Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 25 May 2013

Manual Archives

1, 2, 3

Shortcuts WP:RFC/BOARD WP:RFCRB WP:RFCB This is a simplified system to make a request for comment on articles, policies, etc. Requests made on this board will be transferred to the appropriate place by a volunteer. Please remember to include a link to relevant article or discussion. Do not use this page to request comment on users, administrators, or bots; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct for that. Also, do not use this page simply as a way to advertise RfCs that have already been posted; see how to publicize an RfC for ways to do that.

Seeking wider, more informed, input on the reliability of Wikinews as a source

Given the particularly limited input on this discussion, I would like an RfC raised on this issue.

As the above discussion shows, the arguments put against Wikinews being a reliable source are:

1. It's a wiki, anyone can edit it.
2. It's self-published.
3. Wikinewsies are not 'qualified' journalists.

Those points are rebutted thus:

1. It is a wiki which uses FlaggedRevs as part of the publication process.
2. There is a formal policy for independent peer review.
3. Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Walter Cronkite, George Orwell—all well-respected for their journalistic work, and undertook no formal journalism studies. Additionally, contributing to Wikinews has been assigned coursework for degree-level journalism students from the University of Wollongong and University of Southern Indiana.

I can fully accept that synthesis work on Wikinews is not appropriate, the sources which Wikinews draws from are likely more appropriate. However, Wikinews' original reporting can, and should, be used as a source with which Misplaced Pages can be enriched. --Brian McNeil / 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

"Little known to the mainstream is that the Wikinews’ volunteer formal review process is tight and accountable, with checking and peer review of standards that mainstream news generally no longer adheres. Similar to The Economist, Wikinews contributors are permitted to write anonymously, in joint contributions, which are heavily reviewed to a standard far higher than a self-published blog (Thorsen, 2008) (Bruns, 2005). Veracity checks by Wikinews reviewers ensure at least two independently verified sources for every news point made in a story. Wikinews has no commercial imperative over the work. Qualified reviewers are experienced volunteers and work on copy as it arrives. Wikinews is unique, in that review is applied according to strict policies and processes. Like any act of publication, freedom of expression is limited by the prior restraints arising essentially from law, ethics and news policy."

This rather lengthy quote is from David Blackall's paper, Wikinews – a safe haven for learning journalism, free of the usual suspects of spin and commercial agendas. Although I am a co-author on the paper, these are David's words, and he is a senior lecturer in the UoW school of journalism. --Brian McNeil / 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you propose holding such an RFC (Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources is the natural venue for "general" reliability questions), and who do you propose drafting a neutrally worded RFC statement with prior to commencing an RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• If I knew where was the most appropriate place to put this RfC, I would not have placed it here. That, as the policy states (and great big caution-signed message at the top of editing this page warns), is precisely what this page is for. I believe that all the criticisms raised on the Reliable sources noticeboard were rebutted, but people are slow to change their minds; especially when doing so is an admission they were wrong.

I am, largely, the outsider to Misplaced Pages. I have to place some degree of trust that the above can, and will, be refactored into a 'balanced' request for comments by someone whose reputation is not invested in one side or the other of the dispute. And, that whoever does so will be able to correctly identify the most-appropriate place to put the RfC.

I do have to note that you're challenging the request for wider input, and not the points I see as the basis for your argument, which I offer a rebuttal to. I note the discussion has moved on, but that what I can only describe as "fundamentalist" attitudes are being displayed by some. --Brian McNeil / 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your ability to read the consensus on WP:RS/N perhaps needs some improvement, but as you note you're not highly experienced with wikipedia so that's fine. Regarding the RFC; I don't believe the Wikinews has had its reliability addressed seriously or definitively by the community in the last twelve months, so it is fair to try to see if consensus has changed and make arguments. What I'd suggest is that we draft the RFC here, and when it is ready to go (ie: we both agree that it represents a neutrally worded solicitation of external input) we take it live on WP:IRS's talk page, and solicit external input as appropriate (village pump, centralised discussions, etc.). That way we can definitively gauge the wider community's sentiments. We can also plan to get an external closer for the RFC from an early period. How does that sound? Draft here together, then when it is ready, take it to WP:IRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Experienced with Misplaced Pages? I'd rather not, thank you! ;-) I can understand the value of longer-running debates, but lack the patience to participate. But, what I'm seeking is someone who cares neither one way or the other to distill-down the arguments for and against.

Every point I've seen added to the debate by Wikipedians who've done little-to-no research into what Wikinews' peer-review process is gives me less and less respect for "consensus". Consensus could say the moon is made of green cheese, it would not make it true. Yes, I know it's one of the cornerstones of how Misplaced Pages works, but so is participating in a debate, or discussion, from an informed point of view. I see precious little of that—which is what gives me the scope to make the rather scathing "green cheese" remark.

Wikinews gets hit both ways. There's not just your arguments, dismissing the project's work as unreliable. The other side of the coin is we're accused of not following a "wiki ethos" in having independent review, archiving (i.e. fully protecting articles a week after publication), and basically not letting absolutely anyone 'publish' whatever they like.

What I do not see, where you claim there is "consensus", is any form of cogent rebuttal of the points raised in favour of considering Wikinews a reliable source. Really, I ask you, is the fact that we use the same base software as Misplaced Pages a reasonable, rational, and supportable argument against considering Wikinews reliable?

It is because of such, frankly idiotic, arguments (yes, I know it wasn't one of yours, but you should challenge such dubious reasoning) that I do not feel there is enough common ground for us to work together on taking this to a more formal RfC, and that someone else should do so. --Brian McNeil / 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct: the software base doesn't matter. The reliability issue is that Wikinews is open access, and that the standards of review do not meet the required standards for en.wikipedia reliability (the Germans are much more lax, for example; and the Dutch are positively permissive). en.wikipedia has extremely strict standards regarding what an appropriate editorial standard for en.wikipedia's reliability standards are. RS/N has over five plus years rejected openly contributed material without a strict (very strict) editorial policies. If your primary project is Wikinews then I salute you, it is a noble thing to do, I'd rank wikinews well above fox, but well below the Guardian—kind of in the Sydney Morning Herald category of quality. But quality is not the perverse and bizarre thing that wikipedia demands of reliability. To change the consensus about the standards required would take a major RFC, because these standards are in place because of the contested nature of en.wikipedia, and because of some foundational choices regarding discipline and content disputes that were made on en.wikipedia. To reverse these would be a substantial community decision, opening the way for the general use of "find a grave" or "Jane's pornography blog" grade sources. And I don't know that wikinews would wish to meet en.wikipedia's demands regarding reliability—they would be onerous. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian. Are you interested in crafting a neutrally worded RFC or not? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I advised him to request the assistance of an uninvolved administrator on WP:AN if he is seriously intrested in doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to at least try, can you point out any items I've missed with the three I listed above? Or, whilst keeping brief, phrase them more to your liking? That's probably the best starting point. Dominus' suggestion to then get an uninvolved administrator to distil things down is going to be easier if all the 'cards are on the table'. But, I won't be participating in the discussion anymore tonight, so no rush on that. --Brian McNeil / 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft RfC

Is wikinews a reliable source?

1. In what circumstances is en.wikinews (Our article) a reliable source in terms of en.wikipedia's verification policy?
2. Should en.wikipedia's policies be amended to reflect this?

Nature of the source en.wikinews is a news source which generates content in the following ways:

1. , generated by ;
2. , generated by ;
3. …

these are then overseen and published by …

Past discussions on en.wikipedia

The reliability of wikinews has been previously discussed on en.wikipedia:

1. Reliable sources/Noticeboard July 2012, closed as, "wikinews is a user generated source and therefore not reliable per WP:RS and WP:V."
2. Recently at WP:RS/N, where a particular interview was given a on the basis of
3. Last year at WT:IRS
4. Most recent previous RS/N archive discussion
5. Years ago: Link to initial WP page discussing use of Wikinews (prior to my edits)

Brief in favour

Brief against

Comments on RfC construction

That's what an RFC ought to look like on this topic. I suggest we edit it in the section above, together, until the content is filled out, and we both agree that this is the RFC that should go forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

are we doing all wikinewses, or just en.? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'm just dropping in to reassure you I've not abandoned this. As well as taking a break to avoid ending up excessively stressed with this, I've been going over some of the threads I'm tracking on a piece of investigative journalism related to the UK's draft communications data bill.

I think I'll get zero argument from my fellow Wikinewsies if I say that in characterising us as a news source, it isn't the majority of our output that the discussion concerns. Articles where we rely totally on more mainstream sources (what we call synthesis) are not stuff we'd expect to see Misplaced Pages cite. Logic dictates if we pick up information from the NYT, BBC, CNN and AP, you go back to those sources.

The sort of stuff I'm looking at, and commenting on my own reportage is easiest, would be things like my article on the ACLU and EFF challeinging secret court orders. You can easily see that, assuming it isn't completely fabricated, a huge amount of work went into it.

