Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rangerdude (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 16 August 2005 (→Wikistalking guideline proposal: finish move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.

Policy archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Problem users

Does anyone have any idea how many "problem users" ever end up as useful contributors? I'm not talking about people who have a strong POV and get into battles on certain pages but manage to contribute meaningfully elsewhere. I'm not talking about people who end up leaving Misplaced Pages in the midst of major battles. I'm talking about people who get into conflict from the start. I know a lot of people start off with angry exchanges - for example when their first article gets VfD'd. Most of these people are reasonable once they understand the system. I mean the people who show up with an axe to grind or a POV to push, or just show up to be disruptive. Can anyone cite any examples? Guettarda 23:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are people, particularly younger people, who will be disruptive for a while and just screw with the system before they mature a bit and start actually taking an interest in contributing (sometimes as a result of stumbling across a topic they actually have interest in). You seem to have excluded most scenarios that I've seen from your definition of "problem users" though. If your goal is to encourage a stronger policy for punishing these people, I think you have to consider how difficult it is in practice to distinguish the various classes of problem users you describe, at least in the short term. Deco 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the amount of effort that people put into disruptive users, and whether this was something that ever paid off. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish the ones with potential from the ones that won't be worth the trouble. I was just thinking about the way we allow troublemakers to drive off good editors, about the point where bureaucracy takes over and overwhelms the fun of this amazing project... I have lots of patience for the users who believe in the project but get caught up in edit wars or who misinterpret the comments, or who have serious differences in how they interpret "the truth". But I don't have patience with people who spend their time aruing about how their "right" to edit here is infringed by our rules. I don't know where I am going with this... Guettarda 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing Ive noticed was brought up when one user pretty told the "Request for Comment" page to go screw itself. I forget the exact case, but the user was causing all kinds of problems with reverts, edit wars, personal attacks, etc. It went from RFC and then to ArbComm. The user wrote something like "this isnt like its a real court or something" and blew off everything in the RFC and vandalized the ArbComm Page! When he was banned, he just started up a new account and now there are sockpuppet issues with this same person. Point being...there is no enforcement...nor can there really ever be. We dont have the Misplaced Pages Police who can come to your house, fines cannot be given, nor can legal action ever be taken (nor should it be, actually). Its actually part funny and part scary. Reminds me of SGA somewhat, we think we have the power but really don't. -Husnock 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

There is the ban. Apoc2400 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Which, sadly, can be easily circumvented by started up another account. Roaming IP addresses are also a hindrence as someone can log on from several different locations and show up as different users. -Husnock 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

Yeah, but a banned user can be reverted on sight - rather than a POV pusher who needs to be reasonably argued with - arguments over if someone is a sockpuppet are ugly, but banning does make it easier to stop someone(by making it legitimate to revert them on sight.) (BTW, what did you mean by SGA? - the disambig page has 11 meanings...) JesseW 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Student government ? -- 67.182.157.6 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There's similar case with User:202.7.190.130. He makes changes to monarch titles and these changes get invariably reverted (as they do not fit Misplaced Pages common style). He doesn't respond to questions on talk page. He may be well intentioned but at the end there's lot of lost time and no progress. There should be some way to deal with such borderline cases. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please examine the case of User:DrZoidberg. He is not disruptive. However he spends a lot of time in the sandbox. His detractors say he wastes too much of wikipedias server resources for the sandbox. He was banned indefinitely for accidentaly breaking the sandbox. Young people need time to grow. Later they become responsible contributers.--Jondel 02:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

We have a case on one of the talk pages where one guy keeps using the f word, in every comment This is the third time I'm writing that i don't fucking care about your beliefs, thoughts, worldviews or else Is this acceptable behavior? --fathermaximos 22:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ever considered it is a problem system? The first thing most credible authors say about Misplaced Pages is "copyright problems". Somebody decided to make it their life's work to steal everything ever published, and hoped to get away with it by calling their massive hijacking of the publishing industry a charity. If it were really a charity, why is one man ruler for life? If this isn't wholesale theft, why not turn election of board of directors over to the community? Why not give the community the choice of electing a board president who will do something to stop the wholesale theft of copyrighted information. Maybe with true freedom, genuinely public-minded Misplaced Pages advocates would elect a president who would require that all Misplaced Pages articles attribute their sources, as Misplaced Pages attempts to require others to source material based on Misplaced Pages.

When people arrive here and see that intellectual property is being hijacked on a wholesale basis, of course they have no respect for the so-called community committing the theft. When anyone challenges the people who are creating this vast opus of unattributed, unsourced, stolen literature in plain terms anyone can understand, they are mobbed, called vandals, trolls, problem users and worse. Of course many of those less able to articulate exactly what is happening will sense that this is not a place worthy of respect and will treat it with all the contempt worthy of the rich-man's payload of loot they know it to be. WizUp 08:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

When anyone challenges the people who are creating this vast opus of unattributed, unsourced, stolen literature in plain terms anyone can understand, they are mobbed, called vandals, trolls, problem users and worse, you say. Please supply a good example. Thanks. -- Hoary 09:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Visit the RFA page and take your pick. WizUp 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I did your homework for you then. Take the case of Keetoowah -- the first one I picked from the page at random. A Keetoowah reposting directly from the tribal web site, information that was deleted from Misplaced Pages by people who have admit no firsthand knowledge of the matters at all. Instead of responding to what Keetoowah writes, respondants complain that Keetoowah doesn't respect them. Debate ensues in talk pages related to the article about whether Keetoowah properly affords respect to the supposedly culturally specific idiom "my dear Keetoowah". Then on RFA, two "editors" somehow "certify" that Keetoowah is seen as a problem user worthy of administrative intervention. None of which has anything to do with the accuracy of content and which has everything to do with systematically determining who can participate and who cant. BTW, I have no specific interest in the topic of the articles Keetoowah edited, nor in the related cultural issues, beyond exposing a so-called encyclopedia that is little more than a plagiarized mass-production of the racist, ethnocentric views of people who can afford to spend their days in front of a networked computer. WizUp 10:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) exposing a so-called encyclopedia that is little more than a plagiarized mass-production of the racist, ethnocentric views of people who can afford to spend their days in front of a networked computer: this is a most interesting activity/charge, but could it be pursued/discussed elsewhere? (2) Instead of responding to what Keetoowah writes, respondants complain that Keetoowah doesn't respect them. But what Keetoowah writes on the talk page I looked at (for the first time) just now is about (dis)respect. Meanwhile, here is a diff in the article about Ward Churchill (of whom I'd never heard till ten minutes ago) that Keetowah summarizes "Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again." It's very odd, as the single, long web page given as a reference for both texts (the one presented by Keetowah, and the one he dismisses as lies and BS) includes both texts. Arguably one is better than the other, but, rudeness aside, to describe the use of one rather than the other as "lies and BS" seems utterly bizarre. On the face of it, this edit does indeed suggest a problem user. (It may be anomalous: I don't here presume to judge Keetowah.) -- Hoary 10:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lets cut straight to the name calling. I'm a problem user. And what's more, I'm not fooled by your lilly white politeness -- you are a rude fuck. And when I followed my own suggestion to pick a random case from RFA, i found a paid advocate writing articles, apparently on his advocacy groups payroll, supporting a FAKE INDIAN. A FAKE INDIAN --- here that you rude fucker -- HE WAS PAID POLITICAL ADVOCATE WRITING ARTICLES SUPPORTING A FAKE INDIAN BUT YOU WOULD RATHER WHINE ABOUT MY MANNERS THAN FACE THE TRUTH. I don't hear any complaints from you about paid advocates being problem users. WHY? becuase they don't threaten the poor fragile ego that drove you into this new vanity journalism.

And that was on my first pick. I followed the article to another thread and found more lies and misiinformation used to weave togther whatever accurate information had been plagiarized into the article. What does it matter how fucking rude I am to you asshole? Do you have a self esteem problem, worm? IS teh mission here to build an accurate, original encyclopedia or to teach the world your form of manners? Well, your manners don't cut the butter on the streets of Bahgdad. If your army can't act nice at other people's checkpoints, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ANYONE NEEDS TO ACT NICE TO YOU JUST TO WRITE A TRUE ACCURATE ENCYCLOPEDIA. HUH FUCK? I CAN'T HEAR YOU, WHINER. SPEAK UP. Can't you think logically while someone is ridiculing you or are you so self conscious you have to silence the ridicule before your mind can engage? Goody for you because sticks and stones can break your bones but my words can STOP YOUR HEART if you let me have this kind of power, and by god I'll take it if you're gonna give it up. Yeh, we're problem users and we'll use you up and spit you out if you can't focus on facts instead of on who said what and how they said it. Thieves don't deserve respect. WizUp

And your point is? (You're a bit longwinded, and while your plentiful use of "fuck" suggests a tantrum, it doesn't makes you any more coherent.) -- Hoary 13:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The writer was coherent enough without inclusion of the term. As a bonus, plentiful use of the term fuck seems to have succeeded in exposing an interest in personality of writers at the expense of content in articles. Obdalilada 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages disclaimer

I was very surprised to learn recently that wikipedia was NOT an encyclopedia like those we are all used to using. Most people will not check for your disclaimers before looking for information, and they presume that what they find are well-researched facts. I only discovered this myself when I came across some information listed for a topic that was clearly opinion and was, in fact, gossip. You are therefore responsible for contributing to the spread of gossip and false data. Despite your disclaimer, you ARE presenting yourself as an ecyclopedia website, knowing that people will be deceived.

The very least that you can do is to have a heading on EACH page that appears, which says, "Misplaced Pages Makes No Guarantee of Validity." It would also be more correct of you, and certainly more ethical, if you called yourself, "Misplaced Pages, the user-created encyclopedia."

Linda Estabrook User talk:66.159.201.20 11:54, 2005 July 15

RESPONSE: Linda, would you cite the article that contains opinion and needs clean-up? We are collecting examples to support a proposal to make a disclaimer more evident at Misplaced Pages:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

"Real" encyclopedias disclaim accuracy, too. The three leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - Britannica, Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias forget about the disclaimers. - Misplaced Pages:Replies to common objections

We really should make it a teeny bit more obvious, though, for newcomers. Add a "written by users like you!" at the top of the page or something. I am all about Eventualism and the convergence of the wiki towards Absolute Truth, but we aren't at Eventually yet, and vandalism and hearsay mean newcomers should check references and article history before believing everything. We are, most of the time, a much better source than half the crap floating around the internet, but some of our articles are far below the quality of a "real" encyclopedia (that wouldn't have any information on that subject at all).

That said, you should always check references for important things, even for stuff that's in paper encyclopedias, as they have errors, too. - Omegatron 17:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many errors are present in the common text books too. David D. 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A newcomer's response. While objecting to the escalation from, "I found one item of gossip" to "you are deceiving the world", I have been surprised by the ubiquity of wiki hits on Google. Since so many more people will now be accessing wiki material, perhaps Estabrook is correct in advocating a little navel gazing. Megatron's defence that wiki is a better class of crap than that served up by other internet sources is hardly reassuring and we should all recognise that most users will never trouble themselves to check the references against the possibility of vandalism. So perhaps the answer is that there should be a roving commission to survey material and, when it finds articles that are sound, it should lock them. If a future editor believes any of the locked articles to require revision, let that be argued before editorial access is allowed. In this way, there is a slow accretion of core material that can justify the label of encyclopedia. Peripheral and evanescent material can be allowed to come and go as fashions change, with or without warning notices. -David91 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. People come up with proposals like this all the time, and probably a lot of people like them, but it will take a lot of work to get any kind of consensus to change something so fundamental to the idea of wiki. Much more realistic is to at least acknowledge in an obvious place that the pedia is user-written, and that only some of those users are experts. - Omegatron 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I came across many incorrect statements in the biology related pages. This was brought to my attention by students using it as source material. I agree there needs to be a stronger disclaimer on these pages. Some of the mistakes are subtle but some 'facts' are just wrong. Given how many online reference sources are harvesting wikipedia information it is scary to think how much misinformation may be out there on the internet. I do not think this means wikipedia is bad. It has huge potential and corrections will eventually get the quality up to scratch. But given the fact that there is wheat and chaff on these pages a disclaimer is warranted. David D. 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, when you come across these, either correct them or at least make a note on the relevant talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

See? When we read the Misplaced Pages we don't assume that everything is correct. We are both reading to learn and reading to edit, constantly on the lookout for things that might be wrong or vandalism or need cleanup. We approach all content with healthy skepticism. If we don't approach the Misplaced Pages as a completely authoritative source of information, we need to make sure newcomers don't approach it that way and then blame us for deceiving them and never come back.

See MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#From_Wikipedia.2C_the_free.2C_user-written_encyclopedia. - Omegatron 17:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

But, on two occasions, when I attempted to change pages (in my opinion for the better) I was met with hostility and abuse. I rapidly withdrew. Those pages remain unacceptable (in my opinion). So, please, let us not assume that placing warning messages as headers will resolve inherent behavioural and content problems. -David91 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Then there would seem to be controversy regarding the article. Could you specifically tell us which pages these were (perhaps also linking to your edits in the history). I'll look into this. — Ambush Commander 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not touting for a campaign of "Be nice to the old guy." Everywhere, I see reports of edit wars, sometimes over really meaningful issues such as what to call English counties or disputes over puncutation which get blown out of proportion by those with a non-consensual approach to life. "Looking into my editing history" is not going to add significantly to a pattern of behaviour that is well-documented and clearly inhibiting the growth of encyclopedic standards. The reason why I have not become involved in comparable disputes is that, at the first sign of abuse, I walk away. A plague on the causes of all those who will not iterate through reasonable debate towards some generally accepted point of view. -David91 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages should include some type of disclaimer on every article page. I really like Misplaced Pages and try to contribute when I can. However, as a person involved in research, I would not advocate using Misplaced Pages per se as a reference; but, I would certainly recommend starting with Misplaced Pages in performing research. Misplaced Pages is a wonderful resource with many advantages over traditional reference works. Misplaced Pages is also very up-front about how it is created and its limitations. Unfortunately, most people will not realize the difference between Misplaced Pages and a traditional encyclopedia. Of course, no matter what you do, there will always be a few people who don't read the disclaimer. That said, I think it would be good to include a disclaimer anyway so that the majority of readers will get the idea. --Wyatts 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides Misplaced Pages having an (existing) overall disclaimer, each contributer (including me) should have a disclaimer on her contribution to an article, and each article should have a disclaimer acknowledging where information may have other interpretations (e.g., scientific principles, evaluations of an artist's work quality and "themes", etc.). My son reads Misplaced Pages a LOT to study science and math and this led me to get an account. Fortunately he knows you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fortunately many of the articles list references so that information can be checked. I have discovered inaccuracies (e.g., ranking of largest ports in the world out of date). To be rigorous you have to look stuff up and compare, which process Misplaced Pages helps. But Misplaced Pages certainly is not a definitive authority on any of its articles. Nor is any other encyclopedia or online references.

So it's caveat lector!

Sitearm 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No encyclopedia is perfectly accurate, of course. I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages needs a disclaimer because it is somehow not as good as other encyclopedias. (I believe Misplaced Pages is superior is many ways.) Instead, I am suggesting that Misplaced Pages needs a disclaimer because it is different from traditional encyclopedias. I think the disclaimer should inform people of the difference, not be an apology for any inaccuracies (since all encyclopedias have inaccuracies.) Articles published in traditional encyclopedias represent the "official" output of the organization, and have gone through some kind of formal review for accuracy and style. This does not guarantee perfection, but readers know that the publisher has made some attempt to utilize knowledgeable experts, carefully reviews any changes/updates, and stands behind its work. People quickly learn which publishers do this well (or not) and hence establish the reputation of the publisher. People can then confidently reference such traditional encyclopedias in their research. Misplaced Pages is different. Articles can be written by anyone, editors are not selected according to their credentials, articles can be changed often, and there is no formal approval process. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages relies on collaboration to improve the accuracy of articles (which is generally very good), content is more relevant and up-to-date, there is tremendous breadth, and it's free. I might not reference Misplaced Pages directly, but I would certainly start there for research. So, with all that said, if there is ever going to be a disclaimer, then we need to start throwing out suggestions. It should be fairly short and emphasize the difference in Misplaced Pages, not an out for any inaccuracies. Here is something to chew on:

• "All Misplaced Pages articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy."

I'm sure this could be improved (in a collaborative manner.) --Wyatts 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found the Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, and it is blunt and comprehensive. No doubt here: "Misplaced Pages Makes No Guarantee Of Validity." So that leaves saying something about why Misplaced Pages is special and why it's a good encyclopedia to use (Misplaced Pages:Why Misplaced Pages is so great) or saying nothing at all and letting the work and its use speak for themselves. I'm sure this disclaimer issue will come up in the near future, say, when someone blames something on an article read here. The short disclaimer suggested by Wyatts is a good size to put on every page (is that what we're aiming for?), but its gist is covered in the existing full-size disclaimer page. How about "caveat lector et scriptor" ("let the reader and writer be cautious") to keep it short and add class? Hey, it might just work. Sitearm 06:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

May I politely disagree with your suggestion to use Latin? Many elementary and high-school students who use the Misplaced Pages do not speak Latin. The same would be true for some nonnative speakers of English. --Mamawrites 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer certainly seems to cover everything, but, as noted by Sitearm, I am suggesting something short that could go on every page. After looking hard, I did in fact see that the general disclaimer link is at the bottom of every page, but few will actually notice this and fewer still check it out. The line at the top of every article that says, "", might be a good place. Maybe something like:

• "From Misplaced Pages, the free encyclopdia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy. See disclaimer details."

--Wyatts 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mamawrites, I am OK with not using the Latin. It's a play on "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware"), but yes, it would just confuse things. Main point is, I agree with Wyatts to put something at the top of every page in addition to the tiny disclaimer link at the bottom. I feel uneasy at the statement about "not subject to formal approval..." and it's covered in the full page anyway. How about:

• ". All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

Sitearm 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. How do we submit what we agree on as a proposal to be added?

Although I wanted something about "not subject to formal approval", I must admit that it sounds too negative, and I could not find a good way to word it. I agree with the version from Mamawrites:

• ". All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

It has the following points in its favor: It is short enough to include at the top of every page; it emphasizes the difference between Misplaced Pages and traditional encyclopedias; it is a positive statement; it provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted; and it puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. As to how to submit, I looked at Misplaced Pages:How to create policy. The more I look, the more it seems that this discussion should be transferred to Misplaced Pages: Village Pump (proposals). A policy is more like what to do in certain situations. This is a specific proposal to modify the general article template (but not a bug). But, even if it is moved, I'm not sure how to get it out of the proposal stage to be implemented. Perhaps we can set up a separate page like Misplaced Pages:Disclaimer proposal? I think we will need to recruit one or more administrators to eventually set up a vote and then get it to those who can actually implement the change. --Wyatts 14:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

oops, I didn't coin that suggestion; Sitearm did. I support it, though! Mamawrites 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's add that disclaimer proposal page and link to it in the village pump proposals section. Your last paragraph is an excellent summary of the proposal and benefits. Would you be willing to start the page with your material? That would cover summarizing the proposal and the "for" reasons / benefits for doing it, for others to comment further. Things I can think of to add to the proposal page about why NOT to do this are: it takes extra space at the top of a page (probably a 2nd line); it takes some programmer time to edit a template to change this. This will give an "against" section for others to comment further. (P.S. It was me with the revised version of your version. Sorry for the confusion about addressing Mamawrites at the start of the paragraph.) Sitearm 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the tagline to:

• that anyone can edit.

the other day, and it was reverted pretty quickly (of course). Go talk on Mediawiki talk:tagline if you think it should be changed. I think it should be changed. - Omegatron 19:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I made a new proposal page at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline and posted notices here and here. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:29, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to go. I'll start posting discussion at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. --Wyatts 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The primary proposal has been updated. Contributer's comments and support still requested here. -- Sitearm | Talk 19:48, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Is it time to restrict editing to registered users?

I don't know about you but I'mn getting tired of continually reverting either clueless or vandalizing edits by anonymous IP users. These people don't check their talk pages and even if you do post warnings, etc. odds are you're probably hitting an innocent party since there are many who use the same IP numbers; I don't even know if unregistered users see the "You have new messgaes" notification. Has anyone seriously proposed a policy requiring registration and a username in order to edit pages? It would be so simple to do this, and while it would not eliminate vandalism of cource, at least it makes it easier to identify the culprits and block/ban accordingly. Case in point, the recent continued vandalism of Internet Movie Database by someone using a rotating IP. I'm sure there is some rationale behind allowing anons to edit, and it was probably a good one back in the day, but there have simply been too many violators for such an ideal to be maintained, not if Misplaced Pages is to remain viable as an accurate information source. I am thinking of proposing such a policy but I'm sure I'm not the first to do so, therefore I wanted to ask the question and get response before taking the next step. 23skidoo 04:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users. --cesarb 04:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought as much - much obliged! 23skidoo 11:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, having them edit anonymous makes them easier to track as it makes their IP visible to the common vandal hunters who can't otherwise check the IP of a user (even admins can't do that). - Mgm| 10:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very bad idea inimicable to the growth of the project. A high proportion of good edits are made by people who are not signed in. I have made thousands of edits. I made the first few hundred before I had an account and I'm not signed in now. 82.35.34.11 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have had my fair share of editing clueless Misplaced Pages edits or dealing with vandals, but no, Misplaced Pages is good because anyone can contribute. However, there could be other measures - perhaps it is time to consider technological measures in the next version of the software? For example, software that can detect newbie phrases like "testing" or perhaps "does this really work" or a continuous series of a single letter or sequence, or having administrators who can moderate the first few anonymous edits? --Mintchocicecream 00:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

See also m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles and m:Posting by newcomers should be limited, but not banned. We probably need something. We can't just pretend that vandalism and editing conditions will stay constant throughout the life of the project. What worked when there were 100 users won't necessarily work when there are 1,000,000. - Omegatron 00:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can dicdefs be speedy deleted?

There are a staggering number of articles that are straightfoward dictionary definitions of common words. Can they be speedy deleted or must we go through the usual VFD process?--Pyroclastic 06:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

They have to go through VfD, the full list of criteria for speedy deletion is at WP:CSD. --fvw*

Depending on the "dicdef" in question, a soft redirect might be more appropriate than deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Soft redirect Pcb21| Pete 12:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Most dicdefs can be expanded into full articles. You have to go through the VfD process to determine which ones don't warrant full articles. James 14:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with James to NOT delete these short articles but rather build on them OR move them to Wiktionary as is. Maybe ask the original contributors to take it on. On a practical note, the Wiktionary doesn't seem to be very well populated or contributed to. I cannot find "disclaimer" in the Wiktionary but I CAN find it in Misplaced Pages. A newcomer Sitearm 07:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good dicdefs are hard to write. The person who's sufficiently careful to write one is unlikely not to have noticed that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Ergo, a well written dicdef is likely to have been plagiarized. Well-written dicdefs are short enough to be plagiarized via typing as well as copy-and-paste. Thus the energetic and conscientious Wikipedian who suspects plagiarism and wants to zap it must be prepared to google for the suspect dicdef and then to look through numerous dictionaries. I agree that dicdefs are not candidates for speedy deletion. I wish they were. But because there are neither 30 hours in the day nor 9 days in the week, I am not going to propose this in any formal way.

Many dicdefs that are not well written are about the human naughty bits and their interaction, or other body functions. (When I was about 11 I was tremendously interested in such words myself.) Some of these are taken up and become considerably elaborated; for example, shit is now a labor (or anyway an evacuation) of love, rambling on as might an article by the "language maven" of a middlebrow US newspaper, and discussing the word, not the product (for which see feces). That it has been so elaborated would I suppose be held by some as proof of its "encyclopedic" nature; I'd dispute this. Moreover, I'd dispute James' claim above that Most dicdefs can be expanded into full articles. Or anyway I'd dispute the claim that most can be expanded into good, encyclopedic articles about the referents of the particular words, rather than discursive articles about the words themselves.

Some dicdefs can indeed be expanded. But I don't think this implies that they must be kept. See this sequence:

• VfD/dehiscence: I see a dicdef that smells of copyvio, Kappa locates the source; it's deleted.
• Dehiscence: What appears to be an excellent article, created after the deletion of, and independently of, its dicdef predecessor.
• amicable discussion of this on my user talk page

-- Hoary 07:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

good dicdefs are hardly superfluous, they are the first step towards a good article (aka stub). They don't necessarily need to be 'plagiarized' either, Webster's is in the PD, and it makes good sense to start a quick stub with a Webster's definition, and have it bloom into a full article later. Your point about shit etc. is about encyclopedicity and style, and hasn't really a connection to the 'dicdef' question at all. Vfd is about deleting titles that should never be articles. Content can always be blanked if inappropriate. There was no reason to delete dehiscence because there was a copyvio, just blank it and make it a short substub. Even if a discussion of the word shit was necessarily unencyclopedic (which I do not think), you wouldn't put shit on VfD, you would redirect it to feces.

VfD is only about titles

dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

good dicdefs ... are the first step towards a good article: I agree that some are and that others can be, I still claim that most aren't. If you think that something is worth an article, have a bash at writing an article about it -- even a short article, but not a substub that provides info on syllabification (yes, such "articles" are merrily introduced via plagiarism). They don't necessarily need to be 'plagiarized' either, Webster's is in the PD, and it makes good sense to start a quick stub with a Webster's definition, and have it bloom into a full article later. Right, they don't have to be plagiarized, but I suggest that this way of creating an article only works with a small percentage of the articles in that old Webster. (Again: want to prove the article's worth? Then simply take the effort to transform and even minimally augment what that old Webster says.) And yes, I'd be happy to have "shit" directed to "feces", but the fans of "shit" would either be against this or would insist that the etymological and other baggage of "shit" should be carried over in a merge. I think that Meanie said something like "A mean person"; was I wrong to have put it up for VfD? (Where might I have directed it?) -- Hoary 09:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

well, we have encyclopedic material on idiot and moron, but it is arguable to delete meanie, of course. I'm not saying we should encourage carrying over dicdefs from Webster's, but adding these to vfd, when the article could be augmented, or redirected, needlessly clutters vfd. I would be happy to merge shit and feces, carrying over etymological information on shit to feces, I suppose that's a possibility, but it has nothing to do with vfd: either shit remains an independent article, or it becomes a redirect, vfd doesn't enter into the debate here. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD does enter the debate: I bring it here. To carry on with the malodorous example of "shit", the etymological and other pop-linguistics stuff is, I believe, expendable. If I redirected it to "feces", I think I'd be under an obligation to merge the "information" of the former article within the latter: not doing so (simply deleting it all) could get me accused of vandalism. I could announce my intention to delete it all within the talk page of "shit", but the people thereby alerted would be disproportionately fans of that kind of article. VfD seems a reasonable option. (NB I'm not going to nominate it for VfD, because I'm sure doing so would infuriate many people and I can't be bothered to argue with them.) -- Hoary 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Apply the rules of the Sandbox to all the Sanbox pages

Specifically, as someone pointed out in the recently concluded Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Poetry debate, the various subpages of the sandbox do have a clear notice that they will be blanked every 12 hours. I propose that we simply start enforcing this. AllyUnion, when you get your bots working again, will you include the Sandbox subpages? Until then, will various Wikipedians promise to clear the pages every twelve hours. And will everybody agree not to revert the blankings (as is generally understood on the Sandbox pages that content there is not permanent)? If this is enforced, I think the risks (laid out in Eloquence's mailing list post) will be significantly minimized. Comments, thoughts, etc? JesseW 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, poetry is the only subpage that currently carries such a notice. With all due respect JesseW, I find this posting to be rather disingenuous. What you really want is a discussion of whether or not it is okay to use the sandbox (or more precisely subpages, thereof) to play Chess and Go and other games. Everytime these issues come up, it seems that the people who enjoy Chess and Go and apparently poetry (which was kept as no consensus) end up winning the day. If you disagree with that then you need to build consensus around your position. But merely trying to disrupt the lives of the people using these pages by blanking them every 12 hours is a fairly inappropriate solution. Unlike the sandbox itself, which is rarely if ever managed by people that care about it, these subpages are kept in good working order by the people who use them and so there is no need to reset them on the basis of some arbitrary passage of time. The content there is still temporary, but it is removed when the people using it are done with it. Your proposal is a fairly obvious attempt to assert your POV that these uses of the sandbox are bad. And maybe they are bad, but please do make your real argument, rather than trying to stretch the rules in a way that covertly accomplishes your goals. Oh, and for the record, I think Uncle Ed's solution for creating a WikiGames wiki and killing all the games on Misplaced Pages is far more reasonable direction to go in. Dragons flight 01:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I get for writing something just after the Vfd closed. ;-) Yes, that argument was behind the proposal. I hadn't checked (should have, but, see first sentence) that the other pages didn't have the Sandbox banner on them.

To address the real issue (which as Dragons flight correctly pointed out, is the acceptability of using Sandbox subpages for various projects not directly related to writing the encyclopedia): I think the basic question which users of these pages ought to be asked is the following: Why are these pages subpages of the Sandbox?

One proposed reason (given by YOu in the Poetry VfD) was that the pages were really extra Sandboxes, used for the same purposes as the main sandbox. This view leads directly to what I wrote above, i.e. that they should be blanked every 12 hours. If, as Dragons flight pointed out, this obviously doesn't make sense for most of them, that reason cannot be correct. So, what other reasons are there?

Looking over the reasons given in the Poetry VfD, these included: "Harmless fun", "too hard to find. ", "Quit being a bunch of boring pansies. "This is an encyclopedia, blah blah blah," who cares. Quit taking life so seriously and go outside for a while, nerds. Just keep it.", "great page", "If really necessary, ... If you guys can't be bothered to keep it here". And in the Chess VfD, "foster the community spirit that is the very reason why Misplaced Pages exists", "precedent - Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Chess championship", "harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. (besides, I'm in the middle of a game right now)", "the slippery slope argument is a weak one and if/when it gets out of hand we can stop it then. Let people have their harmless fun", "Misplaced Pages gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun", "We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc.", "Probably would have voted to delete had this been entirely new (like I have done with the checkers counterpart), but this has established itself in the sandbox, is good for community building and should not be removed"

These reasons can be organized into a few groups: ("good or neutral", i.e. "harmless", "lots of fun", "community spirit"), "too hard to find elsewhere", "I don't want to write an encyclopedia", "established itself in the Sandbox"

Which of these reasons relate to the location of the pages in the Sandbox, which, I quote from ], "is a page designed for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax."? Two - "too hard to find elsewhere" and "established itself in the Sandbox". The idea that a subpage of a testing page is a obvious place to find something seems like a generally terrible reason. If we want to make these pages findable, making them Sandbox subpages is a really bad way to do it. "established itself in the Sandbox" is more interesting - it seems to assume that the Sandbox is not a place "for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" but a place for testing some types of new projects. I say some because most new projects (i.e. WikiProjects, etc.) are simply started in-place, and are abandoned, archived or deleted if they turn out to be a bad idea. So, what sort of projects is the place "for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" a test place for? And why? I did not see any answers to this in my reading over the various VfD discussions, if I missed something, please comment. Otherwise, I look forward to your comments, thoughts and discussion. This is an important issue. (And thanks, dragons flight, for catching me) JesseW 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, JesseW. The sandbox exists for one purpose, and one purpose only. Testing. Anything beyond that is quite clearly beyond the bounds of Misplaced Pages. I have no problems with people playing games on wikis. What I do have is a serious ethical problem with people's donations for server costs intended to building an encyclopedia going to a poetry-writing, chess-playing project. It is by no means sandbox content, and by no means good use of donors' money. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs, and needs to be curtailed, quickly. If people cannot be persuaded to stop using sanbox subpages in this way, I suggest writing a policy for adoption by the entire community, stopping abuse of this function. ] 11:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't we stop biting eachothers head of over this soon? There have been several VfDs, long discussion on the mailing list and many arguments elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that as long as it doesn't escalate and it remains something that wikipedians do with eachother we should quietly alow it. Are your feelings so strong about this that either of you cannot imagine abiding by the wishes of the community? Can we please stop discussing this for now? And, to repeat an argument that has been repeated many places, "It's just some games, what harm do they do. Why don't we talk about this over a friendly game of Chess" :P gkhan 11:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. I have never participated in such a discussion (to my knowledge), and I don't believe I am biting anyone's head off. You say Are your feelings so strong about this that either of you cannot imagine abiding by the wishes of the community? Of course not. I was not aware of any consensus. In fact, all I can see is repeated no consensus. I hereby stop talking about this. ] 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Take no offence, I certainly meant none. I wasn't aware that you hadn't been in any of the discussions, trust me that there have been quite a few. And you are correct, there is certainly no consensus, what I meant was to say that there are strong community support (I guess "consensus" has become sor tof a fnord here, hasn't it :P. Well, at least for me). And I meant the thing about abiding by the community as, well, a question :P There are several users who feel very strongly about this issue (which they have every right to do) and I was inquiring about your view. It is just that this discussion is getting very tired since it has been had so many times, with the result that most people feel that it is fine if it doesn't escalate. That is all. Now I'll shut up. Ohh, wait, one more thing, I fe...gkhan suddenly get stricken by an unknown curse rendering him unable to write a single word more gkhan 14:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! My vote at the VfD was quoted above... Anyways, (I believe) all of the Sandbox games have gone through and survived VfDs (correct me if I'm wrong...). I am highly in favor of keeping the games; view my argument here. However, I am also in favor of moving them to their respective Misplaced Pages: pages. For example, IMHO, Chess should be moved to Misplaced Pages:Chess, Checkers to Misplaced Pages:Checkers, etc. Any thoughts? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere, somehow, we must draw a line, beneath which we do not dig. This is one of the most ancient of all human customs, perhaps the very first that distinguishes us from animals: the custom of burying the dead and not digging them up later on to see what they look like, or to find out if they are now tasty. Similarly, we bury our shit and do not reingest it or pass it around for comment.

It is not humanly possible to construct a perfect, sterile world in which people can live and work. Humans are dirty animals; we shit, we sweat, our skin falls off. There will always be dirty jokes, dirty pranks, time wasted, paperclips stolen, nudie calendars on locker doors, bigoted cartoons taped up next to the coffeepot. Perhaps these things are undesirable; perhaps it is wise to make efforts to reduce and contain them; but it is both foolish and impossible to eliminate them entirely. Thus, the Sandbox.

I say, let the bot periodically blank all public Sandboxes -- those that are provided as a public resource. Put an end to Atlas awards -- nobody should be wasting time poking in the Sandbox looking for something he doesn't like; he will surely find it. As for any other pages with "sandbox" in its name or within that branch of the tree: nobody can possibly be there who does not wish it, so the content is of no importance to the rest of us.

Concerns that playing chess on some obscure page will load the server are flatly ridiculous and anyone expressing such should go play in the Sandbox for a week. — Xiong熊talk* 18:57, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Money on Misplaced Pages

I have one concern with images of banknotes on Misplaced Pages: that they are often far too large and present the possibility of them being used to make counterfeits -possibly attracting the attention of law enforcement agencies whether or not the currency design is copyrighted. This is similar to overly large CD covers that can be used to make bootlegs. As an example, you should see Image:50 CHF.jpg, which -I think -is far too large.

I don't think this is a major issue at this time, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

AlbertR 00:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm--you're right that the image certainly seems to be quite a bit larger than what we need for an encyclopedia article. I can't speak to the legality of this particular image (are there any Interpol Wikipedians reading?), but we'd probably be better off if someone slapped the word 'SPECIMEN' across it, just to cover ourselves. (See, for example, Image:Switzerland1000francs1996.jpg.) If someone does do that, it would be dandy if they could also rotate the image. 90 degrees clockwise would bring the denomination and portrait upright; 180 degrees would correctly orient the text. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a template for Swiss money based on the guidelines developed by the SNB. I think it could be useful in future policy discussions, perticularly with regard to image sizes. AlbertR 01:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that slapping specimen on it wouldn't hurt, but I think it is silly to think that counter-feiters would come here for images of money. They can just scan the money themselves, it's not like it is a hard thing to do or anything. gkhan 06:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gkhan. But I don't see why we need to deface the images with "specimen" unless wikipedia is actually working against the law. Most currency nowdays is filled with anti-copying protections, so providing a highly detailed image is in my view fine. Plus, think of wikipedia in a 10, 20, 50, 100 year time frame... having hi-res images of current currency could be invaluable for wikipedians down the road. --Quasipalm 13:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgive a technical observation but each and every design for any currency will be protected under the intellectual property and other laws of the relevant states. In many cases, reproducing a copy without consent (which might be implied if formal guidelines for reproduction are issued by the state and followed by the person posting the image) could be a criminal offence, particularly if the resolution of the scan would enable another user to make passable counterfeit copies. David91 05:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? Should Misplaced Pages not reproduce images of money for this reason? Just because of some arbitrary silly law? — David Remahl 06:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot pick and choose which laws it obeys. Thryduulf 13:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it's against the law to make an image of currency. I expect it's widely done. Further, anything by the U.S. government is generally public domain. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Usually the paper currency should not be printed in high resolution (but high variability according the nation). Anyway it is not a copyright law problem. If a state rules in this topic, this rules have higher priority that copyright law. (i.e. you cannot copy passports of tou and other people, not because copyright law). Cate 15:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer it if Misplaced Pages did not obey any laws and focused on making an encyclopedia. — David Remahl 13:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As others have noted, works by the U.S. government are automatically in the public domain. Many governments do something similar, or place the currency design under something like Crown copyright which usually also permits non-profit or informational reproduction. Finally, I would suggest that there is a strong 'fair use' argument under U.S. law that Misplaced Pages should be able to display images of currency regardless of its copyright status. The big question is whether we run into non-copyright related legal issues; anti-counterfeiting statutes and the like. That question is almost certainly resolved if the currency images are either a) low resolution; or b) defaced with the word 'specimen' or 'sample'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend using images from the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing for all US currency. That way we know there's no possibility of there being counterfeiting issues. They have images of all of the older-style bills, the newer monochrome ones, and the color ones that have started coming out here. James 16:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

European banknotes most definitely are copyright. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement in France are a fine of up to 300000 EUR and a prison sentence of up to three years (see French copyright law). Our images of euro notes are currently "fair use", which is probably no defense in France but that's another arguement. I would support a 96dpi resolution limit on banknotes (and other fair use images that might be copied for illicit purposes, such as CD covers and book covers): this is standard screen resolution, but lousy for printing. Alternatively, we could always ask the European Central Bank very nicely to release authorized GFDL images of their notes, they might say yes. Physchim62 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone plans on forging money then they can certainly afford to get their own $100 bill without getting a scan of wikipedia. No print from a computer is going to be close enough to actually pass it as a real note. So the "forgery argument", in my mind, holds no water. The copyright argument is correct. Really large images are right out. In my mind the scan in question is of a reasonable to size to give the reader an imression of the bill. I doubt that the European central bank will allow us to have a copy of the bill GFDL (they can't give it only to us, they would have to let everyone else have it GFDL too). I think putting specimen on the bills is silly especially since the old version will still be there (unless we delete the old version, which may have some copyright implications of its own). This link is Broken 03:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just passing by. Intellectual Property law isn't really the point here. Please take a quick read of this article. Or click through their link to here. then select the country you are curious about and it will tell you some relevant information. for example, if you select United States, it will inform you

The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided that:

the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;

the illustration is one-sided; and

all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

Most new photocopiers have money detectors and will not let you photocopy currency. It isn't required by law yet, but there are restrictions and laws involved that have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with making it hard for counterfeiters. I would suggest following what this site does in its images of currency, and display them at 50% reduction with a low enough resolution that counterfeiting is not possible. FuelWagon 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify the issue in the UK. The copyright issue is only half the matter:

Under section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote. The Bank of England also owns the copyright in its banknotes. Bank of England

Though we might I suspect get away with reproducing the notes displayed on their website. Dunc|☺ 13:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Misplaced Pages?

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Misplaced Pages calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Misplaced Pages is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Misplaced Pages most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Misplaced Pages says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Misplaced Pages is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Misplaced Pages.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Misplaced Pages, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Misplaced Pages? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Misplaced Pages says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Misplaced Pages says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Misplaced Pages says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Misplaced Pages ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Misplaced Pages claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Misplaced Pages wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Misplaced Pages are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Misplaced Pages simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Misplaced Pages says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Misplaced Pages claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Misplaced Pages? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Misplaced Pages NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Misplaced Pages takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

Good criticism like this is hard to come by! Can we sort this out? Kim Bruning 03:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur. --Golbez 03:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I wonder if maybe someone with some experience in this could take a look at this? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Misplaced Pages calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Misplaced Pages) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Misplaced Pages claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Misplaced Pages claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Misplaced Pages does NOW). Then, Misplaced Pages claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Misplaced Pages says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Misplaced Pages claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Misplaced Pages says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Misplaced Pages completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Misplaced Pages says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Misplaced Pages later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Misplaced Pages even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Misplaced Pages says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Misplaced Pages is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

Igor, I think you have many valid points, however, people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me. A lot of your problem is that many people are unaware of the issues on these pages. I don't follow politics that closely and I'm not aware of the issues and have never seen those pages. It seems there are a lot of issues. May be we should tackle them one at a time. You peeked my interest in the Y chromosome analysis. Do you have a sources that would bring people up to speed?

Your complaint of the 'at least 20' seems harsh. While the number is low the author clearly wrote the 'at least' because they were not clear about the exact number. Again if you have source material then your arguments will not be disputed by any rational person. You are fighting our (mine at least) ignorance of the politics in your home country. You have started to educate us, please be patient. David D. (Talk) 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are completely right. I was mad, I still am. I would just like to ask you if you can put yourself in my possition and possition of the other Macedonians.

I just visited the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. I have to be honest that I didn't understand well, but I could notice many places where the word Macedonian is simply changed with Bulgarian.

Yes, there are some actual researches about the HLA genes of the Macedonians and Greeks. Just, I didn't gave you any link, because that research include Spanish, Portugeese... and between them Macedonian scientists. It is officially publicated and accepted research, but it is the first one in the field.

This technique is possible only in the last couple of years. It is expected many researches like this still to come, and the techniques are getting more and more advanced.

So, to keep the Misplaced Pages's neutrality, I wanted to wait till several researches like this appear. That is why I didn't talk about that research and I talked about the researches that are going to happen in future, which will be much more advanced, using newer techniques. Anyway, for those who are interested, here is a link of the research:

www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

Another links can be found with google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=HLA+genes+macedonia&btnG=Search

BTW, I already noticed some possitive changes in Misplaced Pages. When I say possitive, I am talking for Misplaced Pages's neutrality, not for my point of view. They are few, but encouraging. Anyway, there are many more that should be worked on.

About the number of countries that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name, I only got an oral information few days ago from our Ministery for External affairs (www.mnr.gov.mk). I asked for written information, but it will take longer. As soon as I get it, I will post it here.

Thanks I'll look at the links. David D. (Talk) 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

dear Macedonian friend,

David D. wrote "people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me." Wrong. I listen. I am a person.

It is very typical of Americans and other residents of wealthy nations, when confronted in the Internet with information they were not ready to accept, to refuse to respond to the information, but instead to respond to how it was said, who said it, what their motives were, or anything else other than the information itself.

I regret that people used Misplaced Pages to advance the rhetoric of genocide against you and other Macedonians. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is rife with such imperialistic mythology. A band of thugs who bases their Misplaced Pages reputation on plagiarizing their college text books makes it a routine to peruse the site and raise trouble for anyone who speaks with original knowledge on topics these collegiate thugs know nothing about. Misplaced Pages's philosophy, as cobbled together by the founders, is that it is okay to publish false information, because someday, somebody might come along and correct it. So what if they write you out of history for a while, Misplaced Pages advocates would say. It might get fixed later, and if it doesn't you're not that important anyway.

Misplaced Pages is as racist as are the people who created it. Trying to correct their racism by systematically correcting disinformation is a noble cause, but the problem is much deeper. These people don't care about facts, about history or about accuracy. They care about seeing their words appear on the Internet and seeing their scalp-cloth of trophies grow long with names of stories they contributed to or outright stole from copyrighted sources. No doubt the misinformation in Misplaced Pages you are attempting to correct was stolen from another source. You would do well to locate that source, then to expose Misplaced Pages for yet another flagrant violation of national and International copyright laws. 172.191.154.17 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon User:172.191.154.17 has quote me above:

Quote

David D. wrote "people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me." Wrong. I listen. I am a person.

It is very typical of Americans and other residents of wealthy nations, when confronted in the Internet with information they were not ready to accept, to refuse to respond to the information, but instead to respond to how it was said, who said it, what their motives were, or anything else other than the information itself.

END Quote

It is not a case of if am I ready to accept the information. At the moment, I am ignorant of the information. Unless one is well informed on the topic, how can you tell the difference between hearsay and fact? An obvious route would be to present your case in a manner that Hoary describes below. Instead you rant and rave and wonder why everyone sits back and thinks you're another net loon. Calm and reasoned arguments will always prevail. If you have a strong argument then calm down and start teaching us. Shout all you want but it will never be effective. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but do you have a crystal ball? How do you know "calm and reasoned arguments will always prevail"? Is Misplaced Pages a faith-based project, resting on assumptions of the power of reason to prevail over human pride and prejudice? "Daycd" wirtes "Shout all you want but it will never be effective." Again, interesting POV, but he lacks authority to declare it as fact. The Macedonian writer well explains how human rights organizations (not to mention scholars) worldwide consider this document a host for misinformation that intrudes on the rights of people. Counter-aggression has often been effective in combatting racism. Obdalilada 18:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not want Misplaced Pages to write my POV. All this what I wrote here up is to inform you that there is another POV that Misplaced Pages should not ignore. Just search the web about this issue. You will find 3 different POVs, Macedonian, Greek and Bulgarian.

The problem is that Misplaced Pages ignores completely the Macedonian POV and promotes the Bulgarian and Greek POV. Why is that?

I don't want Misplaced Pages to support Macedonian POV. No way. I just want Misplaced Pages to stop supporting the anti-Macedonian POVs (but to keep them as information) and to include the Macedonian POV (as information too). I repeat, as information, without taking sides in this issue.

Just to give you a hint of how serious is this. Bulgarian and Greek POVs are to ignore the Macedonian nation. I am here, I exist and I am Macedonian. And Misplaced Pages supports these POVS and says that I (as Macedonian, or Macedonian Slav like Misplaced Pages is treating us, no matter is offensive for us) am a artificial creation of Tito and I don't exist. How would you feel? Would you like to be in my position?

Thanks for the support. You won't beleive what all I could read here. Misplaced Pages is some kind of 'internet holocaust' against the Macedonians. We are completely ignored and presented as creation of Tito. Nonsence. For days I am trying to edit the bullshit that can be found here, very neutrally. I never erased anything, I just added that there is a Macedonian POV. The Misplaced Pages administrators simply erased it and kept only the Bulgarian and Greek nationalistic POV, which is domplete denying of all the Macedonian history till 1945th. We are even called Macedonian Slavs. It is truth, we are mostly Slavic. But they completely ignore any conection we have with the Antique Macedonians. And that is not all. All our history after the 6th century, fights for independence, culture and church was presented as a part of the Bulgarian history. I won't waste my time on edits here on Misplaced Pages that will latter be erased. I will transfer the battlefield somewhere else. Misplaced Pages publically claims its neutrality. But, obviously, it is ignoring 2,5 million people and stealing their history, culture and identity. So, this is a classic case of breaking the basic humman rights of the 2,5 million Macedonians around the globe. I am quite familiar with this because I am highly involved in politics and I am a member of 2 international human rights organizations, which are quite powerful. My political party (the biggest one in Macedonia with great conections in the world) will be glad to get Misplaced Pages in front of the International Human rights court. Let's see how will they feel when they become an issue in the world press for breaking human rights.

I have to fight againt assimilation of my nation. We constantly experience this for centuries and I am not planning to stand at the side and watch. If no one wants to hear me now, they would be forced to.

Again thank you for your support Best regards, I_sterbinski ... posted at 04:59, August 6, 2005 by 62.162.197.128

You make some interesting points, but you also say I won't waste my time on edits here on Misplaced Pages that will latter be erased. I will transfer the battlefield somewhere else. . . . My political party (the biggest one in Macedonia with great conections in the world) will be glad to get Misplaced Pages in front of the International Human rights court. Let's see how will they feel when they become an issue in the world press for breaking human rights. I'll pay you the respect of taking what you say seriously. If you're really not interested in editing Misplaced Pages, then don't edit Misplaced Pages. If you want to take legal action against Misplaced Pages, then do so.

But if this really is what you want to do, then why write it here? One possibility is that you're presenting this as a threat: "Let me edit as I want, or you'll be in trouble." But threats (intended or perceived) are never persuasive. (Moreover, talking of your great connections in the world makes you appear like an AM radio blowhard.)

So make your mind up. Either (a) edit, and avoid anything looking like a threat or rant, or (b) don't edit, and pursue justice (as you see it) via other channels. If you choose (a), I suggest that you start a new section on this page titled something like "Bias in Macedonia and related articles", and present your case as cogently and tersely as possible: no arm-waving, no threats, no ranting. I'd happily read it and consider what it said with an open mind. -- Hoary 05:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, here is my answer. For the last few days I keep editing the Macedonia page, very, very neutrally. I even wrote some things that are deffinitly not in favor of me, as a Macedonian.

And, every single time my edit was erased and the old version of the text still stays. I asked anyone who wants to change my edit to contact me and discuss about it. NOONE did, but my edit was still erased. Let me repeat that this is going on for days.

I registered at Misplaced Pages with a hope that I will take a part of its editing. But, it looks like that I am wasting my time because all my edits that I worked for hours are simply erased. And, let me repeat again that I was not editing according to my POV. I was keeping it neutral 100%.

(If you would like to see my edit, check the Macedonia page on Misplaced Pages several times, so maybe you will reach it in the moment when my edits are on. You would recognise my edit because instead of the word "controversially", has the words "disputed by Greece" at the beggining of the text, next to Republic of Macedonia)

Another thing. I did not ment to threat anyone. If I wanted to do so, I would send that message directly to the administrators and the other people involved in Misplaced Pages since its beggining.

I just expressed my deep dissapointment from Misplaced Pages and my anger of its assimilation supports. As a Human rights worker and politician, I will do everything I can to present what Misplaced Pages is doing to the Macedonian nation (denying it and ignoring it, promoting lies and assimilation point of view).

Putting this so called 'threats' was ment to show at least to some people that assimilation of a specific ethnicity is very serious political and social issue and breaking of the basic human rights.

I do not have some tremendous conections around the world. But I know where to present this issue to make it as public as possible. And, as a human rights worker, I am very familiar with this issues and It is more than obvious that Misplaced Pages (as a information media) is breaking the basic human rights of more than 2.5 million people.

As a human rights worker is my obligation to react on this. Beeing a Macedonian just makes it more personal.

It is pitty that you are more concerned about what I write here than about the lies that Misplaced Pages is promoting. This is just one example. I already was informed that I am not the first one who is accusing Misplaced Pages for breaking Human rights in one of the Human rights organizations I am working in, on a completely different issue. So, Macedonia is not the only example of this weakness Misplaced Pages has. Too bad that noone of you involved here cares enought to try fix this weakness. Not just about the Macedonia issue. All issues that there are complaints about.

I sterbinski 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My Macedonian friend, if I may call you that. You bring up a problem that is in the nature of Wiki. Taking everything you say at face value, someone who disagrees with you goes in and changes everything you write. But the person who is doing this is NOT the "administrator" of Misplaced Pages, just some individual who disagrees with you. As I see it, you have two options. You can try to get the person who changes what you have written and refuses to discuss it banned. Or you can just delete what he has written and change it back to what you have written, and see who gets tired first. 209.247.222.115 01:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is the least desireable way to settle a dispute - not to mention that more than three reverts in 24 hours will get everybody banned who tries. No, the best way to do this is to make a version of the article that is a neutral as possible, put in lots of sources, and put on the talk page a list with the things that got changed, explaining why they got changed. That way, it is not particularly difficult - if sometimes a bit slow - to get other people to help, simply because people can see that at least one side is trying to be as accurate and neutral as one person can be.

Now, I won't try to hide the fact that this sounds like an edit war in the making, simply because of the field this is about - namely, politics. Politics, along with religion and sex/gender related topics are hotspots, most unfortunately. But it is by no means impossible to get reasonable, accurate and neutral versions of articles through. It merely requires diligence and patience and the willingness to work with the way Misplaced Pages works, not against it. That includes rather sophisticated ways of conflict resolution which, if done properly - and that basically means "have your facts ready and try to remain reasonable calm" - work. (See Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes) So, I very much regrett that we have a less than ideal article on this subject (although I myself know next to nothing about it, but then, this is all the more reason to regrett this) and I sincerely hope that User:I sterbinski - and other users, if we can found knowledgable ones - can work out the problems and give Misplaced Pages a good article about the matter. Even if that is most likely a stony path, it is sure worth it. -- AlexR 01:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging

I propose that a separate form field for image tags be added to the upload page. If it is not filled out, the upload should not go through. If it is, the text inside should become the image tag. See Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images#Round_3 for details. If you've been working on the untagged images, you know this is no joke. Please give this proposal serious consideration. I know it requires developer work but I think it is worth it. Superm401 | Talk 07:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree and would go one step further.

• We should have an image tag drop down selection box
• We should require that all images fit into at least one category. This could be accomplished by adding a "category:" text box that is required. Of course, people could add additional categories in the main text box.

So many images right now are floating into oblivion because they aren't added to any categories, pages, or anything else, which makes them useless. --Quasipalm 19:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the drop down box, though the implementation will take work(someone will have to change it manually whenever WP:ICT changes). I don't think the categorization is necessary. One thing, if we're having a drop-down put up a page that says, "You selected {{GFDL}}. By continuing you swear or affirm that to the best of your knowledge GFDL is the accurate legal status of this image, or you have the legal right to make the image GFDL." It's harsh, but that way they can't just select random tags. Superm401 | Talk 20:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Commons have a system where you have to fill in an ICT field to upload your image? This is not a foolproof as a drop-down box, but it's better than at present. Physchim62 20:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not. Superm401 | Talk 20:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

People, on average, do not understand copyright. By forcing them to fill in the field, they will insert something that "sounds good" but is likely to be incorrect. Images that are uploaded without copyright information are likely unusable on Misplaced Pages. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is definately a good idea, but forcing the addition of a tag is going to create the problem of incorrect tags, maybe we could say "did you take create picture yes/no" yes = tag with gfdl, no = dialogue for more specific details, including "if you dont know what tag to put then explain where the image is from". Martin (Bluemoose) 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess that could be an okay compromise. Superm401 | Talk 04:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the "did you take create picture yes/no" yes = tag with gfdl, no = dialogue for more specific details, including "if you don't know what tag to put then explain where the image is from". The last part is very important. I am finding that most users don't know about tagging and respecting copyrights. If they write where it comes from, it could go into a pool like Misplaced Pages:Untagged Images where an experienced user looks where it came from and then can tag it or delete it. The extra box draws attention to the problem because people see it. I know it says to write where you got the image from on the upload page, but the instructions are very long. Most people don't bother to read that. --michael180 14:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to refer this to technical and see if they'll implement it. If you have any issues with the ways I'm presenting the solution to them, please raise them soon. Superm401 | Talk 19:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Where is the "no how to's" policy?

I have read that there is a policy not to have "how to" articles in Misplaced Pages but I do not see this in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. But I do see many "how to" articles in Misplaced Pages. How to make Steel, how to play Poker, how to do Home repair. What is the objection to including "how to" articles? A curious newcomer Sitearm 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is written down anywhere, but I think there's a couple of issues here. One is that Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, is descriptive, not prescriptive. So it's reasonable to describe how people play Poker, that is, the rules, typical strategies used etc, but to actually tell people to play in a certain way would be prescriptive, and should probably be avoided. The second thing is that Misplaced Pages is a reference work, not a textbook or a how-to guide. While we obviously hope people will learn from Misplaced Pages articles, we're not setting out to teach, per se; we present information fairly neutrally, rather than framing it for a learner. As for your examples, I would say, home repair is problematic, at least. One giveaway is that it uses the word "should" a lot, and it's quite difficult to establish "should" as fact. — Matt Crypto 15:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You have to think about what people look for in an encyclopedia; most people look up a topic for a brief summary of ideas, not specific instructions. However, please see Wikibook's how to section and feel free to add in any kind of how-to you like. --Quasipalm 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand these comments but I am still curious, where is the "no how to's" policy? I ALMOST found a model example of connection between Misplaced Pages and Wikibooks. The Misplaced Pages article Four-in-hand knot has an external link to a third-party site How to Tie a Tie - Instructions How to Tie the Four-In-Hand Knot. But it COULD instead be linked to the Wikibooks article How To Tie A Tie Four-In-Hand. This seems a desirable way to go. It is up to contributors to parse material and add cross-referencing links appropriately. So how about... Proposed "How To" Policy: "Specific "how to" instructions should be placed in Wikibook's how to section with a link from a referring article Misplaced Pages. A parsing newcomer Sitearm 23:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say: just use common sense and see where it leads you. If someone deletes your additions saying it's too "how-to," then have a discussion with them and come to a consensus. Yes, brief instructions on tying a tie are probably fine, but instructions on how to win at chess would overwhelm an article; again: common sense. Just remeber the most important rules: NPOV, encyclopedic, respect, and occasionally ignore all rules. --Quasipalm 14:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Having read the excellent comments in this section, plus Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, plus Monopoly strategy nonencyclopedic, it seems to me the assertion that there is a Misplaced Pages "no how to articles" policy is weakly founded. As a personal policy I will follow Quasipalm's suggestion to proceed with common sense. A ready to move on newcomer -- Sitearm | Talk 01:34, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

There is no written policy yet. We've got Misplaced Pages:How-to, which talks about howtos as if they belonged on Misplaced Pages, with a big note at the top saying that some people think they don't. Policy comes from what people do, and only later it's the other way around. To me it's obvious Wikibooks is a much more suitable project for putting how-tos than Misplaced Pages; you avoid any pitfalls about spouting POV that way (the big problem with prescriptive prose) and the lesser pitfall of spouting original research ("I/some people have found twisting the foo knob half a second before flooring the flux capacitor gives you a much smoother ride...") JRM · Talk 13:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be important to relay instructions with NPOV and references. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:23, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Plane crash article titles

Misplaced Pages contains a number of articles about specific airplane crashes where the entire article title consists of a flight number: the newest of these is Air France Flight 358. I think this is a bad policy (or bad practice, if there is no policy). If I find an article titled Charles Dickens, I expect it to cover all important things about Charles Dickens, not just the fact that he was in a train crash one day in 1865. Or more to the point, the article about the Big Bayou Conot train disaster is not titled Sunset Limited; the latter article is about that train in general.

There has presumably been an Air France flight 358 every day, or several days a week, for many years, and for that matter, the same flight number may very well have been used for different services in different timetable periods. And may be used again in the future, depending on whether Air France is one of those airlines that retires flight numbers in this situation. But the article is about that flight on a specific day: the one when the accident happened.

Since there are some cases where people do remember aircraft accidents by the flight number, it makes sense for these to be available as redirects. I have no problem with that. But using them as primary titles is just wrong. The primary title needs to be in a style like 2005 Air France Toronto crash (the airport is actually in Mississauga, a Toronto suburb) or Crash at Toronto Pearson Airport, August 2, 2005 or even Etobicoke Creek Ravine A340 crash. Something like that. The specifics don't matter; the point is simply that the title should describe what the article is actually about. --Anonymous, (sometimes) 207.176.159.90 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Air France has information about its events, and either other articles or Categories should allow searchers who know the airline are able to find the information. I suggest the pattern for article names require location and dates. Other information, such as airline or flight, can be included if needed or relevant. Requiring date and location releases the airline/flight title. Ensuring the search engine can find such articles when airline and flight number are supplied is to be encouraged. (SEWilco 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

• Airlines almost invariably retire flight numbers after an incident involving that flight number, so using the flight number in the article is a good choice, especially since people remember them that way. That said, Air France Flight 358 really ought to be moved to Air France Flight 358 crash. --Carnildo 04:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think the current system is adequate. Requiring a location or even a date would not only contribute to clutter, but imply the existence of other notable flights when almost certainly none exist. A flight or flight number in and of itself is rarely encyclopedic--we could say Misplaced Pages is not the OAG, the Star Alliance Timetable, VirtualTourist.com, or FlyerTalk. Now, a particular accident or incident may be remembered by a particular name or construction, and we should by all means use them where appropriate. But sometimes the flight number itself is the most widely understood. Whether or not the number is retired by the airline is irrelevant; they didn't rename Three Mile Island after all. Just as there's one notable Good Friday Earthquake, it seems to me readers can be trusted to guess correctly what the contents of TWA Flight 800 will cover without resorting to the pedantic 1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion, or if you will humor a straw man, July 17, 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island, New York.- choster 05:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  It'd be a neat trick for an airliner to explode in more than one location on different dates. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Original poster's response (01:05 UTC, August 5): I concede that there are some accidents where it is the flight number that is commonly remembered, which might be appropriate as primary titles. But there are many others where it is not. Quick -- what was the flight number of the Everglades crash? The South American plane that ran out of fuel over New York? The British plane that crashed into the M1? The Air Canada plan that ran out of fuel and safely landed at Gimli? These events are remembered by their circumstances and location, and I suggest that this is more common than remembering flight numbers.

I also think the current naming convention is fine. The only real notable thing about these flights was their crashing. Also, I see no reason that any other notable information could be added to the same page (for example, "XYZ Airlines flight 123 was the first direct flight to Guam from Iowa. It crashed on ..."). --Quasipalm 13:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not fine at all. It is completely unintuitive thing for people to search for. Pcb21| Pete 12:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Original poster: I say that the fact that after 1,000 instances of XYZ Airlines flight 123 had operated safely, the 1,001th one crashed, is not a "notable thing about flight 123" at all. It is only a notable thing about flight 123 on July 36, 1999.

• If you look at Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners you'll find that WP has been quite consistent in the past. Methinks that all would be fine if we removed the word "crash" from the title. hydnjo talk 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• And why was User:Pcb21 allowed to add "crash" to the title with all of this debate going on? hydnjo talk 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Original poster: Yes, it's been consistent: consistently wrong. Which is why I'm raising the subject here: this is a policy issue. How many other general reference works, like almanacs and encyclopedias, that list air crashes list them primarily by flight number?

There were seven or so hurricanes named Frances, but I really don't think we need to say Hurricane Frances (2004). And I've moved the article back, per wiki standard. --Golbez 17:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

How about this: continue the current policy of Airlinename Flight# with the addition of (crash) just as we sometimes do for disambig. Additionally, provide as many redirects as you please (where, when, whatever was prominent) in order to help the user locate the article. IMO it is important that the main title of all these pages remains uniform and consistent. hydnjo talk 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If a crash becomes widely known by another name, such as the Gimli Glider, then that name should be used, but for other accidents without a consistant, widely used name the Airline Flight# should be used. And as for the article that really brought this up, air france flight 358, that is generally what I see in the media, especially in Canadian news, and it is too soon to see if a different name sticks, so if an accident is not generally know by a different name or is very recent it should use the airline flight#.say1988 17:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Original poster: I could live with Hydnjo's suggestion. (22:25 UTC, 8 August 2005)

category titles

• Misplaced Pages:Category naming is a straw poll to determine if people prefer "Category:Greek Philosophers" or "Category:Philosophers of Greece". Please give your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• There is also a second proposal asking for preferences relating to abbreviations of country names. Steve block talk 10:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you please clarify the question. Do you mean philosophers who have or had Greek nationality, those who espouse thought characteristic of the Greek Schools of Thought, e;g. Platonic, or those who contemplate what comprises the ideal of Greekness? -David91 11:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The poll is to determine whether a general rule should be established for country-related category names, and if so whether it should be "X of country" or "nationality x", for example "Category:Rivers of Canada" or "Category:Canadian actors". One choice is "it depends". -- Rick Block (talk) 14:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know. Category naming is often irregular, and we see both choices. Again, "it depends". — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Applying the same rules to everything can be problematic. For example, to me, "Greek philosophers" suggests the philosophers of antiquity (Plato et al.), while "Philosophers of Greece" suggests more modern times. --Carnildo 04:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• There is an obvious danger of anachronism if we start using modern nation-state names to categorize people. Ancient Greek philosophers or writers, who would be more or less correctly categorized as such (because of the language and culture they belonged to), may not have lived in present-day Greece at all, but in, say, Alexandria or Syracuse. Using "of Greece" in categories is potentially misleading. And how do you categorize an American writer from the time before the creation of the United States of America? Still existing buildings, cities or natural features can certainly be categorized according to where they currently are, but with people things are more complicated. Tupsharru 10:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposal at Misplaced Pages:Category naming or its talk page, not here. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Style for results tables in sports

This relates specifically to athletics (track and field) and is particularly relevant since the world championships begins on Aug 6th.

The style issue is with regard to the use of flags in results tables. Below are some representative results from the 1983 World Championship in the two formats.

I have established a separate talk page to try and discuss this issue since it involves results presented on many different pages. We are trying to reach a consensus on this issue and anyone that wants to weigh in with their own opinion is welcome to do so. David D. (Talk) 16:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the style, I just have one question. Why are you holding the discussion in the Template talk: namespace? -- Cyrius|✎ 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I spaced out. I got the idea to set up the separate talk page from a discussion about a template. The template was being used on several pages so it was inconvenient to discuss the issue on any one specific page that the template was being used. This discussion also involves many different pages. Since I based the page on that 'Template talk' page I forgot to remove 'template' when I created the page. Should I move it to a new page? David D. (Talk) 19:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving it into the Misplaced Pages namespace would be preferred. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's out of the template talk space. What should I do next? David D. (Talk) 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-english in en:Misplaced Pages 2

As recently discussed about Glacier, now Cuisine of Argentina is partially English and partially Spanish. (SEWilco 19:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

My suggestion is they keep a sandbox open on their project and do the translation there. (Question, though - if I translate stuff over from another wikipedia, how do I properly cite them? Do I add Es wikipedia to the references?) --Golbez

A link back to the Spanish article is listed in the references. An example can be found here — J3ff 19:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It was already pointed out that edits on another page hide the edit history and thus a record of origin of material. Follow the previous discussion links and you find a proposal that Spanish text be inserted within comments so only editors see it. (SEWilco 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

Or maybe use a sandbox, but notify people on the discussion page if they want to see the edit history. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

...if that sandbox can be assured to remain forever and not be deleted, which takes all its edit history along to oblivion. Already mentioned in previous discussions. (SEWilco 14:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC))

If you really need to keep the edit history of the translation, create a sandbox at your project (e.g. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject whatsitsname/Article title). When finished editing the translation, move it over to Article title. —Mike 23:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about existing articles which are messed up by foreign language text. For an existing article, such a move involves deletion of the original article and losing its edit history and talk. (SEWilco 06:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

Lists can be categories

The standard arguement against deleting "lists" in favor of "categories" is that lists supposedly have information that categories can not. Namely, they allow for extra information (beyond the article name), an alternate sorting/sub-sorting, and grouping. They also allow red links, to encourage future article creation.

So, why not put this list information *in* the category description. You can add whatever text you want to a catgory's description. You can even add sections. So, after defining the category, a seperate section could list items with a breif descrip, and include red-link itemss. It might look funny, but it would do the job. If the long category "description" is problematic, than such "list/categories" could be made into out-of-the-way sub-categories (to avoid interfering with normal navigation off the top-level categories).

This eliminates the redundant lists/category pairs, that are quite common. There would still be redundancy of information between the category description, and directory of member articles, but that's no worse than with "normal" lists. Any contradictions between the information would be easily detectable, and fixable. Currently, there's no easy way of verifying information in lists and seperate categories are in sync.

It also, gives somebody reading the article an easy way of knowing *every* category/list that exists, which is relevant to the article. I think few people use the "What links here" feature as a way of finding what "lists" an article belongs to. There are simply to many "orphan lists" floating around, that nobody bothers to maintain. Once the creator of the traditional list "wanders off", it's often the case that nobody is even aware such a list exists. --rob 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to do this, I don't think anyone would stop you (see, for example, Category:20th_century or Category:20th_century_births, which both sort of redundantly link to all the subcats included in these categories). There's also an apparently moribund project to stamp out lists that "should be" categories, see Misplaced Pages:Merge some redundant lists to categories. Note some other things lists provide that categories don't (which you don't mention) include the ability to format the entries however you'd like (the automatic category listing is a little primitive), and categories apparently don't work on a large number of wikipedia mirrors. IMO, a well maintained list is generally far better than a category, but categories usually take less effort to maintain. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Another argument in favor of lists is that they can include red links, i.e. pointers to articles that don't yet exist but (presumably) should. In response to Rick's comment, it's not clear whether categories are easier to maintain in the long run. There's a long-running debate on the Wikimedia Commons about the use of categories. One of the arguments against categories is that categories are harder to maintain in certain regards: for example, it's easy to rename a list (only the list itself has to be moved), but it's much harder to rename a category (all members of the category need to be changed). Of course, the counter-argument is that such changes should be done (semi-)automatically with the help of a bot. --MarkSweep 18:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, I'm saying categories can now have redlink also. They could go where the "description" goes. As Rick Block said, I could just go ahead in do this. However, I fear I would upset many people, without a consesus (even then somewhat similiar categories exist already). Please understand I'm not simply proposing the typical "list to category" sugestion. I'm suggesting the use of "hybrid" "list categories" (but technically speaking, they would be called categories). As far as the difficulty of renaming categories, I'm not familiar with how hard that is to do. --rob 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The difficulting with renaming categories is that the category name is in the referring article rather than in one centralized place and categories cannot effecively be redirected (see Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Redirected_categories). Combined, this means that renaming a category requires changing the category reference in every article (and/or subcat) in the category. user:Pearle is a bot that can automate this process, but it's nowhere near as easy as renaming an article. Perhaps because of this difficulty, to rename a category you have to nominate it for renaming following the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also don't forget that you can also use a nav template in lieu of a list. This has several advantages in that it appears in articles where the template belongs and if you correctly link to the template in another article you get a nicely formated display of the template. This would not work for large lists, but can work for many lists. Using a nav template is an easy way to get categories that are useful to all articles automatically added. Vegaswikian 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline (adding the disclaimer more prominently)

A change to the current Misplaced Pages tagline has been proposed for discussion and adoption here. Interested contributers please visit. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 20:04, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Contributers supporting adding the disclaimer more prominently on Misplaced Pages pages please cite articles and sign here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:44, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

• Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the 💕.")
• Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")

Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:04, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

MoS for Disambiguation pages

Many guidelines of the MoS for disambiguation pages are being challenged over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The following are main points of discussion:

• one - challenging "don't wikilink on any other word on the line"
• two - challenging leading fragments

There are also some smaller ones as well. The discussions are growing to be quite extensive, but only about five people are participating. I request that more Wikipedians voice their views on the matters being discussed. -- jiy 04:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

True and encyclopedic inclusion of insults and derogatory characterizations

Some Misplaced Pages policies such as neutral point of view and no personal attacks seem only to apply to editors and not to passing through insults, personal attacks, and derogatory characterizations made by political, media, and cultural figures against one another: For example when Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a good rapist (not in the Misplaced Pages) or American Dad depicted Karl Rove as the Star Wars character Emperor Palpatine (in the Misplaced Pages).

Are there consistently applied principles to include or exclude insults and derogatory characterizations or is this a new area for policy? patsw 14:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it depends a great deal on whether the insults are of historical interest–they became familiar quotations or memes, or they had major diplomatic, political, or other consequences–or if they were just namecalling by detractors.

Regardless, if insults are included, they should be limited in quantity and thoroughly cited and verified. A lot will depend on the judgement of article editors and be very case-specific. RfC may be helpful where there is a question about the appropriateness of a quotation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That criteria would exclude the Karl Rove depiction, wouldn't it? patsw 16:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends. American Dad is a comedy, and the Karl Rove depiction therein could perhaps be considered a good example of the style of the comedy. It wouldn't be appropriate in Karl Rove. Likewise, it might be appropriate to include 's "Santorum (n)" coinage in the Dan Savage article as an example of Savage's wit or lack thereof; it's not appropriate in Rick Santorum. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that if there were a depiction of Hillary Clinton as a witch in a comedy television program, the principle you've just articulated would allow for its inclusion on her page? patsw 17:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reread what Jpgordon just said—he suggested that including the characterization in Hillary Clinton would not be appropriate; it might, however, be included in an article about the program which made the reference. (Note that its inclusion isn't necessarily desirable there either, it just might be appropriate.) Although it may be a bit overly optimistic to ask for some common sense and reason on articles related to politics, really its what should be applied. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, when an insult or attack becomes widely repeated, and is itself notable, or an issue in an actual verifiable controversy, it might be appropriate to mention it in the article about that controversy. Of courseit should be in a properly sourced quote. DES 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to define "widely repeated, and is itself notable" and in a way that excludes Google Bombs or other contrived ways to demonstrate it? patsw 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Google bombs aren't notable. The first few were, as a demonstration of concept, but nobody pays attention to them now (at least not more than the proverbial 15 minutes). They might count as "widely repeated", but I doubt anyone is going to take that as an indication of serious notability. It's also not verifiable unless an independent source reports on it—and then it depends on how notable that source is. I doubt you'd need special provisions to exclude this. Whether or not an attack was part of a notable controversy is more concrete (again, I doubt anyone would call a Google bomb or other means of automated publicity-boosting "controversial"). JRM · Talk 20:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, for example if an attack-joke is made on a nationaly televised news/variety show, like The Tonight Show and then is headline materiel in the papers the next day, that would count. Or to take a slightly more local example, a few months ago, in New Jersey (where I happen to live) two radio talk hosts made despariging comments about the wife of the acting Governor, and suggested that her experience of post-partum depression was "whining" and that her support of various groups for other women with similar complaints was trivial and pointless. The Governor said publicly that he "wanted to punch them in the mouth" or words to that effect. This was reported in and editorialized about in several major NJ newspapers. This might be appropriate in an article about a) the "shock-jocks", b) the radio station on which they broadcast, c) the Governor, or d) the event itself. DES 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In short, when an insult or an attack is the subject of commentary in major news media, or of widespread public comment, not of purely contrived wide mention like a google bomb, that is the sort of thing I mean.DES 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Other famous insults:

• Opposing politican to Disraeli: "You, Sir, will die either on the gallows or of a loathsome disease". Response: "That depends on whether I embrace your priciples or your mistress." Might be appropriate in an article on Disraeli or on his opponent.

• Disraeli again: "Do you know the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?" "No what is the difference" "Oh it is a vast one. Now if Mr Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, that would be a misfortume. but if someone were to pull him out..." Might be appropriate for Disraeli or for Gladstone.

• Speaker of the US House of represenatives Reed, on a particular patronage appointment: "Never were abilities so far below mediocrity so well rewarded, no not when Caligula's horse was made Consul." (Quoted in The Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman) might be appropriate in an article about Reed.

• George Bernard Shaw to a first night audince at one of his plays, who did not approve the play enough: "You are Philistines who have invaded the sacred temple." Response by an unknown member of the audiance "Yes, and you are driving us forth with the jawbone of an ass." Might be appropraite (if documented) for the article on Shaw.

Perhaps that list gives some idea of at least one kind of case where an insult might be appropriate in an article. DES 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this class of attacks, however, is that they don't have any lasting meaning, despite having staying power. A witticism one person launches to effectively put down someone else is always a joy to read, but how much does it contribute? If you can take out the name of the famous person and replace it with someone else and still end up with a good insult, did it really matter? Say, the Disraeli quote might be appropriate to illustrate Disraeli's disagreements with Gladstone (if notable), but there generally will be no shortage of famous people who famously disliked other people, or famous people who were famously disliked. The Reed quote, the Shaw exchange; these don't seem to be indicative of a larger theme, and their inclusion is probably not worth it, even if verifiable. JRM · Talk 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gladstone and Disraeli were life-long political rivals, and opposed each other for Prime Minister of the UK, an office that each defeated the other for. I would say that their longstanding and well-documented personal dislike for each other is notable and an appropriate part of any article about either, whether the particular quote is used or not. The Reed quote is notable because it illustrated his style of debate (the comment was made on the floor of the House) but more because it illustrates his strong opposition to patronage appointements, a priciple that arguably cost him the Presidency of the United States (Tuchman does so argue in the book I cited, and used the quote as part of the argument). (It also illustrates his willingness to offend potential political allies, which is also relevant.) The Shaw excahange is more debatable, but does help illustrate his character and his relationship with his audiences. But the above were only examples I thought of off the top of my head, and i would consider any more deeply and of course have a verifiable citation before actually using it in an article. DES 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

When people know what they're doing, they should by all means carry on. JRM · Talk 00:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Something else as well to remark on the Gladstone/Disraeli example, the Misplaced Pages isn't full of people pushing POV's corresponding to the political positions of Gladstone or Disraeli while people push their POV in articles by inclusion of the insults, derogatory characterizations, parodies, satires, etc. of people active in politics, culture, and media today. Of course there's a Vaughn Meader article but there's no link in the John F. Kennedy article to the Meader article. How about this for a principle to apply consistently: "Insults and derogatory characterizations entered into the article of the target are a means of pushing a POV which can not be made neutral by negation: i.e. "Hillary Clinton is not a witch." or "George W. Bush is not Alfred E. Newman, Karl Rove is not Emperor Palpatine, and so on". patsw 02:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with your underlying premise that all instances of inserting such insults into an article about the target are done for purposes of POV pushing. Instead, I agree with the view that insults and the like should be included if they were themselves notable or, less often, if they help to illustrate some important point. The Bill Clinton article reports the fact that he was called "Slick Willy"; that's an insult/personal attack/clear POV, but it was used widely enough to be notable, so its inclusion is proper. The Hillary Clinton article wouldn't report the fact that one TV show compared her to a witch. The bit about Rove might well be notable, though, because even one mention on a popular sitcom is more than most presidential advisers get, and it could be considered as an illustration of Rove's prominence. There will always be borderline cases. A while back somebody added the "Shrub" nickname to the article on George W. Bush. That isn't just a one-shot use (it's somewhat common and was the title of a book about Bush), but it's not so common as "Slick Willy" was. I think people could reasonably differ about that one. The only general principle we could promulgate is that an accurate report of a POV-based insult is not to be automatically removed and is not to be automatically considered proper for inclusion. JamesMLane 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly is the "important point" illustrated about Slick Willie? To use your example, any researcher looking at presidental nicknames is is going to find Slick Willie. Its identification would seem inevitable -- it's very hard to avoid (as well as Gipper for Reagan or Tricky Dick for Nixon). But how wide is wide, how notable is notable, and how common is common? If we leave it to the consensus of editors, one can assume that where the majority of editors of an article politically oppose the target, the consensus will find it easy to include, where the majority of editors politically support the target, the consensus will find it easy to exclude.

On the other hand Rove as Palpatine seems not an inevitable research finding but specifically selected and contrived so as to insert POV in the article that can not balanced by a factual statement that Rove is not Palpatine. Regarding your figleaf, if we are sincerely providing neutral encyclopedic material that Rove posesses prominence, there are many sources of evidence for this without insulting him, without pushing a POV. Oddly enough, with all the wide, common, and notable insults which have appeared regarding Hillary Clinton, a person with a much higher public profile than he, there are none in her article. Harry Reid's article only contains his insults of others, not others insulting him. This is another exhibit in the case that when it comes to currently active political figures, the Misplaced Pages isn't close to achieving neutrality. There's a double standard in the status quo: Insults of conservative political figures are included. Insults of liberal political figures are not included. This is the consistently applied principle I observe. patsw 02:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I notice that about 20% of the Hillary Clinton article is on "controversies", so it's not like she gets off really easy. I would think that article should include some examples of the insults that have been launched against her (there have been so many, including a cover of Spy in its heyday depicting her as a dominatrix) and should probably also mention her uncommonly high level of strong negatives in public opinion polling: she's been a rather polarizing figure. As for Rove: I don't think the Palpatine thing contributes much to the article; I think it does belong in the article about the television show in question, but not in the article about Rove unless someone can show that it has passed into the broad political culture the way the designation "Bush's brain" has. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rove is too obscure a figure to have an even more obscure one-off insult included. Even with the Valerie Plame scandal, he is still mainly an inside the beltway figure. Even wide-spread name calling, which is so common in the political opposition backrooms, is not noteworthy, unless it captures the public imagination because of some informative kernel of truth. I imagine that slick willie stuck because of Clinton's teflon resiliance combined with his lawyerly spin of "is" and other issues. I lived through "tricky dick", used it, but am not quite sure why it stuck. I know it was used in conservative circles, because conservatives did not trust him, he seemed unpricipled and too close to the liberal Rockerfeller wing of the party. Conservatives supported him only grudingly. Having only used it in conservative circles starting in 68, I didn't notice when it entered the popular lexicon, so perhaps someone can explain it further.

On another related note, I think, wikipedia is far to tolerant of an insulting atmosphere and it starts with the mocking tone at the top, and is supported by a presumptive hubris culture among the admins. The mocking article The wrong version, is an insult to us all that take wikipedia seriously, and try to work within both the spirit and letter of its rules. We all know cases of admins violating and abusing the application of protection, and this article's mocking tone contributes to that attitude. I vote that it be deleted, and good riddance.--Silverback 04:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Response to patsw: I noted two major categories of insults that should be included, those notable in themselves and those that illustrated an important point. I'd include "Slick Willy" on the basis of the first criterion; like "Tricky Dick", it was common enough to be notable. You're opposed to a subjective criterion of notability because you fear it will be applied inconsistently based on editors' political views. Well, that's certainly a problem, but it goes far beyond any policy about insults. In fact, I think it's the biggest weakness in NPOV. Reasonable people should be able to work out a suitably neutral presentation of most points, but they'll have much more difficulty when it comes to determining a topic's importance. This applies to whether a topic should be included in the article, how much space it should get, and whether it should be mentioned in the lead section. We face this kind of problem over and over. There's no way to eliminate subjectivity in this aspect of writing an encyclopedia.

As for Rove, the article selects a couple of points to illustrate his unusual prominence: one favorable (Barbara Walters naming him as the "Most Fascinating Person" of the year) and one at least nominally unfavorable (the Palpatine reference, although Rove might not be completely unhappy at being compared to a character "of immense power and immeasurable cunning", according to our article on Palpatine). It's precisely because of Hillary Clinton's higher profile that such items are less important for her article. It's not unusual for a prominent elected official to be material for comedy. It is unusual treatment for someone like Rove. What's unusual about Clinton isn't her prominence, but the point noted by Jmabel, namely the way opinion about her is so polarized, which would be an appropriate point for addition to her article. JamesMLane 12:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's jump back a nod. As my first comment here I'm going to try and be as broad as possible, without using many specific examples. I think being broad at first would be good. My first question to all you editors is this: is there a difference between a nickname and an insult? There have been clear insults that have become so common to so many people that yes, the term/s have often become household idioms. But where is that line drawn? Where does something move from being an insult to being a nickname (whether a derogatory one or not)? Secondly, what constitutes "common, true and encyclopedic"? I hope I can consider myself fairly up-to-date with news and such, and many of the examples being used above, I've never really heard. Most likely, that's just me completely missing the ball. But really, what makes an insult common? Be aware that many editors might be hanging around a lot of like-minded people, so they assume some insult is commonly known, and in reality it's not really that well known at all. Also, if something is deemed to be common and encyclopedic and important enough to go in an article, there are many ways of wording something so that it is construed as an insult. In fact, there are many more ways to make in an insult than to make it a fact, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of being in the article; it just means a little re-wording is needed. Next, what makes an insult worthy of inclusion? On this point I do have an opinion, and I apologize for using a specific example. Many books and encyclopedias include presidential nicknames. It's a very common practice. And in many instances, derogatory nicknames have become general nicknames. For instance, "Slick Willy" may have many different meanings, bad and good. It is the same as George Bush's "Dubya" nickname. In many instances, "Dubya" is referenced derogatorily, and in many others, well, his best friends call him that. Doors may swing both ways on nicknames. I suppose that would be up to the talk page to decide. On the other hand, insults are very different, because it's much harder to see an opposing side to it. When did insults become NOT inherently POV? Everyone in a high-ranking position is going to attract some kind of criticism. But there are two kinds of criticism: intelligent criticism and criticism that makes no point. In an encyclopedia, intelligent criticism is what belongs, because it is well-thought-out and makes an argument against the article in question. Criticism that makes no point (i.e. insults) has no place in an encyclopedia, since it's not helping the reader draw any kind of conclusion about the article. If anything, it promotes thinking one way about the article, making it inherently POV. It's not constructive to the reader at all, and anyway it makes the person offering the criticism-that-has-no-point look stupid, because all he can come up with to argue against the article is an insult, and not a real argument. And honestly, I hold wikipedia to a higher standard than that. I believe that wikipedia can offer good, honest, real criticism of each article without bending to the outside influences that are insulting the subjects of the articles. (Sorry for the other example) There's a large difference between calling someone "a good rapist" and "Emperor Palpatine" - and giving real arguments. Who knows, maybe I'm just too idealistic. Well, I tried being as broad as possible.Stanselmdoc 14:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The criterion of notability is useless since it is unquantifiable and inherently subject to the favorability filter of the editors especially when it concerns current political figures. Since when has the criterion of unwritten intent applied to the editing of articles? I find it utterly implausible that the actual intent of Rove as Palpatine (or the impression that readers take away from this) is that Rove is more prominent than most White House Deputies Chief of State . None of the subseqent editing of the article reflects that. An edit war commenced along the lines of varying the POV and wording of the insulting American Dad reference. The editing of the Rove article is consumed with the Plame investigation (for which there is new news and more than one side to the story) so this insult is being overlooked for the time being. If one thought that the current Hillary Clinton article didn't reflect her polarization (i.e. people hold strong strong opinions about her pro or con), then any number of factal and encylopedic sources could be cited without resorting to an insult. James, sometimes an insult is just an insult, and retrospection of a figleaf for its inclusion of a insult is not going to be practical. (To clarify my own position, Rove as Palpatine belongs on the American Dad page where it currently does not appear (assuming that original assertion is true which I have not verified nor wish to do so))

Stanselmdoc prompts me to add that nicknames, insults, etc. cannot be engaged in criticism for balance to achieve NPOV (i.e. arguments Rove resembles Palpatine vs. Rove does not resemble Palpatine). A rationalization for inclusion of insults is their verifiablity. That only argues to their placement in the insult author's article and not in the insult target's article. Another aspect of this I have not yet mentioned is insult as propaganda and explicitly forbidden by wikipolicy .

It far too convenient now to push POV insults and derogatory statements of opinion into articles of current political where the local editing cabal is hostile to the article's subject. They use third parties as a proxy hiding behind the fact that they are just passing through something they found or heard and did not personally author.patsw 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

New suggestion: Put the sample political insults cited in this discussion, and others as needed, in a separate page such as Political satire or a new page created for the purpose. Then link to the separate page as needed from the relevant articles on politicians. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:48, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Sitearm's suggestion only moves the debate from the verbatim insult in the subject's article to the link to the verbatim insult in the subject's article. If X is insulted by Y - how is it encyclopedic and neutral to add the insult to X's page? Should it matter if the editing filter is favorable or unfavorable to subject of the article at the moment? These insults and derogatory characterizations are in large part transitory phenomenon and cheap to add especially when the criticism, if written out in text by the author without the shorthand of an insult, it would be more obviously POV. It is stealth mode POV pushing. patsw 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I have two inputs here. The first is not to lose the great jokes like Disraeli and Gladstone but to move them to where people can read them. I am serious about Political satire. The second is, regarding putting jokes about a politician in a serious article, I feel it's questionable unless there is evidence the joke hindered or helped the politician's career, which would make it relevant. The evidence would almost have to be historical, and cited by sources other than the article writer as having had such a major impact. As examples of jokes about politicians NOT to include in a serious article: those by Jay Leno and David Letterman. However, I would certainly put examples of Leno and Letterman in the article on Political Satire. And if there's a zinger a contributor likes about a politician, but the zinger is not demonstrable as having had a career impact, then Political Satire might still be a place to put it. But it would NOT be appropriate to link to the joke there from the serious article as a way of still getting it in. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:30, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

On the face of it, if your heavying drinking was so infamous, that you had replaced Dean Martin in all the late night drinking jokes, how could it not have an influence on your carreer? Perhaps Ted Kennedy's effectiveness in the senate was not effected, but his ability to speak to with credibility to anyone outside the liberal choir was. --Silverback 06:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's an example to work with. Are there published books, articles, surveys, news media, etc. asserting that "politician X lost an election, support, etc." "because of joke Y about X's drinking". If there are such published materials, that would be evidence that could be cited in a WikiPedia article. And the citations would be evidence the WikiPedian is not just quoting the joke to push an individual POV. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:56, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Here is a link to a mixed bag of jokes about Ted Kennedy. Some are really good, and the seem to capture his influence on popular culture. There is a popular culture section on the tricky dick page. Are these kinds of things notable?--Silverback 04:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think I just have one question about this Political satire thing. And it's just a question, because I'm still relatively new to wiki, so I haven't explored everywhere on the site. But can wiki be a forum for something like that? Or are there already articles that are just for people to write in whatever they feel fits? It seems to me that if you open an article for people to just add in examples of political satire, you're going to very quickly degenerate from satire into insults. There is a very distinct difference between satire (which can poke fun at political figures while being intelligent, witty, sarcastic, etc) and insults (which are more or less simply meant to be degrading to the subject and has no wit or intelligence). For instance, saying "Catholic Irish people are a huge problem. They're gross, dirty, and their numbers are increasing too quickly. They're a pain to deal with and they keep taking things from us, which is totally uncalled for. These Irish people are just despicable." isn't satire. However, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal says relatively the same thing, and it's certainly satire. Maybe I'm comparing something too broadly and I apologize for that, but calling someone a name is hardly the same thing as intelligently joking about him or proving him wrong. And I believe if there was a forum for political satire that it would end up becoming just a soapbox for insults to be tossed around between people of different opinions. And even if you changed it to Political Insults or something, you still have a soapbox and a shouting match.Stanselmdoc 16:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So did we come to any sort of conclusion? I'm surprised no one has edited this section for almost two whole days. Stanselmdoc 21:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your surprise. The best indicator of whether a insult is going to remain in a given target's article is if the editors favor or don't favor the target of the insult.

• Where they favor, oddly enough, the local interpretation of NPOV, relevance, etc. will to exclude the insult.
• Where they oppose, oddly enough, the local interpretation of NPOV, relevance, etc. will be to include the insult. patsw 23:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term prophet inherently POV?

User:Babajobu was upset by the many occurences of "the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH" found in various Islam-related articles written by devout Muslims. He believes, and I agree, that this usage is inherently POV. He has been removing these terms wherever he finds them. However, he also believes that ANY use of the term "prophet" in relation to a religious figure is inherently POV, implying that the "prophet" was truly divinely inspired. I disagree, and have been reversing some of his edits in Islam-related articles. I'm not a Muslim and I don't think that using the terms "the prophet" or "the prophet Muhammad" is inherently POV. I think of the word "prophet" as a descriptor, which implies nothing about the truth of the supposed prophecies.

Babajobou has agreed to suspend his prophet-removal campaign (which could conceivably affect thousands of religion-related articles) while the matter is discussed in a community forum. Is "prophet" an endorsement, or simply a useful descriptor, like "shaman" or "priest"? As an editor, I'd like to be able to use the term, just so that I can vary the words that I'm using. Otherwise the article starts to sound stilted.

I should perhaps add that removing the caps from "Prophet" doesn't necessarily make the term NPOV, at least in my opinion, and that keeping a disengaged tone in the article may require some careful copyediting. I just don't want a blanket prohibition on the use of the word "prophet" in Misplaced Pages. Zora 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I'm with you -- blanket removal of the term "prophet" is probably overzealous. In Christianity and Judaism, at least, there are many warnings about "false prophets"; thus, for at least those religions, not everyone widely labelled as a "prophet" is actually speaking for God. Speaking for myself, I'm not Muslim and I don't believe that Muhammad spoke for God, but I don't object to using the term "prophet" to refer to him. The NY Times dictionary defines prophet as "one who tells the future, esp. if divinely inspired or claimed to be." There, the definition self-claiming; while most people worldwide do not believe Mohammad spoke for God, there's agreement that he claimed to speak for God. Careful copyediting sounds like a good idea, though; certainly we don't want the text that seems to claim that there's universal agreement that he DID speak for God. Dwheeler 00:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nor do I want a blanket prohibition on the term "prophet". However, I do think that in the monotheistic religions "prophet" is not simply a position like "deacon", or a title like "father": it is an assertion of that individual having been in receipt of divine revelation. This is quite different, in my opinion, from the colloquial use of the term to mean "truth-speaker". When Mormons describe Joseph Smith as "the Prophet" or even "a prophet" they are not saying that Joseph Smith told it like was, come hell or high water. They are saying that he was spoken to by God, or by God's angels. This has just as little place in an encyclopedia as references to Jesus "Christ". I do realize, though, that names like Joseph Smith and Muhammad could conceivably use for some specification and contextualization, so I think in the first instance in an article it is acceptable to refer to them as "The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith" and "The Islamic prophet Muhammad". All subsequent references should stick with just the name, IMO. Babajobu 00:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu's idea of adding adjectives makes sense. Certainly there's universal agreement that "in the Islamic faith, Muhammad is considered a prophet" which is what "The Islamic prophet Muhammad" implies to me. But is that practical? Christians and Jews, at least, typically refer to prophets by name (not "The Prophet"), and while "Christ" is a title, many people are unaware of it, and "Jesus" by itself is commonly used. In Islamic works I believe it's conventional to say "The Prophet", since "Muhammad" is a really common Islamic name. Is "The Islamic prophet Muhammad" going to be too wordy? Interesting issue. Dwheeler 00:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also think the same pattern would hold nicely for the biblical prophets: in the inital reference stick in a lower case "prophet" with the qualifier "biblical": "The biblical prophet Joel", "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", "the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith". And in instances after that just refer to them as Amos or Joel or whatever. No more ambiguous assertions of "prophethood" to people who are claimed in religious texts to have been "prophets" in the sense of having had personal communication with the divine. Babajobu 00:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're starting to convince me. It's at least clear and NPOV. Is it workable? Dwheeler 00:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is workable. I disagree that it presents stylistic problems. Most Misplaced Pages biographical entries are stuck with just the name and third person pronoun without having to rely on other "The Prophet"-ish terms.

Not so. I can describe people as actors, warriors, rulers, writers, couturiers, etc. Most people famous enough to merit a biographical notice are famous for SOMETHING. It just gets difficult when they're famous for prophesying <g>. Zora 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

On "false prophets" in Judaism and Christianity: I think this demonstrates the point nicely that in these faiths (Islam, too), being a prophet is not merely a matter of self-definition. if it were, there would be no such thing as a "false" prophet. They are regarded as "false" because their claims of having been in communication with God are rejected as fabricated and not real. The colloquial definition provided by the Times is different from the way the term is used in the monotheistic religions. All this makes the term at the very least ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, which is reason enough for ditching it except in the first, qualified instance. Babajobu 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think a religious definition trumps a dictionary definition. I don't think most users read "prophet" as an endorsement, either. I've been working on Islam-related articles for a long time, removing PBUHs, changing Prophet to prophet, removing instances of "prophet" when it seemed necessary, and no one heretofore has said that my articles are too pious. I think you've just become sensitized to the issue, B, and you're starting to see bias where there is none.

Reminds me of a friend of mine who was upset by her noisy upstairs neighbors. I was visiting her one day when she stopped and said, "Listen, would you? There they are, making noise again!" I couldn't hear anything. She was on such high alert for upstairs noise that she was starting to hear it even when an outsider couldn't.

Instead of a blanket policy of "no use of the word prophet without a modifier", I'd prefer to deal with articles one-by-one. There IS a problem, there ARE too many obscure Islam-related articles that have just been cut-n-pasted from religious websites, and there is a lot of editing to be done. It just calls for judgement, not black-and-white thinking. Zora 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

When the emphasis is on Muhammad's legacy as a prophet then the word prophet should be used. That is the reason why he is important in Islamic tradition. It is not bias it is a common term of reference and help differentiate between Muhammad and Muhammad. What Zora is saying makes sense... people don't react if the encyclopedia says "prophet" and assume that's a fact or POV... they are sensible enough to realize the multiple definitions of the word and its context. Of course there are some instances that must be fixed... but as a rule banning the term is no good. gren グレン 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I never suggested banning the term. In those instances in which Muhammad may be confused with Muhammad Naguib or any other Muhammad, I have no problem with specifying "The Islamic prophet Muhammad". But the point here is not that the religious def trumps one of the more colloquial dictionary defs, but that "The Prophet" or "the prophet" can very reasonably be interpreted as an assertion of a supernatural phenomenon, and I don't think an encyclopedia should be written in that way. Regardless, please, please no capitalizations of Prophet in any religious context. That pushes it substantially toward the supernatural interpretation, IMO. At the very least lowercase. Can we agree on that? Babajobu 09:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I agreed with you on that before we started this go-round. I've been routinely de-capping or removing "Prophet" for many months. I have a feeling that a great many of the Muslim editors have been carefully trained, by schools or mosques, to speak "respectfully" of Muhammad, and it's very hard for them to drop old habits. Zora 12:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want sometimes to rotate in the term "the prophet" in place of Muhammad for stylistic reasons, I suppose that's defensible. But do you really think that referring to "prophet Muhammad" time after time in the same article is appropriate? If you were writing an article about a historian, would you repeatedly refer to the "the historian Jones", "the historian Jones", the "historian Jones"? Of course not. Repeatedly referring to the person's profession has no stylistic or informative value, IMO. Incessantly referring to "the prophet Muhammad", even when uncapitalized, is done to emphasize his supernatural experiences. How is this for a rough guideline for how to handle the "prophets" of the various religions (again, just a rough guideline, not a rule or a diktat): in the first instance in an article refer to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"; do the same in other instances in which ambiguity regarding specific "Muhammad" is a concern; later refer to him as "the prophet" if to do so would have stylistic advantages over Muhammad; otherwise, call him by his name. Same goes for Joel, Amos, Joseph Smith, whoever. Babajobu 19:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough to me. First use, add name of group that recognizes the person as a prophet -- after that, prophet is OK as stylistic variation on name, but not as constant descriptor. Zora 21:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We allow Saints, so we can surely allow Prophets. Gdr 10:43:07, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure what to make of Saint. The fact that the Vatican conducts a sort of administrative investigation into an individual's life, and then chooses whether or not to bestow sainthood on that person, suggests to me that Saint is more like a title, rather than a simple assertion of divine experiences. However, then again, as in the case of prophet, there may be some ambiguity here. I think the same rough guideline discussed for "prophet" would also work for "saint". Babajobu 11:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Saint" is a title, like "Doctor". Note that it has a range of meanings; see saint. We don't restrict the use of "Saint" to someone who has been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church or glorified by the Eastern Orthodox Church, we use it for people commonly known by that title. By using the title, Misplaced Pages doesn't take a position on whether a saint is really in heaven or capable of miracles, we are just reflecting common usage. Gdr 15:22:06, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

There other similar terms that don't have people waiting in the wings to scream at you when you use them, so they aren't noticed as much. I'm thinking in particular of "Buddha". "Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha" is a statement in the same general category as "Muhammad was the Prophet" or "Jesus was the Christ". Thus, "Jesus Christ" is a redirect to "Jesus", which is fine. But "Gautama Buddha" is the title of a page, and "Siddhartha Gautama" redirects there, rather than the other way around. And we have statements like "At the age of eighty, the Buddha ate his last meal ...." Clearly not NPOV. There is a discussion about this in Talk:Gautama Buddha, but it seems to have ended this spring with no changes being made. More generally, I'm wondering what other words have similar issues associated with them. Someone needs to make a list. — Nowhither 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy of shouting down your opponents to get your way

Admittedly, I am a new user here, but I have just encountered two rude users at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of Colditz Castle staff whose tones are just more of the same from what I have seen from most Misplaced Pages users. Policy here seems to be that the only way to create an encyclopedia is to shout down those who have valid disagreements with you. This is a shame, and is not the approach that I had hoped to encounter here. I'll find some less stressful way to spend my time. Goodbye. John Barleycorn 05:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

See the note on your talk page. Superm401 | Talk 05:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

There were no "personal attacks" as you unjustly allege there. He made a mistake and has been oversensitive that everyone has disagreed with his nomination. Osomec 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically, there may not have been personal attacks. However, there certainly was incivility, which is also a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, as you should know. Superm401 | Talk 06:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

An update: not everyone has disagreed with the nomination. I've just recorded my agreement with it. Incidentally, connoisseurs of incivility may be impressed (though not necessarily as intended) by at least one of the later contributions to the "Problem users" section that right now is near the top of this ("WP:Vp(p)") page. -- Hoary 06:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

British or American English?

Is there a policy on what kind of English to use, and in what cases? That is, British or American English, for example. Maver1ck 06:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is. For uniquely American topics, use American English. For uniquely British topics, use British English. Otherwise, first come, first served, and stay consistent within articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style, section "National varieties of English" (currently section 11). Dwheeler 09:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The double letters in words such as travelling often trip me up when spell-checking a British English article. I had never heard of that until recently. I guess the answer is to switch to the British dictionary when spell-checking a British English article. American and British English spelling differences#Common suffixes Spalding 11:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, does anyone know why the U.S. spelling was changed (I assume by Webster)? It subverts one of the more useful conventions of English spelling (vowel-1 + single consonant + vowel-2: vowel-1 is long; vowel-1 + double consonant + vowel-2: vowel-1 is short — e.g., "sited" but "sitter"). There are few enough spelling guides to pronunciation in English — it seems odd to ditch one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from long and short vowels, there is also the schwa, the unstressed vowel mostly written as an "e". The convention in English spelling is almost uniformely: vowel1+cons+vowel2 means vowel1 is either long or a schwa. Compare "traveling" with "happening", and "littering". The spelling "travelling" suggests that the syllable -vel- is stressed; compare the hypothetical pronounciation of a word spelled "happenning". So the Americans have it right, this time. (This also explained why e.g. "compelled" is spelled with double -ll- on both sides of the Atlantic.) Eugene van der Pijll 13:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There are exceptions (as there are to most rules in most languages), but that doesn't show that the rule doesn't exist and isn't useful. The following comment fits with my momentary response when I see such formations. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I always read traveling as "traveeling", assuming it was from the verb to travele, assuming it was another silly uncalled for neologism like transportation. Or not?  :) Dunc|☺ 19:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it long past tyme to open a uk:wikipedia and shove all the brits in there. For that matter, en: to am:wikipedia for the American language. There is no such language as "English" and has not been for at least 100 years -- or, to put it another way, two popular groups fight over ownership of the word (with the Indians and Australians yelling on the sidelines and occasionally wandering onto the field of battle) and nothing can resolve the conflict. Chinese share one written language and at least 8 major spoken language groups. I have never heard one yet insist that his language was the only "correct" one. — Xiong熊talk* 19:11, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

So let people fight. The fight isn't significant enough to open up separate Wikipedias, and it generally hasn't been significant enough to open up separate whatevers, except dictionaries—and most of those have the good sense of not trying to be perfectly segregationalist. That said, I wish people who want forks the best of luck setting them up, as long as they make sure I don't have to enter my edits twice. JRM · Talk 21:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an absurd proposal, Xiong. We speak different dialects of the same language. No reason to force everyone to do the same work twice. We have language policies and they work as long as people submit to them. - Omegatron 22:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to state that there is no such language as English. What on earth do you imagine we speak in England? I think the English language mirrors the Chinese situation, in that we have one spoken language and at least six written variations. I don't think anyone insists their spelling is the correct one beyond their own borders. Steve block talk 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

One spoken language!? {chortle} My closest buddy during my exile in the Middle Kingdom was British. We had nothing in common whatever, except that (a) we were not Chinese and (b) we lived in the same city in China. I'd hazard our speech was about 70% mutually comprehensible.

I find it easier to deal with British spelyns than British usage. History shows us that all spylen conventions are fraudulent; we heap our greatest honors on the heads of writers whose speeleengs would be quite intolerable in modern use. But then, we do not respect them for their choice of letters, but for their choice of words.

A language project for the Brits is not a fork. Don't worry, you won't have to translate your articles into British. The same kind of helpful folks who translate articles into German and Basque will convert your text into British, and you won't even have to look at it. Or, if you like, you can contribute there, and if anybody feels the need, we can translate your stuff into American.

If you read past the point where I questioned the existence of the "English" language, you'd see I noted that the term was a football, kicked about from end to end of the field and occasionally footied by those on the sidelines as well. Obviously, the British speak British; but I'm only to happy to give the Brits the contested word. Let's just agree that the English speak English; and Americans speak American. — Xiong熊talk* 15:25, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Level of Detail on Date pages

I confess I have a certain affection for the day I was born. I find it fascinating to browse the events that have occured on that day. I've turned many people on to Misplaced Pages via "birthday parties" in which a room full of people gather around a computer as we look up everyone's birthday and see what events took place or what famous people were born or died that day. I think this is a common motivation for perusing pages about specific days. I've seen a lot of criticism of date pages, but I think they are important.

This is why it's troubling to me to see certain users who seem to be cycling through the date pages to remove details from the descriptions of people listed in the births, and deaths sections. Specific examples include stripping any indication of specific accomplishments. Igor Kurchatov is no longer the leader of the Soviet atomic bomb project, but merely an anonymous Russian Physicist. Joseph Weizenbaum is not mentioned as the creator of ELIZA but merely as some computer scientist. In both these cases, this change meant the difference in me being interested enough to read their article and passing on to the next person in the list. In the case of artists, the genre of music or style of art they are typically associated with is frequently removed. R. Kelly is a singer of some kind, but it's not considered worth mentioning that he is an R&B singer. Kay Sage is now a random artist/poet, not a surrealist artist/poet. In some cases, these additional details help people to recognize names they might otherwise be unable to due to the lack of context.

I think this kind of generalizing of the listing next to names significantly decreases the value and interest of these pages. However I've been unable to find any formal or informal policy to support or denounce this trend of simplification for lists of names.

My opinion is that such entries should be the result of a balance between two goals. First, communicate why this person is interesting enough to have an article dedicated to some aspect of his/her life in the first place. Joseph Weizenbaum may be a computer scientist, but so am I. If he hadn't written ELIZA, he'd be as anonomous as I am. Second, fit within a reasonable space for the quick list that these births and deaths lists are intended to be. I have seen simplifying edits that do an admirable job of stripping out superfluous details and getting to the heart of what makes a person noteworthy in an economy of words. I think in all the cases I've mentioned, these goals would render these edits unwarrented. I want to revert them, but I worry if that may violate some explicit policy or implicit goal of which I am unaware.

I'd be very interested in other comments on this issue.

Sadangel 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked your first two examples, and found that they had both been removed by 131.107.0.106 (talk · contribs), who seems to have been "generalising" a lot of such descriptions (including, in one case, changing "Northern Ireland" to "Irish"). May I suggest you contact this user, and ask why this is being done? It doesn't look very helpful to me. Bovlb 17:41:59, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

I think it is ok to have the level of detail indicated by the examples you gave. I think it would be fine if you added the information back. Paul August ☎ 17:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Sandboxes

I have noticed that there are multiple sandboxes at Misplaced Pages:Sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Misplaced Pages links)/sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (External links)/sandbox. I think that this is uneccessary and only leads to more places to do sandbox maintenance on (bot or human) and can be confusing to new users who are directed to any one of the 7 sandboxes and would have very little hope of finding an old experiment should they decide that they want to. I propose that all the sandbox pages except Misplaced Pages:Sandobx be removed and links be made that would direct users to the sandbox so that functionality would stay the same and it would still be user friendly. I was hoping to get a community feel on the idea before implementing it or scrapping it. Jtkiefer ----- 07:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages community forums
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines
• To Village Pump (technical)