ~~~~ after "Agree". Essjay (Talk) 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis

I researched this a bit. The issue here is not about WP:V only. Verifiability is only one of the content policies of WP. Other policies include WP:NOR and WP:NOT. These are my views:

• The lack of secondary sources (i.e authors, scholars, jhournals, etc) for this subject means that it is not crossing the threshold of notability. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)
• It is not enough that we have verifiable sources. We need some proof of notability, otherwise we wil end up with 1,000 of articles about deceased people, just because we can verify they existed. See WP:NOT;
• If you can find one ore more secondary sources in which there is a mention of this person in the context of an encyclopedic subject, we can then consider re-instating the article. See WP:NOR.

Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hillsboro

And the point of being delibertely provacative

No, the point is to get your attention, and the point is to say -- succinctly -- why it doesn't belong. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more productive to try to reach a consensus instead of engaging in edit-warring with no discussion.

"Mr. Kettle? It's Mr. Pot on line 3. He says you're black."

Consensus HAS been reached -- more than once -- and your relentless campaign to insert the non-notable and non-historically important K.M. Ellis by hook or by crook is the real edit-warring. Don't insult my intelligence with claims that fail the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Skutt Catholic High School, scan images URLs

Hello, on Talk:Skutt Catholic High School, is it okay to remove the two links in your comment that point to the two scans on my home computer, since an alternative that doesn't go to my machine is now freely availble? I only made the scans available on my home computer because the article from the Omaha World Herald was the earliest and only available reference that I could show the admins, and no alternative was available during the time. ...or do I need to bother asking you for permission for me to do this myself? since you copied and pasted that part from the that I wrote. Regards, Tuxide 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you :) In the meantime, I removed those images in question from my home computer for the time being. I intended them for admin usage, however now my home machine is getting hits from sites like Google and digg.com over this, particularly supposedly posted by User:Alphachimp. Oh well...if there is such an admin that needs to read the article again, I would gladly restore the scans for them. Regards, Tuxide 05:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment in question was , which I believed was off-topic. If you don't think it was, then I don't mind it being restored. Perhaps it is just me being paranoid, after all I do live in Omaha (which is in the United States ). Tuxide 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I went by what the boilerplates said, in particular Template:Talkheader and Template:Off topic warning. Perhaps I am interpreting it wrong, I read it as if talk pages were not meant to discuss the topic generally, and if such comments are not meant to coordinate the improvement of the article, then they don't need to be in the talk pages. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure if that justifies removing the comment in question, though. If you seriously don't think it does, then I will reinsert it. Tuxide 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to reinsert the comment in question anyways, just to see what happens. I also removed the off topic warning since talkheader also says the same message. Regards, Tuxide 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I've removed your edit regarding Fry as a matter of expediency. It's my hope that you'll find a way to re-add the information in a manner that is not likely to leave readers with a mistaken impression regarding Lincoln's sexuality. Rklawton 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am citing quotations, these are not my words. Wjhonson 08:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The line I took out wasn't in quotes. Even if it was a direct quote, the important point, is that language used in the 19th century may leave an uninformed 21st century reader with a mistaken impression. However you choose to remedy this is fine with me. This particular "Lincoln was gay" theme has already been thoroughly hashed out and discredited academically, and Misplaced Pages already has an article dedicated to the topic. Rklawton 08:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not implying that he was gay, Lincoln and Speed both mention in their writings that they shared a bed for four years. I was citing that part indirectly :) I didn't really think it was in dispute since there is so much material on both of them. In fact, as you know, one of Lincoln's well-known anecdotes specifically discusses them in bed together. And Speed himself, wrote a piece for his biographer, which discusses the manner in which they first met, and Speed offering Lincoln to share his double-bed. This isn't really in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they used that bed for other than sleeping :) I didn't address that. But it's a bit intellectual disengenious to not mention Speed at all since he was after all Lincoln's closest friend, as both sets of biographers agree. Wjhonson 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your points above. I only object to wording that may leave the uninformed reader with the wrong impression. Adding the clause "a common practice at the time" would pretty much clear things up. Rklawton 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My source does not state that. If you have one, that's fine. I wouldn't want to add my opinion on such a contentious point. Wjhonson 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one possible way to solve a problem you've created. Another solution would be to remove that section entirely under the theory that no information is better than misleading information. I'm not particular about how you solve it, but leaving it stand as it is will be problematical, and you will likely find your own solution more satisfactory than the approach taken by some other editor in the morning. Rklawton 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sergei Yesenin.

