Misplaced Pages

:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:02, 13 April 2007 editSmmurphy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers14,831 edits Naming conventions← Previous edit Revision as of 15:16, 13 April 2007 edit undoFecapedian (talk | contribs)6 edits →Violation of BLP?: []Next edit →
Line 1,223: Line 1,223:


, which was published in the some of the largest of magazines in the United States, a violation of BLP? -- ] 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) , which was published in the some of the largest of magazines in the United States, a violation of BLP? -- ] 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:: we already had this discussion. YOU are a loser who locked the page as a favor for a friend. All of this is revealed on
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=18364
You should resign, go back to graphic design, and slice yourself. ] 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


== Naming conventions == == Naming conventions ==

Revision as of 15:16, 13 April 2007

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
  • ]
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.


« Archives, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.


Discussion of articles with "allegations"in their name

Definition of "allegation":

al·le·ga·tion /ˌælɪˈgeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation *Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

  • 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
  • 2. an assertion made with little or no proof.
  • 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
  • 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
  • —Synonyms 1, 2. charge, accusation; claim, contention.

(from dic.com)

Misplaced Pages's official guidelines regarding the use of the term:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

...

O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994.

(Taken from WP:WTA#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported)

Currently on Misplaced Pages, there are some articles with that word in their article name. Noted:

and on and on. Please see this google search to find lots more

These articles discuss the allegations, and then give examples of when the term is used.

But, there are also articles like this:

etc.

Also, consider these articles:

So I was wondering, what is the current status of these articles? I don't think it makes sense for some articles to have "allegations" in the title, while others don't. I think either they all should, or they all shouldn't. Thoughts? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How does Holocaust fit into your list? --Dschwen 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It fits because the Holocaust is alleged to have happened. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not "alleged" to have happened, it did happen. WP:V applies here, as I explain below. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the definition of alleged, it has been alleged to happen. There is a considerable minority of the world which do not believe the holocaust occured. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking frankly here, I think this was a productive discussion until you made your last point. Obviously there are events that are universally acknowledged by scholars as real and should be treated as such (e.g. the Holocaust) and there are interpretations of historical events (e.g. most of the items of the first list) that are inherently allegations. We need to have a discussion about "criticism of x" and "allegations of x" articles, but if we can't distinguish between things that are certainly true and things that are certainly alleged we'll end up with either "Allegations that the Earth is Flat" or "Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center". GabrielF 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You say "certainly true". WHO decides whether something is certainly true? Sources? Misplaced Pages editors? "Certainly true" is something which is contestable in and of itself. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is critical here. "Allegations" is perfectly acceptable in article titles where the article exists to document an unverifiable, albeit possibly noteworthy, belief. An example of this would be Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The existence of "Israeli apartheid" apartheid at all is itself quite questionable, but the question being posed by many on the political far left and political far right is a valid subject for Misplaced Pages to document. The ideas themselves are unverifiable and thus cannot be accepted as fact within Misplaced Pages, but the argument can certainly be made that the allegations are noteworthy enough to justify an article about the allegations themselves. Conversely, Islam and antisemitism, Christianity and antisemitism and The Holocaust are not allegations, they are historical (and in the case of the former two, also present) realities. Thus, per WP:V, they can be considered fact.
I'd argue that the "State terrorism" articles ought to be moved to "allegations of..." but beyond that, it looks good the way it is now.
The subject of the article is coalesced in its title; "Allegations" articles document the allegations themselves, whereas non-"allegations" articles document facts. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "unverifiable". What is "unverifiable" about Israeli apartheid? For some people, it is considered a fact. Opposite goes for Holocaust. Some people don't consider the holocaust of fact. I think these selective titles may be an example of Systematic bias (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It fails WP:V and is therefore unverifiable per Misplaced Pages standards and policies. The criteria for what makes information verifiable for the purposes of Misplaced Pages is clear and remarkably simple. Remember that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I have seen no exceptional sources suggesting "Israeli apartheid" exists and therefore it fails WP:FRINGE. Sorry. Systemic bias isn't an issue here, it's Misplaced Pages's content policies that you have a problem with. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Exceptional according to who's definition? I could say "I have seen no exceptional sources suggesting that "holocaust" exists and therefore it fails WP:FRINGE". --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I definitely do not want to start titling articles like Holocaust with the words "allegations of" before it. To me, "allegations" a term that should be reserved for very specific legal instances. In the case of "Israeli apartheid", it's a descriptive term that's in use in different political circles. Those who use it are not alleging that Israel is an apartheid state, they are insisting it is. That term and its associated debate deserve representation in an article titled after the concept itself. The controversy can be discussed in the article, much as it is in Islamofascism. Tiamut
Tiamut, I must say that was my point in bringing up Holocaust. Thanks for putting it in better words than I have. I also would NOT like to see Allegations of the Holocaust. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Note how Allegations of the Holocaust doesn't even redirect to Holocaust. I just realized that now. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Nor does Allegations of Holocaust exist. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An "exceptional" source is defined according to Misplaced Pages consensus. The applications policy are subjective, but the fact is nonetheless they are subjective of consensus more than they are subjective of any individual editor. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. The consensus is subject to systematic bias. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So what are you suggesting? Destroying WP:V and WP:CON because they don't allow for the views of a political fringe to be accepted as fact in Misplaced Pages articles? I'm sorry, but no one will go for that. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it extremely offensive that you consider Israeli apartheid as fringe; notable scholars such as Noam Chomsky have spoken of it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, look at WP:FRINGE. It has the apollo moon hoax, creation science, and the paul is dead hoax as examples. Are you seriously suggesting that the discrimination towards Palestinians in the occupied territories is equivalent to those nonsense theories? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Official discrimination by the Israeli government with the intent of wiping out the Palestinian population over a long period of time so that the Jews can have all of Israel as God intended, then they will expand their colonial empire from the Nile to the Euphrates as the Bible says and destroy all who stand in their way? Yes, I am saying that argument is as credible those nonsense theories. Sorry if I sound condescending, but if you want something treated as fact in Misplaced Pages it must conform with WP:V and not fall into the category of WP:FRINGE. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's policies, you have two choices:
  1. Don't edit. There's no mandate from god or from your government (wherever that may be) compelling you to edit Misplaced Pages.
  2. Propose changes to policy. If you think policies get in the way of Misplaced Pages being successful and accurate, propose changes to them. Policies are not implicitly "perfect", but they're all we have at the moment. If you have a better approach or a better way, propose it and see if it gains consensus. Either way, if you want to edit you have to follow the policies that do have consensus.
Editting Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right. Whether or not you follow policy in your editting is the prime criterion for determining whether or not you deserve that privilege. Just because it is given by default does not mean you are owed it; and if you don't like our policies, and decide that you don't want to follow them while editting, it may be taken away. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Telling me "don't edit" is inane. Please don't be a total dick and tell me to go away. How would you like it if I told you "don't edit". Your belief that Israeli apartheid is WP:FRINGE is just that; a belief. Also, last time I checked, this is the village pump regarding policy, so instead of saying "follow policy", why don't we discuss the policies instead? That's the whole fucking point of even bringing this up.
Also, I don't like your condescending attitude (as evidenced on this page) towards me. Please read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Israeli apartheid should not have "allegations" in the title. It's superfluous, non-neutral and unprofessional. We should write in an objective style without implying a point-of-view. — Omegatron 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By making an article about a subject, we are making an implicit claim that it exists, and that claim must pass the acid test of WP:V. If it cannot pass that acid test, it cannot be on Misplaced Pages. "Israeli apartheid" cannot be verified to exist, and therefore an article suggesting it does has no place here. We can, however, discuss the allegations made by some that it does exist, which is what we do. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your "implicit claim that it exists". We have articles on creation, aliens, etc. etc. and not Allegations of creation, Allegations of aliens, etc. etc. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The subject of an article could exist in fiction or in popular thought--The only thing that matters here is that it can be verified that it exists therein. I can verify, by checking the first Star Wars film, that there is indeed a character called Luke Skywalker. I cannot verify, however, that "Israeli apartheid" exists in any world, real or fictional. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Israel apartheid DOES exist in popular thought. Many notable scholars have used the term. Also, just because it's not popular where you live doesn't mean that it isn't popular in other places. Again, an example of Systematic bias.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • "If you can't differentiate between historical fact and political rhetoric, then there's hardly a point in responding. The Israeli apartheid is a terrible historical event. "The Holocaust" is a political epithet. Please try to use less egregiously offensive and, frankly, silly arguments in the future. Thanks."--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So...are you proposing a page move or what? If you are, just make your proposal at WP:RM and be done with it. The discussion here seems more like soapboxing. --Minderbinder 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything, besides consistency. I don't want to swarm WP:RM with several hundred pages with "allegations" in them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Consistency" isn't really something that can be proposed as a blanket rule of all articles. "Allegations" is appropriate when the topic dictates it, there's no reason all or none should have it. What are you hoping to accomplish, getting the word removed from articles that have it, or adding it to others? --Minderbinder 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, either they all have "Allegations of" in their titles, or none of them do (except in legal uses of the term). Either way is fine with me. (but admittedly with a bias towards those words being removed). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if you could somehow define "they all" whatever that is (All articles? All articles anyone disputes?), it's never gonna happen. You're tilting at a windmill here (or at least making your stink somewhere trafficked enough to get your ranting read by a few people). Nothing to see here folks, let's stop feeding the troll. --Minderbinder 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Any article that has WP:NOTABLE notable disputes should have "Allegations of..." in the title heading. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Any article that has WP:NOTABLE disputes should be brought to WP:AFD, and then the matter should be settled. WilyD 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. Didn't mean to have the "WP" showing.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't be a WP:DICK by accusing me of being a troll. I have been on Misplaced Pages for quite a while now, and have no history of blocks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where this is headed. but it seems to me that there are very clear cases where the word "allegation" can be used. Leave these to be discussed in the specific articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Here's how I think we should make the distinction between allegation and a fact.

  • If the event/condition/issue is debated by reliable (preferably scholarly) sources, then it should be an "allegation" or "controversy".
  • But if the event is disputed only by wiki users, on unreliable sources, then wikipedia considers it as fact, but gives all POVs due weight.

What do you gusy think about that?Bless sins 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, that sounds about right. But look at the Islam and antisemitism article, which is filled with allegations that Islam is antisemitic. What do you think of moving it to Islam and antisemitism allegations?--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). There's an important distinction here. At least 90% of the facts that give rise to the idea of apartheid are not under dispute - characterizing it as "apartheid" is an interpretation that by its very nature is subjective. The Holocaust is a proper name for a series of specific events that are accepted by 99.99% of anyone who calls himself/herself a historian. (Oh, and Noam Chomsky quite clearly holds fringe positions, and isn't even a historian, nor - as it turns out - such a great linguist). --Leifern 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've long believed that we should avoid using the word "allegations" in article titles. There will obviously be the need for some exceptions (eg. the 1993 Michael Jackson article), but the word is too easly co-opted for political ends.

The Allegations of Israeli Apartheid title is a bad compromise, and was chosen during highly politicized negotiations last summer. At the time of the article's creation, the concept was relatively marginal. Since then, it has been referenced by a former American president, a United Nations report, and countless journalists. And yet, the "allegations" title has been retained, due to ongoing political divisions on the page itself.

It may be noted, by way of contrast, that the disputed concept of New antisemitism is not referred to as Allegations of new antisemitism, notwithstanding similar objections that have been raised around the concept's viability. CJCurrie 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, that's a good point. I've added New antisemitism to the list uptop. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing the Holocaust as an "allegation" undermined your own cause. Speaking of which, this whole proposal is an attempt to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, important distinction here. The term "New Antisemitism" doesn't attribute antisemitism to a particular group, or entity. If the title had been Robert Fisk's antisemitism (and I'm not claiming he's antisemitic), the comparison would have been apt. --Leifern 10:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't attack the user, who is not (at least here) violating WP:POINT - he's trying to make a good point in a constructive, nondisruptive way. There is an inconsistancy that comes from editors who try to apply WP:NPOV without having read it. WilyD 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting away from what is by definition a POV argument... let's look at this with complete dispassion: In naming articles on Scientific topics, we do not add "Allegations of..." in front of theories held to be factual by mainstream consensus. We should do the same for historical events (or theories) held to be factual by mainstream consensus. Since the vast majority of historians hold that the holocaust did in fact occur, we should not lable it as an "Allegations of..." article. Now, there might be some argument that the opposing view could be an "Allegations" article (ie "Allegations that the Holocaust did not happen")... except that such an article already exists in a much more NPOV manner as Holocaust denial.
In fact, that's why I tried to talk about topics where Allegations of X sound funny. But I will say on scientific topics, we don't use Allegations of ... for non-mainstream stuff either, or even false stuff. MOND is not Allegations of MOND, Caloric Theory is not Allegations of Caloric Theory, Aether is not at Allegations of Aether and so on ... WilyD 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I do think we need to think about the propriety of having any "Allegations of" articles... so many of them are thinly veiled POV forks... but that is a different issue. Blueboar 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I understand your concerns. But what about science which has mainstream consensus among scientists, but not among the general populace? I think it would be incredibly silly and stupid to have an Allegations of Evolutionary theory article. As gracenotes said, I think that if there is relevant, sourced, notable dispute of a subject, then the article should not allege it as a fact. For instance the holocaust is considered fact by the vast majority of historians. But there is a notable minority which disagree with the extent of the holocaust. But that does not mean that the Holocaust article should be moved to Allegations of the Holocaust. And the holocaust itself is such a controversial subject that a move to "Allegations..." would be offensive. And that is my point with the Israeli apartheid article. Most historians agree that Israel has isolated and separated the Palestinians in the occupied territories. But there is a notable minority (mostly from the United States and Israel) that claim there is no persecution of Palestinians. But moving the article (as it currently stands) to "Allegations..." is offensive. As user Tiamut earlier above said: "Those who use it are not alleging that Israel is an apartheid state, they are insisting it is. That term and its associated debate deserve representation in an article titled after the concept itself." --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who use the phrase are still making allegations, regardless of whether or not they believe them to be true. Jayjg 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find the allegation that I am violating WP:POINT to be entirely self-defeating. The whole point of the Village pump is to discuss issues BEFORE doing something major. If I had went and move all those articles to "Allegations of..." (or vice versa), that would have been a WP:POINT.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most historians agree that Israel has isolated and separated the Palestinians in the occupied territories."
The article isn't titled "allegations that Israel has isolated the Palestinians", the article is titled "allegations of Israeli apartheid". Most historians do *not* agree that this isolation/separation constitutes apartheid. Ken Arromdee 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found this: WP:WTA#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported. Added to top.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Pallywood.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Islamophobia. I added it for you. Jayjg 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you find anymore, feel free to add them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is, strictly speaking, about the allegations rather than the actuality of any discrimination or colonialism which would be better served by an article entitled something else. At least, that was the reason behind the writing of the article by my understanding. That isn't even considering the compromises that reaching that title entailed. Islamofascism is about the neologism, Islamophobia unfortunately conflates a neologism with a real phenomenon along with allegations of the phenomenon, and New antisemitism is similar. --Coroebus 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why Pallywood is included in this discussion. The article is admittedly problematic - it's a neologism used almost entirely by blogger-activists and promoted in a self-published video essay by an academic working in a personal capacity as a political activist. The notability of the neologism, the video essay and the academic's activism is questionable to say the least - it emphatically isn't widely used or recognised beyond the blogosphere. (See Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions for details - comments from other editors would be very welcome.) However, it seems to me to be in a rather different category from the one that Kirbytime sets out above. -- ChrisO 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Although the article itself states that it is about the word "Pallywood", reading the discussion page it seems clear that many users including SlimVirgin and Leifern have decided that they want the article to be about alleged incidences of what might be called Pallywood, hence the dispute about referencing articles that don't even mention the term (e.g. here and here. This is extremely problematic as Misplaced Pages really shouldn't be adopting partisan neologisms as the titles of articles about things, unless the article is about said neologism. It is one of the main source of conflict on articles such as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid (where the same editors consicuously take the opposite view insisting that the sources must include references to Israeli apartheid) and Islamophobia and Islamofascism. --Coroebus 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to put all of the "Allegations . . ." articles up for Afd, as they all violate our rules against WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, codified at WP:SYNT.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Sign under the statement with which you most agree. Discuss in comments section.

The article titles, as they currently stand, should be changed in some way

  1. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Andeggs 08:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article titles, as they currently stand, do not need to be changed

  1. --Sefringle 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. -- Ken Arromdee 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Jayjg 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete all of the "allegations" articles as violative of WP:SYNT

  1. --  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment- That makes you part of the first category. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If anything, it makes him part of the second. Nice try, though. Jayjg 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Nice try"? Please tell me, what exactly am I "trying" to do? In any case, asking for deletion is a change.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Undecided

  1. NDCompuGeek 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Give me more time to think about it, although I am kind of tentatively edging towards the "something needs to be changed" side of the house....

Discuss on each article's talk page

  1. Black Falcon 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Although I know that disagreements there are the reason this issue came here, I think the issue of renaming such controversial articles should be handled on each article's talk page (and, if necessary, taken through dispute resolution). A blanket policy allowing or rejecting the use of the word "allegations" in titles is counterproductive and would not apply well to the dozens of articles which do or could use the word in their titles.
  2. 6SJ7 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Each situation must be handled on a case by case basis. That is not to say that situations that are obviously similar shouldn't be handled similarly (e.g. "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" and "Allegations of Apartheid"). However, disagreements over whether two things are similar (such as Israeli Apartheid and Islamofascism, which I believe should both have "Allegations of..." although others disagree) should not overwhelm the discussion of the articles themselves and become the main focus of attention. Also, "Allegations of..." is sometimes useful as part of a compromise, which is why "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" has the title it has. Many articles on WP have compromise titles (see History of South Africa in the apartheid era for another example of a title that nobody would have come up with in the absence of a dispute.)

Comments

There is nothing wrong with most of the current titles. The topics which there is serious uncertianty about have alleged in them. The ones where uncertianty is uncertian do not. Calling the Holocaust, for example, alleged, is giving undue weight to antisemites.--Sefringle 02:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is so frequently used in newspaper accounts regarding criminal activity, that it by now has acquired that connotation, and should only be used when specifically criminal accusations that have not yet been decided are the topic Many of the uses are more general, and hence inappropriate.DGG 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages called "alligations" should be about the alligations, pages without should be about the thing. aligations that I am a baboon should be about the claim I am a baboon, baboon should be a page about baboons themselves. It's not saying something is less true, it's just definieing the focus of the article, is it talking about a thing? or talking about talking about a thing?

I agree with you. But the problem is, Zionism and racism redirects to Allegations of zionism and racism Zionism and racism allegations, when they are "allegedly" two different subjects. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "Allegations of" should be only for articles about the allegations. So what to do about the articles focusing on events? Note that these are primarily not debates over fact (though they include factual disagreements) but debates over naming. So I propose the following division: When a term itself is controversial, "x" and "alleged x" are POV; though the latter is more so. So, when a term is loaded, find a less loaded term, and allow an unadorned redirect (Death Tax -> Estate Tax (United States)). This is true even when an unadorned term is less notable (Israeli apartheid -> Status of Palestinians in Istrael); but NOT when the term is widely accepted (Woman -X-> Female human, despite Womyn); or when the article is primarily about the term itself, not the content (eg Islamofascism); or when any less-loaded term is inevitably untenably awkward (State terrorism by United States -X-> Illegal violence against civilians perpetrated or sponsored by United States).
ps. The holocaust is a non-issue, it is verifiable fact by wikipedia standards, the fact that it is also a bit controversial is immaterial. Making it a redirect to some less-loaded term like Organized killing of civilians in Nazi territory wouldn't even make deniers happy, so what's the point? --Homunq 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of international wheelchair symbol

This topic has been discussed in a number of places, notably here, but I'd like to get broad community input on this issue.