From a review of yesterday's duh-ramah, can I offer a measly suggestion on filling the above out more? That is, the heading "Is wikinews a reliable source?". I'd propose replacing it with "Under what circumstances can Wikinews comfortably be accepted as a reliable source?" This trims the scope, ruthlessly, back to just our Original Reporting works and, I would hope, turns the presentation's viewing from "Wikinews is always unreliable to may be reliable, and here are the criteria you need to examine". The more articulate negative arguments on the noticeboard did indeed play up certain mainstream sources having a reputation for being reliable, but that such was not to be blindly accepted.

I'll close my, overly limited, input on this for this evening by saying "thank you" for helping move this towards an RfC. It is always a pleasure to be proven wrong when one assumes that someone is arguing dogmatically. --Brian McNeil / 22:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just re-reading the above, I note you ask "Are we doing all (language) Wikinews(es), or just English?" Other languages have adopted the same use of Flagged Revisions and independent peer-review to obtain Google News listings. They cannot be assumed to be as-rigorous. They're going down the same road as English Wikinews because of what a GNews listing can mean, but each is a distinct, independent, group of editors. --Brian McNeil / 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It might make sense to neutrally include information about Wikinews itself. For example, Brian presented information on its editorial process that may influence whether we think Wikinews demonstrates a pattern of fact-checking. According to WP:RS, "less established" news outlets are "less reliable," therefore, Wikinews' age and view numbers might help us measure its "establishment." On the other hand, I bet many of Wikinews' editors would qualify as an RS as a self-published expert. To prevent an emotional and reflexive response, we could also consider breaking down the RFC to a series of questions:

• Does Wikinews demonstrate a pattern of fact-checking?
• Is it an "established" news source?
• Do its editors qualify as an RS as a self-published expert?
• Do you trust information on Wikinews to be accurate?

Those are my suggestions. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Kaduri's note about the Messiah's name

I'd welcome external comments on sourcing Cpsoper (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeking wide input on the interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy on 'See also'

Inviting as many editors as possible to comment. This is a general question on the interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy on the 'See also' section of WP articles, not tied to any particular WP article. It seems the rules for 'See also' are not identical to those for the body of WP articles. Does every link in 'See also' have to be supported by a reliable external source that makes a connection between the link and the subject of the article? Or something in the link that mentions the article, or otherwise makes a direct connection with the article? For example, what if the material in a link is almost identical, or very similar, to the material in an article, yet editors are not aware of the existence of a source that mentions both the article and the link in the same source?

One argument is that the absence of a source implies that the connection between the link and the article is based on original research, and thus the link should not be included in 'See also'.

A counter-argument is that if such a source existed, we could have used it in the body of the article, and thus there would be no need to include it in 'See also' (because "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"). According to this perspective, 'See also' should be as inclusive as possible, and a link should be removed from 'See also' if and only if it creates a possibly libelous connection in a biography of a living person, or if the addition of the link is vandalism. According to this perspective, 'See also' should represent those links that could provide context to the content of the article, and if an editor believes in good faith that the link will provide that context, the link should be available to readers to make that judgement themselves. In other words, according to this view, WP:OR would apply if editors proposed to use the link to support a claim in the body of the article, not if the link is restricted to the 'See also' section and editors make no reference to the link within the body of the article. According to this perspective, if all WP policies applied to 'See also' exactly as they do to the main body of the article, there would not be a need for a separate section called 'See also'. According to this view, WP policies for the main body are designed to, metaphorically speaking, narrow-down, limit and constrict the range of material eligible for inclusion in the main body. This relative narrowing, limitation and constriction may be exactly one of the main reasons for the existence of 'See also'. In this view, 'See also' is designed to open-up the range of material eligible for inclusion, relative to the main body of the article. (However, some limitations on 'See also' still exist, such as restricting it to links to other WP articles.) According to this perspective, while the main body is designed to be relatively more exclusive, 'See also' is designed to be considerably more inclusive, to enable readers to explore deeper and broader, to discover, investigate, examine, travel more widely, wander and delve into, to help readers enhance their knowledge and understanding of the context, scope, breadth and depth of the article.

(This draft RfC reads like it favors one side, if a volunteer would like to modify it to improve neutrality it would be much appreciated.)

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number (WP:SEEALSO). If there is nothing that would justify inclusion in the body of a more comprehensive article on the subject (i.e. a reliable source making the linkage), existing guidelines seemingly preclude such inclusion. You appear not to be asking how existing guidelines should be interpreted, you are instead apparently proposing that they be changed (your proposal would of necessity also require changes to WP:OR policy, to make it clear that it didn't apply to 'see also', which would allow additions based on contributor's opinions). Please make your proposed changes explicit, and then propose them formally at a more appropriate venue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing they be changed. I'm trying to understand the spirit behind 'See also'. It seems that perhaps your comment may be focused almost exclusively on the letter of WP policies. I'm asking not only about the letter of 'See also', but also going beyond the letter and inquiring about the spirit of this particular WP policy, and, ultimately, to the heart of WP itself (albeit in a limited way). I'm curious to learn of editors' thoughts on the interesting questions that may arise - such as Are there certain (rare or not-so-rare) situations when an editor's opinion, even if not backed by a source, could justify inclusion of a link in 'See also'? From WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." And thanks for taking the time and effort to post a comment. Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wireless electronic devices and health ; WIFI (safety)

Magda Havas manuscript being added to the intro

Catch2424 is attempting to add the following to the intro: In 2007 Magda Havas, (B.Sc., Ph.D.) from the Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada wrote that laboratory studies of radio frequency radiation as well as epidemiological studies of people who live near cell phone antennas and/or use wireless technology indicate adverse biological effects (including cancers, DNA breaks and more).

www.magdahavas.org is not a reliable source. Please stop adding this without consensus. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) From my googling it seems like she has a poor reputation. she even collaborates with a guy that makes these bizarre devices to filter "dirty electricity" Bhny

Sorry, BUT It is NOT only her findings. it is all over the net... Also in the EU: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387291/Mobile-phones-wi-fi-banned-schools-theyre-potentially-harmful.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto-oecta-wifi.html http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pages/health-impact-wifi-mobiles-electromagnetic-fields.aspx http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/ http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110519/00442614333/european-politicians-look-to-ban-wifi-school-children.shtml http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128 http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html enough read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catch2424 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) No, that's not enough. At minimum, we require a peer-reviewed journal article. Please do not re-add the material until you obtain consensus here. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Seconded: “All over the net” is not a reason to add something. A health article has to be guided by WP:MEDRS. --papageno (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If none of these resources is a reliable source which source is??? We need help from someone else to decide about this.

If Magda Havas is not an credible source, why is this person being referenced in the article? Agree reference to Havas should be removed.

This Is Pil

For the studio album article This is PiL, two users are involved in a dispute over the review scores. Me, Woovee has been asking the other user LongLivePunkRock (talk) to post his/her opinion on the Talk:This is PiL. No reply, but he/she keeps on reverting. All album wiki articles have a critical reception field that deals with both positive and negative reviews but this user doesn't accept this. Indeed, he/she carries on erasing several negative reviews. Wiki is not a fan site who makes hagiography : wiki has got neutral point of view amongst its policies.Woovee (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Country Articles use the Official Name in the Title?

I believe that we ought to change the article title for sovereign states to reflect the proper, official name; common names should be redirects, not the article title.

Misplaced Pages desires to attain levels of professionalism equivalent to encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; why, then, is this policy not already followed. Perhaps the most egregious example is the article titled United States rather than United States of America. Equally as bad is China (which should refer to NEITHER country in my opinion, but be a separate article entirely.) instead of People's Republic of China. The current standard is both unprofessional and in some cases can be misleading, and as such I believe a change is in order.

I will post a formal argument shortly, but I just wanted to see what people think about this issue. I know that numerous edit wars have been waged over the subject before in the past (Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast, United States vs. USA, China vs. People's Republic of China, the list goes on and on), and settling this issue officially would go a long way towards lessening the frequency of these incidents. In that regard, I believe that standardizing in favor of the formal name would go a long way in helping, but nonetheless I believe that the community as a whole would benefit from discussing a potential change here. Comments retracted: New proposal is below. Thanks to the below editors for clarifying a confused newbies' understanding of previous WP policy instead of biting him!

My apologies if this has been settled before; I could not find it in the discussion archives. Also, apologies if I've somehow done something wrong with the process...as you can see, I'm new here. Zaldax (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is often a lot of contention and debate as to what the "offical" name of a country actually is. Do we follow the UN's "official" names, the IOC's "official" names, or should we follow some other international standard? No matter what we follow, someone is going to object. On the other hand if we go with whatever "name" is most commonly used in reliable English language sources (ie the current policy) there is rarely much contention or debate as to what the article's title should be. Blueboar (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Commonname is probably the best policy to become familiar with. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be the consensus precedent that common names are preferable to official names, and I see no reason to overturn that consensus now. VanIsaac_WS 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? United Mexican States? Oriental Republic of Uruguay? And why stop at countries, what about the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations? You need to touch on more than the easy targets of China and the US if you want to suggest we move everything to the official name. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually be in favor of those, too; in my opinion, whatever name a sovereign state uses for itself should be the name listed in an encyclopedia. In any case, it seems that WP:Commonname is well-supported enough that it remains consensus, and I've no problem with that. (Although I still do have an issue with the two examples I mentioned initially.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Would we use the English translated name, or stick with it in their native language, since meaning can be lost in translation? This has only been slightly touched on thanks to Cote d'Ivoire, but this would writ it large. What makes United Mexican States more appropriate than Estados Unidos Mexicanos? The point of this is to say, just as "common name" can be ambiguous, so can what to use for the "formal name." --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Most, if not all, nations tend to issue some English language documents -- if they use the same name for English as their native language, who are we to correct them? If Mexico terms itself Estados Unidos Mexicanos, use that -- if they term themselves United Mexican States (which they do), I'd use that. Cote d'Ivoire is an example of the former (the fact that it currently resides at Ivory Coast is a prime example of this argument) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are we to correct any source... including those that use a name that is different from the one used "officially"? It is important to remember that WP:COMMONNAME does not say that we should never use the official name... it means we use whatever name is most commonly used by the totality of English Language sources. That might well be the official name (in fact, it often is). However... when it is not... when after examining the totality of sources we find that those sources don't use the official name, we follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good point, Blueboar. Come to think of it, you're absolutely right in that this isn't an issue in most cases; thanks to all editors who've posted here so far clarifying my understanding of WP:Commonname (which I admit, as a relative newbie, was rather tenuous at best.)

After thinking about the situation, and reviewing pages of controversial RMs, I've noticed a common trend; the issue of "common vs. official name" tends to be the most prominent when two potential names exist - one official, one un-official - and a strong case can be made for either as the common name. Thus, the issue with WP:Commonname is not the use of the common name over the official one, but what to do when the commonname itself is disputed. The cases I cited earlier are in fact stronger examples of this than what I originally, confusedly proposed. Seeing as how these controversial RMs occupy a huge amount of editors time, perhaps a discussion is in order to create a policy or guideline that would settle them? My proposal would be this: When the common name is disputed between two possible candidates - one official, one unofficial - favor the official name. This seems to me the most logical proposal; if we can't agree which name is more commonly used, why not use the official name, since it already has the benefit of status behind it?

This is a potentially huge addition to policy, that could solve a lot of RMs in the future, but I can understand that, as much sense as I think it makes, it will be quite controversial. There's also a good chance that I'm confused again, so I would appreciate input if that's the case, before wasting everyone's time on a massive discussion. Interest? Cheers, 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 Truth movement

A lead dispute, Which version better represents the topic and is in keeping with Wiki lead policy found on many other articles? Talk page engagement has been ignored.--Inayity (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just removing what happened, why did you not try to rephrase it? Something like "The 9-11 Truth movement contests the accepted account that..." Also, both of the editors that reverted you have discussed the matter on the talk page, which is hardly ignoring engagement. If anything, you ignored their engagement. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It can do that if it briefly sum the issue, why do we need to restate it and waste lead space (succinctly) ? Is something wrong with 9/11, doesn't that and every website around the world tell every living soul what happened? Even the bushmen in South Africa know the "official" accounts. the talk page is clear evidence of what is happening and the quality of the "engagement, or lack thereof" . --Inayity (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, we don't hide that heliocentricism is fact in the Modern geocentrism article, and the same principle applies here. That Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC is a fact, not an "official account." The 9-11 Truth movement has failed to understand that. The article must reflect both of those views.

And again, two other editors discussed the matter, which is engagement. If you meant "agreement," (a completely different word), then yes, there was no agreement with you, but there was engagement. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

lets just use the talk page as other comments are coming in. We do still have a duty to wiki rules regardless of our orientation.--Inayity (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have a duty to guidelines and policies such as WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, which say that we do not portray conspiracy theories as equal to known facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning General Misplaced Pages Policies and their interpretation

I understand that a number of Misplaced Pages editing rules are a result of egregious abuses of editing--No original research, Neutral point of view, verifiability and secondary sources were developed with good reason. But these rules can also be misused and abused. And I have encountered such a situation. When a statement is made that most people would agree with, but that lacks attribution through a specific secondary source it is deleted as "original research". The rule has become--Don't think.

Before, encyclopedias were written only by top professional experts with specific credentials. But there are many people with a deep and abiding interest in a subject, who are experts in their own right, who are knowledgeable, but who aren't heard because they have not jumped through the professional hoops and played the games of power. Misplaced Pages is a welcome forum for us. And many minds working together through consensus are often better than one.

I recently began editing again after a 2 years hiatus. I was immediately met with two deletions (2 min and 18 min respectively. And the comments I posted were discounted and/or misinterpreted and there seems to be no willingness on the part of the other editor for any discussion. I haven't yet figured out where the other editor is coming from, but he apparently intends to make it impossible for me to post anything.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)And as you can see from the following, the editor concerned is interfering with my attempts to get comments from another source than him. And he has interfered and deleted part of what I was saying on this page--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC) One of the things he deleted was my comment that this subject's most important secondary sources date back to 1700-2000 years ago some of which are inaccessible to all but specialists in the field. But that over 25 books have been published on the subject in the last 10 years indicating a renewed interest in the subject and a reason for a WP article.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue could be seen as limited to the topic we are treating, but I see it as a larger issue. That WP rules are being taken so rigidly that the original purpose of WP is undermined or destroyed.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to other users that the above post was prompted by the above user attempting to add unsourced original research to an article, while the talk page for an unsourced forum-like discussion of the subject, and then asking what my beef was for reverting the former and discouraging the latter.

In response to the post: Encyclopedias written by experts are nigh impossible to correct, very limited in scope, and take forever to update. Misplaced Pages, with its rather open format, corrects serious errors almost instantly and minor errors still more quickly than any other encyclopedia, is very broad in scope while being far more in-depth than many professional works, and updates constantly. This is possible because we acknowledge expertise based on a user's academic capabilities (being able to cite secondary or tertiary sources neutrally) rather than they claim to know. If someone cannot cite one book on a subject, they really aren't experts, as far as Misplaced Pages (or indeed, most of academia) is concerned.

The original purpose of Misplaced Pages is to have an accurate encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. This means that we have to use sources, and this means not giving special treatment to anyone (no matter how much they delusionally bloviate about being an expert on a subject while simultaneously and hypocritically denying the possibility of academic recognition of their supposed talents). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Margaret9mary, I did not delete anything you posted on this page, it is incorrect (or outright false) to claim that I did so. Also in response to this, a source that dates back two millenia and is only accessible by specialists is a primary source, not a secondary source. A secondary source would be books by those specialists on that hard-to-access source. If you have 25 books on the subject, you should have presented them earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New COI template for company articles

• User:BigNate37/TM/Extant organization content notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One idea that gained traction in the village pump is adding a template to company articles alerting editors affiliated with the topic of WP:COI's advice for editors affiliated with the subject and asking editors to look for biased edits.

Our objective is to:

• Alert COIs of WP:COI's advice for "financial COIs" to use {{request edit}} to suggest changes
• Make volunteers more aware that their edits may have a real-world impact on the subject, to encourage editors to be more careful about balance, neutrality, citing sources, etc.
• Encourage more editors to watch the article for bias edits (both to protect companies from unfair edits and to protect articles from bias COI edits)

See the draft at: User:BigNate37/TM/Extant_organization_content_notice

An extant organization may be materially affected by the contents of this page. Consider watching the article for biased editing. Please report disruptive conflict of interest editing to the conflict of interest noticeboard. If you are affiliated with the subject of this article and have concerns or recommendations about the article's content, you may discuss them on the talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard. To request a specific change in the article's content, explain your request clearly, source it, and place the {{request edit}} tag above your comment on the talk page. You may also wish to read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Thoughts? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the word "watching" may be unclear to a newcomer. I'd link "watching" to WP:WATCH. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, good idea. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing this turned into an edit notice (eventually) instead of a talk page header, for higher visibility. Now, others have countered that BLP is our most important policy and its edit notice is more subtle: to that I would respond that BLPs receive a lot less advertisement-esque edits than corporate articles do. I will concede that for the short term, an edit notice is quite ambitious. BigNate37_(T) 04:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even bolder would be a BLP-like policy for companies, followed by a corresponding edit-notice. The idea has been kicked around a few times recently. Seems like a common-sense suggestion, but it would be quite an undertaking. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well policy isn't something one can boldly create, but I certainly agree that a parallel system à la BLP would be ideal, and I also agree that it is no trivial matter. The first steps toward that end would be clearly demonstrating that it is needed, and that the current system is not adequate for looking after organization articles. BigNate37_(T) 19:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The need would not be difficult to validate looking at the number of advert articles, poorly sourced criticisms and imbalanced articles focused exclusively on controversy. Perhaps the first step would be to do an analysis of 100 random company articles and scoring their BLP/COI violations. I am not quite that ambitious. :-D User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 06:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) As worded, I would object to the mere existence of such a template. Taken literally, it should be applied to every company and organization article, every bio article, every biography article for a person largely notable in connection with a company or organization, almost every product article, and many others. This is far too broad a brush. If the actual intent is to use a far more limited criterion or set of criteria to apply such a template, then it should be reworded to reflect that narrower criterion. I am also not convinced that such a template will change editing behavior in any significant way. DES 17:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Charles Wilson Peale

I would like to clear up miss information about Charles Wilson Peale the Artest. You have Priscilla Peale as his daughter who was married to Dr.Henry Boteler. The fact is Priscilla was his Granddaughter. Her name was priscilla Robinson Boteler. She was the Daughter of Angelica Robinson. Angelica was Charles Wilson Peales Daughter. She married Alexander Robinson. Priscilla was thier daughter. I am a member of the Boteler Family and can supply proof if you would like.

Sincerely,

Jane Houston

Nichiren Shōshū‎

I would like to request for a comment on latest issues being discussed in the abvove mentioned article ... the issue extends to the talk pages on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Talk:Liancourt Rocks#Reverts made Clover345 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Roog

Roog and Koox seem to be the same deity. I've proposed a merger, but the only person to respond in Talk:Roog is Tamsier, who created both articles and is very protective of all Serer-related articles. There are also some content issues that I believe need to be resolved. Eladynnus (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this needs investigating. Tamsier is a wee bit hard to work with at times, so other eyes would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Use of interviews as Source

Hi

I am contributing to a page of a singer ( Misha B)

My Question is are interviews with the subject of the article (from a reliable source news or online resource) acceptable as sources?

any restrictions?...

Is the a difference between online video interviews and those i print?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hidden bias by labeling section "criticisms"

In a number of articles on Wikpedia, there is a section labeled "criticisms" but no section for the opposite viewpoint. I believe in order to remove this subtle bias from articles and to keep Misplaced Pages neutral a different approach should be followed. Either there should be an opposing and opposite section, or the criticisms section should be changed to something with a bias-neutral title like "opposing viewpoints", and criticisms as well as accolades for disputable entries should always include both sides for a balanced view when reasonably possible.

Consensus seems to be that any valid and notable criticism should be worked into the article where it applies rather than concentrated in a special section.--Charles (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor Swift discography

Need opinions on what is an official single and what is promotional single. ^_^ Swifty* 00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

http://en.wikipedia.org/Adam_Leitman_Bailey Has been many edits by suspected sock puppets and need user assistance. I started and will do more tomorrow but would like to have others review and comment. 67.205.230.34 (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

sara foster.........wrong birthday

Sara Foster's birthday is listed as February 5..........every other place states August 2. Not even close!

WikiProject Woking

I am wondering if it is appropriate for a small group of editors to appoint themselves as "Admins" of a project and give themselves ranks. This seems to go against our open editing policy and may discourage wider participation. I have removed this a couple of times but it is always put back.--Charles (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see how you think it may discourage participation but the aim of this is, in fact, to encourage people to join. We feel that if we have admins members of the group will have someone to answer any of their queries. You could say that we are like a project co-ordinator of other Wikiprojects.

The ranks are there to encourage people to edit and to get them involved. We think that people are more likely to have fun, while making good edits, if there is some sort of award system. Anyway, we think that is getting out of hand. you also refuse to listen as many people involved with you have offered compromises. When they are offered you usually ignore them. I ask you-How can we sort this out if you don't talk to us? We are willing to compromise, whereas we don't think you will until you get your own way.

Thanks, Pbl1998 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If they want to give themselves ranks, or indeed uniforms, that is really for them to decide, but they should avoid the terms "admins" as none of the 3 are actually Misplaced Pages administrators, and this is plainly misleading. I have edited the project page to remove the term; other terms could be used, but please don't reinsert "admins" etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the rank admin to Project Coordinators. I hope this okay. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me, Thanks - Willrocks10  Speak to me  18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

To repeat the summary originally posted in Medcon, This dispute began when Norton began to (without consensus) inappropriately expand the CBS Records page (which at that time was not disambiguated and was about the unrelated 2006 company) with information on the pre-Sony CBS Records, which had at that point been located at the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 began reverting, and then Norton did, escalating the dispute into an edit war which was brought to the attention of the AN, leading to a page protection. The first discussion of the dispute is located on Talk:CBS Records (2006)#CBS Records (1962–1991) vs. CBS Records (2006). Steelbeard1 tried to resolve the dispute by boldly (and without consensus), disambiguating the CBS Records page, moving the 2006 company to CBS Records (2006), and splitting CBS Records International from Sony Music Entertainment. This apparently did not satisfy Norton, because the CBS Records International only covers the international arm of the domestic subsidiary (pre-Sony CBS Records) and the domestic subsidiary was still without an article. Argument ensued and was brought to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (where the discussion initially got off track with a conduct dispute) and the Administrators' noticeboard (and twice). Discussion continued on Talk:CBS Records and the DRN, before it was brought here to Medcom when the DRN was closed as no consensus. So far this dispute has gone through two talk page discussions, four AN reports, a 3O, a DRN case, various user talk pages, and on Medcom. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

perhaps the reason for the failure to resolve is that the material could be equally well presented either way, provided it was sufficiently clear. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC for Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies

I tried to tag the talkpage (Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies) with an RfC in the Media, Political, Religious, and Society sections using {{rfc|media|pol|reli|soc}} template, but it apparently did not take, or I screwed it up.

The questions that comments are requested on are:

1. Does this article require the use of solely academic sources;
2. Does the article require explicit use of the word censorship in the source; and
3. Is a restricted definition of censorship to be used, i.e. only by governmental agencies, or is the definition used in the Misplaced Pages article correct, where censorship may be by the government, media, private groups, or individuals?

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

To repeat the summary originally posted in Medcon, this dispute began when Norton began to (without consensus) inappropriately expand the CBS Records page (which at that time was not disambiguated and was about the unrelated 2006 company) with information on the pre-Sony CBS Records, which had at that point been located at the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 began reverting, and then Norton did, escalating the dispute into an edit war which was brought to the attention of the AN, leading to a page protection. The first discussion of the dispute is located on Talk:CBS Records (2006)#CBS Records (1962–1991) vs. CBS Records (2006). Steelbeard1 tried to resolve the dispute by boldly (and without consensus), disambiguating the CBS Records page, moving the 2006 company to CBS Records (2006), and splitting CBS Records International from Sony Music Entertainment. This apparently did not satisfy Norton, because the CBS Records International only covers the international arm of the domestic subsidiary (pre-Sony CBS Records) and the domestic subsidiary was still without an article. Argument ensued and was brought to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (where the discussion initially got off track with a conduct dispute) and the Administrators' noticeboard (and twice). Discussion continued on Talk:CBS Records and the DRN, before it was brought here to Medcom when the DRN was closed as no consensus. So far this dispute has gone through two talk page discussions, four AN reports, a 3O, a DRN case, various user talk pages, and on Medcom. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/CBS Records#Decision of the Mediation Committee before you copy and paste the same convoluted description over and over again. You are aware that the exact post is just above this one right? Adding the same thing over and over after being told is "too fragmented" and that other dont see the argument in this way is not going to help. Moxy (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Current Misplaced Pages Licensing

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

In Summary: Should Misplaced Pages change the licensing policy to allow articles to be licensed as either CC-BY-SA (our current licensing) or CC-BY-NC-SA (very similar, but it would dissalow commercial reuse without consent of the authors.) on request of the author(s)?

The Long(er) Version:

Per | this discussion a wikipedia article was copied in whole, placed into book form and sold for profit, and because of our current licensing method, nothing can be done about it because CC-BY-SA actually allows for this. This type of licensing is, in short, allowing for our work to be plagiarized, legally. Some editors may have no issue with it, however, not all will.

Misplaced Pages, cannot, change over to a copyright license method, as it would counter to it's stated purpose, as it would create even more issues with allowing anyone to edit the work of another, even to make a correction, however, neither should Misplaced Pages continue to offer only a CC-BY-SA license as the sole option, as this would allow for plagiarism, albeit legal. Ironically, the same type of plagiarism would be categorically dis-allowed on Misplaced Pages if it were to happen.

I propose then, that Misplaced Pages offer an option for editors and authors to license their original work as either CC-BY-SA (which is our current licensing ) or CC-BY-NC-SA (still Creative Commons but with a restriction on commercial publishing).

In this way, Misplaced Pages remains free to use, without any licensing issues, the editors and authors receive protection from commercial gain from their work / plagiarism without their consent , and we avoid issues like the one mentioned above.

APPROVE:

• Approve (as the noimator ) "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 11:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, but this conversation is moot since even in the unlikely event the proposal gains consensus, the WMF will veto the change. A substantial volume of Misplaced Pages's readership is via third-party commercial mirrors rather than direct to this site (either websites like BBC Music which integrate Misplaced Pages pages with other content, or sites like Qwiki which reformat Misplaced Pages content into a format more useful for mobile browsers and touchscreens). Since shutting down every commercial site which runs on a Misplaced Pages feed (which is what you're proposing) would cause a massive PR backlash and get the WMF (rightfully) accused of using their weight to bully third-party providers and rivals, there's no chance the WMF would allow this change. Every edit you make, you're clicking a button labelled "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" - if you're not happy about third parties reusing your submissions, you should be on Livejournal not Misplaced Pages. Mogism (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Not quite. Remember, CC-By-NC-SA would still permitt those sites to use content with consent of it's authors. So, tell me again what's moot, exactly ? "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It would require the consent of every individual editor who has placed such a tag on their edit. This is impractical. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mogism and DDG. This is not workable, and is not needed. Contributors release the content when the post to WP, are aware of it, and give their consent. If they want to retain any portion of their copyright, then they need to publish the material elsewhere. GregJackP Boomer! 18:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Not really impractical -- we allow for multiple licenses on images. It's merely an extension of that same system. Further, such a licensing would protect our contributors work from commercial release without their consent.

To leave the system in place is to allow for plagerization, something that just wouldn't be allowed on Misplaced Pages itself. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• The proposer here seems to be confusing copyright with plagiarism. Our current licence disallows plagiarism, which is the representation of someone else's work as one's own, because it requires attribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question. How is it proposed that this be done? On a per-article basis, or a per-editor? Only the former seems remotely practical, and even that would involve having to either select a 'default' for new articles (which one?) or making licence-selection compulsory for new articles. And then there is the issue of material in non-article space. Even if it was a good idea in principle - which I don't think it is - I can't see it being worth the effort, given the endless hassle it would create. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Answer' On a per-article basis, just like our images are done. Yes, I agree, per-editor would be pretty crazy "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 11:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's a big difference between images and articles. Images are nearly always the work of just one person, but articles are written by many people. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• In my personal capacity, strong oppose. This would completely violate our mission. If you want contributors to consent to commercial reuse - they do consent to commercial reuse. They consent when they read "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." and then hit save page. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too difficult and not needed. I see no good reason not to allow commercial use for all of our text. Ryan Vesey 01:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: "A wikipedia article was copied in whole, placed into book form and sold for profit, and because of our current licensing method, nothing can be done about it because CC-BY-SA actually allows for this." What's wrong with this? Why would we want to do anything about it? As long as there's attribution (and it appears there was, and is already required by CC-BY-SA), how does this do anything but help us by spreading awareness of quality content? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that we allow non-free content in the form of images is one of Misplaced Pages's greatest failings. There is no need to move articles towards that direction. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misplaced Pages's content is libre knowledge and a free cultural work (see definition). That must not change. -- Hex 08:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no plagiarism, and there is no copyright violation when commercial entities reproduce Misplaced Pages content. That is intentional thus the selection of the CC-BY-SA license. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Misplaced Pages can't truly be free if it's under NC. LegoKTM 18:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I love the idea of permitting NC or ND images as free because there is no risk of them being mixed with non-NC or non-ND free material. This is not the case with text, which is why all text on Misplaced Pages must be uniformly free. MBisanz 19:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Policies Concerning Selection of Featured Articles

I apologize to all if this is not the right place to ask/discuss this, but there appear to be so many choices, I'm not sure which is "right."

The Featured Article yesterday (9-25-12) was the "Lynching of Jesse Washington." It is an excellent article of importance and meets the criteria for selection as a Featured Article; but the photographs, including the one displayed in the Featured Article box, are quite graphic and disturbing. I know a lot of people who use Misplaced Pages as their home page, including a few children and teens and a few public libraries and schools. The photographs are very powerful and help to make the article compelling, but to have it reload and redisplay every time someone opens a browser window can be a bit much.

Since the Featured Article is selected by people (not random or a 'bot), should there be a policy to consider the nature of photographs when an article is chosen as the Featured Article? The "Lynching" story could have been selected without including the photograph in the box; peoples' attention would be drawn to it, without showing a horrific image except to people who choose to read the entire article.

I'm not advocating removing the photographs from the main article or avoiding challenging material for the Featured Articles, just some sensitivity to the fact that a wide variety of people, including children, routinely see Misplaced Pages (which I think is generally a very good thing!). Weather13 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree --- I realize Misplaced Pages is not censored, but when an image is either disturbing or not safe for work, then it should be collapsed with a notation of either *(Disturbing )* or *(NSFW)*. That way, the image stays, but is not viewable except by the viewers consent (given by uncollapsing the window ) "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at the policy village pump. David1217 04:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, David 1217. I don't necessarily like how that conversation went, but I support community decision making. Thanks for the support Babylon5. Weather13 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The use of the antiquated BC notation versus the modern BCE notation

I've been reading a lot of ancient greek articles and almost all of them cite the dates using the acronym "BC" instead of the modern "BCE"

BC stands for "Before Christ" and including this in every historical article implies an affiliation to the christian religion. BCE stands for "Before Common Era", a much more general, modern and accurate acronym. Most of the historical community uses this acronym.

Should we be changing these articles to keep up with modern standards?

• Oppose, we allow variations in just about everything, American-British English, Chicago-MLA-Bluebook citations, date formats (DD MMM YYYY, MMM DD YYYYK etc. There is no need to require BCE over BC. GregJackP Boomer! 05:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a false dichotomy to label "BC" as "old" and "BCE" as modern. Allow both forms, as is currently done, and discourage people from randomly changing from one to the other, as is also now done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given by GregJackP. JumpDiscont (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

suggested article? "Roseville Airport"

can't find anything about Roseville Airport aka Gratiot Field, fka Packard Field which was home of the Liberty Motor and developed into a now forgotten "ghost" airport. Now home of Eastgate Shopping Center in Roseville, Mi this airport was home to many female pilots several of which won awards for acrobatically piloting their crafts in high heels, etc while practicing bombing and strafing runs above the airfield. Detailed location and wayfaring information is available at wayfaring.com and detailed historical summary is availalbe at the examiner.com

74.199.78.110 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You can either request that someone else make the article for you (be aware that this may be very slow) or make it yourself. David1217 02:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, examiner.com is regarded as an unreliable source by Misplaced Pages (it publishes user-submitted material, with little editorial oversight). In any case, the only pertinent material a search on their website seems to be concerning a single book: Roseville's Airport, written by a local resident Gail Elliott. Any article is going to require more than this single source, even if it meets our reliability requirements (the author appears not to be an established writer or historian). It might be a useful starting point though, if it lists the sources it is based on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue

An extensive, indeed exhausting, discussion between two editors has taken place between myself and Tritomex here regarding the application of the core policy of WP:NPOV, re 'all significant views that have been published by reliable sources', to a generalization at Ashkenazi Jews

The generalization, formulated by Tritomex, runs (it’s ungrammatical, but ignore that):

There is a genetic and historic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.

This generalization is well supported in much of the scholarly literature. No dispute. There is apparently evidence which challenges this.

A major authority in the field, Avshalom Zoosmann-Diskin, is on record as disagreeing with that proposition. In a 2010 paper he writes:-

(a) The origin of Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi population, and their affinities to other Jewish and European populations are still not resolved.'

His paper then compares

(b)two competing theories regarding the origin of EEJ,

His conclusion is:-

(c) The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population.p.4

To furnish us with assistance requires no knowledge of the subject, nor discussion of genetics. Tertiary sources, such as Jits van Straten’s The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled, published by Walter de Gruyter, confirms that there are two theories, not, as our article suggests, one.

In short, in the technical literature there appears to be two positions. Can third parties clarify what WP:NPOV requires here, and whether or not it is legitimate to exclude mentioning the other scholarly position which contests the generalization we have?

Perhaps the right place for this discussion is on the talk page. I don't know how to make a request that would alert the wider community to the issue. Thank you--Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Marshall Davis

Poet Frank Marshall Davis has been the subject of several recent controversies and conspiracy theories surrounding his relationship to Barack Obama. As might be expected, such an article can tend to attract editors with partisan agendas. The issues on the table include how to deal with these issues in terms of fairness and NPOV. Editors without strong political attachments preferred. Is it possible to reach fair and constructive consensus on this sort of hot button partisan subject? Jander80 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Name for new article created out of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape

I am placing the rfc here to get some different voices in this discussion. The request is to give an article based on the multiple comments during the 2012 election cycle a NPOV name. I would ask anyone who reviews this to look at this discussion and provide their thoughts on a name and provide inputs into the discussion.

I would object to the "Republican Party's comments" name. The statements were not statements by the party, and while the people who made those statements were from the party, they were a small handful out of thousands of serving party members, and many millions of total party members. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Template issue

I would like to ask some help from more experienced users to resolve our debate (Here:Template_talk:History_of_Hungary#Roman_Pannonia). It is a complicated issue. The main question is what kind of articles we can use in the templates. Please join in our debate. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Angelo Balanta- scouted by QPR scouts??? Rocky Baptiste- Born in Neasden- play for Gravesend & Northfleet????

http://en.wikipedia.org/Angelo_Balanta

The article about Queens Park Rangers Footballer Angelo Balanta claims that he was scouted by QPR scouts. This statement is entirely untrue- he was in fact bought to the club by his former teacher and mentor from the Hammersmith Pupil Referral Unit Denny Mendoza. It was Denny Mendoza that discovered and introduced Balanta to the club after he played against him in a Sunday League match in which Balanta scored five goals including a header, right foot, left foot finish. Denny Mendoza is also the person that would drive Balanta to training, wait for him to finish training and then drive him home after training, at the beginning of his QPR career. Mr. Mendoza is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a scout for QPR or any other professional club. Please can your "encyclopaedia" publish the correct facts about this matter as the article as it stands at this moment states facts erroneously. My source for this is simple- I am Denny Mendoza!!!! Nietzsche Braza is a pseudonym.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Rocky_Baptiste

The article about footballer Rocky Baptiste claims that he was born 8 July 1973 in Neasden, North-West London which is not the case. Rocky Baptiste was actually born on 8 July 1972 in Clapham, South London. He moved to Neasden at two years old and grew up on the Chalkhill Estate in Wembley Park. The article also claims that Rocky Baptiste played for Gravesend & Northfleet, when in fact Rocky Baptiste has never played for Gravesend & Northfleet at any time during his career. Please publish accurate details about living people . My source for this is Rocky Baptiste has been my best friend since 1974 and is Godfather to my children and is sitting right next to me as I write.

Thank You

Nietzsche Braza

Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath

The article Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, which is about the famous photograph of that name, has had an ongoing, off and on debate about whether to include the image as fair use. Currently, we are choosing to not reproduce the image under WP:Fair Use, per an apparent withdrawal by the family (the copyright holders) of consent for reproduction of the image. I understand the extremely good intent embodied in our decision, but i then dont understand how we can link to Masters of Photography, a commercial website, which has included the image (with their own understanding of the copyright status of the image, different from ours), but are obviously doing so for commercial purposes (not selling the image, but promotion of their website as a good site to browse famous images). My question is simple: Can we have it both ways? Not reproduce, but link to a reproduction which is violation of the reason for our not reproducing it? I am inclined towards reproducing it here by the way. I am posting here additionally as that article's debate is rather drawn out, and my post there may not get much attention (and its to me a very lively topic for clarification of our fair use policy).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think we could use the photograph under fair use, but we are making a rare exercise of editorial respect for the family's wishes. I am content to wait until the copyright expires. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT parenting

Which, if any, of the three studies (Allen et. al., Regnerus, and Marks' critique of the literature) that were peer-reviewed and published in 2012 and dispute the consensus on parenting outcomes, should be included in the article? .jj (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on References

Background: Starting on December 10, 2012 an IP user began at one IP then moved to another deleting secondary (non-primary) or supporting references and even blanking sections such as at Mirro Aluminum Company.
Please see: Special:Contributions/75.2.208.87 Then jumping to ... Special:Contributions/75.0.192.157
I left a Welcome and a caution at User talk:75.2.208.87 then the behavior continued with reverts made by User:75.0.192.157 as, "rv frivolous revert by wikistalker who doesn't understand the issue - See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Reliability_on_genealogy_websites) "
This obviously is User:75.2.208.87 at a new different IP address as User:75.0.192.157.
My understanding on references is in question.
The floating IP user citing "self-published and user-generated sources are not reliable per WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED" solely on the belief that ALL genealogy related sites, besides those previously cited as unreliable, are forbidden to be used.
I understand that that those secondary or supporting references used were proper under WP:SELFPUB.
Besides not being a "Wikistalker" nor engaging in such behavior, I see the action almost as bullying. IE Making a threat so an editor will not do something.
Most of these articles I have no investment in, other than when reviewing them, I saw the secondary or supporting references as appropiate. So I restored them with the proper comment and got the "Wikistalker" comment.
Is it the opinion of the community that ANY GENEALOGICAL related web page considered forbidden for any type of reference? If this is a blanket community opinion, despite WP:SELFPUB ... then okay. I have seen this happen before. Such is social justice. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the lede paragraph of White privilege sufficiently NPOV?

Hi,

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

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

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

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

WP:RS dispute

Do the credentials & notability/recognitions by "reliable" third-parties which are listed in this topic's paragraph which is labeled "2." (2nd paragraph down) make the disputed source a WP:RS? And do those credentials, his extent of having been published by the 3rd parties who are listed on that Talk page (e.g. those listed in the paragraph labeled "iii" and 1 paragraph thereafter), & other notability/recognition by 3rd-parties make him a source whom WP:RS exempts from WP:SPS, i.e. do you accept that his reputation with those third-parties (and his fact-checking, e.g. how he cites his claims) allows him to reliably self-publish...or to quote WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article (emphasis added) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (emph added)"? Do you trust at least some of those 3rd-party sources as being "reliable" sources?

(NOTE: The Doctor is being cited whilst admitting he has a political bias, in accord with section 4.7 of WP:RS; "bias"/POV isn't part of the dispute, e.g. His work is being stated as,"Proponents of this side hold that...XYZ ...and their opposition holds that...ABC.")

Please note any reasons for your position. Thanks.

Moshe Friedman

Moshe Friedman page on wikipedia - need help on the page. He is very controversial need help. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Moshe_Friedman - Many changes and simply would request fresh eyes. Tellyuer1 (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:No_medical_advice

Created due to the occasional requests coming in through either OTRS or users here on Misplaced Pages. I have no idea if something similar already exists, but I'd like feedback on the content and wording if it doesn't. Bjelleklang - talk 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Neturei Karta Religious

http://en.wikipedia.org/Neturei_Karta Needs a ton of work - original sources, etc. Am going to start it today and appreciate others with an interest joining.Tellyuer1 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias in Cannabis (drug)

Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

• Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

• Journal of Pediatrics

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”

• Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

• Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”

• Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

• UCLA School of Medicine

“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)

• State of California

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)

• Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)

A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Misplaced Pages should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

E11

Please re-evaluate E11 European long distance path, since the article has been completely re-edited in a more encyclopedic style. The travel guide tag might be removed, since the travel guide type of details are now in WikiVoyage:E11 hiking trail. DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the fast closure on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Czech Footballer of the Year

I think this AfD was closed too quickly, a closure basis was not reached, and the statement for closing it is not applicable. There are several lists in this same vein that should me merged, they shan't stand alone. There is a clear policy for content fork and cleanup, all these lists are difficult to browse through, their content are behind stub level. And even though the subject is notable, expect to maintain all these lists by the end of the year. Misplaced Pages is not a directory for every single award in the world, as I stated in the discussion, ifso then every single category in every notable award (BAFTA, ASCAP, Billboard Awards, VMA, Academy Awards, EMMY and the list goes on and on) should have their own article or list. Which I decline to believe that is the case. Eduemoni 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe this AfD was closed incorrectly, you should take the matter to deletion review, which despite the name is the appropriate venue to discuss this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't DRV for articles that got deleted? Eduemoni 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, despite the name it is the appropriate venue for this. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

AMIA Bombing Edit

I have made several attempts to add small section to the AMIA Bombing page under "Other Opinions"

All of my attempted insertions have been removed.

The last insertion read as follows :

"The Hunter Report which is relevant to AMIA Bombing investigation is discussed here" and I provided a legitimate reference. The reference was a House of Representatives Report 1995.

The edit was pulled by Soosim and the reason given "sorry johanne, i don't see hunter's name mentioned in the report at all."

This is untrue.

If Misplaced Pages is a media which is simply to be used to promote a particular political agenda and not provide balance, can someone please inform me of this so I can stop wasting my time ?

Many Thanks

--Johanne Johannes (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Commission church movement

It has been proposed that Great Commission Ministries has sufficient notability to warrant its own article. The article has been developed at User:ClaudeReigns/GCM and is the product of research by User:ClaudeReigns with the help and at the suggestion of User:Chris.ridgeway, communications director for GCM. Since it is especially important to avoid conflict of interest and respect the communitarian spirit of Misplaced Pages, I hereby request an evaluation of the notability of Great Commission Ministries by the Misplaced Pages community by uninvolved parties, as well as discussion of any issues which might be of consequence in such a split. Note: the specific reason for requesting comment at RFC-econ is that the non-profit organization to be split has been previously evaluated as a subsidiary of the main organization, has a common board member, and has its own EIN - one basis for the split proposal. Obviously, this should also have the attention of RFC-religion if it is accepted. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

David Driuzynski fight, knockout, concussion

Requesting editors come to David Dziurzynski to comment on the inclusion of information regarding a particular incident in this NHL hockey player's career which has stimulated secondary media debate on the issue of fighting in hockey. Issues at hand are notability and a raised concern about recentism. Three independent editors added the information, a single editor has reverted all three. Seeking consensus on how to proceed. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to revise the Susan Lindauer Article to be Neutral and Unbiased

The current report on Susan Lindauer is a one-sided recitation of the former Bush administration's smear campaign to destroy her credibility. To present an accurate picture to a reader, it is not enough that the selected facts in a story be true; key facts must not have been omitted.

When an article fails to mention that there were other credible, professional witnesses in a hearing with evidence that counters accusations and judgments against an accused, and it fails to mention that the judge has been appointed by the party responsible for the accusations against the accused, I doubt any reader would consider that account of the accused as neutral, unbiased, or verified, or consider it to be in keeping with the noble aspirations espoused on Misplaced Pages's own ETHICS page:

"The success of WikiExperts is rooted in our commitment to upholding Misplaced Pages’s principles of Neutrality, Notability, Verifiability, and No Original Research. We provide consultation, research, writing, and translation services that adhere fully to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Without compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages, our clients, and our own enterprise, we create, monitor, and update Misplaced Pages articles on behalf of our clients. In doing so, we implement strict internal rules that preclude us from uploading any disinformation or biased content."

Such is the case with your portrayal of Ms. Lindauer on the Misplaced Pages site. If you have any concern for integrity in your publication, I implore you to research the evidence that is available to you below and elsewhere to confirm that the piece about Ms. Lindauer needs balance and broader perspective.

AFFIDAVIT OF THAYER LINDAUER

I have practiced corporate law for 40 years, with a specialty in Multi-Level Marketing in the U.S. and international arenas. Though my expertise lies outside criminal law, I took my degree at the University of Chicago and I have broad legal experience. I am quite

satisfied that my niece, Susan Lindauer, has accurately described my involvement in her

legal fight, and the events related to her incarceration at Carswell Prison.

Most importantly, six months prior to her imprisonment, I interviewed several

important witnesses in her case, who forthrightly authenticated her claims. Those

witnesses included Edward MacKechnie, Scottish Solicitor for the Lockerbie Trial, who validated Susan's long-time work relationship with Dr. Richard Fuisz and his known

affiliation to the Central Intelligence Agency. I spoke with Paul Hoven, who admitted his

role as one of Susan's handlers, and further identified Dr. Fuisz as her second, CIA handler, overseeing her activities at the United Nations. I spoke with Parke Godfrey

about Susan's 9/11 warning, and other assundry issues in her case. During her

imprisonment, I spoke with a number of other witnesses and friends of Susan's, including, I believe, Ian Ferguson, the Scottish journalist and expert on Lockerbie.

There is no question but that Susan's history as an Asset, supervised by members of

U.S. Intelligence, would have been easily proven to the satisfaction of the Court. For those of us who trust in the legal traditions of this country, her case marked a

stunning reversal of expectations. Susan correctly relates that I have tremendous respect

for Judge Michael Mukasey and the predicament that he faced. There were serious questions of prosecutorial misconduct and withholding exculpatory knowledge from the

Court, since it was quite clear the Justice Department did not want to admit Susan's role

in Pre-War Intelligence or the 9/11 investigation, including her 9/11 warning. To incarcerate an American citizen without a trial or due process, however, opposes all of

the values that the U.S. Courts seek to uphold.

Though it might seem unlikely, Susan has accurately described the Court proceedings leading up to her prison surrender. That September day, we had no idea why the court

had ordered her to appear. Her public attorney insisted the Psychiatric Report by Dr.

Stuart Kleinman was still unavailable to him. Until we got to Court, we had no idea they intended to send her to prison, or deny her rights to a competence hearing, which is

routine procedure.

I did instruct her to fire Sam Talkin, and name me as co-counsel of her defense, so that I could demand a hearing on her behalf. It is true that the Court clerk instructed us that if

Susan tried such a thing, she would be seized immediately by U.S. Marshals, and would

forfeit her bail for the remainder of the proceedings. She was advised that if she consented to delay the hearing until after the Prison Evaluation, she would have three

days to get her affairs in order. Judge Mukasey amended that to 10 days.

There was no doubt that Susan wanted the hearing.

It is possible that Judge Mukasey expected Carswell's evaluation to be very brief.

Normally, these sorts of evaluations take 6 to 8 weeks, for other non-political defendants.

Indeed, after the court meeting, Judge Mukasey's clerk suggested to me that Susan would probably come home before Christmas.

Unfortunately, the politics of her contributions to Pre-War Intelligence and the 9/11 investigation swamped the proceedings. She has not exaggerated the threat of "indefinite" detention that she faced, or the aggressive push to forcibly drug her with Haldol.

It is absolutely correct that Carswell's psychology staff, the U.S. Attorney's Office in

New York, the FBI and the main Justice Department had direct knowledge that Susan had told the truth about her Asset work. I have spoken to witnesses myself, who told me

that they assured the FBI and/or psychologists at Carswell that Susan was telling the

truth. I must conclude the request for forcible drugging was politically motivated. Finally, Susan has stated correctly that I made three attempts to visit her at Carswell,

driving 700 miles each way. On the first two tries, guards refused to admit me to the

military base, telling me no prison was there. The second time, guards insisted the prison was closed on weekends. Only when Judge Mukasey ordered U.S. Marshals to stand by

as an escort was I admitted. This occurred at a critical moment, when I was trying to

broker a solution that would satisfy the Court and secure her freedom. At that point, we just wanted her home. The decision on competence was secondary to protecting her from

forcible drugging and winning her release.

"Extreme prejudice" strikes me as an appropriate title for the book, given what the government tried to do.

Ted Lindauer

Brian Shaughnessy's AFFIDAVIT

http://extremeprejudiceusa.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/brian-shaughnessy_attorney_affidavit1.pdf

Mr. William Gladstone 19 October 2009 Waterside Productions, Inc 2055 Oxford Avenue Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007

Dear Mr. Gladstone,

I am Parke Godfrey, a tenured associate professor in the Department of Computer Science & Engineering at York University in Toronto, Canada. At the request of Ms. Susan Lindauer, I am providing this brief affidavit describing parts of my testimony at a hearing before Judge Loretta Preska

in June 2008. This is to collaborate her story for publication.

1. I have known Ms. Lindauer since 1991, while I was working on my doctoral degree at the University of Maryland, College Park. We were close friends until I moved to Toronto to accept a

faculty post at York University in August of 1999.

a. During that period, I spoke with Ms. Lindauer two or three times weekly, and we met once weekly, on average. b. Ms. Lindauer has an artistic and mercurial temperament. She is passionate as an activist

supporting her causes. She is a creative writer and former journalist. I never observed

mental instability or mental illness in her behavior. 2. Ms. Lindauer had various concerns and predictions of terrorist attacks, which she confided in me

and others.

a. In the year 2000, coinciding with the Lockerbie trial, Ms. Lindauer confided in me on several occasions her concern that the next terrorist attack on the United States would involve airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. She warned me to stay out of New

York City.

b. In the spring and summer of 2001, on several occasions Ms. Lindauer expressed heightened concern that a terrorist attack was in the works that would strike the southern part of Manhattan. She claimed it would reprise the 1993 attack on the World Trade

Center. She described the attack as completing the cycle started in that first attack.

c. I have read articles by Michael Collins describing Ms. Lindauer's 9/11 warning, and I am satisfied that he has accurately described my testimony before Judge Preska in June, 2008.

3. I was involved with Ms. Lindauer’s case in various ways after her arrest in March 2004.

a. In September, 2004, I was interviewed by the FBI in Mississauga (adjacent to Toronto) in the presence of an RCMP officer. (The RCMP insisted upon this as the interview was in

Canada and I was a Canadian resident.) I spoke with FBI Special Agent Suzan

LeTourneau. While the interview focused on mundane details of Ms. Lindauer’s life and her acquaintances, the conversation did touch briefly upon the indictment against Ms.

Lindauer, and on her predictions.

b. I made myself available to speak with the investigator working for her defense attorney. I was prepared for a lengthy conversation, including a discussion of Ms. Lindauer's 9/11

warning. I was surprised when the defense investigator cut short the conversation after

only five to ten minutes. His questions seemed far inadequate for the scope of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, and for what I felt had to share with her Defense

Attorney.

c. Several months later, I contacted Ms. Lindauer's uncle, Ted Lindauer, who spoke with me at greater length about several issues in her case. I can verify that Ms. Lindauer felt compelled to seek her uncle's assistance interviewing witnesses for her case, before she got

sent to Carswell.

d. In early December 2005, I believe, a few months after Ms. Lindauer have been sent to Carswell Prison, I spoke with the psychologist handling her competence evaluation for the Court. During our conversation, I attempted to confirm with him that Ms. Lindauer had

made predictions of a terrorist attack in Manhattan to me and other prior to the 9/11 attack.

He seemed to have no interest in hearing this. Our conversation was brief. 4. I continued to be involved in Ms. Lindauer’s case in hearings leading up to her trial, which never

transpired.

a. In my opinion, contrary with the Justice Department’s lawyers, Ms. Lindauer is now, and always was competent, to stand trial. The decision to accuse her of incompetence was baffling to me and many others. I was forced to conclude that it was likely politically

motivated to block her request for a trial.

b. While she was still detained in prison, I offered to travel from Toronto and testify at any competency hearing, as a character witness, on her mental competence, on what I knew of

her political activities before her indictment, about her warnings of terrorist attacks, and

any other aspects for which the Court might be interested. c. I attended the hearing on forcible drugging in May, 2006. I offered to testify on that day.

In fact, I arrived at the Court assuming I was to testify. However, her attorney, Mr. Sam

Talkin, did not call me to testify that day. In conversation that day, I told him that she had made warnings of a terrorist attack to me and to others in advance of 9/11. I told him that

I was mortified by what the Court seemed to be doing.

d. In June, 2008, two years later, Ms. Lindauer was finally allowed to have a hearing on her competence to stand trial. I testified before Judge Preska, who had replaced Judge

Mukasey after his retirement, that I considered Ms. Lindauer fully competent in all ways,

and devoid of mental illness or instability. I testified about the terrorist warnings, and how I had spoken with the FBI in September 2004.

Despite my friendship with Ms. Lindauer and my dislike and distrust of activities of the Federal

Administration at the time, I tried to keep an open mind and to cooperate with the prosecution. I could only hope that the government had just cause in pursuing such a case, given the vigor and energy they

put in it, despite what that would mean for Susan. Otherwise, it is a poor indictment of justice.

On the other hand, I have never had any direct reasons to believe the points of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, or evidence myself of them. I have confidence and trust in Ms. Lindauer.

Furthermore, I have been completely appalled over the way the Justice Department proceeded in its

dealings with Ms. Lindauer, as I hope most anyone familiar with her case would be. Throughout this entire ordeal, Ms. Lindauer has suffered harassment. She faced inexcusable

delays in setting a trial date (or in dropping the charges). She was repeatedly questioned in court over

the reliability of her terrorist warnings, despite that they had been collaborated by me and by many others in affidavits and under oath in spoken testimony. She was incarcerated in a mental facility

within a federal prison for, I believe, nine months, 1,300 miles from her home for supposed

observation. And then held in confinement for months afterwards. The FBI and the US Attorneys Office behavior in Ms. Lindauer’s case were abhorrent. It is quite clear that much more was going on. Susan Lindauer’s story should be told.

If anyone should seek further clarification about issues raised in this letter, I would be available to speak with them. I can be reached in Toronto at ph. 416-736-2100 x 66671 during working hours.

Thank you much.

Sincerely, Parke Godfrey, PhD

Bush Political Prisoner Gets Her Day in Court Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 10:36 am Column: Michael Collins

Bevin Boys: Conscripted Coalminers 1943-48

The article on Ernest Bevin's wartime initiative to replace Coal Miners lost to the Armed Services between 1943 and 1948 includes a list of famous 'Bevin Boys'. Top of the list is 'Sir Jimmy Savile DJ and Charity Worker'. I took my son to this site to explain an aspect of history, and although I knew Savile was a Bevin Boy, I was surprised to see his name on a page last updated 17th March 2013.2.120.246.31 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If JS was a Bevin Boy there is no reason for him not to be on the list. It would be better if he was listed in alphabetical order though.--Charles (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages writer

Hello, I am in need of a wikipedia writer. If anyone has suggestions please let me know. Must have the skills. Thanks you.

Hello. Why do you need a writer? Please sign your coments by typing four tildes(~).--Charles (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Geert Hofstede

Geert Hofstede - Another editor and I disagree on whether details of Hofstede's main theory should be included in the article on the man. See the talk page to see our opposing views. We seem to be talking past each other. I believe, since this is the main theory of the most cited European social scientist, a bit of explanation of his six dimensions (rather than just naming them) is called for. I also believe the book given as a source is a proper reference. Kdammers (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

List of sopranos in non-classical music

The question is, "Should the existing photo gallery be removed from the above article?" The arguments are at Talk:List_of_sopranos_in_non-classical_music#Photo_layout. A Third Opinion has already been rendered (at the bottom of the above section), but there was an Edit War burgeoning. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Litecoin

The main reason for the request for comment regarding Litecoin is that I and a few others (User:CryptoAddicto, User:Strike_Eagle, User:Coin12349) want to include information about the memory intensive nature/confirmation times and how some claim this makes litecoin superior to bitcoin, User:Taktao does not want this. Taktao also wishes to say that litecoin is almost identical to bitcoin, whereas I and the others mentioned want so say that it's similar. We haven't really gotten anywhere (just reverting each others edits repeatedly). 198.144.156.55 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't have a problem with it mentioning that some of its supporters claim it has advantages to bitcoin. I just asked that this mention be more concise, as the article seems to go into quite a bit of detail on claims of limited notability, for a relatively unknown cryptocurrency. As for being 'almost identical', this is consistent with how the Economist describes it, calling it a 'clone' of bitcoin, and consistent with what the source code, which is identical to bitcoin's source code apart from two changed parameters, shows Taktao (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Soviet Union

The major issue has to do with the infobox for a Former Country. How many states should be listed as successor states? In particular, should the 15 constituent republics that are now sovereign nations be listed, or should the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) be excluded?

Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have?

An "Aircraft Accident" infobox appears at the top of this article. There has been a considerable amount of debate surrounding how to set the "Summary" (formerly "Type") parameter within the infobox. The debate has largely centered around whether to include the term "Pilot Error" in the "Summary" parameter. This has also resulted in a lot of edit-warring concerning the dispute. What "Summary" should the Accident have? HeyMid (contribs) 15:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Section dedicated to original research

I would like to suggest a new category dedicated to original research, unpublished papers or simple observations and commentaries. Such a page might stimulate scholarly research resulting in Misplaced Pages acceptable references in some cases and add to the public value of Misplaced Pages.

PeterChildress (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea is a creative one, Peter, but adding an original research/simple observations/commentaries section to Misplaced Pages may attract many pointless observations and original research that may not be fit for an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages, underneath it all, is still an encyclopedia. I encourage you to take a look at WP:FORUM, what Misplaced Pages is not. WP:FORUM explicitly states that Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research. Hope this input helps. smileguy91 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Stockholm riots

I have some trouble with users reverting back unsourced allegations that the 2013 Stockholm riots is mostly performed by immigrant rioters. My change is motivated by WP:SYNTH while I get a reversion with the motivation rv, Swedish pro-immigration bias. I'm protesting on the editors' talk pages. Now, what? Rursus dixit. (bork!) 05:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom section heading title

What changes, if any, should be made to the section heading "Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy"? – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note, a few minutes after I posted this notice, an editor changed the section title in question. It is now "Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Controversy_over_views_on_homosexuality. – S. Rich (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Argument. I think that "controversy over views on homosexuality" is a better title than "Academic Freedom Controversy." I think that because everything in the section relates to the former while only some parts of the section relate to the latter. The section proceeds as follows: 1) Hoppe's potentially deragatory in-class remarks about homosexuals is presented 2) It is noted that a student complained that the comments were homophobic/discriminatory 3) A university official agrees with the student's assessment re homophobia/discrimination 4) The official contacts Hoppe and tells him, in a letter in a non-disciplinary letter, to stop making deragotary comments about homosexuals bereft of empirical evidence 5) Hoppe contacts the ACLU, which agrees with Hoppe's characterization that the non-disciplinary cease-and-desist letter violates his academic freedomi, despite the fact that they sympathize with those offended by Hoppe's (allegedly homophobic) comments 6) the President of Hoppe's university agrees with this view, saying that offensive/non-mainstream positions can't be squelched, bc this violates academic freedom. 7) The aftermath of the scandal is described, with commentators expressing their views on Hoppe's remarks and whether they are protected by academic freedom.

Each of these seven parts of the section relates to a "controversy" regarding Hoppe's views/statements on homosexuality. However, only some of them relate to academic freedom. The former title is therefore more accurate in describing the section as a whole. The controversy stemmed from, and consistently relates to, Hoppe's remarks on gays. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeltrap should not have changed the heading, but this is part of the BLP violations and edit warring that will be reported to WP:BLPN after the weekend with the recommendation that User:Steeltrap be banned from editing the article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)