Wjohnson,

Hi, I've noticed you've reverted my edit on the Sergei Yesenin biography and ask me to "also list a source". I am sure you are aware, it is far more ddifficult to find a source explicitly claiming an individual isn't gay than finding one that alludes to him or her being gay. I see that you have claimed (above) that you are not expressly claiming that some people are/were gay, you are merely quoting sources. That is fine, but it does appear to me that you are possibly using these sources to plant ideas that various individuals are/were homosexual. I don't mean to say that you are doing this intentionally or maliciously.

For example - Sergei Yesenin. You added him to the list of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people as well as quoted a source for his Wiki biography which many could be construed as him engaging in a homosexual relationship with Nikolai Klyuev. Whether this was intentional or not, I am not sure, but I see from above that you have done nearly the same with American president Abraham Lincoln. You then added Nikolai Klyuev to the list of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Well, this is infact correct - nearly every internet source openly states that Klyuev was indeed gay, and he can be easily sourced as such. However, there is little to nothing to show that Yesenin was gay other than your one source which claims that Yesenin and Klyuev had briefly lived together and Yesenin (a poet) had written someone three love letters (your source didn't even state how it knew they were to Klyuev). Which brings me to your question about how the criteria for inclusion on the list of gay, lesbian, an bisexual people should be addressed because the word "gay" was not in usage in that context at the time and the word "homosexual" wasn't invented until the late nineteeth century: you should also know (as I'm sure you do, because you seem extraordinarily intelligent) that the "stigma" of homosexuality in that era in many was was also not as pronounced and European and American cultures were vastly different than what they are from today. Men (unburdened and unworried as being labelled "gay") frequently (and often ardently and floridly and passionately and poetically) expressed idealized romantic feelings towards male companions and the purity of platonic love - but these were not homosexual sentiments (this was the age of the Romantics). They were the romanticized idyll of platonic friendship. Now, entrenched in our cultural atmosphere, this sort of 19th century idyll of "male love" often gets misconstrued as somehow "gay".

As far as Yesenin - I can find a plethora of sources stating his love of women, his marriages, his affairs with women, etc. The only source I have seen implicating him as gay is yours. Even the sources expressly stating Nikolai Klyuev was gay and mention his friendship with Yesenin, merely state that Klyuev was Yesenin's mentor and friend and make no allusions to them having a homosexual relationship.

Plenty of historical figures have an overwhelming abundance of proof and reliable sourcing to shoe that they were gay or lesbian. I am just thinking sometimes that you maybe twisting context to make claims. Sorry if this seems babbling, English is not my first languge. ExRat 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjohnson,

Thank you for your reply. I certainly don't believe I am "overzealous" in defending people from being labelled gay. I hope I am just tenacious and that I am just making sure anyone is not labelled anything they are not - be they gay, Catholic, Nigerian, Canadian, Californian, theocratic, etc. I just think that POV and/or revisionism should have no place in an encyclopedia. Not that I believe you are doing such.

I list English as a native languge because I (hope?) I am at least profficient enough with it now that I am able to speak it with as much ease as a native speaker - minus my funny accent. :) But, if this not the right thing to do or you think my English is quite bad, then maybe I should change this. Cheers. ExRat 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my wikipedia entry

Dear wjhonson,

I notice that you created a Misplaced Pages entry for me; thank you for your efforts. I also noticed that there's much discussion of taking it down.

For what it's worth, you appear to be working from a rather old CV. I can provide a newer one if you contact me at j.corvino@wayne.edu.

Also, probably more noteworthy than my publications is that I have spoken to over 100 campus audiences (outside of my own university) on gay and lesbian issues, and that I regularly debate Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.

Anyway, regardless of what happens to the entry, thanks again for your efforts.

John Corvino

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter

The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 08:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is CofS

Just an acronym for Church of Scientology.--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)