| Revision as of 23:11, 30 July 2012 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →Talk:9/11 Truth movement← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:28, 28 January 2016 edit undoGiraffedata (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers98,710 editsmNo edit summary | ||
| (551 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| {{archives|auto=short|title=Manual Archives}} <!-- manual archives, only needed when discussion occurs on this page --> | |||
| {{archives|auto=short|search=yes|title=Manual Archives}} <!-- manual archives, only needed when discussion occurs on this page --> | |||
| {{ombox|textstyle=font-size:120%|text= | |||
| {{ombox/shortcut|WP:RFC/BOARD|WP:RFCRB|WP:RFCB}} | |||
| This is a simplified system to request comment on articles, policies, etc. Requests made on this board will be transferred to the appropriate place by a volunteer. Please remember to include a link to relevant article or discussion.<br /><br />'''Do not use this page to request comment on users, administrators, or bo<!-- a -->ts; see ] for that.''' Also, do not use this page simply as a way to advertise RfCs that have already been posted; see ] for ways to do that.}} | |||
| This page was formerly used as a way to make it easier to open ]. It was deprecated on 1 September 2014 as a result of ]. Previous requests are documented in the archives. | |||
| {{collapsetop|Guidance for Volunteers}} | |||
| You can help editors who post requests for comments on this board by moving the request to the right place. Don't respond directly to their request for comments here. | |||
| #Find the right place to post the request for comments. Consider: | |||
| #* The Talk page of the relevant article | |||
| #* The Talk page of an appropriate Wikiproject | |||
| #* Other relevant Talk pages, e.g., MOS Talk pages | |||
| #If there is an ongoing discussion at a Talk page, consider adding a ] on behalf of the editor there. Before adding a new RfC, remember to check whether an RfC has already been posted on the topic, in which case you should not post an additional RfC. | |||
| #If there is no ongoing discussion, consider starting a new discussion based on the request posted here | |||
| #Add a comment to your post such as <nowiki>''Moved from ]'' ~~~~</nowiki> | |||
| #Remember to sign your post | |||
| #Add a response to the user's talk page explaining what actions you took and any additional suggestions you may have, such as | |||
| #*posting on an ] | |||
| #*posting at the ] | |||
| #*asking for ] | |||
| #*] | |||
| #*suggesting they start a ] | |||
| #If discussion has taken place on this page, you should manually ] closed discussions before deleting them. | |||
| #Delete the user post here with an appropriate Edit summary | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 125%; font-weight:bold"><center>.</center></span><br /> | |||
| To make a new request, see ]. | |||
| == Seeking wider, more informed, input on the reliability of ''Wikinews'' as a source == | |||
| Given the particularly limited input on ], I would like an RfC raised on this issue. | |||
| As the above discussion shows, the arguments put ''against'' ''Wikinews'' being a reliable source are: | |||
| # It's a wiki, anyone can edit it. | |||
| # It's self-published. | |||
| # ''Wikinewsies'' are not 'qualified' journalists. | |||
| Those points are rebutted thus: | |||
| # It is a wiki which uses FlaggedRevs as part of the publication process. | |||
| # There is a ]. | |||
| # ], ], ], ]—all well-respected for their journalistic work, ''and undertook no formal journalism studies''. Additionally, contributing to ''Wikinews'' has been assigned coursework for degree-level journalism students from the ] and ]. | |||
| I can fully accept that synthesis work on ''Wikinews'' is not appropriate, the sources which ''Wikinews'' draws from are likely more appropriate. However, ''Wikinews''' ] can, and should, be used as a source with which Misplaced Pages can be enriched. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Addendum: | |||
| "Little known to the mainstream is that the | |||
| Wikinews’ volunteer formal review process is tight and accountable, with | |||
| checking and peer review of standards that mainstream news generally no longer | |||
| adheres. Similar to The Economist, Wikinews contributors are permitted to write | |||
| anonymously, in joint contributions, which are heavily reviewed to a standard far | |||
| higher than a self-published blog (Thorsen, 2008) (Bruns, 2005). Veracity checks | |||
| by Wikinews reviewers ensure at least two independently verified sources for | |||
| every news point made in a story. Wikinews has no commercial imperative over | |||
| the work. Qualified reviewers are experienced volunteers and work on copy as it | |||
| arrives. Wikinews is unique, in that review is applied according to strict policies | |||
| and processes. Like any act of publication, freedom of expression is limited by | |||
| the prior restraints arising essentially from law, ethics and news policy." | |||
| This rather lengthy quote is from David Blackall's paper, ''Wikinews – a safe haven for learning journalism, free of the usual suspects of spin and commercial agendas''. Although I am a co-author on the paper, these are David's words, and he is a senior lecturer in the UoW school of journalism. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where do you propose holding such an RFC (] is the natural venue for "general" reliability questions), and who do you propose drafting a neutrally worded RFC statement with prior to commencing an RFC. ] (]) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* If I knew where was the most appropriate place to put this RfC, I would not have placed it here. That, as the policy states (and great big caution-signed message at the top of editing this page warns), is precisely what this page is for. I believe that all the criticisms raised on the Reliable sources noticeboard were rebutted, but people are slow to change their minds; ''especially'' when doing so is an admission they were wrong. | |||