The issue concerns the use of the International Symbol of Access (ISA) outside its article. The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. However, the symbol is copyrighted and so derivative works are not permitted.

Until recently, the ISA was used in places such as Template:Infobox Disney ride to illustrate handicapped accessibility. It has been replaced with a crudely drawn (but freely licensed) alternative,

So, here is the question: Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates? Please continue the discussion in this section, and then indicate your position in the poll below. —Remember the dot 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why it is in debate. Yes, it isn't a free image, but any concievable adaptation of the encyclopedia by any entity could use it the way we do, because it may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. Last I checked, it's pretty unambiguous that "This image may be freely used in situations X, Y, and Z" copyrights are allowed. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates?

Yes, permit use in articles and templates to illustrate handicapped accessibility

  1. —Remember the dot 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Badagnani. This is such a non-issue that it shouldn't even have to be up for discussion. Let's return to creating great content. Badagnani 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. gives permission to use the symbol "to promote and publicize accessibility of places, programs and other activities for people with various disabilities" and encourages visitors "to place these symbols next to the relevant information in all publications and media". The fact that the image is copyrighted is irrelevant: there is no such thing in Europe as a copyright-free image, except for those on which copyright has expired. The license granted isn't entirely free, but it's about as close as you get. JulesH 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Here we have a prime example of image-license wikilawyering being bad for the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Of course yes. Ridiculous copyright hysteria run amok. Jenolen 08:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes. I have worked with people with disabilities in the past, and have found that badly thought-out or stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offence, and therefore the most prudent option is to stick to official symbols. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. –Crashintome4196 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. I believe that it makes sense to slightly modify or clarify our fair use criteria to indicate that a limited number of "official symbols" like the International Symbol of Access are not replaceable and do not require specific rationales for each use. This appears to be in line with what Jimbo implied (see below). --NE2 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. It's the symbol for handicapped accessibility, and is freely usable within that context. (You can even profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.) The arguments against using it sound like the sort of thing I might say if I was trying to make a WP:POINT against overly strict interpretation of the image use criteria. If this requires a one sentence addition to the fair use policy saying that we can use universal standard symbols for their intended purpose without fear of repercussion, which should be obvious anyway, then so be it. --tjstrf talk 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. This is very much like Crown Copyright, which provides explicit permission provided the material is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading depiction. The ISA is universally recognised as the symbol for accessibility. Some random vector someone whipped up in Inkscape is not. This is very much a case where we need to interpret our rules in spirit, and not in letter. There is no violation of copyright law here, as any use to designate accessibility is not only fair, but expressly permitted. Chris cheese whine 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. It appears from the discussion below that this is a technical violation of Misplaced Pages policy. However, I believe that the policy is intended as a way to ensure that we don't run afoul of copyright law, not as an end in itself. Given our confidence that we are not in fact violating the copyright, and given that there is no reasonable alternative to use of this image, this is an ideal time to ignore skirt the policy and do the right thing. Matchups 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Seems like this is a good time to make one of our rare exceptions to the fair-use policy. --Carnildo 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. An exception should be made in this case. We need to be as disability friendly as we possibly can. This is easily within our abilities to do, so we should do it. The reasons against seem to be that it's against the rules, nothing more. That means the rules are wrong or incomplete. Using a poor alternative is doing a poor job of being disability friendly. - Peregrine Fisher 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Although voting is, of course, evil, I think it's important to point out that the Foundation resolution on the subject of nonfree content allows for exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". This is a prime example of the sort of use which should be allowed. Even if the image is technically "unfree", the intent of the copyright holder is clear. If we need to add a sentence to WP:FU to cover this sort of thing, so be it.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. See my comment below. Yes this image can be used, as long as it's usage is properly documented and discussed. We don't need to change WP:FU for just one exception, as long as the rationale of it's usage is properly noted, the image properly categorized, this discussion is referenced, and enough users sign off on it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    1. I would like to point out that the scope of the usage of the image should be clearly defined. We cannot use it everywhere, but to say we can't use it ANYWHERE is just stupid --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. This discussion is fully involved at this point. There's clearly the ability to change policy when needed and rational, and people are arguing that we can't change it because... it's not been changed? get over yourselves. -- nae'blis 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yes. The image is free (as a speech) to use for the purpose we want to use it. It is forbidden to use for the other purposes for the damn good reason. It is morally wrong and probably illegal to use something else for the purpose we intend to use it. What elase can I say? Alex Bakharev 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Yes. I think some people (below) are being way too anal in insisting on policy for policy's sake. Using this image for this purpose is perfectly legal and moral, and doesn't violate either the letter or the spirit of its license or result in anybody being under any risk of being sued. It's technically "unfree" because there are conditions attached to the image, but they are conditions that no reasonable reuse of Misplaced Pages content would violate. *Dan T.* 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. What a fine showcase of ridiculous copyright paranoia.  Grue  10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Create the appropraite exception document and/or modify the policy to celarly permit this any any simialr logos to be used even though copyrighted, provifed that the license or other legal basis for sue is spelled on on the relevant image page (or its talk page), and provided that any such license is complied with, and provided that the rights granted are broad enough that any plausible non-valdalism use on Misplaced Pages will be legal. DES 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Since any potential redistributor can use this symbol to illustrate handicapped accessibility, it's really pointless to say that we can't because it has a non-free license. -Amarkov moo! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Yes, allow its use. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for libre images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. Johntex\ 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, display the symbol only to illustrate the symbol, do not use it to illustrate handicapped accessibility

  1. Since it appears we are not allowed to use other licences which allow free use of images but do not allow modification, at least on articles of living people (and I'm thinking of Template:NZCrownCopyright here), I can't see why we should use this. I don't agree with the policy, but we should enforce it equally.-gadfium 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, do not have the poll

First, we do not vote over policy proposals. Second, this is an issue of copyright law, which is obviously not trumped by consensus. Third, we have rather stringent "fair use and free images" rules for reasons imposed by the board, which means we're not going to use a copyrighted image on templates. I suggest you ask Jimbo to make an exception but he likely won't. By the way there is too "something in Europe as a copyright-free image", for instance those in the public domain or those licensed under the GFDL or somesuch. >Radiant< 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Radiant here. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fully agree with Radiant. —xyzzyn 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: GFDL content is copyrighted, GFDL is a license for distributing copyrighted information. --Kim Bruning 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of copyright law, it is an issue of Misplaced Pages policy. We may legally use the image to indicate handicapped-accessible railway stations, Disney rides, etc. The copyright holder explicitly allows the symbol to be used in this way. The question is do we want to do that.
This poll is to give us a general idea of what members of the community think. No, we don't vote on policy, but a vote can help us get a general idea of where the community stands. —Remember the dot 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for free reign to use this as though it were licensed under a free as in freedom license — I am not asking for permission to use this on userboxes or in talk pages. I'm asking whether the community feels that limited use to illustrate handicapped accessibility is (or should be) acceptable. —Remember the dot 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo has been asked: User talk:Jimbo Wales#International Symbol of Access and licensing. His comments seem to imply that if our fair use policy is changed, we can use it under fair use; but right now, our fair use policy prevents us from using it because it's replaceable and needs a rationale for every use. --NE2 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion may result in a slight change to the fair use policy, whether it be the letter of the policy or the interpretation. Again, I don't want us to go wild over the use of the wheelchair symbol, but limited use where appropriate would be nice. —Remember the dot 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In the event of the "fair use" policy being changed, it would be good to see that change applied to similar cases - as Gadfium pointed out, Crown Copyright (UK, NZ and other Commonwealth nations), is an analagous situation of reproduction allowed with no modification , and 500 plus images are threatened by recent spate of deletions of crown copyrighted material by free use ideological purists.
The present Fair Use policy is based on US copyright law with some additional restrictions. Unfortunately this
1. tends to exclude images from other jurisdictions so increasing the present US content imbalance and
2. provides a false sense of security that users of Misplaced Pages images are not breaking copyright or other laws, (some of the crown copyright images have been allowed because they fit within "fair use", when their use could break other nations laws).
There appears to be no reason to consider US law superior to that of most other OECD nations, nor for a policy to be based on anyones law at all.
The reason/retrospective excuse for a policy based only upon US intellectual property law is that wikipedia servers are based in the US, and "fair use" provides protection for the Misplaced Pages Foudnation against breaches of other nations copyright laws. This reasoning has two flaws - firstly, it does not protect users, as against the foundation, secondly, it does not protect either against laws other than copyright (e.g. defamation).
Ultimately I think we need international lawyers involved in a rethink of the whole policy from the ground up. In the mean time, for the little it is worth, my opinion is a common sense solution might be a relaxation the ideological purity of complete "Free use" position. Reuse without modification is hardly the most onerous requirement, and simply tagging this on the image should warn users of the danger and protect Misplaced Pages from liability.
If policy in this area is changed a change I would like to see is the abandonment of the Orwellianly loaded terms "Fair Use" and "Free Use", - it appears to me that discussion of change has been chilled because the policy contains the warm and fuzzy but not particularly accurate words "Fair" and "Free". I suspect if a newbie had renamed these policies they would promptly have been deemed POV and reverted :-) Seriously, attempting to discuss the policies seems to provoke at least some readers into irrational knee jerk assumption any one questioning Fair and Free use must be against fairness and freedom. Winstonwolfe 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This poll is funny, and it won't change anything. We can't use the symbol, and people would rather argue to use it than make a better looking free version. Holy crap, people, it's not that freaking hard. I mean, just freaking look at it! We can't use the international one, it's painfully clear, deal with it. This isn't even close to being one of those grey areas we usually discuss here, not by a long shot. This is one of the most obvious situations of when to not use fair use that I've ever seen. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is not "can we?" It's "should we?" We may legally use the image. This poll, so far, has shown great support in favor of using the image, no matter whether the policy currently allows this or not. —Remember the dot 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Any free alternative is inherently going to not be an internationally recognized symbol. Thus, any free replacement will be inferior to the International Symbol of Access. —Remember the dot 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Legal issues don't matter, our policy, our non optional policy, says no. Being "inferior" is an absurd thing to say. How is it inferior? It might not look as pretty, but that's not significant. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with the policy, it's our policy, and it's been set by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It's out of your hands, and the poll completely lacks the authority to do anything about the matter. Sorry, but that's the way things are. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about adjusting our policy. Again, the only argument against is that our rules say so. If there's no other reasoning, we should change our rules. The poll will be a good thing to take to the foundation, if they're the ones who have to decide. Finally, the free image is inferior because it isn't a recognized symbol. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anyone won't understand what the free image is implying, and because of that we don't need an internationally recognized symbol. We're not actually helping handicapped people by using this image, and we shouldn't be. Misplaced Pages is not a directory, or a guide for the handicapped. People don't need to use Misplaced Pages to see if handicapped parking is available at some train station. Even if they do use it, which we can't really stop people from doing, it's plain as day what the free image means. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But hey, whatever, if you guys want to give the Foundation your poll results, ok. But until they change our policy (which is not limited to just Misplaced Pages, but to all Wikimedia projects), we can't use the image. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A passionate defense of nonsense, Ned; appropriate for April 1st... Side note: Is this not the classic case of WP:IAR? Aren't we supposed to use independent thought to judge and balance these issues? Shouldn't, in this one case, WP:IAR trump WP:FU? Jenolen 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, IAR is not a loop hole that anyone can just use when they don't get what they want. Free content is the very reason Misplaced Pages (and it's predecessor, Nupedia) was started. Asking to be exempt for such minor situation in face of that is just absurd. Continue to discuss if you want, but those who violate our policies will be dealt with accordingly. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Dealt with accordingly??? Accordingly to what? And by who? You? Oh, dear god, PLEASE sign me up for an accordingly dealing. (Does it involve Jimbo reading me the anti-creator screed from "Freedom Defined" over and over again until my ears bleed? (Its hysterical (in every sense) reference to "God-like creators" seems to indicate WP:NPOV is certainly not in effect there...)
I love that WP:IAR is a policy... which, apparently, is only a joke, and is NEVER supposed to be actually used. "Heh, heh, you don't really believe all that stuff about ignoring stupid rules to help make Misplaced Pages better, do ya?" Uh, yeah, I do. That's why WP:IAR is a policy -- and asking you to have an original thought about this matter has apparently scared you so much, you can only fall back on another policy, which you must believe is somehow "immune" from the reach of WP:IAR. I'm not talking about using WP:IAR to turn Misplaced Pages in to the world's number one fan site; I'm talking about a one-time use of a sensible "check" on the insane dedication to a contradictory and messy set of unencyclopedic fair use standards. A dedication which is, in this case, emperically HURTING Misplaced Pages, by making it non-standard, non-International, and disabled unfriendly. But how can you process any of that? I mean, you have a very simple "program" - "Copyright = bad. No use on Misplaced Pages." Which is fine, and all, but both common sense and the law would permit the ISA's use on Misplaced Pages. I urge you to stand with common sense and the law, and perhaps, just maybe, realize that the answers to all of life's problems can't be found in WP:FU. Jenolen 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It means you'll get banned for breaking the policy. If you use the copyrighted image, get reverted, and keep trying to use it, you will be blocked. You obviously don't understand a fundamental point here on Misplaced Pages, that our fair use restrictions are actually more restrictive than the law requires, not because of legal issues, but because our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL. There's no major benefit to using the copyrighted image. Now you're resorting to inappropriate personal attacks on me because I'm simply telling you the facts of the situation. It's laughable to think that we would bend our fair use policy over something so trivial. You've completely missed the point. You're all hung up on something that isn't even an issue. No significant improvement will come from using the "official image" at all. Your argument is weak and lacks logic. Misplaced Pages will not be better for using another fair use image, it will be worse for using another fair use image. We are about promoting free content and using free content whenever possible, and only using copyrighted content when we have no other options. You are disagreeing with a fundamental value of Misplaced Pages. -- Ned Scott 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And really, who cares if it's blue or not, or exactly the same image. It doesn't matter, EVERYONE will know exactly what it means. Are you really going to fight this tooth and nail, over something so absurdly unimportant and insignificant? You want us to bend the rules for this?? Are you batshit insane? -- Ned Scott 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ned, it's not batshit insane to say that it's appropriate to use a nonfree image that has been released by the copyright holder for exactly this sort of use — especially in light of the Foundation resolution on unfree content, which allows exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". It is reasonable to say that a crudely drawn substitute is not an acceptable alternative, because the ISA is internationally recognized, and the crudely drawn susbtitute is not. The Foundation's resolution says that nonfree content "must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A reasonable argument can be made that the crude substitute does not serve the same educational purpose as the ISA. So please, refrain from calling people making reasonable arguments "batshit insane". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But this is specifically about incidental use of the symbol without any educational purpose. The issue is not to remove the symbol from International Symbol of Access, but not to use it in an infobox of e. g. metro stations. There, the non-free symbol serves no educational purpose, which can be done just as well by a free symbol; therefore, it must be replaced. The symbol is also not an ‘identifying protected work’ in that context. —xyzzyn 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Josiah, they're talking about using the image in templates and stuff, like for train stations. I have no problem with using the image in articles that discuss the image. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. I maintain that the use of the ISA in templates to identify handicap-accessible locations and facilities is an educational use, because it establishes in a clear, unambiguous, internationally recognized manner that the facility in question is handicap-accessible. The substitute image does not perform that function; nor would a text message, which would not be accessible to non-English speakers. Yes, we are the English Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean that we should refuse to use internationally recognized symbols which we're legally entitled to use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A text message in English would perform this function perfectly, since we are the English Misplaced Pages. That there are other means to express the same thing shouldn’t bother us especially if those means are in contempt of very basic policy. —xyzzyn 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm dumbfounded at your response, Josiah. Our content is supposed to be free of copyright red tape, so that you can use it for anything, educational, commercial, whatever. We don't allow educational-use only images (unless under WP:FU) or even images that people specifically for Misplaced Pages-only use (such images can even be speedy deleted). Misplaced Pages is specifically stricter than the law requires, because we're about free content. WP:FU isn't how it is because of the law, it's that way to prevent needless copyrighted images in a free-use project. This is so fundamental that it hurts my head. -- Ned Scott 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that this is not needless — it is offensive to substitute something that looks a bit like an internationally recognized symbol but isn't it, when there is no good reason not to use the internationally recognized symbol. It's like representing a country with an image that looks a bit like its flag, but isn't. If Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg were copyrighted and Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png were free, would it be acceptable to use the latter in UN-related articles? After all, it looks a bit like the UN flag. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I've covered this already, but unless you know something I don't, using an alternative image in place of the ISA will not be offensive (why the hell would you think it would be?) to people who are disabled. Disabled people don't have an attachment to that image, it's just an informational icon. It's not a flag, it's not a symbol of hope, it's just a damn icon to tell you if there's a ramp somewhere or if there's closer parking spaces. Other people and places commonly use alternative symbols to note disabled access all the time, and do so without incident. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that it's legal to use the ISA. It is not clear to me that it is legal to use a similar "free" image, as that might be considered a derivative work which is not allowed by the copyright holder's release. Matchups 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A derivative work is just that. A work which is similar to another work but was created independently isn’t derivative. —xyzzyn 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this is a gray area where it's hard to tell if we have a derivative work or not. - Peregrine Fisher 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a legal expert, but the concept of a stick figure in a wheel chair is one of those things.. OfficeMax used to have a mascot that was a little stick figure, noted by a unique marking on his head. Other stick figures are very similar, but obviously OfficeMax can't make the claim that those stick figures infringe on their copyright. I'd think that same logic would apply here. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does fair use even apply? If the image isn't used on a page that discusses the image, then it seems like it doesn't. We wouldn't be using the image under fair use, we'd be using it accordin to what its copyright grants. It isn't going to be released since it's copyright allows anyone to use it, as long as they're designating something that's handicapped accesible. If it were made free, it could be misused to lable something that isn't handicapped accessible, so it isn't going to be released. I wouldn't even want it released. The only change would be that people could misuse it. We should just explain its status on the image page, and then use it for anything that is handicapped accessible. There doesn't seem to be a tag for this sort of thing, so not sure what to do there. - Peregrine Fisher 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Content on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be used for anything, educational or commercial. This is why we can't use images that allow for education use only without a fair use rational. Fair use is the only way we could use this image. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ned, we're suggesting that this image might be in a third category: unfree, but not fair use. The Foundation's resolution allows us to create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) for unfree content. These exemptions must be limited according to item #3 of the resolution:

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

The ISA is clearly an example of "identifying protected works such as logos", and we would be within our Foundation-delimited rights to include it in our EDP. At the moment, en.wikipedia's EDP is WP:FU, and obviously the vast majority of nonfree content on Misplaced Pages would be determined by our "fair use" policy — but "fair use" is immaterial to the use of this image, whose copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it. I, and others, are proposing that en.wikipedia's EDP explicitly allow the use of the ISA and other copyrighted international symbols whose use is uncontroversial in any other context.
Ned, you say that you're flabbergasted by my response. I'm somewhat puzzled that you apparently don't see how using a different image in place of the ISA is problematic. If it's sufficiently unlike the ISA not to be a copyright violation, it's potentially confusing and/or offensive to disabled people, who know, use and rely on the ISA. If it's close enough not to be confusing and/or offensive, it's a derivative image. Either way, we're better off using the image itself, and adjusting our EDP accordingly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've explained in private to Josiah just how close I do know about disabled people. There's no risk of confusion, and the offensive concern is not an issue. I'm really not sure why one would come to the conclusion that using a different image would be offensive. I've even seen different images be used to indicate disabled parking, ramps, etc, and they're purely informational, nothing emotional or significant about them. These are not flags, and disabled people do not have an attachment to the ISA image. I don't know why anyone would come to such a conclusion, and I know you don't mean anything bad by that, but if I were disabled I'd be a little offended at your view. Why would you think that this image would be.. "holy" (or whatever) simply because it's used on maps and parking spaces? You've got it all wrong, offensiveness isn't a factor in this at all. No one's feelings will be hurt, no one will be offended. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Q & A

Is this image 'free' (in the libre sense)? Nope. There are restrictions on its use.

Is this a bad thing, or a reason not to use it on Misplaced Pages? Nope. In fact, it's what makes it worthwhile as a symbol—its meaning is clear because of its licensing terms.

Is there any reason why we would want or need to use the symbol in a way that is prohibited by its license? Nope.

Is this a 'fair use' issue? Nope. We would only be using the image in a way explicitly permitted by its license. 'Fair use' is a defence to a charge of copyright infringement; it would only be an issue if we were violating the license terms.

Wait—it's selfish to only think about our own use. What about people who redistribute Misplaced Pages materials for a profit? They're covered. The image can be redistributed in commercial materials as long as the terms of its license are followed.

Ah, but they can't freely modify the image, create derivative works, or use it without restriction. What about those people? Sucks to be them. If they want to abuse the International Symbol of Access to fuck with the mobility challenged, screw 'em. Misplaced Pages tolerates hundreds (thousands? more?) of Crown Copyright images which are free for use in educational materials, but require permission for commercial redistribution. Misplaced Pages tolerates thousands of non-free, copyrighted images under very tenuous 'fair use' claims. We expect that when people make copies or derivatives of articles incorporating these images, those people will take appropriate care to check the licensing of all the images on the page. Here, with the ISA, we have an image being used appropriately and which will likely propagate without harm into reasonable derivative works and commercial copies. Why are we choosing to get stuck on this particular point? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what tag should go on the image page? - Peregrine Fisher 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Images with ‘tenuous’ fair use claims should be tagged accordingly or sent to WP:IFD. Other crap exists, but that’s not a reason to add to it. What about people who find themselves hindered by the third pillar? Well, sucks to be them. —xyzzyn 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how this is fair use. - Peregrine Fisher 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images on Misplaced Pages are either free on unfree. There is no inbetween. This is en policy and was recently clarified in the foundation's licensing resolution, which states that images must be free (as in libre, which the ISA is not), or covered by an EDP, which is for the limited discussion of copyrighted works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed g2s (talk • contribs) 21:57, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Foundation resolution about what EDPs can and can't cover. As I noted above, the Foundation allows us to use nonfree content for "identifying protected works such as logos". There is no reason not to adjust our EDP to allow use of this image, in accordance with the limits the Foundation has set. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That EDP page is interesting. Has anything besides Free and FU been discussed before? - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Our policy already allows for "identifying protected works". Its use on the ISA article is not being debated. Using it as a replacement for the text "disabled access available" is not "identifying protected work". ed g2s • talk 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We wouldn't be using it under fair use protection. We'd be using it under the rights granted to us by its copyright. - Peregrine Fisher 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Let's ban the use of the Misplaced Pages logo and the Wikimedia logo. After all, they're subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and not licensed under the GFDL, so they must be worthless and a detriment to our cause of creating free content. —Remember the dot 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Misplaced Pages logos have been removed and taken down from many pages, banners, and such for those very reasons. Image:Example.jpg used to be the Misplaced Pages logo, but because it wasn't a free image we took it off. Most people don't realize that Misplaced Pages's logo is not free use, which is pretty much the only reason we haven't taken it down from non-official uses, or uses unrelated to guidelines, policy, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So what's the best way to take this to the foundation? It looks like if it was up to us, we would have a consensus to use it to identify handicapped access. At the least, we have a consensus to ask. Jimbo's page doesn't seem like the best place. The last time we tried that, it devolved into snarky comments, and he seemed to tune out. We should probably include the International Symbol for Deafness, and other ICTA symbols in our request. - Peregrine Fisher 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
foundation-l --Kim Bruning 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you choose to e-mail them, please emphasize that the ICTA is not going to release this under a free license because they surely only want it used to identify handicapped accessibility. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol. That would undermine the value of the symbol as an international identifier of handicapped accessibility. —Remember the dot 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's use the mailing list. Since this is where we're talking about it, let's discuss what points need to be made. I'll try and list the pros and cons so far. Copying some of the words used in the discussion so far.

Pro:

Using it to designate handicapped accessible objects does not violate its copyright.
The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. It's copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it.
Its meaning is clear precisely because of its licensing terms.
Stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offense.
It is non-replaceable, except by Image:Wheelchair.svg or words such as "wheelchair accessible." These are not internationally recognized symbols.
You can profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.
It is universally recognised by design and common usage over many years.
It's use would be disability friendly.
The wikimediafoundation does sometimes allow exceptions with an EDP, which currently is WP:FU. FU doesn't speak to this issue.
It would not be used in userspace.
It is easily recognised by non-english speakers.
Using Image:Wheelchair.svg may not be legal, as it may be a derivative work of the ISA.
It is unlikely to be made free because it's copyright's only restriction prohibits its use to designate objects that are not handicapped accessible. Making it free would remove this restriction. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol.

Con:

It's not free, and it wouldn't be used under fair use, unlike all images on wikipedia.
The symbol is copyrighted and so derivative works are not permitted.
We have a substitute image Image:Wheelchair.svg, or can use text such as "wheelchair accessible."
It's use would be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.
Since we don't allow other free uses of images which which allow modification, we shouldn't do it in this case.
While it wouldn't be used in user space, it could be used in a template, and wouldn't have a (free use?) rational for each page.
They're may be international issues that are not raised in US law.
Misplaced Pages is not a guide for the handicapped.
It's use is not important.
It serves not educational purpose.
Our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL, which this image would not be.
Images on Misplaced Pages are either free on unfree. There is no inbetween.

Did I miss anything important? - Peregrine Fisher 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled by this idea that not using the ISA image would be offensive. I'm not being rude here, I honestly am baffled. Have any of you known or lived with a disabled person? Also, while the ISA owns the blue wheel chair image with a stick figure, they can't make claim to every stick figure wheel chair image. Do you think that anyone was offended/confused, or even gave 2 seconds of thought, to images like these: , , , , , ? No disabled person is going to be angry or confused when seeing these other images in real life, on streets, maps, restrooms, rides, or ramps, why would they be? You guys need a touch of reality here, and you're making an issue out of nothing. Your over anticipating and trying to preemptively be PC for someone that most people, disabled or not, never even thought was an issue. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I've never lived with a disabled person. I'm not going to say I'm offended, but the fact that our policies prevent us from using these easily understood symbols is troubling to me. My guess is that when someone sees our version of the wheelchair, they'll think that it probably means disabled access, but they won't be sure. People who don't know they can click on the image and gain additional information will remain slightly unsure.
Those image links you provide seem to be standard uses of the ISA. If using a red version like your first example is legal, but not restricted by the ISA copyright, I would be cool with that. We can just use red versions of all the disabled access symbols. I think they're all just legal uses of the ISA, though.
Will disabled people be pissed if we don't use the standard symbols? Some yes, some no. As we know, WP is mostly edited by able bodied white mails aged 15-45, or something close to that. We're not going to be good judges of what's best for the disabled. Because of this, I think that if we go out of our way to help the disabled more than seems necessary to us, then we'll be getting closer to what's right. We discuss FU vs. Free Use all day, and that makes it seem very important. If you were disabled all day, that would seem important. - Peregrine Fisher 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd go farther than that and say most disabled wouldn't even give which image used significant thought. We have no evidence to show otherwise, and only wild and unproven speculation. I'm not willing to "prove" my own experiences with such situations, for privacy reasons, but this is the first I've ever heard someone even suggest that a person might be offended because the disabled icon isn't exactly the same. It's really nice that you guys want to go out of your way to help people, but doing this.. thinking that it is helping disabled people, that's not what's happening. You're not hurting them.. but it's just kind of.. null. That's like me blowing at a house that's on fire, with my mouth, thinking I'm helping. Good intent, but at the end of the day it honestly makes no difference. Really, I'm not making this up. You guys have nothing but unfounded speculation to come to these conclusions. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give to you that this discussion is opinion, same as all talk page discussions. I don't know what you mean about proving your own experiences, but even if you yourself are disabled, that doesn't mean you speak for a whole segment of society. I just think we should err on the side of helping disabled people. This is something that some of us think will help disabled people, which isn't silly. Maybe this doesn't make that big of a difference in the lives of disabled people. I don't think that means we shouldn't try. Some things help the disabled a little, and some thing a lot. I say do both, if they don't hurt us. We should do everything we can, and this is easily within the power of the foundation, so we should do it. - Peregrine Fisher 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
While it's true that even if I was disabled (I'm not) that I wouldn't be able to speak for all disabled people (calling them a segment of society is a very inaccurate way to profile disabled people, who are individuals and have their own views), having some experience with disabled people would seem to trump no experience whatsoever. I don't mean to try to speak with authority, I just mean to point out that there's no evidence to support that there would be any confusion or cause of any offense. Your heart is in the right place, but using the ISA image on things like templates for Disneyland is painfully insignificant to a disabled person's life. We don't bend the rules just because you mean well, because in the end you're still wrong. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would call all of those examples derivative works of the ISA, except this one and possibly this one. The legality of derivative works is questionable, but it doesn't look like the ICTA is concerned about them because they are only being used in the context of illustrating handicapped accessibility. Thus, the restrictions the ICTA imposes on creation of derivative works of the ISA appear to be fairly relaxed. This is another thing to mention in the case for permitting use on Misplaced Pages.
I doubt that any free replacement would be used outside Misplaced Pages, even if the two symbols are of comparable artistic quality. It may seem counterintuitive to readers to use a symbol completely different from the one actually used in the real world. Thus, there is value in using the internationally recognized symbol in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the world.
The symbol is copyrighted for a very good reason. Do you deny this? If you do not deny that it's copyrighted for a good reason, then why should we refuse to use it in our project? —Remember the dot 06:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My point in showing the other images was to show that people often use images that are similar but not the exact same as the standard ISA image, and do so without any incident whatsoever. We do not need a white on blue stick figure that is exactly like the ISA one. It won't seem counterintuitive to readers, there won't be confusion, because it's so minor no one will give it any thought. You have no evidence at all to support your speculations, and are blindly ignoring common sense. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, lengthy debate here. The point is that the Foundation tells us to use free images whenever possible. We can use a free image here rather than a copyrighted one. That's the wiki philosophy. >Radiant< 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, this discussion is just stupid and pointless beyond belief !!! And Jimbo saying that we can't use the image without changing the FU policy is even more STUPID (Sorry Jimbo, i really do feel so). We don't have a tag for it  ? MAKE a tag !! We don't have policy that says we can use it? MAKE it a policy that we can use this specific image!!! To say that we need to explicitly have an exception to the policy is just stupid for a single image. We could have 20 respectable editors sign of on it on the Image page and say: "It's ok to use this copyrighted image, in relation to disability topic within wikipedia etc etc etc." Categorize it as copyrighted image, Categorize it as "free to use, not to edit" and get it done with. This is Misplaced Pages bureaucracy that is pointless and disrupting even. Get over yourselves and over Jimbe (Jimbo is not WikiGod) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you haven't yet signed the poll, I would like it if you would do so so that we can get an idea of the number of people agreeing and disagreeing. Another way to phrase the question would be "do the benefits of using this image outweigh the copyright restrictions?" Many of us say yes, and many say no. By all means, continue to discuss the issue. However, without signing the poll, it's hard to tell whether 90% or 50% of users support using this image. This is a question hard to decide by consensus, so it would really be helpful if we could at least identify strong support for one side or the other, see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes#Conduct a survey. —Remember the dot 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't force people to use a survey. It's pretty obvious that we have tons of editors that would disagree with the usage you are trying to promote. My guess is a lot of people don't even think this is worth the trouble to talk about. It's that simple. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, by my estimate, approximately 75% of the Wikipedians who have took place in this discussion have supported using the ISA to indicate handicapped accessibility. If you are claiming that the silent majority supports your position, then let me reiterate to you that the silent majority is silent, i.e. they haven't told us what they think.
I'm still waiting to hear your position on using the unfree Wikimedia logos in places such as Template:Interwikitmp-grp, Template:Commons, Template:InterWiki, Template:Meta, Template:Wikibooks, and Template:Wikiversity, not to mention every single page on Misplaced Pages. —Remember the dot 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to ask the Foundation, but my guess would be that the logo can be used for operational tasks of Misplaced Pages, but not as actual article content without a rationale. But for all we know, we should take them out of those templates too. The logo was Image:example.jpg for years before it was finally taken out. Most people don't even know the logos are not under the GFDL.
As for the sidebar itself, that is not considered to be part of the article document, just a part of the page displaying the content. About.com can display their copyrighted logo along side their mirrored copy of Misplaced Pages content, because the article is not "the entire window". The entire window is just how the end product is produced, nothing more than a UI, and the article is within the UI.
As for the silent majority, you can't just ignore past discussions about similar issues simply because it's not in -this- discussion. We do not ignore the thoughts and concerns of our fellow Wikipedias just because they can't watch every possible discussion, especially when we know they have strong positions on such matters. Do you honestly think we can't round up an assload of Wikipedians to push that little survey the other way around by simply making this discussion better known? A poll, even if recent, does not just debunk previous discussion or well known arguments of active Wikipedians. Like I said before, no one has probably bothered to get more attention to this discussion, or has seen the discussion but passed it up, because many of us feel this is such a minor and obvious issue. Keep pushing the issue if you really want to be proven wrong so badly, but I'd rather you not, for the sake of using all of our time more wisely. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are these past discussions? Who participated in them? How similar are they to this instance?
You assume that these other Wikipedians support your position and that is why they are not commenting. However, Wikipedians such as Amarkov and Badagnani indicated the exact opposite, saying that it is very clear that we should be able to use this image. Even if the other Wikipedians are all rolling their eyes at this discussion and staying aloof from it, their disinclination to participate does not indicate support for one side or the other.
You may be surprised to know that I sent out notices to several editors who participated in previous discussions about this exact same issue, and that there is currently an RFC open on this topic. By all means, please inform other editors who you think would like to participate. We could even open a request for mediation, although unless I misunderstand the policy, all 24 (by my count) Wikipedians who have commented would have to sign off on it. —Remember the dot 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Guessing what wikipedians who aren't commenting think isn't binding, obviously. But, my experience with these wikipedia name space talk pages is that this is where the strict interpretation crowd hangs out. It would be cool if we could get a watchlist notice like WP:ATT has right now. I think the more diverse the group of people brought in, the higher the proportion of support for these images would be. The proportion of support is actually enormously high considering who traffics these page. - Peregrine Fisher 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A watchlist notice is an interesting idea, but we should wait until the WP:ATT controversy blows over before putting up another notice. That way, we'd be less likely to anger Wikipedians over overuse of that mechanism. And by that time, we may already have this discussion resolved. —Remember the dot 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't want to try and do the watchlist thing now. Maybe after this discussion plays out, and if we have a consensus, we should implement the changes in policy that we've been discussing. It seems like Jimbo and rest of WP didn't even notice the whole WP:ATT merge until after it was done. After that, we can discuss the watchlist notification if people have a problem. - Peregrine Fisher 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt they'd make a watchlist announcement for something like this. If you guys really want to get down to business then I suggest we make this a little more organized and less poll-ish, maybe using a separate, structured discussion, RFC page (summaries on one side, structured discussion on the talk side). We might also get some good insight by asking for comments from Wikipedians listed in Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition's subcats. Feel free to even keep counts and comments that are already existing, but right now the discussion is all over the place and needs to be a little better formatted. I still think it's a waste of time, but it might be a good lesson for you guys. Remember, you can have good intentions but completely miss the point, especially when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about in the first place.. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An RfC might be a good idea. What's the procedure for keeping counts and comments from what's happened before? - Peregrine Fisher 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
DJ, the issue is when the image isn't being used in articles about disability, instead being used in articles like ones for Disneyland rides (in the infobox, with only the icon being shown). -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Disneyland rides are just one possible use, and probably a minor one. If we can get the copyright stuff figured out, we could include any of the 13 disability access symbols on appropriate pages. Things like museums, libraries, television programs, and books. - Peregrine Fisher 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For a moment, lets say all of these images are free use images and we have no such problem. The images are being used as if we were some kind of travel guide, rather than helping article content. Just because the guide seems like it's for a good cause doesn't make it any less of a guide. Now, I'm sure we don't need to take out stuff simply for that reason, as long as it doesn't get out of hand then who cares if Misplaced Pages helps you find a handicapped ramp, but that's a secondary concern that is outside of the article's real content. Don't forget that we are an encyclopedia, not a place to dump every possible tid bit of info. Information for disabled people is abundant and easily accessed for the kind of uses you guys are talking about, and there's no demand for us to fill this extra role. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like encyclopedic information to me, when used within an already encyclopedic article. A list of disability accessible whatevers would seem to be more of a guide. Also, because other sites may have similar info doesn't mean we shouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
List of New York City Subway stations is an example of its use; essentially it makes the table smaller than saying "handicapped accessible". --NE2 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I could see how having this information for the NYC subway might be helpful to researchers of disability accessibility and as such I think it belongs in wikipedia --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I can see that point, but that doesn't require the use of the ISA image. There's no reason, other than convenience and appearances, that we can't use text, which would tell everyone what is being noted, not just those who know what the image means (most people know it's something for disabled people, but often they think it's a wheelchair only sign, etc). The ISA image isn't the most informative option simply because it's a graphical symbol. Blind people using text readers won't be helped by the image, but I guess it's ok to ignore those disabled people. -- Ned Scott 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's such an international symbol that it IS better then text. And I think it's a very bad reason to in this specific case not allow usage of such a logo just because of our Fair Use policy. Also for blind people there is the "alt" attribute of the image and the mousehover text. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Im admittedly jumping in late to the party here, but the goal of wikipedia is a freely reproducible, usable encyclopedia. Sure, all the uses we have for the symbol are legit, but by the GFDL we have to give all downstream users of the 'pedia the right to modify it, and this breaks that. Fair use is a neccesary evil in cases where free alternatives are available. This has a free alternative. Using this is just blatent disrespect to the liscense of our work where there need be none. And the notion that disabled people would be offended would be shocking if it werent so patently absurd. Its hyperbole from an undefensible posistion. Look in the top right corner of the page, you see our logo and the text Misplaced Pages: The 💕. That doesn't mean no cost, that means freedom. Get off your mock-indignation that we actually intend to support free culture and use the freely liscensed wheelchair image. -M 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This image may or may not indicate disability services.
It's the classic free vs. encyclopedia argument. I guess you feel the free part is more important in this case. Other people here feel the free alternative (assuming it isn't just a derivative work) doesn't do the job well enough. The 13 disability access symbols are free, as long as they're used to identify disability services. You can even make derivative works such as this one, as long as it is used to identify disability services. The reason why the real images should be used is because a person can be sure that it isn't identifying something without the correct services, precisely because of its copyright restrictions. - Peregrine Fisher 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thats frankly not my call to make, it's Jimbo's and he's been quite clear on that. I dont know if you remember way back, but there were fair use images everywhere till the Foundation approved rampage got most of them. It's why 'Misplaced Pages is Free content' is one of the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars deemed the core essence of wikipedia. And while you're here, its Jimbos world, you just play in it. Got a problem with it? Because of that wonderful GFDL, you are perfectly welcome to fork the project and start your own. -M 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We're just discussing it and hoping to get the foundation to think about it, and possibly grant us an exception for these symbols. - Peregrine Fisher 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought the board's resolution allows each project to set its own Exemption Doctrine Policy, without nailing down firm rules about what will and will not be permitted by these policies. —Remember the dot 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to jump in again. Isn't our own wikipedia logo copyrighted ??? I mean how hypocrytical would that be. You say to use a (forbidden) derivative work of an internationally recognized logo, a logo which is internationally freely usable to identify accessibility issues, whilst not even having your own logo using the same "standard".... Sorry, but this is just laughable. You cannot say that the wikipedia logo not being GFDL is "rightful" and then the ISA logo, which i'm 100% sure is more free then the wikipedia logo is not usable. And I checked, the wikipedialogo is in use ALL OVER the place where it might not be 100% compatible with the current license for downstream usage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Above, someone wrote, in defense of not using the ISA, This has a free alternative... Not really. Just because someone makes their own non-standard, non-Internationally accepted version of the handicapped access symbol doesn't make it an "alternative." It is, however, non-standard, and non-Internationally accepted... not unlike my own Stop Sign design I'm hoping will become the new standard. Jenolen 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the wheelchair stick figure we created is a derivative work, although I don't know a ton about copyright law. Imagine if you put that image on a sign, and put the sign in front of a non disability accessible building. That doesn't sound legal to me. You probably can't know for sure without going to court, but people have been sued over stick figures like in the Xiao Xiao case. Or to think of it another way, what if Nike's symbol on their shoes was the ISA. I think they would sue you into the ground if you came out with a shoe that had our wheelchair symbol on it. - Peregrine Fisher 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license? —Remember the dot 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify something: we do not use non-free licenses ... EVER. This is Foundation-level policy. They are simply forbidden, completely. No matter how reasonable you think they are. Any argument that goes along the lines of, "but the license say we can use it for ..." should be completely ignored. It is an unfree license (per the Foundation's definition) and as such of no interest to us whatsoever.

All that is left to consider is whether it is covered by our EDP. For "identifying the protected work" on the ISA page it is. As a replacement for the free and adequate text (WP:FUC#1), "disabled access available" or a footnote, it isn't. ed g2s • talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

‘In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not the ’s purpose’; ‘Especially, must not specify any usage restrictions’; ‘All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License,’ ‘as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition’. And that’s why we don’t use ‘usable free of charge for limited purposes’ material. —xyzzyn 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my question: What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license?
Also, if that's really what you think, then you should go remove the copyrighted logos from Template:Interwikitmp-grp, Template:Commons, Template:InterWiki, Template:Meta, Template:Wikibooks, and Template:Wikiversity, as they are "of no interest to us whatsoever". —Remember the dot 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Trying to predict every possible outcome of creativity and artistic process is pointless; trying to sort such outcomes into legitimate and illegitimate ones is entirely futile. I don’t think about what downstream users are going to do with free material; I let them. I think that’s the spirit of the definition of freedom recently made official by the Foundation.
The Foundation’s logos should be removed where they do not meet the usual criteria for non-free logos, but I’ll leave that to somebody better able to handle the ‘response’ by you-know-who and just post my opinion in the discussion. —xyzzyn 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that the foundation refused to license the logos under the GFDL? —Remember the dot 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy in real life and unable to participate in this debate as much as I would like, but after private correspondence with Ned Scott I'd like to retract my earlier claim that the ISA is like a flag and that alterations of it may be offensive to people with disabilities. This was based on a misunderstanding on my part.

However, I still think that Peregrine Fisher's concern that the substitute image may be a derivative of the ISA is an important one. If Image:Wheelchair.svg is a derivative image of the ISA, then if we want to use it we will have to carve out an exemption for it in our EDP — and if we did that, there would be no reason not to use the real, internationally recognized symbol instead of its derivative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Josiah, Do you agree with me and remember the dot, that if the ISA image needs to be an exemption by the EDP in order to be used, that the wikipedia and wikicommons etc logo's also need an EDP amendment ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes — and I think that EDP amendments should be made, both for the various Wikimedia logos and for the ISA and the other ICTA icons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We just need a new image

I think the problem is just that is too closely modeled on the ISA symbol. That's the reason it looks silly. We need a totally different idea. I would suggest a direct icon of a wheelchair wheel, something like , but optimized to be more particular to the context (perhaps an inner guide wheel, a different arrangement of spokes, whatever works).--Pharos 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we then just use text. There is no point in using a "comparable" image to an internationally recognized symbol, that is so different that it's not a derivative work but also still recognizable as "the international logo". That would just be a "working ourselves around wikipedia policies"-attempt, without having to actually think about why the policies are there. In my eyes, the policies are the problem here, not the use cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
But icons are practically useful to us, and not just when they're "international standards". See all of the different icons at Template:Infobox Disney ride. I feel that a wheelchair wheel icon, easily recognizable as such, would help our readers, without embarrassing us with a silly image, or forcing us to give up our valuable free images policy.--Pharos 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel ;-)
Users should be able to tell immediately what the image represents, rather than having to learn a new symbol used only on Misplaced Pages. It would be much better to use a partially unfree image than to confuse our readers. —Remember the dot 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Text would be better than a symbol which would be meaningless to readers. The advantage of a symbol is to convey information quickly and efficiently. The ISA does that. does that too, only more awkwardly and in a fashion that may be a derivative use of the ISA. does not — my first thought on seeing that image was of the Ashoka Chakra in the middle of the Flag of India. (Do we want to say that a given railway station or Disneyland ride is accessible to Indians?) I don't see how the icon of a wheelchair wheel, of whatever design, will convey what the ISA does.
Furthermore, I believe that any attempt to create an ISA replacement for Misplaced Pages's use is doomed to failure, because the ISA is the only widely recognized symbol for accessibility. As I've said before, only an image similar to the ISA will be widely understood, and such an image is probably a derivative work. Any image sufficiently distinct from the ISA will be too unfamiliar to readers to be of any use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm not really someone who's absolutely dead-set against text. Although it wouldn't exactly be unique to have an icon that only exists on Misplaced Pages, like for example Image:SingleRiderAvailability.png. I do feel that it would be probably be possible to come up with an icon that in the context of transport articles would be recognizable as a wheelchair wheel symbol; but perhaps I'm wrong, and we should just use text. I don't think we could be "doomed to failure" in any case as the goal is rather modest — just an icon that would be usable at Misplaced Pages; this shouldn't be interpreted as some sort of grand challenge to the ISA.--Pharos 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just ask the ISA itself?

Ask them what they think of the issue. That might help.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure their answer is already clearly demonstrated by the copyright they have given the image: "No, we don't mind you using it for its intended purpose. No, we aren't changing the license." --tjstrf talk 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's unlikely that the ICTA (the organization) would release the ISA or the other accessibility icons under a free license, but I suppose there's no harm in asking. If they say "no", then at least we know for certain. It would be good if someone with some experience asking for free licensing did it. The ICTA's contact info is here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We should use the image as intended by the ISA. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for libre images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. Johntex\ 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not "a ridiculous extreme." The point here is, no matter how noble a purpose we may think is served by this license, we do not use licenses which restrict use of a work more than the GFDL would. It would be exceptionally easy to simply replace instances of this symbol with text-"wheelchair accessible." (And indeed, if our goal is greater access to the disabled, this would be much easier for the blind using screen readers then an image anyway.) We only use restricted images under very limited circumstances, and when absolutely no alternative is available. In this case, alternatives are. Seraphimblade 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It definitely is a ridiculous extreme. A small minority of people are too afraid of non-free content. We need to be less restrictive in our use on non-free content, not more restrictive. Our primary goal should be to build an informative and easy to read encyclopedia. If a different image can help with that fine, but we shouldn't avoid this image just because it is non-free. That is not a good use of our time or resources. Johntex\ 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Our primary goal, actually, is to create a free encyclopedia. That doesn't just mean "free of charge," nor even just "free for anyone to edit." It means that whenever possible, we use content which is permissible for anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or modify. In some cases, a non-free image is the only possibility for illustrating something, generally when the image itself is being discussed. For example, the article about the ISA would have to use the ISA, because it is discussing the symbol itself. That is a valid use, and no free alternative could serve that purpose. The same would be true, for example, in discussing an iconic, notable photograph or painting. But in most cases, free alternatives can be used or created, and we should not use unfree content in those cases. In this case, the free-content phrase "wheelchair accessible" will serve the same purpose as an unfree image-illustrating that the location in question is accessible. Given the choice between something free ("libre") which will serve the purpose, and something less than that, we always choose the free alternative. Seraphimblade 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
About blind users using screen readers, the screen reader should pick up the alt attribute and read that text, making either text or the image equally accessible to a blind reader. There is no reason to prefer the text over the image because of accessibility concerns. The question is, for the majority of users, would we rather present them with the ISA?
I and others who have commented hold that the ISA, as an internationally recognized symbol, is irreplaceable. No free equivalent could be created, as any free equivalent would be used only on Misplaced Pages and not in the real world. —Remember the dot 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not wikipedia policy. The problem is international law. Who the *beep* copyrights a standard symbol, and puts limits on its use!? What next? The letter "A", or the symbol "$" ? %-/ --Kim Bruning 12:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is quite common. We live in a world of protectionist laws, and as such you need to have the copyright and what not in order to defend the usage of a verbatim or similarly looking text/image. I would also like to point out that in many countries it's not possible to "give-up" the copyright, you can only licence your work freely (or not of course :D ). Note that the usage license is the problem here, NOT the copyright. Almost all major International standards are copyrighted, luckily most don't define their own images. I still think it's stupid not to allow the use of this logo btw. I still think it falls under current Fair Use law, just not under our Fair Use policy.
It's like saying you are gonna write an encyclopedia in morse code, but you can't use the symbols for morse code, because the international morse code standard says that it would be illlegal to switch the meaning of the dot and the dash. There just isn't a point in that. Sometimes you need to see where your own rules simply exceed the commons sense. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. note that almost all the fonts are not free for use. Your suggested situation is already a reality and always has been. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New deletion system proposed.

According to the oft-cited guideline WP:NOVOTE and the policy WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. This means that votes should be deleted to prevent these policies from being violated.

To facilitate this, I am hereby proposing the new Votes for deletion system, in which votes can be proposed for deletion. Please comment here or on the talk page! —Dark•Shikari 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what Dark Shikari is proposing. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean, votes can be deleted? And what would your new process entail? Where is your proposal? Corvus cornix 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it violate NPOV to require a scientific viewpoint?

Articles about the supernatural like ghost and qi are written from a thoroughly unscientific viewpoint. That is, they give (what I feel to be) undue weight to the possibility that these entities exist. In the same way that we require articles about fictional entities to not be written from an in-universe style, I think that we should require articles about unscientific topics to clearly state that their existences are not supported by science. Would this violate NPOV? And to dig myself even further into a hole, I would like to extend this question beyond articles on the supernatural to articles about religious topics and articles about pseudoscience (as determined by scientific consensus). Would it violate NPOV to put some kind of "this is unscientific" disclaimer onto those? --JianLi 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has a long history here. The outcome of this discussion is most clear for fields which claim to be science but are not. Compare WP:SCIENCE, WP:FRINGE (for extreme cases WP:BOLLOCKS) and the outcome and discussions of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.
Pjacobi 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another problem is that the use of science has not been able to disprove that some phenomena is the result of ghosts, beasties, God, witchcraft, aliens, Government Conspiracy (please add Fringe Belief System as appropriate). The creed of "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" has been very helpful to those who proclaim faith in such matters. To contemplate placing a scientific disclaimer on certain classes of article will likely raise as much debate as to its validity as the subject itself. It is best to allow the reader make up their own minds based on the references and examples available in the article, understanding that the reader will likely bring their own views to the subject anyway. LessHeard vanU 12:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
How about just sticking to "verifiable information from a reliable source", and making it very, very, very, explicitly, clear that while some people do believe in these things, it is an unproven (and in some cases, unprovable) belief. Attribution solves everything-instead of "Ghosts exist", say "Supernatural Monthly claims that thousands of ghosts have been observed. Debunkers Weekly states that this is "the worst form of pseudoscience we've ever seen," and has found that the group fabricated or altered statements in at least thirty cases." Seraphimblade 13:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but "verifiable information from a reliable source" could include an EMP reading in an investigation conducted by The Atlantic Paranormal Society; they have a tv show, what more proof do you need? ;~) My point is that disclaimers will bring nothing to an article, the scientific/skeptic community don't need telling what is junk science and the believers will ignore/dispute its validity. LessHeard vanU 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC
There is an established practice of including a Controversy section to articles that merit it. If there is some controversy concerning the current state of Martian politics, then that should of course be mentioned. ruinia 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't tell me the Fungoid Transferable Vote Policy has been bought up again!?! LessHeard vanU 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


WHAT IS a "scientific" perspective, and the tool for its measure? To the Misplaced Pages Community,

My proper address is Entologist George Johnson-Hill, I had an entry entitled 'Entology' here in Misplaced Pages's FREE online encyclopedia deleted by one of the "administrators";

Reason: violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines(CSD G1, NONSENSE)

I RESPECTFULLY PRESENT THIS ISSUE TO THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY.

Websters' definition of the prefix "ento" is: combining form within or inner...

Websters' definition of the suffix "ology" is: the study of...

Respectfully, 'Entology' is a conjunction of the two, hence, "the study of within."

Yes, it is a word that I formed, as well as what I believe to be a scientific platform, as "science" IS a searching field based upon theories.

"Entology" thus: is the study of "dynamic relativity," or "cause and effect by objective." A "science" utilizing the premise of Einstein's theory of general relativity examined within the principles of the Domino Effect.

For a model of "dynamic relativity" I offered for examination a parlimentary system;

For the presence of "dynamic relativity," I offered for examination the United States.

Obviously, I am serious about this issue and feel the deletion of my entry violated the principles of the Misplaced Pages forum. I am therefore, presenting this issue to the Misplaced Pages community for review. I will graciously respect whatever decision the Wikipedian community decides. Entologist George Johnson-Hill, georgejohnsonhill@tongueslanginbest.com

Not knowing anything about your case, I suspect that you fell foul of the rules against Original Research. To summarise, Misplaced Pages is not somewhere where you can submit essays on particular subjects. Instead, Misplaced Pages is somewhere where you can summarise information that has already been published in a Reliable Source. If you write an Entology article that is fully based on existing published material (citing the sources of such material, and not copying them verbatim), then I would expect the article to form a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. If you feel that you contribution has been unreasonably deleted, then you can report it to Deletion Review, where you will obtain an unbiased opinion on whether Misplaced Pages guidelines have been violated. Bluap 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Privacy proposals - status unclear

The status of the following old policy proposals is somewhat unclear:

They were all tagged {{rejected}} until recently when tags of all three were changed to {{disputed}} by the same user. Two of them are currently protected until the status is resolved. I am not trying to revive any of these proposals; I think that none of them is close to having consensus and they should all be marked as rejected. But it seems that a discussion is required to decide on their status. CMummert · talk 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't followed this discussion so far. But immediatly when reading this I thought: Why not state on the edit page of ] "Be careful with providing personal information on your Misplaced Pages userpage" (or something more directly targeted at children ?? I really don't care what goes there exactly). I mean it would be technically possible to add a small message just above the editpage box of a User page wouldn't it ? And we don't become babysitters like Yaksha was afraid of with such a message, while still doing something along a "best-effort", which is quite a lot of effort for a non-profit organization! --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So what i was hinting as what we have on the edit box of talk pages for instance: "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC))."

Unless there are objections, I plan to tag all three of these as rejected on Apr 9. CMummert · talk 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to any of these being labeled as rejected. In the case of Protecting children's privacy, the current version was essentially written by the ArbComm -- it was taken directly from their findings in a case involving the previous version. I don't see any statement in the current version that anybody could possibly object to, nor have I seen any objections other than "IDONTLIKEIT" type objections, which aren't supposed to count. In the case of Youth protection, I think I have the right to make it an essay, which I did, but it was edit-warred into a rejected policy page. I think this is wrong. Just because there was no consensus for the old version of Protecting children's privacy does not mean there can't be an essay saying that these protections should exist. After all, there are essays on almost everything else. You or someone else suggested userfying it, which is where it started, but there's nothing wrong with having it as an essay. As for WP:Privacy, this one truly baffles me. Radiant originally created it as a counter to Protecting children's privacy, but once the original version of the latter was "rejected" (which was and is still in dispute), he seemed to lose interest in it. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that policy on Misplaced Pages is all one big game, and the best interests of users in general are trampled by admins who assert ownership of policy pages and get their admin friends to leave stupid warnings on ordinary users' talk pages so they can have the upper hand in disputes. 6SJ7 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. The current version of WP:Youth protection, when it was properly labeled as an essay, had several passages that suggested that it was a policy. That was my mistake, but when I tried to correct it, Radiant reverted me, because he was so hot to have that "Rejected" tag back up there. But somehow, I was the only one you saw fit to warn, CMummert. Not that I am holding a grudge or anything. 6SJ7 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought the discussion here in the hopes of expanding the discussion to a broader audience. The basic question is, when is it appropriate to use an essay tag vs. when is it appropriate to use a rejected tag. I hope that others will comment on the situation. The second question is what to do with these three pages. CMummert · talk 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, as far as I can see, there is no policy or guideline that says that a rejected policy proposal cannot be tagged as an essay if someone wants to do so. I don't see why there should be such a policy. I looked at WP:ESSAY to try to find some guidance on what can and cannot be an essay, and unfortunately there is no policy there; only an essay! It then leads to another essay with a confusing name (somthing like Don't worry about writing essays) which basically seems to say, go ahead and write an essay on anything you want. But, of course, that is only an essay! So the bottom line is, there is no "rule" against what I did at WP:YOUTH, there is no reason why there should be such a rule, and this non-existent rule should not be enforced as if it were a rule. 6SJ7 13:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they should stay rejected. There had been no consensus to make them policy (half the room shouting "we have consensus" and the other half "no we don't" can't really be considered consensus) and after a while people simply left to work on something more productive. CharonX/talk 13:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

moving forward

I was hoping that some uninvolved editors would comment on the issue. The question is how to label these old proposals that didn't gather consensus. CMummert · talk 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Check WP:POL which lists the "tags" and reasoning behind them. In particular, "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected." >Radiant< 09:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the editor opposed to using the {{rejected}} tag to make a comment on the resolution they would like to see here. CMummert · talk 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have given my opinion above. In any event, I see little point in participating in this at the moment. I do not plan to change the tags for the time being. Hopefully, at some point, some of the many people who saw the need for a policy/guideline in this area will rejoin the discussion, and at that point things can move forward. Hopefully it will not take a Major Bad Incident with screaming headlines on CNN to bring that about. But until something does happen to attract people back to the discussion, I suppose that those who own these pages and their tags will be able to do as they please. 6SJ7 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What if I put a {{historic}} tag instead of {{rejected}}? That wording is much more ambiguous about the status of the proposal. CMummert · talk 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy/guideline/practice on information about minors

Where can I find information about either policy, guideline, or practice regarding the inclusion of personal information of minors on their user pages? I've heard conflicting opinions recently. Sancho (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy was rejected by the ArbCom, I think the statement on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Counseling should be a moot point. Perhaps we should have some sort of policy or essay on this. x42bn6 Talk 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There are three texts on this. See the section on "Privacy proposals" above.
From watching various noticeboards, my opinion on the current state of affairs is: there is no policy forbidding it, but you are free to counsel users privately, and Misplaced Pages:Oversight may be willing to delete the information from edit histories if the user requests it. CMummert · talk 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
#Privacy proposals - status unclear, to make it easier. Either way, I do believe that sysops remove personal information of minors for their own good. As I've seen on WP:AN/I on a couple of occasions. x42bn6 Talk 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why an instance of this that I sent to oversight was ignored... the response that I received said that he oversight user felt that nothing was wrong with a fifteen year old identifying themselves by their e-mail and the school that they attend. Sancho (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I will suggest to the user that they avoid publishing identifying personal information. Sancho (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't remember, but I have seen something like 13 being the threshold. I put a lot of information on my userpage when I was 15 when I joined Misplaced Pages and nobody told me to take it off. Still, I think those policies do need some sort of reconsideration, especially considering the fact Misplaced Pages is being mirrored and forked more and more times, and there are more and more users thinking this is like MySpace. x42bn6 Talk 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an essay at WP:YOUTH, which due to tag-warring by obstructionists, has been erroneously labeled as a rejected proposal (and the text has some errors because when I tried to fix it I was reverted and warned against fixing it again). This essay (adapted by me from another page) suggests that all children (as defined by your local definition) refrain from posting personal information. There are some administrators who regard the posting of such information by a self-identified child as inherently disruptive, especially if accompanied by "provocative" comments, and who will delete the information and request permanent removal by WP:OVERSIGHT when they see it. Others, no doubt, do not. 6SJ7 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"to tag-warring by obstructionists"? 6SJ7, I can no longer assume good faith in regard to your continued incivility. You attempted to unilaterally change the status of rejected proposals to being policy, were repeatedly reverted by several users (all this over the course of over 2 weeks) and annouced that you "will continue to do what I think is right" - which does sound quite alot that you wish to continue to try force through your "right version", even it if it means editwarring with many others. CharonX/talk 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What you assume is irrelevant to me. And for the record, I stopped the reversions after I received a direct warning on my user page. I think the warning was an abuse of the administrator's authority, but that's the way things are here on Misplaced Pages. Doing what is "right" sometimes has to give way to the fact that other people have power and are willing to abuse it. 6SJ7 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be glad for someone else to review the messages I left on your talk page. CMummert · talk 00:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you explain your opinion on the difference between an essay and a rejected proposal, and how to tell them apart? WP:YOUTH started with the {{proposed}} tag at the top; nobody claimed it was an essay until after it was tagged {{rejected}}. As the primary author, if you would like to move it to your user space, I don't believe anyone would object. CMummert · talk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is a person with oversight responsibilities bound to act in a certain way when receiving requests for removal of personal information self-posted by a minor? Sancho (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that there is no policy on this matter and each incident is handled on a case-by-case basis (which is probably the best way to handle it anyway). Obviously a case involving a 15 year old is not that dire and I personally would not object to them posting personal info (up to a point). It would be up to the discretion of the individual oversight person as to whether or not to take any action on the matter. Kaldari 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Age has little to do with it; in general, personal information is frequently removed if it is posted by someone else (obviously) or in more uncommon cases if the oversighter believes it's plausible that this could harm the person. >Radiant< 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It is mind-boggling to me that you can say that age has little to do with it. Age has a lot to do with it. What is the big objection to protecting chidren who may post their own personal information without realizing the dangers? And in any event, my opinion aside, there are admins who will remove personal information posted by a self-identified child, and not remove personal information posted by an adult, so Common Practice does take age into account. 6SJ7 05:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean - admins can't remove information from the edit history. Users with Misplaced Pages:Oversight abilities can do so, but in these cases they do so at their own discretion, especially since none of the three "official" uses of oversight is to remove correct information users post about themselves. CMummert · talk 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soap_opera ("Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, predatory pedophiles, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate.") passed 5-0. I think discussion about what is reasonable should take place. One specific question that I don't know the answer to is: is it reasonable to delete the sentence "I'm a sexy 13 year old boy" under the motivation that the deletion will forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children and predatory pedophiles? Sancho 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • A somewhat related question regarding WP policies (or lack thereof) about minors, concerns identifying minors in articles pertaining to criminal trials. Many newspapers and TV networks won't show pictures of, or name, minors in such cases. Does WP have a similar restriction? For example, the Article Living with Michael Jackson does not mention his accuser's last name. Is there any reason why the name (and/or a Fair Use screenshot from the ABC-TV program showing Jackson with his accuser, to illustrate the article about this program) has to be omitted? JGHowes - 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ordinarily, until reliable media sources publish the name there is no reliable source that can be used to source it, and so in a BLP setting it will get deleted from the article. This is just a consequence of the citation requirements, not a specific policy about releasing names. CMummert · talk 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy titles - The Honourable

I've had the courtesy title, "The Honourable", removed from the body text of an article about the daughter of a Viscount when used for the first time (is that referred to as inline?). Having taken some time to read up on it, I don’t understand WP's policy on this, which is -

1. Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.

when contrasted with social convention -

The younger sons of earls, along with the sons and daughters of Viscounts and Barons are granted the courtesy title of "The Honourable" before their name. This is usually abbreviated to "The Hon.".

Usage

The style The Honourable is always written on envelopes (where it is usually abbreviated to The Hon), and formally elsewhere, in which case the style Mr or Esq. is omitted.

6. Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth.

Please can someone explain the WP policy and point me towards the relevant discussion that lead to it ? Thanks John 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages generally follows press reporting form, as seen in the AP Style Manual,

rather than diplomatic form, which is too bulky for general use. --John Nagle 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response John :-). In respect of a first mention within an encyclopedia, though, I think WP policy is wrong, because a matter of style has suppressed a matter of fact. As the articles stands now, it is up to the individual reader to derive the full title from the parents title and this only if they know the rules for succession of titles.
It sounds as if this has already been the subject of discussion, which I can't locate, so I'd be grateful for any onward pointers. Thanks - John 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Sam Blacketer 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The honorific can be mentioned in the body of the article, just not in the first line. The reason for omission is largely because in many countries "The Honourable" is used as a prefix denoting various offices (such as judges, government ministers etc) and allowing an exception would lead to honorifics springing up all over the place, which would complicate matters and be generally undesirable. It was therefore decided to omit them all from article first lines. -- Necrothesp 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks ! :-) John 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Usernames with advocacy

I have been noticing usernames such as these:

I checked WP:USERNAME and there doesn't seem to be any policy regarding these types of usernames. So my question is, ought there be policy regarding usernames which push a POV?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

POV usernames are OK unless they are disruptive. No need for such policy. Wooyi 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive in what sense? Because isn't advocacy in direct contradiction with WP:NPOV?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's OK if they're not editing articles relating to their usernames. Even still, so long as they provide verifiable references to support their additions, I have no quarrel even if they are editing such articles. Their dedication to an issue may make them more aware of useful resources which may not have been referenced within the respective Misplaced Pages entry. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with banning such things is where do we stop? User:AnimalRights? User:ChristianWarrior? maybe we'd ban them, but what about User:ProudAmerica? or User:YoungSocialist? and then do we ban usernames with implied POV like User:CommradeRed? then we end up in wikilawyering definitions. If it is disruptive kill it, otherwise suggest a change and leave it at that. If POV warriors want to flag themselves up as such, that's probably helpful in the long run.--Doc 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Usernames that state a position are fine, even if they edit the articles that their username reflects. The problem is when it becomes disruptive. Logically, if we were to prevent people with names like "AnimalRights" from editing articles about animal rights, it would make sense to do the same with POV userboxes ("This user supports animal rights.") As a result, the actions of a user need to be judged independently of their username. .V. 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to abolish RFCN

There is an ongoing MfD discussion regarding the future of RFCN at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Flyguy649contribs 04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Which, by theway, is not a proposal to abolish checking for invalid user names, but a protest against the recent complexification of the page. >Radiant< 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The current process can archive properly to reduce loss of records, it's a good thing. Wooyi 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:LocateMe

There is discussion in a number of places (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#LocateMe bot WikiProject Geographical coordinates and here) as to whether Template:LocateMe should be placed on the article page or the talk page. 540 articles have been tagged with this template to date (e.g. User:SatyrBot/Project log 31). If you're interested in whether & when nagging templates can be placed in the article space, please consider adding your thoughts at Template talk:LocateMe. --Tagishsimon (talk)

External links

Is there a policy regarding the content or type of external links listed in an article? Recently in Mexico City, two picture blogs have been added. Even though the pictures therein shown are outstanding (one of them includes pictures taken from a helicopter), I do not know if they are allowed, coming from personal blogs or webpages. --the Dúnadan 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline, see Misplaced Pages:External links, which says links to blogs (I suspect meaning text blogs) should normally be avoided. You might ask for clarification at Misplaced Pages talk:External links. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not linking to blogs has to do with problems with verifiability (blogs are essentially personal opinion, unless published by a newspaper, in which case editorial review and corrections are to be expected). An external link to a picture blog doesn't raise verifiability issues (unless it's, say, pictures of "UFOs"); rather, it's a question of whether we want to provide readers with links to sites with pictures rather than text. I'd argue that we don't (except, say, collected works of an artist, from that artist's bio on Misplaced Pages); per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Undue Weight" on NPOV policy

I feel strongly that the policy WP:NPOV should be changed in the "Undue Weight" section. The provision states that a majority view should have major proportion on an article while a minority view should be represented only marginally or not at all. This isn't reasonable. First, Wikipedis is not a democracy, it's not like U.S. Congress which has a majority party and minority party with different representation. In here everyone is equal in article editting, and any non-trivial sourced views should be represented in equal footing. Because the so-called "proportional" representation is de facto endorsement of the majority opinion, as a naive reader would assume that the opinion represented in large proportion in an article would be the correct opinion. Wooyi 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Like Gallileo vs The Inquisition we need the luxury of hindsight to understand that the minority view was/is the truth. As Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and citations then the status quo witl always be better represented. The only way round this would be to create an article for the minority viewpoint, where undue weight should not be afforded to the standard sources, which links to the main article. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't create articles for minority views - see Misplaced Pages:Content forking. The reality is that in most cases, the minority view is wrong - Galileo was right, but the myriads of proponents of perpetual motion machines and miracle cures have pretty universally been wrong.
Misplaced Pages isn't about suppressing information, but saying any non-trivial sourced views should be represented in equal footing is absurd. It's enough to mention a minority view if there in fact is a reliable source (as opposed, say, to some crank's personal website) and let the reader pursue the matter if interested (it's not as if people don't know who to do a Google search).
For further information, please see Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What you are citing WP:FRINGE is a policy, and what I'm trying to do here is getting that policy changed as well. Because it's unreasonable and unfair. Wooyi 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed that User:Wooyi was talking about a situation where the minority view didn't fall under WP:FRINGE etc. and was supported by reliable sources, for instance whether Homo Neanderthal bred out into Homo Sapiens rather than just die out through competition. Even as a fork of the ascent of Homo Sapiens Sapiens this would be creation, where the proponents sources should be given more weight than opponents. (This supposes that the example I gave is not considered Fringe, I thought it had some credibility/support some little time ago). LessHeard vanU 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LessHeard vanU, minority view and fringe view are different things. A minority view is often held by a handful of professors and prominent people, while "fringe" views are often published in trivial sources (personal blogs, etc.) When a view is presented through non-trivial means, it does deserve equal footing. If Galileo lives today, he'd probably be angry at Misplaced Pages. Wooyi 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the "paranormal", as in your query here , which refers back to , generally, paranormal arguments are seen as fringe views rather than legitimate minority scientific views, since they tend to be published in non-mainstream journals. --- LuckyLouie 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is based on a misunderstanding of the rules. I believe the rules we have are correct. The misunderstanding is this: some editors wish to assume that they know what a majority view is, even when none has been stated. This is evident in the article on Electronic voice phenomenon. Editors there wish to give weight to a "majority view" which is actually a "skeptical view." They believe that a few skeptics who claim to speak for science are automatically a majority. But the majority of science has not stated any view on the subject. Among those who study the matter, the majority view is that the phenomenon is paranormal. This puts Misplaced Pages in a very difficult position: we are dealing with a field which is notable and makes factual claims. We know in our hearts as editors that many scientists -who knows how many since most scientists do believe in the paranormal- would think EVP is bunk. Yet at the same time, the actual peer-reviewed papers (published in parapsychological journals) we have on the subject are inconclusive (one positive, one inconclusive). Mainstream science has no opinion specifically on EVP whatsoever, though some studies have been done which skeptics (not, I believe, the scientists themselves) claim might explain EVP. We are being asked, in the EVP page, to present the view of a few skeptics and the silence of the mainstream as if it constituted a mainstream consensus that EVP has been determined to be bunk. If any change is needed, it is to make it (even) clear(er) that editors of Misplaced Pages cannot invent a consensus of the mainstream where there is none. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The counter argument is that "mainstream" scientific journals do not comment upon such matters as they feel that it falls outside of their remit; they do not partake in discussions of the dimensions or physical attributes of the Flat Earth for the same reason. Many of the people who request that "due weight" be given to the skeptics are doubtless taking the same stance toward the EVP example you give. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (ps. I know nothing of EVP, I am just suggesting the reason for a lack of mainstream comment on the matter and the consequent thinking of some editors.)
WP:FRINGE already covers this: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." To insist otherwise is to insist on a burden of disproof. --Minderbinder 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I have been trying to do to the article: state clearly that the scientific mainstream has not considered, nor accepted, EVP. But the skeptics want to state that it has been rejected. But if it hasn't been considered, it hasn't been rejected. Therefore, it is OR to state that it has. You are proposing, basically, that we break the rules. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would like a clearer rule: If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science rejects it. Science journals get sent articles on pseudoscientific stuff (such as EVP) all the time. The fact that all those submissions go in the garbage can without comment speaks for itself. Seraphimblade 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is really the policy, then it should be no trouble to change it. Why don't you? It won't take you much time to edit. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"You are proposing, basically, that we break the rules." That's a pretty strong accuation, especially since I just did nothing more than quote a policy. Where exactly did I propose breaking the rules? And it's a strawman to insist that people have argued to make the EVP article say that it has been rejected, all along we've wanted to say nothing more than that science hasn't accepted it, and more importantly, to follow undue weight so that the article isn't 90% arguments that the purported phenomena exists, or writing the definition to say it exists. --Minderbinder 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The current policy is logical and accurate. Misplaced Pages is not the place to push forward fringe theories or minority views. I often see this in articles, people want to be fair and balanced so they give negative aspects of a certain topic—which really aren't significantly noteworthy—as much coverage as more well known positive aspects. What we need is more of this policy, not less of it. Aaron Bowen 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also you see advocates of a certain minority theory or interpretation using Misplaced Pages as a soapbaox and shifting the focus of an article to their views or theories. Aaron Bowen 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We are talking here -I think- about articles which are specifically about the fringe topics. It looks above as if people are talking about articles on other topics which give too much coverage to alternative fringe interpretations etc. Minderbinder, the way the EVP article has been written in the past has had innuendo or outright statements which basically say that the mainstream has rejected -as opposed to not considered or accepted- EVP. Seraphimblade's comment above was basically followed in the article. I suggest that this statement be added to the rules. Then things would be clear. You would get to write the articles the way you, ScienceApologist et al have been trying to, and no argument. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


One problem with this discussion is that we are trying to find one rule for lots of different things. The point was made above that we don't create articles for minority view (John Broughton said it I think), and the probelm is that yes we do, sort of. That is, most of the topics that are being discussed here do not fall into the round Earth v's Flat Earth dichotomy. That is, the Earth being round has an abundance of scientific evidence to support it (peer review mainstream science about the Earth), whereas on a topic like ghosts there is nothing similar. Mainstream scince hasn't really considered ghosts and so even if one were to claim that the majority scientific view is that ghosts don't exist (rather than simply scince has not considered or accepted the existence of ghosts) you are going to have a hard time saying very much more than that. The problem that this creates is that unless we are going to write a 10-word article on ghosts the "mainstream" view is either going to be take up very little space in ocomparison to other views/points etc. about ghosts, or else we can write "science/sceptics say ghosts don't exist" every few lines in the article (a method that sems to have been adopted in the EVP article).

I also agree with Martinphi that Seraphimblade should put his/her money where his/her mouth is and either change the policy to say "if mainstream scince hasn't considered something then it should be taken to have rejected it", or accept that it doesn't actually mean that at all.Davkal 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We are now talking about fringe theory but originally the discussion was regarding minority views that are supported by reputable sources, but by less than a nominal 50% of the community, where the wording of Undue Weight means that the views of a sizeable minority should be represented "only marginally or not at all". As the original commenter said, if the minority represented 45% of the scientific community then this guideline would effectively censor that element.
The EVP matter does not appear to be a scientific minority viewpoint, but a viewpoint that does not have any citable credibility in the mainstream scientific world. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think of the point that there simply isn't enough mainstream material a lot of the time to make it a large part of the article. LessHeard is right, also. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight says that views should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each." In other words, it encourages us to make a distinction between a "minority" view that is supported by 45% of the scientific community, and one that is supported by a tiny minority. I don't see a problem here. WP:WEIGHT is one of the most important (if least understood and least obeyed) policies we have, and it already deals with the situations mentioned above effectively. What I'm hearing is that proponents of certain minoritarian views would like more freedom to expound on them uncritically here. There are many forums to do so, but Misplaced Pages generally is not one of them. MastCell 22:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless the minority view is Scientism, in which case whole articles (and many sections of other articles) can be used to expound on it using the "this is what scientists would say if they said something and this is what experiments would show if they had been done" rule. Davkal 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, MastCell, but the problem is cases like EVP. In that case, 90 percent -and that's probably not an overestimation though it is OR- of the people who make it prominent believe it is communication from spirits. So, that means we should give 90 percent of the article to those views? Or maybe even 100%, since the skeptics are a very very tiny minority? I believe there should be more skepticism in the article than that. On the other hand, skeptics are arguing that the 90 percent actually represent a minority because..... ummmmmm.... because they aren't skeptical. So what do you think should be done? Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Simple... fields which have not been studied critically by mainstream science should not be presented as if they are mainstream scientific fields. They are "fringe" fields by definition. That's my opinion, but then I'm just one person. MastCell 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And that's what WP policy already says, repeatedly. And the 90% thing ignores undue weight and values quantity over quality (reliability) of sources. If there are only two or three articles appearing in journals discussing a topic, we're supposed to consider that enough evidence of mainsteam acceptance? Or a whole pile of self published "experiments" along with those?
I have to admit I'm amused by the addition of "scientism" to the rhetorical arsenal, it's a nice change of pace from "pseudoskeptic". --Minderbinder 12:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that they should. WP:FRINGE says:

"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

This is interpreted by skeptics to mean what Seraphimblade says above. If that is really policy, then let's change it. If it is not policy, then let's present the articles that way. I have absolutely no problem with the current rules. I have a problem with skeptics who don't want to follow them. EVP, for instance, has not been considered or rejected, and the skeptics, for pure repugnance to the subject, want to write the article, by giving undue weight and outright innuendo or statements, as if it has been considered and rejected. They want to do OR to make out as if it has. So either change the rules or follow them! (to paraphrase Davkal.) Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing with a strawman. All along, editors have been editing EVP to present it as a subject not accepted by science (which you seem to agree we should assume based on the policy above), and present it so undue weight isn't given to those advocating the topic (since it hasn't been accepted by science, and since the sources supporting it as a "proven" topic are few and questionable). YOU are the one who wants to ignore the rules and give undue weight to the arguments supporting it, regardless of how poorly sourced they are or whether they have been cited or reproduced by any other scientists or scientific publications. You have basically been arguing to present a fringe topic as if it were a mainstream one (simply because the mainstream has failed to disprove it).
Martin, at this point, upwards of twenty editors have agreed that you are misinterpreting NPOV and FRINGE, yet you still insist you're the one who is right. What would it take for you to accept that your interpretation of wikipedia policies is a misinterpretation and twisting through wikilawyering? I'm serious, please tell us what would clear this up for you once and for all, and would let you accept that your interpretation is wrong? --Minderbinder 12:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they have been editing it to subtly or not so subtly- present it as a subject rejected by science. . First, it would take some reasonable argument instead of ignoring arguments and POV-pushing. Second, as Seraphimblade made clear above, there is a very wide disagreement as to how to interpret the rules. Why don't you put that interpretation in the rules? If it sticks, then our argument is over, and you win. If it doesn't, then please concede. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah. So editors haven't been editing the article to say that it's rejected, they've been editing it to say things that you've interpreted as (in some cases subtly) implying rejected. You sure have policy on your side there. And is there even any point in debating it with you if you can just declare anything you don't like "presents it as rejected!" (whether it actually says that or not)? There isn't "wide disagreement" either, there seems to be wide agreement and a small group that doesn't agree (which includes you). I'm disappointed to hear you say that you aren't going to change your mind until either you declare an argument "reasonable" (love the ridiculous strawman that you have been ignored, that's just hilarious) or the policy is changed.
But along those lines...I think the policy is just fine but it's just getting wikilawyered in this case - is there any reason to tweak the policy wording to make it more weaselproof? Or is it fine as-is, and should we just take the refusal to follow policy to the next stage of dispute resolution? --Minderbinder 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let no one unfamiliar with the page and its/their history be fooled: the skeptical position, even where only a very few skeptics have spoken and even where no science has been done on the subject, have been given a huge amount of attention in the article. It has been argued that even when 90% of the people who know about the subject believe the thing is paranormal, they are actually in the minority. This for no other reason than that they are not skeptics. No, I think that the rules need to be made clear, and I think you should put them in just as Seraphimblade said. Then no one would be in doubt.
Put that in the rules or concede the argument. Don't come and try to weasel out. I'm calling you out on this.
I meant "wide disagreement" in terms of "great gulf" not "lots of people."
Reason is reason. Why do you think it can merely be "declared"?
Don't bother with the wikilawyer thing- you can't get away with it here just because few people here know you. You taught me all I know about wikilawyering, and I would absolutely love to be half as good at it as you are, because I could really put to good use the power it unfortunately gives one around here. Coming from you, really, it is a compliment that you would think me capable of it, so thanks.


Put that in the rules or concede the argument. Don't come and try to weasel out. I'm calling you out on this. If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science rejects it. Put that in WP:FRINGE. Do it. Don't try to get out of it. That's the way you and others have been writing the articles, so put it in the rules and see if it sticks. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Martin is right here. The rule (the actual rule) explicitly says that if mainstream sources cannot be found then it should not be assumed that a subject has been rejected. But the rule is being interpreted as if it should be assumed that a subject has been rejected - as per Seraphimblade's direct statement of that very thing above. The point here is either change the rule or obey it as it currently is. Re the EVP article, it is ludicrous to suggest that the rule is being applied appropriately. We have had statements saying "scientific explanations for EVP include...", and we have had those supposed scientific explanations actually take the place of the definition at one point. We have also had the claim "EVP has not been considered or accepted by the mainstream scientific community" - a direct quote from the rule - removed on a number of occasions by skeptical editors (it is not currently in the article). What this does is serve to muddy (hide) that point and pave the way for the "skeptical" explanations to become the mainstream. For example, we currently have about 90 words for paranormal explanations and about 900 for skeptical explanations (even though those 900 words just say the same thing over and over again). One would not think, from that ratio, that the skeptical view was not the mainstream scientific view. How else does a minority view of this type come to be given so much air-time. There is much pretense going on in the EVP article and all of it surrounds the muddying/changing/breaking of the rule Martin is talking about here.Davkal 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism and Undue Weight

I am confused about how the Undue Weight policy should be applied in certain cases. I recently spent some time trying to clean up and expand articles relating to Messianic Judaism (MJ), which admittedly is a minor religious movement within Judaism. In fact, mainstream Judaism considers it not to be Judaism at all. This creates conflict between editors who hold views of different sides of the issue. MJ is a real phenomena in the world that can/should be covered by Misplaced Pages. By its own claims it is related to (or is a sect of) Judaism, and thus could be mentioned in certain articles where relevant. The counter-argument is that MJ is such a small minority that virtually any mention gives undue weight to this fringe position, thus MJ should be relegated to its own, separate articles. This use of Undue Weight policy is criticized by pro-MJ editors as it tends to lend support to the anti-MJ view. (Popularity doesn't make it correct.) Since MJ is a minority view within the realm of things Jewish, and this specific issue is particularly charged, true consensus is nearly impossible to find. It seems that certain policies (WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONSENSUS, etc.) can be used by a majority faction to censor differing views, and in situations where there is no one view that can be proven correct in a "scientific" sense—which covers nearly everything religious—editors such as myself are left in a quandary. This conflict has been so polarizing at times that not only have MJ references been completely eliminated from articles in the Judaism domain repeatedly, but articles/templates within the MJ project have had links to "regular Jewish" articles removed, as this was seen as "hijacking" and/or "misrepresentation of MJ as mainstream". With these policies in place, and given the existing understanding of them, is it even possible for legitimate (albeit minority) views to be fairly represented on Misplaced Pages? Can there be understanding? Or is it acceptable that the ignorant reader of Subject X be kept in the dark that different views of the subject even exist? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some fresh eyes would help. Being a total outsider to Judaism in general and having read the article Messianic Judaism for the first time, my impression is that the article is very informative, yet has a slight edge of defensive advocacy towards the end where it discusses the controversy between mainstream Judaism and the conflict with Jews For Jesus. Regarding links to your article, in the "mainstream" Judaism article, I see mention of the MJ movement in Judaism#Syncretic beliefs incorporating Judaism which appears to be in appropriate weight to the other topics. Again, this is just my opinion after a cursory glance. -- LuckyLouie 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The WP:3O is much appreciated. I have a feeling that is what this situation really needs for resolution, as all the people who typically weigh in are too close to the issue. OTOH, those not close to the issue have no interest in following its development for any length of time. If the MJ articles seem a tad defensive in places, it's probably because they are—seeing most every edit reverted tends to wear on a person. (Is it a persecution complex if the perception of persecution is legitimate?) WP:MESSIANIC is going to start trying to mark articles where these differences have been worked out amicably (or not), as a step toward better resolutions in the future. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Louie, here is one illustration (a revert war over a footnote, in this case) for you. Follow the edit history through the rest of 2007-02. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

A case has been filed concerning Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship -- Cat 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploading other people's images from Flickr with Creative Commons tags

Are we letting people upload images from Flickr that they do not own just because they are tagged as Creative Commons (tagged on Flickr, that is)? I noticed someone uploading the images of various Flickr members that use Creative Commons tags on their pictures. I think that it is a bad idea. First, if the owner closes their Flickr account or removes the image from their account, then all we have is the uploader's claim that it is licensed under Creative Commons (I say "is licensed" because I checked the Creative Commons website, which claims that the licensing is non-revocable (actually, it would be nice if there were a conditional variant)). Also, while Misplaced Pages might be able to legally use the images under Creative Commons, the image owners may not have envisioned this use. If this is the case, the images are not worth the ill will using them would create. -- Kjkolb 10:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with taking images from flickr, as long as everything is credited properly. I would strongly encourage anyone who takes an image from flickr to drop a message with the flickr member to let them know where their image is used, just out of courtesy. I wouldn't be too concerned with the flickr people being opposed to us using the image as they went to the effort to change the license and presumably they understand what the license meant. As far as verifying that the license is correct, if uploading to the commons, there is a bot that automatically handles that if you choose the flickr option from the drop down menu during the upload. That way if, as you suggested, the flickr user deletes their account, there will be a secondary confirmation that the license is indeed correct. I don't think WP has such a thing, but all flickr images should probably just go onto the commons anyway, so there really isn't a need for it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the creative commons share alike licence is to allow specifically this action: the unhindered downstream use of material under an identical licence. Sancho 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with PS2pcGAMER and Sancho in principle, I would also urge caution. I've seen copies of my own work appear on Flickr under blatantly incorrect licensing. We should keep in mind that some of what appears on Flickr is simply stolen. Anonymous Flickr users who claim to have very large, diverse and professional seeming image protfolios should be treated with all due scepticism. Dragons flight 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I was thinking about a similar problem the other day. I requested via e-mail that somebody release under the GFDL an image that I found on their website. They agreed, I uploaded the image, credited the creator, and forwarded their agreement to release the image under the GFDL to Wikimedia (all the standard procedure when obtaining GFDL permission for use of material found on the web or elsewhere). However, it seems extremely hard to verify that the person releasing the material actually legally has the ability to do this! Maybe it was a copyright violation on their part before I even made the request for them to release it to the GFDL. How is this problem dealt with in this case? Sancho 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought Commons has their own Flickr reviewer, who is an admin. Wooyi 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, it was original setup so that admins had to review flickr images. Now a bot FlickreviewR handles that task and an admin only has to intervene when necessary. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot the name, it is FlickreviewR. But I didn't know it was a bot. Then the question becomes if the bot reviewer is reliable or not. Wooyi 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Another false Living Person bio.

Today, the bio of Hollywood actor Corey Sevier was vandalized by anon. IP 209.226.38.87, who stated that Sevier "announced he was gay on April 4". This was undetected for two hours.

Further, said vandal also added a "Category:Gay Actors" to the Sevier article, which went undetected for 6 hours.

I know that User:Jimbo Wales is strongly committed to the founding principle of anon. edits to Misplaced Pages, but realistically, how much longer can this go on for Living Person bios, especially high-profile celebrities?

Is this the proper forum to propose a revision to Misplaced Pages Policy? If so, I propose changing the policy to:

Automatic "Semi-Protection" for all Living Person articles

JGHowes - 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the current policy of allowing anonymous edits can go on indefinitely, even for Living Person bios. In the example you give, the vandalism was noticed and corrected. Perhaps we just need to watch more diligently articles that are biographies of living persons. Sancho 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also if editors have been away from WP when they notice vandalism, checking the edit history for any previous vandalism before reverting only the last example would help. LessHeard vanU 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an easy access BLP watchlist/recentchanges like many Wikiprojects have. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparantly there is: see Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. How can we bring more attention to this? Sancho 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've requested that this be added to the top of the RecentChanges page. I will report back here later to announce where exactly. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Include a link on the BLP (or whatever the Living Person Biography acronym is) template? LessHeard vanU 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, its been added to the Recentchanges page in the "Utilities" row as a link titled BLP. I've tried to advertise this the best I can. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with JGHowes. I am against shutting Misplaced Pages down to anonymous users but I believe I could support a proposal to make all BLPs semi-protected. Yes, we will inevitably lose some constructive edits by anons. However, I feel that Misplaced Pages's reputation is continuously hurt by incorrect information/vandalism to BLPs. They seem to bring the most negative attention to Misplaced Pages and it appears to be getting more frequent. If I remember correctly, the edit that claimed Sinbad had died was reverted after only a few minutes but that didn't stop the presses from reporting Misplaced Pages's claims he had died (also despite the fact that it was reported elsewhere before it was added to Misplaced Pages). There are many people out there that would like to see Misplaced Pages fail and I'm sure they are aware of Misplaced Pages's vulnerabilities regarding BLPs. Besides, if an editor truly wishes to improve a BLP, it may be more of an incentive to register.↔NMajdan•talk 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Is there an official policy regarding criteria for inclusion into the "See Also" category of an article's page? I removed some things which I felt did not belong and am wondering what the policy is. I didn't see anything in the MoS. Aaron Bowen 13:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit in Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout#See also. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Policy and Samuel Ball (academic)

I get the conflict of interest issue and am ambivalent over the matter. I believe I have learned much with the posting and am satisfied with that.

I am concerned that notable persons may be deleted for no better reason than the apparent conflict of interest. It is easy for some, who falsely believe themselves to somehow feel slighted by something I wrote, which didn't, to gang up and claim disinterest. I have never spoken up for the article, and won't, but would appreciate knowing whom may be interested in improving such material DDB 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists...

Is there a policy or guideline on wikipedia about lists in articles?Yaanch 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There's {{cleanup-laundry}}, and the Misplaced Pages:Embedded list guideline that covers which cases it might be best to convert embedded lists into prose. --Interiot 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yaanch 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest rewrite

I've completed a rewrite of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You can see the rewritten version here, or see it with diff to the old version. Comments are welcome on the talk page. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF

I recently stumbled across the following image: Image:IIH.png. Concerns have been raised on that talk page before over a number of years, (but no one really looks at image talk pages in the first place.) Anyway, I'm wondering whether or not this is directly violating WP:SELF and is breaking the fourth wall; it appears to be used on a large number of articles so alot of work (or a little code) is needed to fix the broken links if deleted, so I decided to raise the issue here. - Zero1328 Talk? 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF says:
“ An article which is still in its initial development or under dispute often will include tags such as {{stub}}, and {{npov}} to help editors further develop the article, and the text in these templates include self-references. ”
And the same applies to this image... it's something that facilitates development of the article. --Interiot 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Query: Are there any templates/tags that simply state, "This article could be improved by the addition of images"? (You know, something similar to the concept of, "This article does not cite any references") Seems like it'd be a solution that was a bit more separated from the article (and that wouldn't be so incredibly ugly). Bladestorm 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed: {{reqimage}} and related templates. But the "not picture available" might still be useful under many possible circumstances. 192.154.63.19 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

African-American

I originally posted this here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#African-American, but an editor suggested I bring it here for consensus. Now, this is a very PC topic, but please understand I'm not being insensitive, I just want to discuss what I feel to be ludicrous terminology.

The term African-American is a US political term which in the past fifteen years has been forced upon us by the NAACP, politicians, and journalists, mainly the latter two. The majority of people however still use the correct descriptives white American and black American, etc. Why does Misplaced Pages not also follow suit? Having said that, America, thus far, is the only country engaged in this politically correct, though inaccurate, terminology. Since this is an international site, I would like to propose and see Misplaced Pages set up a guideline or policy to use black American rather than African-American to describe color. The latter doesn't make sense for many reasons. What if someone is 6th generation Jamaican and they come as a tourist to America? Does that make them a Jamaican African-American an African-American or a black? And what about people such as Roger Whittaker, Charlize Theron, Dave Matthews, and others who are true African's but only white? Are they White African-Americans or are they African-Americans? African-American is an ethnic term, not a color descriptive. In the rest of the world it adds confusion and people automatically think ethnicity, and even here in the US. 

 African American is widely viewed more as a media created term.

 The term 'African American' has also been misused by some in lieu of 'Black', regardless of an 
 individual's nationality, ethnicity or geography. For example, during the 2005 civil unrest in 
 France, CNN anchorwoman Carol Lin referred to the rioters as "African Americans".  This leads 
 to the belief amongst many opponents of the term that 'African American' presents an 
 'American-centric' view of black people across the world.

Is an individual from Calcutta is black and they are being described, are they then called a Asian African-American when visiting America? What about Seal? Is he an African African-American? Where does this confusing lunacy stop? Is a Black Englishman tourist then called a English African-American? or in the quote above, is a Black French called and French African-American? Additionally, on Misplaced Pages, America and American is a disambiguation which you have to direct someone to the correct meaning you're referring to. So to keep with Misplaced Pages, the term is not even properly used. Additionally the definition of African-American usually means someone who descended primarily from enslaved Africans brought to the United States. However, in today's mobile society, many have moved from the Caribbean, from Africa itself, from the UK, or from the Pacific islands, etc. Lastly, it does not follow common sense or pattern; An Iraqi-American is someone born in Iraq who became an American citizen; an Asian-American is someone born in Asia who became an an American; a Canadian-American is a person born in Canada who became an American citizen; an African-American...however is suppose to be a black person...what? Looking at this from another country, there is no sense to this term.

My grandfather was black, my grandmother mixed, my mother mixed, one of my brothers black, my father white and so I'm not doing this maliciously. I am from the Caribbean and my whole mixed family still uses the term Black along with the majority of America as well as non-Americanized West Indians. As mentioned I would like to see a policy/guideline set up instructing Misplaced Pages to balk the PC world like it does in many other areas and go for color, not the confusing exclusive-to-American-Media-and-Politicians ethnic descriptive political term that makes no sense. I would like to hear some feedback from the rest of you. --Maniwar (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that using the term that will be understood by the world, including those in the US, is the thing to do. Sancho 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Black is equally as controversial: I think we all remember sometime about 2-3 weeks ago when tha woman tried to insist that Barack Obama wasn't "black" because she said that in the US "black" means descended from slaves (which Obama isn't). --YbborSurvey! 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the issue raised by Maniwar was one of controversy, but of world-wide understandability. Perhaps diligent wiki-linking to articles describing the term being used would help. Sancho 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sanchom is correct in the assertion. And ybbor, you make my point for me. Because of the unclear African-American PC, there is a mis-conception in a few as to what a person should be. I would venture to say that the person who made the statement about Obama is either ignorant or because PC, is confused themselves. Again, African-American is an ethnic description, not a color descriptive. The rest of the world sees it this way. --Maniwar (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups? (SEWilco 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
What are you trying to say? What relevance is that to the proposal? Please help me understand. --Maniwar (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to be encyclopedic about this, how are minority ethnic groups in the US referred to in other major encyclopedia? This may be one case where the dusty language of authorative printed media could serve as the model to be used here.
In the UK the terms when used are usually either Black, Asian, other followed or preceded by nationality (Black Briton, British Asian, etc.) where the emphasis is that they are are British, but of descent other than European. This obviously may differ from the preferences and realities in the US. (FYI, in the case of Seal, he is generally referred to as just "British").
If this is intended to derive consensus in an attempt to form policy or a guideline, it may be wise to understand that what may be deemed appropriate in the US may not be so in the rest of the English speaking Nations with large non-European communities. Any policy/Guideline will have to be flexible enough to incorporate all groups existing in all Nations. As such it may not be possible to form such a policy/guideline. LessHeard vanU 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, I think it could work. You yourself mentioned, ...when used are usually either Black, Asian, other followed or preceded by nationality (Black Briton, British Asian, etc.)... So to propose we use black would work both in the UK as well as the U.S. Again, we're looking for something that would work internationally. To say Seal is an African-American is misleading and confusing. People the UK know he is British and so would wonder if we are they saying he's an American. To say he's black fulfills the color descriptive, and then we could indicate whether he's a U.S. citizen or a U.K. citizen. The quote from Carol Lin shows how wrong the term African-American is. If a reporter is talking about a black man in the U.S. and calls him an African-American (to use for color descriptive) they must then follow suit if saying a black man in Briton is an African-American British subject. Again, this term is ludicrous and just wreaks havoc with my logic and thinking and insults my intelligence. I am not a politician seeking office, so I can make sense rather than PC. Additionally, you are saying exactly what I am, that the term must be widely accepted, internationally. Yet the term, African-American is not. To say a black British is an African-American, which one must to be consistent, is very U.S. centric. ---Maniwar (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the term African American specifically refers to an American of Negro ancestry (notwithstanding the process by which the individual arrives in America). Asian American, Sino American, Indo American, etc. similarly defines ethnic derived populations in the United States only. In that context perhaps the wording is correct. When speaking of ethnic minorities in other nations then the naming conventions of that nation apply (which can differ; Asians to Americans refer to Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese origins, but Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan in UK terminology).
I am now unsure what the basis of your comment are. Are you addressing the point that it is only Americans racially dissimiliar from the (North) European origin majority that are referred to by their cultural origin, or some other point? I do not see how a person of African or other origin could be described as African American outside of the context of US citizenship. LessHeard vanU 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
if you reference the comment above by CNN anchorwoman Carol Lin, you will see that sometimes the media does just that. I am talking about how the Political correctness world of American politicians and the media use the term African-American, which is an ethnic description to describe a black American. When the American Media and politicians use the term, it is, incorrectly, being used as a color descriptive rather than an ethnic descriptive.--Maniwar (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes. Carol Lin used the wrong phrase to describe French of African descent (although the phrase French African is often used to describe people from the former French colonies, both those who live in France and those living in the former colonies - so there may not be an easily available phrase). When WP reports what was said by an individual then such mistakes should be retained, but when WP includes such ethnic groups then the appropriate phrase should be used (which may include not mentioning the ethnic background if not appropriate.)
I don't think there need be a new or altered policy or guideline. It is simply a matter of good editing standards. People should be described as suits the subject matter, and as appropriate. If a black Briton is described as of African American ethnicity then it is an editing error and should be corrected. As a whole ethnic group then Africans and African descended people can be described as "Black(s)" in popular culture articles, and as "Negro(es)" in scientific articles. Same for all ethnic groups. Usually I would think that defining such individuals as a particular nationality first and foremost and only then as a ethnic group within that nation if appropriate. Does this make sense? LessHeard vanU 11:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
We are losing site of the biggest issue here in this whole debate. The biggest issue is of self-determination. We should only use terms to desribe a person that they themselves use. If John Doe calls himself "Black" than use that term in an article about him. If Jane Smith calls herself an "African american" use that term. It is rather presumptuous to decide how we should idenitify other individuals; we should let them do that themselves. This applies not only to this issue, it applies to ALL issues of labeling.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that both terms ("black" and "African-American") are, currently, socially acceptable, mainstream terms in the U.S., for (approximately) the same group of people. Some people prefer one, some prefer the other and some have no preference. That being the case, I believe that both are acceptable on Misplaced Pages. 6SJ7 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes... but do we always know how the subject prefers to be called? If we are citing other sources then we use their terminology without considering if the subject agrees or even objects. What is the subject refers to themselves as "American"?
The original point, though, was that a newsreader referred to Africans in a different (European) Nation as African Americans, which showed an Ameri-centric lapse of attention. I'm pretty sure it was just a mistake, but one that would cause some dismay if repeated in Misplaced Pages. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the contention that "African-American" is a media-created term. I'm from the US. I'm white, my sister-in-law is black. She educated us to call her "African-American", but also uses "black". My sense is that the hyphenated term emphasises that Americans of African extraction have legitimacy as Americans; people of European extraction don't have a special claim on that legitimacy. I agree that the terms "African-American" and "black" are primarily a matter of self-definition, so we should leave it to editors to balance respect for self-definition with clarity for an international audience. It's pretty clear to me that using the term "anything-American" to describe people who are not from the USA is simply mistaken (leaving aside the issue that "America" refers to two whole continents and not just the USA). --Jdlh | Talk 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Jdlh, you can disagree, however it is known by many that the term is more media centered and media forced. Misplaced Pages itself has stated this, and other encyclopedia's have stated this. It grew out of Political Correctness and was adopted by the media and politicians who took it mainstream. The fact is, it is driven by the media because of PC. A similar case would be the term undocumented workers being used instead of illegal alien. It is media and politician driven. But again, you all are missing the point as LessHeard vanU pointed out. This is not a universal term and it causes confusion to international readers. It is not proper English. You cannot use an ethnic descriptive to describe a color. Additionally, who is going to decide whether the person should be a black or an African-American? Again, do we say Seal (the musician) is black or is he a black Enlishman, or an African-American? The latter is false because he is not an American. And what about true African's, as pointed out, like Roger Whittaker (etc.) but who are white? No one has addressed these issues. We want to express truth and facts, not political correctness. Case in point, though maybe not a good one, in the UK, the term Fag refers to Cigarettes, but we don't use this term universally because it has different meanings in different parts of the world. So we use the more accurate and universal term of cigarette. Again, this term adds confusing to the rest of the world...It is a U.S. exclusive term'. We should represent the world on this encyclopedia, not our own country. Just like we are not going to change all the instances of cigarettes to fags, we should not use an ethnic term to describe color. The U.S. is the only nation that uses this term. --Maniwar (talk)
  • Not that I (or anybody) can do anything about it, but I find it distressing that these 'labels' are not only politically charged, but mostly grossly inaccurate and even confusing. What are we trying to label? Geographic origin, as in African, Asian, European, American, Oriental? The problems here are obvious. White Africans, South and Central Americans and Canadians. Racial origins, as in Negro, Caucasian? (also has geographic and skin clour connotations). And where does the racial classification "Hispanic" come into the picture? Or are we trying to pigeonhole by skin colour? Black (well, not really), white, (well not really), er....yellow (not acceptable and not really). Or is it by cultural/historic/religious affiliation, as in Muslim, Buddhist, Jew? The next problem is that with changing perceptions, politics and fashion these epithets gain and lose favour. "Negro" makes way for "Black", makes way for "African American", which will, no doubt, make way for whatever. pietopper 04:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote temporarily stopped...will resume after more discussion. --Maniwar (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • ===Consensus call===

I'm not sure if this topic is too PC that no one wants to touch it or if it has run it's course of discussion(s). I would like to call for a consensus of Misplaced Pages adopting the policy to the replace the inaccurate, politically-correct, African-American term to describe color to the more global and accurate term Black (see original post and discussion). As mentioned, the term is American-Centric and causes confusion on a global scale. Again, refer to original post and discussion. --Maniwar (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Replace - per discussion. --Maniwar (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep discussion open. Maniwar opened this topic, what, 90 hours ago? I see active discussion still underway. I don't see signs that it's too PC to touch. A vote now is premature. If I have to vote now, I say No Policy Change Needed, leave this writing issue to editors' discretion. --Jdlh | Talk 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it be decided to put this to a straw poll or consensus call, then it should be on its own page with a redirect from here.LessHeard vanU 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Put SEARCH window back near top of page

Moving the SEARCH window down so far in the left-hand colum means it is necessary for the majority of users to have to scroll first to get to it -- bad policy. "Sign in/create account" is nowhere near as important as having SEARCH right there up at top, ready to go, on every single page of the Wiki. Please revert to previous format.

-- JRS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.227.127.67 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

First, I think it was always like this; there is no earlier format to revert to. Second, a quick look at photoshop reveals that the distance from the top of the page to the bottom of the search box is exactly 481 pixels. The typical Internet explorer window bar and browser bar, etc. takes up 116. This comes out to 597 pixels from the top for the average user. Unless you're using 800x600 resolution, it shouldn't be an issue. Besides, it's getting pretty rare to see an 800x600 (it was originally proposed in 1989). --YbborSurvey! 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The Way Back Machine indicates Misplaced Pages hasn't had a search bar on top of the page since at least May 2004. --YbborSurvey! 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The location of the search bar depends on the skin one uses with Misplaced Pages. The Classic skin put the search box at the top of the page in 2004, & still does now in 2007. -- llywrch 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
states that ~81% of users use a resolution of 1024x768 or higher. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to or mentiosn of "attack sites"

There is dispute now on Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy as to whether 'any and all links to, or even mentions on-wiki of the names of "attack sites", should be considered blockable offenses. Some editors are caliming a very black&white approach to this should be followed. I think this is too absolute. I don't think there is policy-level consensus ywet on claims being made and, I gather, acted on. More eyes would be good here. DES 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Research

Question: If I can cite reliable sources, what type of research is allowed?

Jhize 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You might have read this already, but the Misplaced Pages:No original research page in a nutshell is:
  • Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought.
  • Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
  • Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.
Sancho 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes, thank you, i did. However, what I'd like to post is a culmination of reliable content. It certainly falls within the domain of theory; however, the topic of Gravity is listed and that is only theory, as is much of quantum physics. Again I ask, if my sources are reliable what is allowed?
Jhize 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, any material that can be attributed by reference to a reliable source can be included. The topics that you mention, gravity and quantum physics, for example, should include only information that can be attributed to a reliable source. The way in which it is worded, or the manner in which the article is structured, however, should also comply with the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view policy. One thing that is not allowed is taking one source that says, "If A, then B", and a second source that says "If B, then C", and using them together in a Misplaced Pages article to support a statement that says "If A, then C". We'd have to wait for a third party reliable source to make this connection before it we can include it in a Misplaced Pages article. Sancho 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Answer Sancho! I have been searching wiki for the last hour and finally have my answer. I also found relevant information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#What_does_No_Original_Research_have_to_do_with_Verifiability_.26_Reliable_Resources.3F. Thank you very much. Jhize 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, if at anytime I reach a conclusion (If A, then C). I must provide a reference to that as a citation.

Now one last question if you'll entertain me...If what I am describing in this article I am referring to has a specific name and this name is scientific in nature and I provide a link to the definition, is that acceptible? I have read the policy about coining a phrase and this seems to tell me no. However, I didn't coin the phrase "Endothermic Nucleosynthesis". This term is used on the following page; http://www.theoriginofthesolarsystem.com/pb/wp_54bea476/wp_54bea476.html. The problem is, it refers to this process on a stellar scale; while my article would be atomic scale. Additionally, Endothermic is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Endothermic and Nucleosynthesis is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Nucleosynthesis. Together these two Wiki definitions are exactly the definition I require. It seems that the Wiki definitions are more appropriate for my use. Is this still considered "coining a phrase"?

I am obviously going to have to cite anything that seems "new". Is my thought process way off track here?

Jhize 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not off track at all; any material added must be directly and explicitly supported by cited sources. As regards the term "Endothermic Nucleosynthesis", however, I believe that since you intend to use the term in a way that hasn't been used before that it would be "coining a phrase" (Misplaced Pages:Avoid_neologisms). I tried looking for references that use the term in this manner (at an atomic scale), but couldn't find any. Maybe you know of some sources that use this term applied to the atomic scale. If there are none, it's probably a little too early to add an article on this topic to Misplaced Pages. I hope you will still join our efforts in improving other articles, and later, you can create this article. Sancho 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New Handicap Symbol

The new image

Why are we so stuck on it being a wheelchair? What does everyone think of this? --Random832 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It kind of looks like a slingshot. But you're right, maybe there's another symbol that we can use. Sancho 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
We're stuck on the wheelchair, because it indicates where a person in a wheelchair can go. Way different from where a person on crutches can go. I think they can go pretty much anywhere, can't they? - Peregrine Fisher 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve by using a new symbol. I do know that there is a broad, international recognition of the wheelchair symbol to signify information or locations or what have you that are relevant to people with disabilities. By using the standard symbol, we build on shared understanding. I would want to see a very strong reason to give up that advantage. --Jdlh | Talk 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Some silly person put the "standard" symbol under a restrictive license. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image size

A short while back I was blocked for 24 hrs by what I feel to be an overzealous administrator for allegations of incivility and vandalism against me that have thus far been unsubstantiated.

The dispute centred about the size of images used in various articles I had written - George Albu, Lionel Phillips, Lady Phillips, CG Finch-Davies to mention just a few. The reversionists who favour thumbnail images cited MoS guidelines that are not at all clearcut. I pointed out that the vast majority of articles using images, do not confine themselves to thumbnail sizes, and in fact use quite large images, for example Mary Cassatt, Edgar Degas, Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Berthe Morisot, Winston Churchill, Jan Smuts, Elizabeth I of England to name but a few. Apparently the editors of these pages have

  1. not heard of the thumbnail guidelines OR
  2. know of such guidelines but ignore them OR
  3. don't interpret these guidelines to mean obligatory use of thumbnails.
  • 1 Does WP have a firm clearcut guideline for image sizes?
  • 2 If such a guideline exists, why is it ignored by the vast majority of articles with images?
  • 3 Why is such a guideline necessary (if it exists)?

Paul venter 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I just listed a handful of your images at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images#April 9. You have tagged these images as GFDL when they probably are not. The name and year of death of the author should be given, as well as the date of publication of the image.
When we use copyrighted images we generally reduce their resolution to avoid infringing copyright. There is no specific rule about how low the resolution should be, however the resolution should not be larger than necessary. 300px wide is a general rule of thumb, but it ultimately depends on the image in question and how it is used. —Remember the dot 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For more information, please read Misplaced Pages:Fair use. —Remember the dot 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
After looking about a bit, it seems that Remember the dot's answer misses the point some. This is not about the size of images uploaded, but rather the size of images as they appear in the article. Paul has been involved in a dispute with Kittybrewster over the formatting of images in articles, specifically the specification of the size of thumbnail images. Kitty feels that the size should not be specified, and points to the MOS. Paul replies that the MOS is a guideline and not policy, and therefore optional. The discussion became heated. Paul was blocked by Tyrenius for Personal attack after specific warning after Kitty brought an edit to the attention of Tyrenius in which Paul claimed in the edit summary to be "repairing damage by a stalker" after being warned by Tyrenius that such summaries violated WP:NPA. (I apologize to any and all involved if my summation is inaccurate.) To answer Paul's question: it is my understanding that the MOS is indeed a guideline, but it is widely followed. Without a compelling reason, it is probably a bad idea to violate it. In this case, specifying the width of an image can screw up the layout for some readers so much as to make the article unreadable. Misplaced Pages is used by people who may have very good reasons for specifying smaller, or larger images than what looks good in your browser. Since specifying an image size overrides the preferences they may have set, it should not be done without a very good reason. Essentially the guidelines sat that it should only be done if shrinking the image to default size will make the image unusable. Dsmdgold 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Your summation is accurate, although I regret that you introduced the users' names - I was hoping to keep personalities out of the discussion, since an issue is automatically polarised and mindless supporters are often drawn in to add to the noise, if not to constructive ideas. Your setting out of the reasons leading to WP's favouring thumbnails, though, leads right back to my question 2 above.Paul venter 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In a word ignorance. I do a lot of medieval manuscript articles, and I used to specify image size. However, when the reasoning for the guideline was brought to my attention, I uderstood and accepted it. Perhaps the other editors are not aware of the guideline. Also, many (but not all) of the images in the articles you point to are of paintings with a horizontal orientation. Perhaps the editor in question decided that in order for the image to be understood it needed to be wider than the default thumbnail setting (for an extreme example of this see Monet's Waterlillies in his article). Although the guideline doesn't state it I believe that certain images have such iconic status that an argument can be made for making them larger. For example, The Child's Bath (The Bath), by Mary Cassatt, is probably her best known work, and deserves a larger image. Other editors may disagree. Dsmdgold 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The thumbnail issue is also important because it allows the user to have the pics appear at his/her size according to their preferences (see the preferences box on top of your screen and click on files). Quadzilla99 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question in the technical section, but it bears repeating here:- "Just how difficult is it changing WP's image-handling software to deal with the 'screwing-the-browser' issue without forcing thumbnails on everyone?". The other thing that puzzles me is that some articles happily mix thumbnails and larger images. What does that do to the problematic browser? Paul venter 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and MOS

Is there anything in the MOS about the use and content of Infoboxes? If not, shouldn't there be? Frelke 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of topic specific subpages of the MOS that include guidelines for infoboxes for articles about that topic, for example Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and Misplaced Pages:Dynamic infobox templates purports to be part of the MOS (although it's reachable from WP:MOS only through Category:Misplaced Pages style guidelines). Many infoboxes are "owned" by a specific WikiProject. Including general guidelines about infoboxes in the main MOS seems like a reasonable idea to me. Please bring this up at WT:MOS. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Attack sites

An essay I wrote, Misplaced Pages:Attack sites, was promoted by others to proposed guideline status. Please take a look and contribute. The aim was to define what is an 'attack site', which seeks to out the personal identies of Wikipedians, and/or harass them, and why they should never, ever be linked to or promoted on Misplaced Pages for the safety and protection of editors. - Denny 13:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of names

Right now, lists of names appear in three contexts:

  1. The List of people by name.
  2. Articles dedicated to names. These vary dramatically in quality: I cite Hayley as a very good example, and Allawi as a very bad one.
  3. Disambiguation pages, such as Adamson (disambiguation) (good) and Alder (disambiguation) (better).

This triplicity of formats scatters our efforts and confuses editors (such as yours truly) who are trying to clean up pages with lists of names. I think we need a policy to specify what to do with lists of names. In particular, I think we should either officially endorse LoPbN or remove it once and for all. --Smack (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that LoPbN should be the only name list or not exist at all. (BTW, would you mind editing your own entry above to display the names of the pages you link? Hayley instead of this, and likewise for Allawi, Adamson (disambiguation), Alder (disambiguation)?) But I do think that a policy statement on the acceptability of pages or sections listing people by their given name, surname, or middle name might ease some churn. A list of people named John would be difficult, whereas a list of people named Banana would be manageable (Banana (disambiguation)#People with the name Banana). Some questions that would need to be discussed:
  1. Should surnames be treated differently than given names
  2. When to lump the name holders on dab pages (Banana (disambiguation))
  3. When to make name pages (Adam (name)) separate from dabs (Adam (disambiguation))
  4. When to make separate pages for given-name and surname holders (Arthur and Arthur (surname) - and the disambiguation info should really be pulled out into Arthur (disambiguation) instead of Arthur IMO; I'll get to that soon)
  5. Whether any of these options should be used in favor of lists like List of people named Daniel, List of people with the first name Julie, or Famous people with the surname Smith
  6. How (if at all) this affects people who are at least commonly known by a single name (Adriano, Cher, Adam, Hitler, The Rock))
Some links to prior and current discussions:
I'm sure there are more; the discussion surfaces frequently. These aren't truly disambiguation pages -- they don't disambiguate articles that would otherwise have the same title. No article on Julie Andrews would have been titled Julie, for example. The list of names (by given or surname) appear to me to go counter to WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a directory, but mine was the minority opinion in the discussions I was part of.-- JHunterJ 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Links clarified per request. --Smack (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND and the inability of anons to see the new messages bar

How how these two never affected one another? I mean one would expect that this would necessitate a change in the vandalism policy--VectorPotential 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The people who thought that up never edit as anons (anymore) --Kim Bruning 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What? I post warnings incrementally assuming that anonymous users see the "new messages" bar. Do they not? Sancho 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe they do see the bar actually. (I once asked this somewhere). From looking at some comments on the Help Desk and on VPT, it seems the some anons are having problems with the bar not going away after checking messages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not all of them see it (for example, I just tried it on myself, and I don't see it). There is a short thread on this at the technical village pump. I don't know much about it. CMummert · talk 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Template deletion RANT(ish)

<rant> (hey, I need to blow off steam too, sometimes)

Alright, now this is really insane. I found {{Policyalteration}}, which is obviously broken (and was broken both before and after I made some clarifying edits to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism) . So since people really shouldn't be using this template ever, I put a quick {{db}}, I mean, duh.  :-P

So I got back a (decline speedy, discuss at MFD instead).

Well that sucks. You can always trust CSD %-)

So let's see, first of all, shouldn't that be TFD? And then, all the *FDs have different policies with strange gotchas, and odd, confusing jargon, and I'm not going to wade through 10 different pages memorising the Local-Deletion-"Policy" of the day just to get rid of a single silly template.

So no, let's not do that.

So finally I throw on a {{PROD}} like I should have done in the first place. But like, fsck, what's this? I need to subst it... well fine... but, oh crap, I'm not supposed to use it for templates.

Ok, pursuing this further was just not worth it. At that point, I just gave up.

We now have one crappy template still alive, ready to be abused by some pitiable fool for next week's wikidrama installment;-)

</rant>

In practice, it turns out that ordinary users can't get blatantly silly templates removed at all easily.

Of course, the reason I had my admin flag turned off is for precicely this kind of reason. Now I'm forced to try to figure some way to {{sofixit}} at least. ;-)

--Kim Bruning 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the 3 steps at TFD are so hard (and one is optional, depending how you read it). It would have taken you less time to list it at TFD than to write this. MECU≈talk 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
<looks, looks twice, finds after 3rd try> Oh you mean the 3 steps spanning a single screenful, wedged in after the > 100 line index, the what and what not to do on the one side, and the surely over 1 megabyte of substs on the other side? Ahuh.Ok... now reading the steps... they are marked I, II, III... let's see.... step I is just under 1k of details you need to remember... II seems simple enough, oh and step III tells you to go off and canvas people and stuff. Ok, let's not quite do that.
You know what? I think that just figuring that through cost more time than typing the rant. :-P
This was supposed to be quick :-/
Granted TFD currently looks to be somewhat more streamlined than some other *FD processes, but there is no standardization, so you have to learn different ways of doing things for each. There's no one-stop-shop. --Kim Bruning 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I object to the term "ordinary users". I find that offensive. MECU≈talk 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, "users without an admin flag", then? --Kim Bruning 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So are you suggesting we overhaul, standardize, and simplify XfDs or cleanout some of the hyper-specific, totally unused templates? Either way I'm behind it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> Um, see ... that's why I should learn to keep my mouth shut. Now I've just made myself a new big job, haven't I? </sigh> --Kim Bruning 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: Misplaced Pages is timeless

I have proposed a guideline at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is timeless. Should I announce it anywhere else? --NE2 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

well, for one thing, it isn't. Some topics are included because they are recent, which is equivalent to saying that some aren't because they are not. I would phrase this as an effort to "counter temporal bias", not as a statement of intent to weed out recentisms. We can't help it that Misplaced Pages as it is was written in the 2000s. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that we shouldn't have an article on a similar "scandal" from 50 years ago, if sources exist? My intent is not to "weed out recentisms" but to ensure that older stuff is not deleted just because it's old. --NE2 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This looks a lot like: Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability_is_generally_permanent. There has been next to no discussion about this portion of the guideline, however. There was a bit of discussion of that phrase's use at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ashley_Leitao, but not much. It will be interesting to see how discussion on this goes. Sancho 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Notability only deals with the existence of articles; this also covers inclusion of information in articles. --NE2 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players

Please take the time to review and contribute to the discussion regarding naming conventions & disambiguation for baseball player articles going on here. Thanks, Caknuck 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Centralized Discussions

Are there any pages/lists of centralized discussions of commonly discussed issues, such as blanking user talk pages, removing warnings, etc. ? Not a dog 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it: Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion. Not a dog 03:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Service?

Don't know if this belongs here, but I couldn't find a better place to post it

Does Misplaced Pages offer community service to members for making positive edits and contributions? As a junior in high school, anything that can be put onto my transcript will be beneficial. Editing on Misplaced Pages is similar to other forms of "community service", and Misplaced Pages is a non-profit organization. I guess the point I'm getting at, simply put, is can I put the hours I put into editing Misplaced Pages onto my college transcript?

Thanks in advance CyminX 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a "Stub:" namespace

Hi, most of my ideas get shot down here, but hey, you throw enough and something's gotta stick! How about a stub namespace? Or at least some way to store them differently, as we do redirects. Since we're so proud of our "random article" button — and roughly half the time it turns up a measly scrap of an article — it seems like we should want to make it appear that we're as credible as possible. I stub-sort a bit, so I've seen quite a few, and while some stubs blossom, many end up at AFD, but hardly any are yet ready to be included in an encyclopaedia. Think of it like a testing/holding place for that which could be. Any takers? — Jack · talk · 02:18, Thursday, 12 April 2007

No. Fundamentally, your suggestion assumes a distinction between stubs and full articles. That distinction is arbitrary and left to the judgment of individual editors. Thus, there are one-line articles not tagged as stubs, and four-paragraph articles that are stubs. All it takes to fix a stub is add a little content and referencing, then remove the template. In this respect, a stub template is like a {{cleanup}} tag. As for the "Random Article" concern, some people use that feature with the specific goal of finding problem articles to fix or to nominate for deletion. YechielMan 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed: there is no "distinction between stubs and full articles", stubs are a form of article. Incomplete ones, certainly, but still articles.Circeus 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification when user talk page has been blanked

Accepting that users have the (general) right to clear their talk page of warnings, I'm wondering if there should be some kind of template or bug (like the cute little admin broom) that must be displayed to indicate to others that user warnings have been removed from a particular talk page. Seems to make sense rather than having to check the history to see if there is an on-going problem... Not a dog 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem with the bots' automated warnings. A disruptive user will blank off their warnings, then a bot will leave an automated warning on the clean page. This means that unless a manual revert-then-edit is done, at least one of the warnings will be lost. Any template indicating deleted warnings is just as apt to be blanked off by a disruptive editor anyway. Caknuck 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that in general people are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. So I'd suggest you check the history tab, which should show the issues in the edit summaries. >Radiant< 12:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I remember several months ago however that an anon account replaced the images on a Montenegro-related article with images of female anuses. I considered this to be such an obvious bad faith action (not a newbie test) that I went straight to {{test4im}}. I blocked when he replaced the warning with a standard {{test}}... as if a new IP entitles you to vandalize four times without getting blocked. I blocked that guy immediately. (Good thing that this iron fisted poor excuse for an admin is no longer an admin...) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to make sense to have some kind of easy indication that warnings have been issued and since blanked, rather than having to rifle through the history. I dunno. Not a dog 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, possibly for others as well, I usually did not only review the user's talkpage, but also the contribution history. This usually reveals a lot more than the history of warnings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When leaving a warning, you should put a description in the edit summary. That can't be blanked and should be visible at a glance unless they have an extremely busy talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy/guideline regarding punctuation style? Apostrophes and quotation marks, specifically?

This isn't of major improtance but I thought this edit to the Birdman and the Galaxy Trio article was odd, mainly because I hadn't seen this type of edit before. The apostrophes and quotation marks have been swapped from the conventional ones to a different style. I don't even have that type of punctuation on my keyboard, just ' and ". This is such a small detail I never expected Misplaced Pages to have a policy on it, but if this editor went to the effort of changing the quotation marks, then I wondered if there is a guideline? Pufnstuf 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style has a lot of stylistic guidelines, but I don't think it has anything on what particular type of quotation marks to use. Those look like Unicode ones, you can generate them with a regular word processor and paste them in. (I don't know of any keyboards that specifically have them). Usually we just use the standard "" or '', but it's probably not a tremendously big deal. Seraphimblade 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
In particular, the MOS section on quotation marks uses the Unicode directional quotes, but does not say that they are required. It does say that grave and acute accents should not be used for single quotes. 207.176.159.90 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for "References in Popular Culture" sections

Do any such guidelines exist? If not, I'd like to suggest some, namely:

1. Avoid such a list if possible. "References in Popular Culture" lists are (almost always) inherently WP:Original Research, because they (almost always) depend on Misplaced Pages editors to determine what is worthy of inclusion.

2. Before creating a "References in Popular Culture" section, ask yourself: Is it useful? Does it make the article more or less encyclopedic?

3. If you really must have a "References in Popular Culture" section, then a guiding principle should be: "if X is less famous than Y, then references to Y by X are by definition not very interesting". Only references by people or things more interesting are notable. A reference to a well-known person or event by an obscure band does not qualify. A reference to a lesser-known person or event by a popular band (e.g. the song about the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo by U2 comes to mind) does qualify.

4. A little more leeway exists for things which exist mainly in popular culture anyway. So the "References in Popular Culture" section is generally more appropriate for a TV show than for a politician.

p.s. If there is a policy page already where this is discussed, or where it should be discussed, could someone please direct me to it. Thanks. Rocksong 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I especially like idea #3. I find it incredibly annoying that about 90% of all 'popular culture' sections link to Family Guy, just because much of its method of humor is to play off semi-obscure references for laughs. By the way, you probably want to look at Category:Fictional works in popular culture, where whole articles have been devoted to this subject, though supposedly only for "iconic" works.--Pharos 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to this effect can be found at WP:TRIVIA. Agne/ 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute to...

WP:HAIKU. >Radiant< 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Double redirect.
Bad, bad thing.
Fix it right now please.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean "Bad bad bad bad bad bad thing"? --Minderbinder 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sjakkalle does not,
Know a thing about haikus.
You are quite right friend.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BAG being un-wiki?

Some time ago, the old bot approval process was deprecated and replaced with a highly bureaucratic system. It is made up of self-nomed admins get to decide whether your bot will be beneficial to Misplaced Pages or not- on their own whim. Any one of these administrators can reject your request if they feel like it or not. This is highly un-wiki, as other users (such as those who edit the affected topic) can give little input. If you are looking at this right now and want to give your $0.02, please do so at User:Rschen7754/BAG, where there are more details about the situation.  V60 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAG is an open process, they want community input, they sometimes drag out the approval process waiting for more community input. I can clearly state why the bot was not approved. When the request was placed approval was for a task that had no community consensus behind it, there is no MoS guideline, or current practice. it was stated that 7 editors at one WikiProject is a consensus. BAG and the rest of the community don't see that as consensus. Please tell me if im mistaken on what consensus is. The second request was for approval for the exact same task as another bot, see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Rschen7754bot 2 for the most part bots(task) are not cloned without reason. Why have 2 bots do the EXACT same task? that is why that bot was denied. And as for framework my bot is BAG approved and uses both pywikipedia and AWB. BAG does a great job for what the task is. BAG is a group of users who know what bots are, how they work and how they need controlled. Misplaced Pages has set up a system where people who know what they are doing can monitor the issues with bots. Betacommand 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked through the bot requests and I don't see anything improper. Many of the requested tasks could be accomplished by just asking one of the other bot operators to run a job for you. One of the requests was denied because no bot flag is needed to take the requested action. Another one of the requests asked for an edit rate of 40 edits per min, suggesting the person making the request is not familiar with the standard practices. CMummert · talk 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(Being a BAG member) I personally welcome as much community input as possible in to every Bot request, and have specifically asked operators to link their requests to related projects, or link to where consensus has been made on a project. Some bot requests are slam-dunk quick approvals (e.g. interwiki bots) but some require much thaught. While bots can be reverted like any other editor, the community has been pretty clear that some edits just shouldn't happen by a bot (the perenial WelcomeNewUserBot request comes to mind). Changes to the bot policy are of course possible, and if the community wants something new, we should start up a discussion at the bot policy talk page. — xaosflux 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This user is becoming very problematic. When he doesn't get his own way he rants and moans and, in his earlier dealings with Mets501, was close to getting civility warnings (hence my rather acerbic closure of that request). He demonstrates no technical expertise but frankly displays a great deal of immaturity. Is it any surprise he doesn't get approved? If at all possible, I should prefer not to give him a bot flag at all until he has matured somewhat.
Where a user has the necessary attitude, the process can be very quick. See Nono le petit robot. Useful bot, clear brief, exceptionally polite user, approved with hardly a problem. --kingboyk 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll echo Kingbok's words - when a bot is using a tried and tested structure to do a simple task (like interwiki), then we approve with the minimum of fuss. A number of my approvals in the past fortnight went through the process in less than 24 hours. It is with the other bots that bwe have to be careful, and we are charged with the task of protecting Misplaced Pages from thousands of bad bot edits. Vishwin has been in converstain with me on IRC about some of his bot tasks, but has not once there expressed his apparent concern to me, so one gets the feeling that this is a response to the recent denial of one of his bot tasks, which was denied as it was for Wikiproject assessing - something which should be attributed to a user to show that some automatic process isn't doing the assessments. By all means, if Vishwin60 wanted to put another task in which was simple Wikiproject tagging, the BAG would consider it without prejudice, though we could well decide to ask him to allow an already approved bot (ReedyBot for example) do the task for him. Vishwin60's other task - newslettr delivery - is coming close to approval once one or two problems are ironed out. I should note that as Vishwin's assessment task was deemed not to require a flag, he's free to do it without BAG approval (as it isn't needed for his particular task, as expressed on the talk page of it). The BAG is not made up of "self nommed admins", in both senses of the phrase - an election procedure much like that used by WP:MEDCOM takes place, in which anyone is free to chip in. Bot approvals are always subject to appeal and oversight, in the form of the resubmission of a previous request.
I'd just like to explore a couple of the cases brought up on User:Rschen7754/BAG. On the case of the Reflist task - there was no community consensus for the change, and in fact many issues were brought up when the issue was brought to the spotlight by Mets501 on one of the village pumps. Due to this lack of consensus and no clear prior discussion, the BAG was policy-bound to deny the request (no prejudice to re-application). On the case of the newsletter task - as I understand it, WP:USRD, without bots, split up the rather long list of newsletter subscribers between three members, manually using AWB. Suddenly, BAG recieved two requests for bot approval from two of the users who carr yout this task, the requests being posted within 4 days of eachother. Now, although the subscription list, at about 100 long, is lengthy for manual delivery, it is a breeze for a bot, so despite the fact that Mets501 had already given Rschen's bot a trial, I denied it, on the basis that Mets was on a Wikibreak, so unlikely to be able to respond soon, and after off-wiki discussion with other BAG members, by way of a sanity check. To make it abundantly clear to avoid any sort of bad-feeling - I only denied Rschen's bot because it's request for approval was put in after Vishwin's. There are a number of technical reasons why one would not want to have two bots running on the same task at the same time - most notably that a problem can be harder to track down, and having only one user doing the task gives the WikiProject more continuity and provides editors with just one person to contact when problems arise, rather than having to find two. Rschen is free to leave a message at WT:BRFA if ever he wants a second opinion. Finally, I would encourage as many editors as possible to get involved at BRFA - at the moment we have 2 or 3 regular non BAGers there, and we would really like more to come over and help us! Thanks, Martinp23 12:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
In other wikimedia projects, bots aren't approved by technicians. But it's not a good thing, sadly. BAG members are capable technician who knows better that any of us what harm bot can do to wikipedia. In fact, one of 'em is even a developer. The fact of being admin is, I think, only customary, as I don't think it's required to be on the BAG. Also, I have to point out that this process isn't highly bureaucratic: usually it's quite quick.
About the "same task" issue: I don't think that this is the proper page, maybe it's better to discuss it in the talk page of the Bot request for approval, anyway, as I have pointed out in the discussion about your bot, 40 edits/minutes, it's really fast. For a non essential task, this edit rate isn't allowed. Also, two bots that do the same thing, which at 5 edits per minute can be done in no more that twenty minutes, aren't necessary.
Community involvement in the process is always welcome. If you can show me where community involvement wasn't welcomed, I will really appreciate, as I never spotted such a case. BTW, I'm not a BAG member ;-)Snowolf CON - 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that comment, I think it's spot on. Let me add that BAG also includes 3 active AWB developers, and the tool being used for the manual assessments was written by me (with hundreds of hours of my personal time being given gratis). On top of this we are all admins, and, I believe, all trusted members of the community. I can say with the utmost confidence that we are not only technically knowledgeable as a group but also experienced and dedicated Wikipedians with one common interest: the betterment of Misplaced Pages. If I ever personally exhibit any behaviour which isn't compatible with this claim (apart from my lighthearted clowning around of course :)) I'd like to be advised of it immediately. --kingboyk 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the use of WMF logos in article space

Wikimedia logos are unfree. They are copyrighted and trademarked by the Foundation (e.g. Category:CopyrightByWikimedia). The Foundation believes strictly controlling these images is necessary to their ability to manage the brand. Various efforts over ~2 years have requested that the Foundation either adopt some form of m:Logo and trademark policy or otherwise providing licensing that would make the logos free. But Anthere, chair of the WMF Board, has made clear, "the Foundation will not put the logos under a free licence" .

As a result there are no officially approved uses of WMF logos in Misplaced Pages except for the main logo at the upper left. Most everyone assumes that the WMF tolerates the use of the logos within Misplaced Pages (of which they are doubtlessly aware), and that there is unlikely to be any real legal conflict about anything used within Misplaced Pages. What is far less clear is what happens for reusers. Reusers do not have any rights to Wikimedia logos and Foundation has said there are classes of sites that they would have real concern about if they were using Wikimedia logos.

In the interest of creating an encyclopedia that is truly free, and makes reuse as easy as possible, I would like to advocate eliminating the incidental and decorative uses of Wikimedia logos within article space. For example, by removing the logo from Template:Commons. The text on the template already identifies the target, so the logo adds little, while coming at the cost of embedding unfree content with potential unexpected legal landmines within our otherwise free content.

I realize removing the logos, which are used extensively through our sister project templates, would be controversial for some, but I think it is right thing to do in light of our commitment to free content and the regrettable unwillingness of the Foundation to provide any other protection for reusers. Dragons flight 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, couldn't we just do imagemap (click on the image to take you to the commons gallery, as opposed to going to the image description page) on those images so that reusers don't get easy access to the image?  V60 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about people interested in working from the database dumps to create mirrors and forks rather than people copying images one at a time. Dragons flight 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to address this issue, and got 0 cooperation here. I obstain from any further actions myself, but I agree with you, and you have my personal full support. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Responding to suicidal individuals

As per WP:HCP I would like to propose the following new policy: Misplaced Pages:Responding to suicidal individuals. This proposal has been extensively discussed here, and that discussion is also reproduced and has been expanded upon at the talk page for the proposed policy. In a nutshell the policy is “Misplaced Pages is not a counseling service. Respond to suicidal individuals by pointing them towards one of the listed crisis lines/websites. Do not ridicule or make personal attacks on suicidal editors.” Please edit or comment upon this proposed policy. Thank you. S.dedalus 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Section Twenty-one of..."

There is a series of articles with titles like Section Twenty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The capitalization "Twenty-one" rather than "Twenty-One" is an antique style, and in any case the normal use in any legal context would be "Section 21". Is there any policy or style-guide reason that supports the present titling style for these articles?

207.176.159.90 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions would probably be the place to start. --YbborSurvey! 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, I was hoping someone would be familiar enough to point me to the right section if there is one. I've just browsed a number of sections and not found anything directly relevant. 207.176.159.90 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating scale

I've seen a rating scale for biographies, but where are the criteria for other categories? I'd like to make an article A class but I want to be sure it meets the criteria. I don't want to know for just this category but all categories. Tayquan My work 05:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also if A class is ahead of GA, why is A class arbitrarily decided but GA class requires a systematic process? Tayquan My work 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation is that an A-class article is one that only just misses the Featured Article Criteria, while being easily a Good Article. Bluap 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about "just misses" "while easily being a Good Article" isn't there some kind of formal criteria here? Tayquan My work 06:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat odd but that's the situation. A few wikiprojects have formal systems for making A-class articles. For the rest, you just assign the article a quality rating by yourself. If someone else disagrees with your rating, they can always change it later. CMummert · talk 11:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of BLP?: Don Murphy

Is this content, which was published in the some of the largest of magazines in the United States, a violation of BLP? -- Zanimum 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

we already had this discussion. YOU are a loser who locked the page as a favor for a friend. All of this is revealed on

http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=18364 You should resign, go back to graphic design, and slice yourself. Fecapedian 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I brought this up at WT:NC, but I didn't get a response. My question is about the names of articles about places or buildings within a city, such as Humboldt Park, Chicago. Is there a rule to help us choose between "Humboldt Park, Chicago", "Humboldt Park, Chicago, Illinois", "Humboldt Park (Chicago)", and "Humboldt Park (Chicago, Illinois)" for the name of the article? Thanks, Smmurphy 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/African_american#Criticisms of the term
Categories: