Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. (more info)

Using this page

This noticeboard is for discussions and advice pertaining to encyclopedic content and associated issues.
If there is a more specialized noticeboard for your problem (see above), please post your message to that noticeboard.
This is not the place to discuss problems due to revert wars and other behavioural issues. However, it is perfectly OK to ask for advice on how to solve those problems.
As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting.
When posting, please sign and date all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~", which is translated into a signature and a time stamp automatically.
If discussion is already ongoing at another page, or there is another page which is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Noticeboard archives

1 Paul Butterfield
2 Edit warring in original research
3 May WP:Consensus be invoked to trump WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view
4 Waiting in vain for more opinions at NPOV noticeboard
5 Don't want to turn the return of "Defence of OR formulas with bogus citations" into an edit war.
6 Potential Superpower quote
7 Virgin America
8 Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline
9 Directly relevant external links?
10 Math League

Paul Butterfield

I made the additions to the "legacy" section of Paul's bio. I am not a professional writer so I am sorry that I did not post all the quotes in the proper manner. What I am though is a 40 year+ admirer of Paul's work and know all the information (quotes) I added were verbatim. I thought it very sad that all the information I added while 100% true was completely removed because 1 person made the statement that the "legacy" section was "seriously messed up". We who have the honor of helping The Paul Butterfield Fund and Society are for the most part all longtime admirer's of Paul's art so we do the best we can which sometimes does not seem to be enough because we are not "pro's". Thank you, Steven Arredondo, Paul Butterfield Fund and Society (PBFS) Director Of Public Awareness & Outreach

Edit warring in original research

At The Princess (poem), User:Ssilvers insists on edit warring in original research that he does not understand does not belong in a page about a poem. The events:

1. This is my removing the original research. It had nothing to do with the reference it was cited to, and implied that Tennyson was actually against the school, which contradicts all biographies (his friends worked at the school and he was excited for them).

2. Sslivers removes it with this edit with the summary "ce" or "copyedit". This was not a copyedit

3. The section's original research is expanded further and I removed it here. As you can see, the users confuse the term "college" (Queen's College is a highschool for all intents and purposes in this conversation) with the term dealing with universities. There are no sources connecting Tennyson with Wollstoncroft, Mills, or anyone else. And it also claims "but in Britain, Girton and Newnham Colleges were not opened until 1869 and 1872 respectively," even though the poem is talking about the Queens College which just opened. These are two completely different types of schools that have nothing to do with the poem. They add a footnote (which I removed) saying that Queens College wasn't really a college, which only verifies that they recognize that the poem is discussing a different type of college than the original research is trying to introduce.

4. This shows him reverting and saying it is "well-referenced". Half of the references of the section merely link to when schools were founded. None of them deal with Tennyson.

It is obvious that this user wishes to preserve original research and use inappropriate headings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is obvious is that User:Ottava Rima does not understand what original research means. The background information that s/he keeps trying to delete is appropriate and well-referenced. User:Tim riley agrees with me. User:Ottava Rima's reverts are inappropriate, and I welcome input from additional editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tennyson is just one of the major authors I know, and I currently have 6 biographies of Tennyson on my desk. When I first saw the statement when Shoemaker and myself were going through various Tennyson poem pages to fix them, I looked it up. Not -one- discussed women's rights, feminism, or anything else. The only information on the matter is simply 1. girl's school was created and his friends worked there and 2. Tennyson wanted to set the scene in such a school. Original research, by definition, is making claims that are not connected to a work and connecting it to a work. Three of the references merely stated when schools were founded, and they had nothing to do with the poem. That should be enough for anyone to see that the edits were original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just confused. I can't see the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History information, but it indeed seems as if that content refers only to when colleges accepted women students. Perhaps dropping all of it to a footnote, if the article claims the first college to accept women is Queens College? It is tangential, yet if a major source claims a tangential fact that is disputed, it's worth it to provide what other sources claim. If I understand it right... --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 - the article isn't claiming (or shouldn't claim) anything about first female colleges. Queens College is a highschool. It always was. The term "college" did not mean the same as now. So, all of the information about the first colleges is using a very different definition of the word than Tennyson's. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can it not be clarified in a footnote? Certainly a discussion about whether it was a high school-level or a college detracts from information about the poem. But when I read the Anne of Green Gables series I was perennially confused about their education levels and how old they were compared to our current levels. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would it matter enough to need clarifying? If it is about one school, it doesn't really matter what the format of the school is in comparison to other uses of the word. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have to compromise sometimes and incorporate information into articles I write. Because it's a community collaboration. You could, of course, get a mediator and go through dispute resolution. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not writing the article. I removed original research found in an article someone else wrote. There is nothing connecting Tennyson's poem to that line of claims. It is 100% original. That is not what Wikipedia is about. The lack of Tennyson sources is a major tip off. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire poem is about the idea of higher women's education, in the context of 1847 Britain. A brief discussion of the history of higher women's education in Britain is central to understanding the poem. Why is this controversial? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The poem is based on Queen's College, not "higher education". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's College point is dealt with in a footnote, which Ottava Rima might like to read. The subject of the poem, however, is education of women. If you care to read the poem again you will, I think, find it difficult to suppose that Tennyson intended us to think that the prince was invading a secondary school. The princess's college is patently not a town house in central London, as Queen's College is. Ottava Rima is, naturally, entitled to his/her views, but to keep deleting well-researched and referenced relevant material is not comme il faut. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, the "Queen's College point" is to point out that mentioning of other schools and when universities were founded were off topic and original research. And well researched? You have a reference to a book that doesn't deal with Tennyson and then three links to pages that merely state when a college was founded. If that is "well-referenced" I really don't think you understand what either of those two words mean. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So be it. Ottava Rima has his/her view, which I don't understand (perhaps I'm too dim). It would be helpful if other editors can put their minds to it. Perhaps they could also explain to me how Ottava Rima's conception of "original research" squares with WP:OR which one has followed these past years. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very beginning of WP:OR, it clearly states: "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source". None of the sources discusses Tennyson or are Tennyson sources. There was a completely original argument being made about Tennyson's place in feminist theory, especially with reference to Wollstonecroft and Mills. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire poem is about women's higher education, and plenty of sources noted in the article support the connection between women's higher education and Tennyson's views expressed by the poem. See the entire critical response section, among others. Ottava Rima cannot have read the poem if s/he thinks otherwise. S/he is also patently wrong that the poem is "based on Queen's College". It was, according to one source, in part a "reaction" to the founding of Queen's College, but it is an examination of women's higher education and, in the larger context, feminisim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Tim riley - Original Research states that we are not to create a new argument. You cannot discuss Tennyson's relationship with feminist education theory -unless- you have Tennyson sources that do that. We are not to create a new argument. We must only follow arguments that already exist. Furthermore, most of the sources -when- talking about education in The Princess say that the school merely reflects Tennyson's own education and that it is far different than any of the previous views held before about girls education. Your claim that it deals with feminism has no source and shows a streak of original research that must be stamped out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said on the article's talk page, the edits made by Ssilvers are perfectly valid, are well sourced and properly referenced and support his clearly expressed facts about the poem. I really do not understand what the problem is. Jack1956 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If OR is claiming that a connection between the poem & the College & other institutions is not verifiable, or supported in academic work, a quick google search suggests otherwise: [1], [2], [3] and many more. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

May WP:Consensus be invoked to trump WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view

In a dispute about a claim in an article which lacks sources, let's say some editors refuse to either provide sources for the disputed claim or rephrase the claim to circumvent the dispute. Let's assume for the sake of argument those refusing are in the majority of active editors, and those invoking WP:V and WP:NPOV are in the minority. Can WP:Consensus be invoked by the majority to override WP:Verifiability? Under what circumstances? For how long? (Assume that this is not "stylistic" issue, such as citing something in the lead which is clearly equivalent to something mentioned and cited elsewhere in the article.) Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

From a purely wikilawyeristic perspective, NPOV (though interestingly not V) is an exception to consensus choice as a founding principle of the WMF. In general, I'd be wary of going against consensus (every troll, fringe loon and POV-pusher thinks they have a better handle on policy than the majority does); if the majority of editors in question are simply inexperienced, uninformed or have a conflict of interest, it's probably best to seek wider participation.

If you're talking about an unambiguous flaunting of V and NPOV, then their local consensus is overruled by the broader consensus supporting those policies. The difficulty is that the application of these policies to any specific article must be determined locally – so in this sense your question is flawed in assuming one interpretation of local application is correct. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, also, consensus is NOT defined as "however many friends I can get to show up that agree with me". At Wikipedia, votes in support of one side or another article should only "count" in that they are clearly supported by well-established policies or guidelines. Insofar as someone says "I think this article should say X" without any qualifications on why it should, then such an unsupported statement does not count for much. If I were an admin closing a deletion discussion or an RFC, and one side in the dispute had ZERO policy or guideline based justification to support their arguements, I would close in favor of the other side, regardless of how many raw "votes" either side had. --Jayron32 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  - As I interpreted the question, it was the majority asserting that V/NPOV did not apply in this instance (policies often being mistakenly applied). I agree that it's clear that simply defying the policies is not an option. Skomorokh 01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    - Of course, speaking in the hypothetical, as we are doing here, is also highly irresponsible of us (me included). We have no idea if the real situation the OP is refering to should actually be characterized as he is doing, so he should NOT use the statements that I or Skomorokh have made as any justification for any action or opinion on a real situation, but only in response to his purely hypothetical questions. If he can provide a link to an actual situation for us to review, than we can give an actual usable opinion. --Jayron32 11:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      - I agree that one should only apply speculative analyses with caution, but there definitely is value in discussing issues in the abstract. Policies and guidelines are dependent on it. Skomorokh 11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        
        Sure, there is value in such discussions, however the deal is that the OP clearly has a real content dispute in mind, and we as respondants have no idea whether or not his particular characterization of that dispute is actually what is going on here... --Jayron32 12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        
        OP is a greybeard, and I'm sure won't try and misconstrue anything said here about general principles as support for a particular position in a specific case. Skomorokh 12:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I am guessing that Talk:Catholic Church is the specific hiding behind the generalization here. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Waiting in vain for more opinions at NPOV noticeboard

Hi. I raised a question at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ahmed Deedat regarding a dispute I was having at Ahmed Deedat. I was hoping for feedback from multiple people, much like what happens when an article is nominated for deletion. But I have only had one person offer feedback, and this editor is (in my opinion) excluding my edit by following some very narrow criteria, ignoring other arguments I offer. Where do I go to ensure a dispute gets opinions from multiple editors? Peter Ballard (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to dismiss your legitimate concern over the neutrality of the article in question, but the reason that you aren't getting more responses is because of a very important principle called WP:TLDR. Anyone that wanders accross the thread you cite above is unlikely to be willing to put in the effort needed to parse the whole thing, indeed I just spent five minutes going through it and I cannot make heads or tails of the debate between you and ScienceApologist over the issue. From my reading, the question seems to be over the objectivity of sources; that is whether sources which merely provide criticism of the subject and his position are valid for use in the article, or whether or not objective scholarly sources, such as those one might find by qualified religious studies scholars, are required. My feeling on these issues is that re-reporting the personal opinions of published authors, either positive or negative, is rarely helpful, even if the opinion is being offered by someone otherwise notable.

Let me make an analogy which is not directly related to this issue, but which may explain what I am talking about. Lets say the New York Times researches and publishes in its paper a biographical article about Senator John Doe. That may be useful as a reliable source in our article, since the New York Times and its articles are generally considered reliable. However, lets say a guest editorial in the New York Times Op-Ed pages states "Senator John Doe's policies prove he is a bad person"; that would be insufficient to state "Senator John Doe is a bad person" or even "Some people state that John Doe is a bad person" in the Wikipedia article, since such op-eds are not really journalism so much as opinion. In general, when such a debate works itself into a Wikipedia article, it becomes an edit-war by proxy over whether John Doe is a good person or a bad person, because my Op-Ed states he's bad and your Op-Ed states he's good, so we MUST put both op-eds in the article to make it "Neutral". Usually, the best path to neutrality is to leave BOTH op-eds out of the sources, and instead focus on works which lack any bias. --Jayron32 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jayron could be right. In that way, we leave out the answering-islam-articles, and delete all (or at least a lot of) the islamic websites as source. The article would become considerably smaller, but in that way it would improve a lot. (See for example those silly death-bed stories that were inserted in the article). Jeff5102 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to turn the return of "Defence of OR formulas with bogus citations" into an edit war.

I deleted these statements that refered to a value that had a formula as a reference.
The sole citation used did not have the value, so I recognized the formula and value as SYNTHESIS, along with the supported grand statements.

"Relative to the Sun, therefore, the density is:

$ρ$	= $\begin{smallmatrix}\frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \cdot \left( \frac{R}{R_{\odot}} \right)^{-3} \cdot \rho_{\odot}\end{smallmatrix}$
	= 0.123 · 0.145^-3 · 1.41 × 10³ kg/m³
	= 40.3 · 1.41 × 10³ kg/m³
	= 5.68 × 10⁴ kg/m³

where $\begin{smallmatrix}\rho_{\odot}\end{smallmatrix}$ is the average solar density." - note #1 of 2 in article.

This is the secondary (also bogus) citation that was added after to return said synthesis to article.
The 2nd book that is being cited is actually a users manual for a program called "Starry Night Software" not astrophysics!
Therefore, looks just like another bogus reference to include the formula synthesis, that was not added in good faith the first time.

Would someone with admin level authority check if I am seeing this correctly to avert an edit war??

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential Superpower quote

Hi, an IP has been editing Potential Superpower and is just including the quote:

"So why do Europeans continue to assail American "hard power" as bad for the world? Because America's military might magnifies the preponderance of US power and influence on the world stage, thereby exposing the fiction behind Europe's superpower pretensions. Because the United States has set the standard for what it means to be a superpower, European elites seek to de-legitimize one of the main pillars of American might, namely its military hard power." + - - -Soren Kern, Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (Madrid)^[1] + - -

which I feel is added with no context and could probably be better presented by being incorporated into the article. Any thoughts? RaseaC (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America

Orginal post that was deleted:If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT –túrian^patois 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

68.52.42.38: Your last paragraph and this edit suggest that if consensus does not go your way, you will disrupt these articles. That my friend would be sufficient grounds for you to be blocked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say the same as Zzyzx11. You've already canvassed a number of contributors (who will happily put forward their views if they want to) and tried to raise the point here (which was not deleted, it was archived because no one gave a damn) so I would argue that you're canvassing now, which is getting a bit annoying to be honest. RaseaC (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

There is a dispute occurring at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#External link regarding the use of a link to a surreptitious recording made without the knowledge or permission of all of the participants. I believe endorsing that recording comes under the principle of bringing the project into disrepute. Please advise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As an outside editor who responded to the RfC, I do want to stress that the RfC only started slightly over one day ago, and I believe moving the debate here ~~is forum shopping~~ could be seen as getting close to forum shopping at this stage. Let the RfC continue, and see what the resulting consensus is first. Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the editors endorsing the link have continued the discussion independently of the RfC, and the RfC has not touched on the concern stated above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed up the RfC to make it easier to join in and add comments on the seperate issues, including the privacy issue. I've also asked editors commenting outside the RfC to add their comments to new RfC setup. Hopefully that will help. Singularity42 (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Directly relevant external links?

Resolved. Link moved from "external links" into references. Gabbe (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a link to a BBC article on "the shortest time measured" appropriate in the External links section of the Zeno's paradoxes article? Gabbe (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Does the BBC article discuss Zeno's paradoxes directly? If so, it may be a valid reference for the article in question. The BBC is both reliable, and not spam, so if it is relevent as well, it COULD be a useful link... --Jayron32 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC website is now so enormous that news publishers all over the world are complaining about the competition. Some of it is a reliable news source, but many other bits are just blogs under another name, or written by unpaid interns (ie students, effectively). Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the BBC is copying our content for bibliographies on singers and bands.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but at least they credit us! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if the BBC where discussing it directly, there would be no question. But there's not any mention of Zeno's paradoxes in the BBC article. 85.229.41.77 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Math League

Should Math League be pointing to the particular competition of that name, or should it reference the general subject of math teams, with the current Math League article being disambiguated in the title? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the general subject not be a proper noun? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- True, but I'd rather not make the distinction between "Math league" and "Math League", if I can help it -- I come from a long line of case-insensitive programming languages. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[1]