| ::: I am, largely, the outsider to Misplaced Pages. I have to place some degree of trust that the above can, and will, be refactored into a 'balanced' request for comments by someone whose reputation is not invested in one side or the other of the dispute. And, that whoever does so will be able to correctly identify the most-appropriate place to put the RfC. | |||
| ::: I do have to note that you're challenging the request for wider input, and not the points I see as the basis for your argument, which I offer a rebuttal to. I note the discussion has moved on, but that what I can only describe as "fundamentalist" attitudes are being displayed by some. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your ability to read the consensus on ] perhaps needs some improvement, but as you note you're not highly experienced with wikipedia so that's fine. Regarding the RFC; I don't believe the Wikinews has had its reliability addressed seriously or definitively by the community in the last twelve months, so it is fair to try to see if consensus has changed and make arguments. What I'd suggest is that we draft the RFC here, and when it is ready to go (ie: we both agree that it represents a neutrally worded solicitation of external input) we take it live on ]'s talk page, and solicit external input as appropriate (village pump, centralised discussions, etc.). That way we can definitively gauge the wider community's sentiments. We can also plan to get an external closer for the RFC from an early period. How does that sound? Draft here together, then when it is ready, take it to ]. ] (]) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Experienced with Misplaced Pages? I'd rather not, thank you! ;-) I can ''understand'' the value of longer-running debates, but lack the patience to participate. But, what I'm seeking is someone who cares neither one way or the other to distill-down the arguments for and against. | |||
| ::::: Every point I've seen added to the debate by Wikipedians who've done little-to-no research into what ''Wikinews''' peer-review process is gives me less and less respect for "consensus". Consensus could say the moon is made of green cheese, it would not make it true. Yes, I know it's one of the cornerstones of how Misplaced Pages works, but so is participating in a debate, or discussion, from an '''informed''' point of view. I see precious little of that—which is what gives me the scope to make the rather scathing "green cheese" remark. | |||
| ::::: ''Wikinews'' gets hit both ways. There's not just your arguments, dismissing the project's work as unreliable. The other side of the coin is we're accused of not following a "wiki ethos" in having independent review, archiving (i.e. fully protecting articles a week after publication), and basically not letting absolutely anyone 'publish' whatever they like. | |||
| ::::: What I do not see, where you claim there is "consensus", is any form of cogent rebuttal of the points raised in favour of considering ''Wikinews'' a reliable source. Really, I ask you, is the fact that we use the same base software as Misplaced Pages a reasonable, rational, and supportable argument ''against'' considering ''Wikinews'' reliable? | |||
| ::::: It is because of such, frankly idiotic, arguments (yes, I know it wasn't one of yours, but you should challenge such dubious reasoning) that I do not feel there is enough common ground for us to work together on taking this to a more formal RfC, and that someone else should do so. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are correct: the software base doesn't matter. The reliability issue is that Wikinews is open access, and that the standards of review do not meet the required standards for en.wikipedia reliability (the Germans are much more lax, for example; and the Dutch are positively permissive). en.wikipedia has extremely strict standards regarding what an appropriate editorial standard for en.wikipedia's reliability standards are. RS/N has over five plus years rejected openly contributed material without a strict (very strict) editorial policies. If your primary project is Wikinews then I salute you, it is a noble thing to do, I'd rank wikinews well above fox, but well below the Guardian—kind of in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' category of quality. But quality is not the perverse and bizarre thing that wikipedia demands of reliability. To change the consensus about the standards required would take a major RFC, because these standards are in place because of the contested nature of en.wikipedia, and because of some foundational choices regarding discipline and content disputes that were made on en.wikipedia. To reverse these would be a substantial community decision, opening the way for the general use of "find a grave" or "Jane's pornography blog" grade sources. And I don't know that wikinews would wish to meet en.wikipedia's demands regarding reliability—they would be onerous. ] (]) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Hide irrelevant inter-editor bickering. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{outdent|::::::}} You insult ''Wikinews'' by implying it resides in the same category as "find a grave" or "Jane's pornography blog". And you put your own argument at risk classing it at a similar reliability level to the SMH, which English Misplaced Pages regularly, and frequently, accepts as a reliable source. | |||
| I note that an involved editor has taken it upon themselves to close the discussion in a shameful display of ]. I will be looking for an avenue where I can highlight such not being an action carried out in good faith. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 22:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That noticeboard has become an angry and unreasonable mob.--] (]) 22:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's like a black homosexual trying to reason with a bunch of homophobic National Socialists. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 23:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good analogy. Apparently one user wants to take this to the drama board because he can't reasonably dispute my statements.--] (]) 23:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Brian McNeil, I recommend that you retract your comment as it is no different than calling people who disagree with you Nazis, which violates ]. ] (]) 23:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Brian, you appear to conflate journalistic quality (which Wikinews has, I occasionally read articles), with en.wikipedia's reliability policy. A quality source may be unreliable. A reliable source may be of low quality. These are different things. ] (]) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Ian, I chose my words carefully, as an ], not with the intent to accuse people of being Nazis. So I will decline your invitation to retract a statement which you've misconstrued and misinterpreted. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The analogy being <nowiki>you:others::gay black men:National Socialists</nowiki>. Whether it's a metaphor or simile, you are equating those who disagree with you with Nazis. That is immature, disrespectful, and only makes any further argument coming from you look like it's a temper tantrum. ] (]) 23:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a serious problem here because there is a tendency to focus on the minute rather than the substance.--] (]) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, I'm just a bit disgusted at how Brian McNeil insulted those who suffered in the holocaust, and how you seem to think that it's OK for someone to act like Catholics, Jews, and Masons were only told "hey, just don't distrupt things and we'll let you retain your right to live and believe whatever you want." ] (]) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Get over it.--] (]) 23:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're a great example for getting over it when you've reopened a closed discussion three times, that had to be closed because you refused to listen to consensus. You get over it, and you quit supporting honestly revolting behavior just because it's someone who supports what you want. ] (]) 00:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The "consensus" was a mob mentality. As proof on my talk page, I make my point and the user responds "whatever". If my points can't be disputed, how is there a consensus?--] (]) 00:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}You ignore when others dispute your points, and then when someone doesn't care to repeat the same argument over and over with you, you treat it like a victory? That's just rude to everyone. Why should anyone care what you think if you don't listen to others? ] (]) 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Ah, yes. You're going to weasel-word around that remark, aren't you? First it was "I'm accusing you of being Nazis", but that doesn't stand up to critical inspection. So, step down and "I've no respect for the survivors of the Holocaust". Uh-huh. That's the level this entire discussion has been conducted at. No reason, no actual acknowledgement of well-constructed arguments. ''That'' is why I employed the analogy I did, and that is why it is valid. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, you're just as capable of ignoring what others say unless it suits you, too. I pointed out what happened in the conversations William S. Saturn has been in, and I pointed out how you equated those who disagreed with you with Nazis. Since I assume you two aren't trolling, I can only assume y'all need psychiatric help to help your basic grasp on reality. ] (]) 00:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| What does any of this have to do with an RfC? If you want to continue this bickering, do so on your user talk pages. It doesn't belong here. ] (]) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| Brian. Are you interested in crafting a neutrally worded RFC or not? ] (]) 00:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I advised him to request the assistance of an uninvolved administrator on ] if he is seriously intrested in doing so. ] (]) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * I would like to at least try, can you point out any items I've missed with the three I listed above? Or, whilst keeping brief, phrase them more to your liking? That's probably the best starting point. Dominus' suggestion to then get an uninvolved administrator to distil things down is going to be easier if all the 'cards are on the table'. But, I won't be participating in the discussion anymore tonight, so no rush on that. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Draft RfC === | |||
| <div class="draft" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa"> | |||
| '''Is wikinews a reliable source?''' | |||
| #In what circumstances is (]) a ] in terms of ]? | |||
| #Should en.wikipedia's policies be amended to reflect this? | |||
| '''Nature of the source''' | |||
| en.wikinews is a news source which generates content in the following ways: | |||
| #, generated by ; | |||
| #, generated by ; | |||
| #… | |||
| these are then overseen and published by … | |||
| '''Past discussions on en.wikipedia''' | |||
| The reliability of wikinews has been previously discussed on en.wikipedia: | |||
| #], closed as, "wikinews is a user generated source and therefore not reliable per WP:RS and WP:V." | |||
| #Recently at ], where a particular interview was given a on the basis of | |||
| #Last year at ] | |||
| #Most recent previous RS/N archive discussion | |||
| #Years ago: Link to initial WP page discussing use of Wikinews (prior to my edits) | |||
| '''Brief in favour''' | |||
| '''Brief against''' | |||
| </div> | |||
| === Comments on RfC construction === | |||
| That's what an RFC ought to look like on this topic. I suggest we edit it in the section above, together, until the content is filled out, and we both agree that this is the RFC that should go forward. ] (]) 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :are we doing all wikinewses, or just en.? ] (]) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Thank you! I'm just dropping in to reassure you I've not abandoned this. As well as taking a break to avoid ending up excessively stressed with this, I've been going over some of the threads I'm tracking on a piece of investigative journalism related to the UK's draft communications data bill. | |||
| : I think I'll get zero argument from my fellow ''Wikinewsies'' if I say that in characterising us as a news source, it isn't the majority of our output that the discussion concerns. Articles where we rely totally on more mainstream sources (what we call synthesis) are not stuff we'd expect to see Misplaced Pages cite. Logic dictates if we pick up information from the NYT, BBC, CNN and AP, you go back to those sources. | |||
| : The sort of stuff I'm looking at, and commenting on my own reportage is easiest, would be things like ]. You can easily see that, assuming it isn't completely fabricated, a huge amount of work went into it. | |||
| : From a review of yesterday's duh-ramah, can I offer a measly suggestion on filling the above out more? That is, the heading "'''Is wikinews a reliable source?'''". I'd propose replacing it with "'''Under what circumstances can ''Wikinews'' comfortably be accepted as a reliable source'''?" This trims the scope, ruthlessly, back to just our Original Reporting works and, I would hope, turns the presentation's viewing from "''Wikinews'' is '''always''' unreliable to ''may be reliable'', and here are the criteria you need to examine". The more articulate negative arguments on the noticeboard did indeed play up certain mainstream sources having a reputation for being reliable, but that such was not to be blindly accepted. | |||
| : I'll close my, overly limited, input on this for this evening by saying "thank you" for helping move this towards an RfC. It is always a pleasure to be proven wrong when one assumes that someone is arguing dogmatically. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 22:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Just re-reading the above, I note you ask "Are we doing all (language) Wikinews(es), or just English?" Other languages have adopted the same use of Flagged Revisions and independent peer-review to obtain Google News listings. They cannot be assumed to be as-rigorous. They're going down the same road as English ''Wikinews'' because of what a GNews listing can mean, but each is a distinct, independent, group of editors. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Yitzhak Kaduri's note about the Messiah's name == | |||
| ] ] (]) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Seeking wide input on the interpretation of ] == | |||
| Inviting as many editors as possible to comment. This is a general question on the interpretation of ] section of WP articles, not tied to any particular WP article. It seems the rules for 'See also' are not identical to those for the body of WP articles. Does every link in 'See also' have to be supported by a reliable external source that makes a connection between the link and the subject of the article? Or something in the link that mentions the article, or otherwise makes a direct connection with the article? For example, what if the material in a link is almost identical, or very similar, to the material in an article, yet editors are not aware of the existence of a source that mentions both the article and the link in the same source? | |||
| One argument is that the absence of a source implies that the connection between the link and the article is based on ], and thus the link should not be included in 'See also'. | |||
| A counter-argument is that if such a source existed, we could have used it in the body of the article, and thus there would be no need to include it in 'See also' (because "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"). According to this perspective, 'See also' should be as inclusive as possible, and a link should be removed from 'See also' if and only if it creates a possibly libelous connection in a ], or if the addition of the link is vandalism. According to this perspective, 'See also' should represent those links that could provide context to the content of the article, and if an editor believes in good faith that the link will provide that context, the link should be available to readers to make that judgement themselves. In other words, according to this view, ] would apply if editors proposed to use the link to support a claim in the body of the article, not if the link is restricted to the 'See also' section and editors make no reference to the link within the body of the article. According to this perspective, if all WP policies applied to 'See also' exactly as they do to the main body of the article, there would not be a need for a separate section called 'See also'. According to this view, WP policies for the main body are designed to, metaphorically speaking, narrow-down, limit and constrict the range of material eligible for inclusion in the main body. This relative narrowing, limitation and constriction may be exactly one of the ''main reasons for the existence'' of 'See also'. In this view, 'See also' is designed to open-up the range of material eligible for inclusion, relative to the main body of the article. (However, some limitations on 'See also' still exist, such as restricting it to links to other WP articles.) According to this perspective, while the main body is designed to be relatively more exclusive, 'See also' is designed to be considerably more inclusive, to enable readers to explore deeper and broader, to discover, investigate, examine, travel more widely, wander and delve into, to help readers enhance their knowledge and understanding of the context, scope, breadth and depth of the article. | |||
| (This draft RfC reads like it favors one side, if a volunteer would like to modify it to improve neutrality it would be much appreciated.) | |||
| Thanks and regards, ] (]) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :''The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number'' (]). If there is nothing that would justify inclusion in the body of a more comprehensive article on the subject (i.e. a reliable source making the linkage), existing guidelines seemingly preclude such inclusion. You appear not to be asking how existing guidelines should be interpreted, you are instead apparently proposing that they be changed (your proposal would of necessity also require changes to ] ''policy'', to make it clear that it didn't apply to 'see also', which would allow additions based on contributor's opinions). Please make your proposed changes explicit, and then propose them formally at a more appropriate venue. ] (]) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, I'm not proposing they be changed. I'm trying to understand the spirit behind 'See also'. It seems that perhaps your comment may be focused almost exclusively on the letter of WP policies. I'm asking not only about the letter of 'See also', but also going beyond the letter and ] of this particular WP policy, and, ultimately, to the heart of WP itself (albeit in a limited way). I'm curious to learn of editors' thoughts on the interesting questions that may arise - such as Are there certain (rare or not-so-rare) situations when an editor's opinion, even if not backed by a source, could justify inclusion of a link in 'See also'? From ]: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and ]." And thanks for taking the time and effort to post a comment. Regards and best wishes, ] (]) 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Is there any reason why Afghanistan is utterly reluctant to establish relationships with rest of 'developing' Asian world? == | |||
| According to wikipedia articles cover relationships of Afghanistan and diplomatic missions of Afghanistan, | |||
| Afghanistan is maintaining formal relationships with ONLY developed countries and seems to showing UTTER hatred to Communism and Poverty of | |||
| South America and Most of Asian countries. | |||
| However, the fact is, Afghanistan is worse than Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, and Cuba. | |||
| Poorest country neglecting civil-war, drug, discrimination toward women, Poorest country using Democratic mechanism to solidifying Tyranny | |||
| wants to maintain strong relations with MOST DEVELOPED countries. Is it making sense? | |||
| Can someone explain about Afghanistan politicians' lame but extremely exclusive demeanor toward underdeveloped countries? | |||
| == Is there any game supports Vietnamese(Tieng Viet), Thai, Turkish(Turkce), Indonesian(Bahasa Indonesia) OFFICIALLY?(excluding user-made patch changes language) == | |||
| Title says all. | |||
| since my country lacks institutes cover those languages | |||
| i want to learn those languages via computer games. | |||
| as title says, is there any computer games support vietnamese/Turkish/Thai/Indonesian OFFICIALLY? | |||
| :This question would be better put at where I suggest you use a shorter title and put more text into the text. ] (]) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Wireless electronic devices and health ; WIFI (safety) == | |||
| Magda Havas manuscript being added to the intro | |||
| Catch2424 is attempting to add the following to the intro: | |||
| In 2007 Magda Havas, (B.Sc., Ph.D.) from the Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada wrote that laboratory studies of radio frequency radiation as well as epidemiological studies of people who live near cell phone antennas and/or use wireless technology indicate adverse biological effects (including cancers, DNA breaks and more). | |||
| www.magdahavas.org is not a reliable source. Please stop adding this without consensus. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| From my googling it seems like she has a poor reputation. she even collaborates with a guy that makes these bizarre devices to filter "dirty electricity" Bhny | |||
| -------------------------------- | |||
| Sorry, BUT It is NOT only her findings. | |||
| it is all over the net... Also in the EU: | |||
| http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387291/Mobile-phones-wi-fi-banned-schools-theyre-potentially-harmful.html | |||
| http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto-oecta-wifi.html | |||
| http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pages/health-impact-wifi-mobiles-electromagnetic-fields.aspx | |||
| http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/ | |||
| http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools | |||
| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html | |||
| http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110519/00442614333/european-politicians-look-to-ban-wifi-school-children.shtml | |||
| http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128 | |||
| http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html | |||
| enough read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catch2424 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| No, that's not enough. At minimum, we require a peer-reviewed journal article. Please do not re-add the material until you obtain consensus here. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Seconded: “All over the net” is not a reason to add something. A health article has to be guided by WP:MEDRS. --papageno (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| If none of these resources is a reliable source which source is??? We need help from someone else to decide about this. | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| == This Is Pil == | |||
| For the studio album article '']'', two users are involved in a dispute over the review scores. Me, ] has been asking the other user ] (]) to post his/her opinion on the ]. No reply, but he/she keeps on reverting. All album wiki articles have a critical reception field that deals with both positive and negative reviews but this user doesn't accept this. Indeed, he/she carries on erasing several negative reviews. Wiki is not a fan site who makes hagiography : wiki has got neutral point of view amongst its policies.] (]) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Should Country Articles use the Official Name in the Title? == | |||
| I believe that we ought to change the article title for sovereign states to reflect the proper, official name; common names should be redirects, not the article title. | |||
| Misplaced Pages desires to attain levels of professionalism equivalent to encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; why, then, is this policy not already followed. Perhaps the most egregious example is the article titled ] rather than ]. Equally as bad is ] (which should refer to NEITHER country in my opinion, but be a separate article entirely.) instead of ]. The current standard is both unprofessional and in some cases can be misleading, and as such I believe a change is in order. | |||
| I will post a formal argument shortly, but I just wanted to see what people think about this issue. I know that numerous edit wars have been waged over the subject before in the past (Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast, United States vs. USA, China vs. People's Republic of China, the list goes on and on), and settling this issue officially would go a long way towards lessening the frequency of these incidents. In that regard, I believe that standardizing in favor of the formal name would go a long way in helping, but nonetheless I believe that the community as a whole would benefit from discussing a potential change here. | |||
| My apologies if this has been settled before; I could not find it in the discussion archives. Also, apologies if I've somehow done something wrong with the process...as you can see, I'm new here. ] (]) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is that there is often a lot of contention and debate as to what the "offical" name of a country actually is. Do we follow the UN's "official" names, the IOC's "official" names, or should we follow some other international standard? No matter what we follow, someone is going to object. On the other hand if we go with whatever "name" is most commonly used in reliable English language sources (ie the current policy) there is rarely much contention or debate as to what the article's title should be. ] (]) 04:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :] is probably the best policy to become familiar with. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be the consensus precedent that common names are preferable to official names, and I see no reason to overturn that consensus now. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:9/11 Truth movement == | |||
| A lead dispute, Which version better represents the topic and is in keeping with Wiki lead policy found on many other articles? Talk page engagement has been ignored.--] (]) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Instead of just removing what happened, why did you not try to rephrase it? Something like "The 9-11 Truth movement contests the accepted account that..." Also, both of the editors that reverted you have discussed the matter on the talk page, which is hardly ignoring engagement. If anything, you ignored their engagement. ] (]) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It can do that if it briefly sum the issue, why do we need to restate it and waste lead space (succinctly) ? Is something wrong with ], doesn't that and every website around the world tell every living soul what happened? Even the bushmen in South Africa know the "official" accounts. the talk page is clear evidence of what is happening and the quality of the "engagement, or lack thereof" . --] (]) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] and ], we don't hide that heliocentricism is fact in the ] article, and the same principle applies here. That Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC is a '''fact''', not an "official account." The 9-11 Truth movement has failed to understand that. The article must reflect both of those views. | |||
| :::And again, two other editors discussed the matter, which is engagement. If you meant "agreement," (a completely different word), then yes, there was no agreement with you, but there was engagement. ] (]) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::lets just use the talk page as other comments are coming in. We do still have a duty to wiki rules regardless of our orientation.--] (]) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, we have a duty to guidelines and policies such as ] and ], which say that we do not portray conspiracy theories as equal to known facts. ] (]) 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:28, 28 January 2016
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 Manual Archives |
This page was formerly used as a way to make it easier to open requests for comment. It was deprecated on 1 September 2014 as a result of this discussion. Previous requests are documented in the archives.
To make a new request, see Requests for comment.
Category: