This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

The article on Lavazza BLUE is basically an advertisement for the machine, with most of the content taken from a website run by a UK distributor.[1] I don't know what the copyright status is, so I'm posting this here. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some definite clean-up issues but they do not seem insurmountable. The copyvio is likely the most serious one however and posting for eyes at Wikipedia:Copyright problems may be warranted. There does seem to be sources readily available as well so this doesn't seem like an obvious just delete it issue. I also note the talkpage doesn't seem to been started. I suggest first adding a Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup tag and posting to the talkpage the main issues. If the whole thing is copyvio or a large portion then that has to be sorted out. It's not a long article so doing a quick rewrite may actually be faster. We'll generally take and even fix poorly toned content but hopefully if those who do so see what and why we have issues with copyvio stuff they will work to make future efforts compliant. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will add a cleanup tag, but I can't see the end result being anything other than a redirect to Lavazza and a short description of the product. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were at AfD I would point out the easily found sourcing, this seems to be a notable product of a notable company. The article needs work but the copyvio is the biggest issue. Is it obvious and totl or would a rewrite do it? -- Banjeboi 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I see there is precedent for these type of coffee pod articles, such as Senseo, Keurig, Flavia Beverage Systems, and many others. I haven't done much work on product-type articles, so I wasn't aware of this. A rewrite would fix it, I think. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Copyright_violations that may help. I would definitely tag and note on the talkpage the copyvio bits that have to be addressed. One way or another those need to be corrected - the company could potentially release it to Wikipedia but of the tome is promotional a rewrite would likely be better. -- Banjeboi 16:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. In progress... Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to tag it as ((copypaste)) but I believe it still qualifies as ((db-spam)). FYI... the copypaste tag places the article in the hidden Category:Possible copyright violations. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User: wrotesolid insists on stating that the [of Making] used in the Movie Excalibur is actually an Old Irish formula despite the facts that a) this text has no attestation anywhere before the film came out, b) It is completely agrammatical and incorrect c) as it is written it would be a tongue twister in Irish and the fact that the chant flows so smoothly as pronounce by an English language actor indicates that the text was devised with that phonology in mind. He even pushes a full translation for it, as dubious as any I ever saw for the Phaisots disk or the Voynich manuscript. His only sourcing is the fact the the first two words of the chant are congruent with the meaning assigned in the "translation. My point is that the text was made up for the movie, possibly by looking up old Celtic words, but by a person with no actual knowledge of the language. Are there better sources for his assertions, or any way he can be brought back to reason and the nonsense removed from the article?.--Svartalf (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Svartalf's POV OR argument from the talk page: "Well, your section was crappy. I know Irish, I've done the research, and the interpretation that it's old Irish doesn't stand..." This is his personal opinion, and it happens to be misinformed. There are published academic sources contradicting him. (His complaint has never been about the reliability of or the need for sources.) The article actually says that the charm is invented and not attested historically, yet he still complains that it is not actually an Old Irish formula. The article never mad that claim.

Svartalf has been scatalogical, vulgar and uncivil, and has removed citations from the article and replaced them with his own editorial comment in ref tags [[2]] (talk about self publishing) and has refused to engage in simple matters such as suggesting alternative verbiage on the discussion page. It would be helpful if an experienced editor could suggest some WP policies for him to study, and perhaps he should find some other article to edit if he cannot distinguish between sourced material and his OR POV. The material is properly supported, and I have added a French source as well.Wrotesolid (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources: ^{[1] [2]}

It is 21st February tomorrow and an issue has arisen in the Bangladesh language movement page which requires arbitration. The issue is wit(International Motherl language page) with regards the relationship between the politicially official language and the reality that a majority speak regional languages in Bangladesh over which the imposition of one language as a result of this movement has negative effects in day to day existance.

I have submitted a 'special feature' article from the Daily Star supporting my view but supporters of the current political nationalistic view of language such as Ragib and Tanvir do not agree with the inclusion. There has been previous disagreements with moderator Ragib who I feel is not acting impartially and has in the past taken a pro-Dhaka centrist and Bengali nationalist position. He is far too close to the subject matter to moderate. Previously he welcomed Non-Sylheti members to wikipedia but not Sylheti Bengali members and attempted to stop update of the Drishtipat site which showed they were politically partisan, even though he was a contributor to that site which had profiled his work on wiki regarding Bangla articles.

The matter is complicated by the fact that a 'Sameer Khan' who claims to be the author of the article is now apparently stating that he did not mean what he wrote in the article (wiki investigation necessary regarding connection between the two authors and given the well known violent Bangladeshi political scene where the language movement is a central plank of Awami League ideology the possibility of pressure put on the purported author). Yet the author is also unwilling to retract the article from the Daily Star.

There is also the question of the validity of other references eg. al Helal and Umar and the methodologies and verification of references as well as their political background (Awami and BNP in Bangladesh have differing interpretations of language movement and it's significance).

Btw, terms like Sylheti and Dhakaiya are akin to Londoner or Brummie and in the Bangladeshi context can be seen in a similar light to English, Scots & welsh. Ragib will no doubt talk about my 'prejudice' in which case I will point to his anti-Suylheti agenda in constantly taking a centrish pro Bangla position opposed to a realistic portrayal of Bangladeshi regional languages and cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the anon IP here is adding fringe theories and personal opinions. There are no reliable sources. The 2nd source cited here is an NN blog site. However, the first article is a different case. The author of the newspaper op-ed piece is User:SameerKhan. Sameer himself clarified in the article talk page that the IP is entirely misquoting him, and the IP's interpretation is entirely faulty. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP misrepresents the fact in many ways. Above, he makes a ludicrous comment on Sameer Khan being forced to write the clarification. User:SameerKhan has been a long term wikipedian, and he made no secret of his real life identity. The IP makes the amazing claim that he understands what the author of the newspaper article better than even the author of the article.

Next, the IP makes the claim that Previously he (User:Ragib) welcomed Non-Sylheti members to wikipedia but not Sylheti Bengali members and at. I pointed out to him earlier that wikipedia does not give me a crystal ball to figure out the place of residence of any user, and I have always welcomed new users regardless of any religion, regional origin, national origin etc. I hope he can back up his ridiculous claim with a few diffs showing to whom I haven't extended a welcome message, otherwise this statement is patent nonsense.

As for the content, a long discussion has taken place in the article talk page, and all other editors have tried endlessly to show the fallacy of the IPs unreferenced claims. Right now, he is fixated on using the newspaper op-ed by Sameer as "proof" supporting his claims, even after Sameer explicitly stated the IP's understanding to be completely incorrect.

The other references in the featured article are from well known scholarly sources and language scholars like Umar and Helal. I had

The IP has continuously made racist comments, terming a lot of things as "Dhakaiya" (i.e., of Dhaka) regardless of any relation with the region. For example, he has termed me and several other editors as "dhakaiya" , organizations as "dhhakaiya". I believe he is using it as a racist epithet/slur against people outside his preferred region. Above he claims I am "pro-Dhaka" -- I have repeatedly asked him what it means, and got no replies. I have consciously refrained from taking any admin actions on the article or this IP since I do not want to cause any conflict of interests. So, his claim of my "moderation" is also incorrect.

The IP has also violated 3RR on the article, despite requests not to do so. He refuses to follow the consensus among other users in the article talk page, and has made the above false statement. I welcome others to look into the article talk page. The fallacy of the claims made by the IP are self-evident. --Ragib (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the IP states above: Btw, terms like Sylheti and Dhakaiya are akin to Londoner or Brummie and in the Bangladeshi context can be seen in a similar light to English, Scots & welsh. This is false. In Bangladesh, if someone hails from Dhaka, he can genuinely be called a "Dhakaiya". However, the IP uses this term to denigrate anything related to Bangladesh, therefore it by no means has the same usage as "Londoner". Time and again, he has used the term on wikipedians, organizations, and even scholars/academics, in contemptuous tone. --Ragib (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

His demand on User:SameerKhan to "retract" his newspaper article is also unfortunate, and is going to the point of harassment. The demand is based solely on the fact that the IP misinterpreted Sameer's op-ed, and does not like it when Sameer pointed out the fact. --Ragib (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

While on NPP, I noticed an astonishing number (well over 1000) of articles, many with very little content, created on obscure soccer teams as well as a large number of completely unreferenced BLPs, all by the same person, see Special:Contributions/Nameless_User. I have no idea what to do about this, but it appears to be an awful lot of bandwidth for things that could at least be merged into one article on each of the dozen or so topics there. Also noticed multiple navboxes also created. Anyway, this is more than I could handle on NPP, so sending it over here, where maybe someone has tools to fix this in one fell swoop or something. Montanabw^(talk) 08:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the community is already aware of it and taking care of the situation (for example, see the ANI and the AFD). User:Shadowjams appears to have taken a lead role in dealing with it, so you may want to get with him if you are still interested; I'm sure he could use your help. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looks like there are actually something like 4000 articles they found. =:-O Someone needs tools to deal with a situation that massive! Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wes.faires, a single-purpose-only account, is repeatedly spamming information about himself onto Orion (constellation). Aside from being unenforceable and unrecognized by anyone within light-years of there, the subject himself is a non-notable nonentity. The information is unencyclopedic and does not belong here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. A couple of issues here. No matter what another editor writes on your talkpage calling them a hater isn't likely to achieve anything but show you as arguing. As for the content issue insist on independent and reliable sourcing. Once that has been shown start a process to see if the content is notable enough to be included in the article and if so, how. -- Banjeboi

History of Albania. Paul never got to Illyricum, ref as it did not exist at the time. Read from page 247, paragraph 9 up to the end of the paragraph at 248. Sulmues changed the article to his own version and did not even bother to read the whole reference diff . Talk:History_of_Albania#Paul Megistias (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope I read very well your version and told you so. Paul says in the New Testament the following (Rom15:19 of the King James Version):

Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

I asked you in the talk page Talk:History_of_Albania#Paul whether according to you and Headlam, Saint Paul was east of Thessalonica and he had no clue where he was, still he wrote that he was in Illyricum.

Could you please let me know?--sulmues (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow the reference please, our personal opinions do not matter. The reference states ;

9. There was no Roman province of Illyricum at the time of Paul. In AD 9 it had been divided into Pannonia and Dalmatia, both of which lay north of the province of Macedonia (see Illyricum, in The Oxford Classical Disctionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxfoed: Oxford University Press,1996), 747). The western part of Macedonia, however was inhabited by ethnic Illyrians. According to Strabo (Geography 7.7.4), their territory extended from the Adriatic coast to Pylon on the Via Egnatia; see Barrington Atlas, Maps I and 49. With a common sense unusual in those who comment on Rom 15:19, W Sanday and A. C. Headlam say: 'St. Paul would have folllowed this road [the Via Egnatia] as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward he had asked the names o the mountain region and of the peoples inhabiting it he would have been told it was "Illyria"...Megistias (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am following the reference and I am trying to understand what Headlam is saying. Is he saying that Saint Paul had no clue where he was? Is he saying that Saint Paul was East of Thesalonika and if he had gone West he would have found himself in Illyria? Because I think that Saint Paul knew exactly where he was. And he says very clearly that he has preached Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum. I am trying to understand what you're getting at with this reference. Can you give an explanation? --sulmues (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and Illyricum did not exist in his time with the speficics the source elaborates.Megistias (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that Wikipedia is a forum??? I don't know where you are getting that. Even though the place was not called politically Illyricum any longer, Paul (and the natives) called it still Illyricum. As a matter of fact Illyricum as a Roman province was called that way before and even after Paul's journey in 52. I don't have a problem with it, neither had Saint Paul. To make an example: I still call it "Germany" but the Germans want to call it "Deutschland". No problem: it's still the same place. To go back to our Illyricum. It existed as Illyricum from 167BC to 9 (or 20AD) and then it was divided in 2 provinces after 20 AD. After that it still has existed in the Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum from 357AD till the 9th century. So it existed before and after Saint Paul. I don't understand why you bring a reference of people who pretend to have invented the hot water. --sulmues (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont repeat things you did in the talk page that have no place in wiki but in a forum. This is a place to generally discuss Paul or that incident. Follow the reference and lets move on. Megistias (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what I am discussing. --sulmues (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

como eu fasso pra desenhar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.69.46.117 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is not yet resolved I suggest posting a neutral request at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Ask if content X is supported by references Y in whichever article. Allow a few days and see where it goes. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but I don't think it is catastrophic so long as the BBC articles were correctly cited in the first place. So long as we have the date of the article and the original URL, we should be able to find them on web archiving services. This isn't really any different from newspapers who put their old content behind a pay wall: if the citation is made correctly, we can still verify it if need be. Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to ask at technical village pump if a bot to do a mass conversion would make sense to deal with the likely link rot. -- Banjeboi 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – vandalism fixed, vandal account blocked. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to correct it. The vandal has chanegd the lyrics and has managed to put a line thru the title words in the lyrics, and highlight some words ofthe lyrics for no good reason.

I do not know how to fix these errors or stop the vandal.

Please somebody do something about this.

Ronald Ulan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.184.74 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

this is more of an 'eyes needed' thing. new user ValiantRed600 (talk · contribs) has been piddling with some systematic misinformation - he reversed the attributes of yin and yang [3], added as-far-as-I-can-tell spurious last names on for the characters in E.T. on the Drew Barymore [4] and Henry Thomas [5] articles (IMDB only gives the characters first names - he might be related to 173.56.53.174 (talk) who originally added these names to the E.T. article [6]), listed Reagan as a notable person with a widow's peak, which seems untrue from a look at Reagan's picture. It would all pass uncritical muster (I only looked into the other stuff because the first was a glaring issue for me).

might just be a phase, or he might be ramping up for further further trickiness - at any rate, it bears watching. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would like an administrator to intervene in the following two discussions [7] and [8]. In both cases, proof has been offered that these lists were taken from [9] at this this site which has an assertion of copyright in the form of "©Ben Cahoon, 2000", and from [10] at this site, which has an assertion of copyright in the form of "©1995-2010 B.Schemel". In addition, there's an editor claiming that the information isn't subject to copyright. In both cases, the person who created these articles never listed where the information came from, let alone that it was from a source where the person asserts a copyright. I have no idea how many more of these "original" articles have been made by the same user. In any event, please intervene in the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Please post this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems as they are specialists if this list information meets or violates our current policies. After posting there consider asking a few of the regulars there if they could have a look as there are two pending AfDs. On each AfD also link to the discussion there so it's all in one place. Thank you for following up on this! -- Banjeboi 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've just been sheltered from the storm, but the article Pan-Arabism is one of the worst I've ever seen. Sources are largely to opinion pieces and/or websites that have a very strong POV. I removed some of the sources and one sentence from the lede (which is probably true, but there wasn't a RS among them). I started on the rest and realized just what a mess it is. The talk page has a list of sourcing issues, but edit waring and page protection have kept these sources in place. An admin or other third party without a strong opinion on Jewish/Arab relations would be helpful.Hobit (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, for the record, it's not strictly a Jewish/Israeli-Arab issue as such. That's an element of the debate, but there are much wider issues, relating to ethnic and religious minorities within predominantly Arab countries (eg Copts in Egypt, Kurds, Berbers etc). Plus more general issues about whether it's a fascist ideology. The problem is that it's been hit by people with strong views, relying on highly partisan sources. Imagine writing the page on Christianity, focusing solely on the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Reichskonkordat, and sourcing much of the article to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is being heavily edited by someone with a very "anti-new age" point of view. Additional eyes are requested to retain balance and also to improve the article beyond its current state wrt sourcing, etc. –xeno^talk 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I may already know the answer but just want to get some others opinions on this.

According to official annual Civil Aviation Authority figures, as shown here, Birmingham Airport is the 6th busiest airport in the country based on passenger figures just released for the 2009 year.

I have been updating the BHX page over the last few days and noticed that User:Snoozlepet keeps adding a paragraph which states that Edingburgh Airport is now 6th, and BHX is 7th. The reference given is Busiest airports in the United Kingdom by total passenger traffic which obviously states that BHX is 6th with 9,102,899 passengers (despite a fall in numbers), EDI is 7th with 9,049,355 (despite a rise in numbers).

On the Edinburgh Airport page, User:Snoozlepet has been pushing 6th busiest, and at times even 5th busiest[11] citing a local newspaper which states: "Edinburgh airport management... ... have secured sixth place" It goes on to mention CAA statistics that BHX numbers fell, and EDI numbers increased, but not that CAA figures show that EDI is 6th and BHX is 7th.[12]

Out of official CAA figures, and a local newspaper, which source should be the definitive source? As at the moment, BHX and EDI have conflicting claims on their pages that they are both 6th in the UK.

[13] - Official CAA stats

[14] - Source used by EDI to claim 6th

_Will^Dow (Talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This section could gain from some input. Unomi (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The following quote under the caption Post-September 11, 2001 attacks in Wikipedia's article on NORAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command) has been shown by The 9/11 Commission Report to be false:

"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States.[5}"

The 9/11 Commission Report says about NORAD's monitoring capabilities over the United States before and on September 11, 2001:

"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."1

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."2

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."3

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."4

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."

1. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf, Page 18. 2. Ibid, Page 20. 3. Ibid, Page 27. 4. Ibid, Page 30. 5. Ibid, Page 28.

The offending quote is also shown to be false according to the Government Accountability Office. In 1994 the GAO said, "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:

1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

2. tracking hijacked aircraft;

3. assisting aircraft in distress;

4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts." -- http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151250.pdf

As you can see, NORAD monitored all aircraft flying over the United States on September 11, 2001. Since the Wikipedia editor(s) of the NORAD page are obstructive in correcting the page's errors on NORAD's correct air sovereignty mission on September 11, 2001, I'm requesting that you look into this and correct the blatant error.

Regards,

Dean Jackson

Washington, DC74.96.13.139 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first off thank you for trying to correct what you think are inaccuracies. However the current information is presented a bit awkwardly so i have some suggestions that may help move this forward. You might do well by breaking each point (issue) separately. As is it's all rather bundled so I personally find it hard to follow what you think should be fixed. I suggest doing each as - Text currently states ____ but statement _____ seems wrongs and should state _____, here is a source to confirm this statement. Thoughts? In this way I think you'll find editors more able to quickly sort out what's wrong, how it could be fixed, etc. That article gets a fair amount of traffic so I think this method on the talkpage may be effective. Does that sound acceptable as a first step? -- Banjeboi 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Benjiboi. I will follow your outline.

Dean Jackson

Washington, DC74.96.13.139 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I get more eyes on this article please and opinions if this is suitable in an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not; they are contraventions of our biographies of living persons policy, as they introduce controversial material about living subjects without a source. I've reverted the edit. BLP enpowers you to revert additions such as these, and I encourage you to do so. In the meantime, I've semi-protected the article for a week. Thanks for alerting us to this issue. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been reverting but was at WP:3RR and WP:BLP states that the exemption is for "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material" so I wanted some cover for any further reverts :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:173.171.109.161 keeps changing the article on Bryan Glazer to remove any mention of Andy Anson's involvement in the deal to make AIG the sponsors of Manchester United F.C. in 2006. A source has been provided to prove Anson's involvement, and yet this IP user refuses to accept it. Any chance this user can be blocked? – PeeJay 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This goes beyond vandalism; this is a clear content dispute. I've blocked you both for 24 hours. Please discuss your edits on the talk page rather than simply reverting at will. I've stopped short at removing your rollback, in the hope that this will not happen again. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an argument here between one editor and others, the nub of which it is contended that the inclusion of an "Other uses" section breaches several policies and guidelines. This is an article about the word "cunt" and its usage to mean female genitalia, by extension an insult, and by further extension descriptive terms depending on the supposed resemblance to the main definition. The editor persists in removing the disputed content in the midst of a WP:BRD discussion, which has become tedious and disruptive, and not for the first time. Although I've had some input into the article, I've no wish to own it, but additional input towards consensus would be welcome. Rodhullandemu 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that there's several interrelated issues with this material:

a) it's all unreferenced that these actually are derived terms (it seems likely but just because the letters 'cunt' appear in the term in that sequence doesn't mean they are derived.) Cunt lead is unreferenced and I couldn't find it anywhere. And I've genuinely no idea why/how that would be a derived term anyway. Just because it has that word in there means nothing; it doesn't even seem to be derogatory.

b) they're not covered by the topic at the top of the article (these are apparently not used as derogatory terms or as terms for actual female genitalia).

c) it seems to me that they're content forks of garrison cap and cut splice anyway. Basically they make claims about these items that the main articles on these do not, and the cunt article does not refer to the main articles at all either.

d) the whole article is very dubious with regards WP:ISNOT, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to start with. Even if I/we WP:IAR on all the most common/basic swear words and assume that the word cunt taken as a derogatory term for female genitalia is encyclopedic, extending that by tagging on a whole bunch of terms/topics that cannot even be reliably shown to be etymologically related is simply taking the piss.- Wolfkeeper 18:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some editors including those who know the family are attempting to remove the following sentence from from lead paragraph of the article Andrew Koenig (actor) because it is "too grisly" and "disrespectful" dispite the fact that the lead is supposed to cover all significant aspects of the topic and the comment is fully supported by a very reliable source.

He committed suicide by hanging himself in a Vancouver park in February of 2010.^[3]

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there was consensus among editors on the talk page that the LEAD wording was unsuitable. I've protected this page from further anonymous disruption. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the actual consensus discussion, it is a consensus that the information should not be added to the article based solely on an "unnamed source" quoted in E!, and rightly so. The comments include: "Probably wait until more sources report it?", "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record". ie the now provided non-tabloid Washington Post. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some editors take a look at the Africa article at the arguement on the talk page please? I believe there is a quite a severe lack of WP:NPOV on the article. Personal views amongst some of its editors is getting in the way of NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else please take a look at Health care reform in the United States and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Both articles contain a massively redundant long list of provisions of the 2010 health-care reform. The latter article, being the specific article on the main 2010 bill, seems to be the appropriate place for such details, whereas the former article is already very long. However, efforts to get editors at the Health care reform in the United States to replace the long list there with a short summary and a pointer to the article on the bill have met with adamant opposition from editors at the Health care article.

This is a subject that is receiving a lot of public attention right now, so it is especially important that WP do a good job, and have a place where editors can cooperate to provide good coverage. Thanks for your help!

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't know it from reading the articles, but Abune Merkorios and Abune Zena Markos are about the same person. The former is almost an entirely negative perception and the latter treats him as "living icon" (although he has apparently just died). Neither article cites any sources for individual facts, so I was wondering what can be done to merge these two nearly diametrically opposed articles on the same person. 96.52.5.187 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I have tagged the articles for merge and left some comments at Talk:Abune Merkorios. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure these articles are about two different subjects, and I have removed the "merge" tags (again, see Talk:Abune Merkorios). However, both articles need a lot of improvement. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NORAD statements were debunked by 9/11 commission report

Hi, first off thank you for trying to correct what you think are inaccuracies. However the current information is presented a bit awkwardly so i have some suggestions that may help move this forward. You might do well by breaking each point (issue) separately. As is it's all rather bundled so I personally find it hard to follow what you think should be fixed. I suggest doing each as - Text currently states ____ but statement _____ seems wrongs and should state _____, here is a source to confirm this statement. Thoughts? In this way I think you'll find editors more able to quickly sort out what's wrong, how it could be fixed, etc. That article gets a fair amount of traffic so I think this method on the talkpage may be effective. Does that sound acceptable as a first step? -- Banjeboi 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Text currently states under the caption Post-September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command), "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States", but this statement is wrong and should state, "After September 11, 2001 NORAD erroneously said its mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States. In point of fact, NORAD did monitor all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States, as affirmed by The 9/11 Commission Report:

"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."1

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."2

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."3

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."4

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."'5

1. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, Page 18. 2. Ibid, 20. 3. Ibid, 27. 4. Ibid, 30. 5. Ibid, 28.74.96.13.139 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Isaaq article includes a list of sub-clans (as do the other articles in Category:Somali clans). In the four or five years that I've been paying attention, I've seen that such lists have a tendency to grow large, unwieldy, and indiscriminate (e.g., this old version of Isaaq). A few months ago, CambridgeBayWeather and I took the initiative to scale these back to manageable, and more importantly sourced versions. User:Anadiif has been making unattributed additions to the list in Isaaq, at one point providing references, but these turned out to be Wikipedia mirrors. I have warned Anadiif about making unsourced additions to the article. However I am not sure that I can or should be the one to take further action because of my own involvement with the article (although this has generally been limited to maintenance-type tasks, rather than the addition of actual content). I believe repeated addition of unsourced material qualifies as disruptive editing, and there are standardized warning messages to that effect (e.g. ((uw-unsor3))). But I have also been told (on a previous occasion) that this amounts to a content dispute, and thus blocking (by anyone) is not an option (in which case I wonder why we have the warning messages). I also don't want to find myself on the wrong side of the 3RR policy. So, I figured I would try this route. Note that I have previously opened an RfC on the subject (see Category talk:Somali clans), but CBW and I were the only ones to participate. I have also made my case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia#Clan lineage (and you'll see that I often invoke both that and the RfC in my edit summaries). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't weighed into this matter because I felt Gyrofrog & CambridgeBayWeather were handling this matter in the best manner possible; they didn't need my input to know they were doing the right thing. The articles on Somali clans present the worst aspects of the articles on Micronations & High schools: abundant material that was unverifiable & of dubious notability. The most disappointing thing about those who insist on restoring this material is that the sources are there -- for example, I.M. Lewis's A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, as well as the accounts of European travelers like Richard Burton's First Footsteps & A. Donaldson Smith's Through Unknown African Countries. (Electronic copies of both of these last two books are available online.) Until someone uses these sources to improve these articles -- or at least provide sources for the material added -- unsourced material should continue to be removed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The original version of the Santiago Robson was a pure copyvio of [15], but over time no one noticed, so I got shifted around a bit. I nominated for speedy deletion based on the original copyvio, but that tag was removed and the content was shifted around even more so that it only kind of resembles the original source. Just wanted to know if there's a problem with the fact that nearly all the previous versions are copyvios. 96.52.5.187 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You can use ((Copyvio-histpurge)) to request deletion of the earlier versions. Check the documentation for how to use the template – you need to credit the other contributors whose content was kept. Jafeluv (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On close inspection, it was still a copyvio anyways. 96.52.5.187 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

hi, i've tried several times to discuss on the Invincible (michael jackson album) page that the intro should reflect that he had six albums with Sony records(which is where his solo success came from), however i have gotten nowhere and do not have edit ability , i do however have references should you need them, i would appreciate any help, thank you--65.10.2.51 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am in a bit over my head here and short on time. If anyone familiar with this subject or mediating disputes has time, help would be appreciated. –xeno^talk 20:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned that content added to London Buses route E8 did not accurately reflect the (possibly conflicting) sources, so I removed the text which I felt was problematic, and posted a detailed explanation of my concerns at the article's talk page.

This arose in the context of a hotly-contested AFD, so tensions were running high. Unfortunately, the disputed text has been repeatedly re-inserted by two editors who have refused to discuss the substantive issues. One of these editors did post a brief comment at the talk page which did not address the details of the conflict of sources, but the other simply alleges disruption [16][17] and denounced my request to discuss the issue as "trying to edit-war your POV".

My concern is simply that the sources do not appear to support the facts asserted. When the other editors do not want to discuss the problem, how should I proceed? Is this an appropriate matter for an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello All,

I would like to know how we go about changing inaccuracies or at least argue some statements placed on Wikipedia, I think as kids students and adults are taking Wikipedia as given that is should be more transparent and easier to make notes of how items like history are portayed.

What brought this to my attention is the photo of Dresden today 16/04/2010 With the below caption... Dresden in the 1890s

An 1890s photochrom print of Dresden, the capital city of Saxony in Germany, with Dresden Frauenkirche (left), Augustus Bridge (centre), and Katholische Hofkirche (right) visible. Dresden in the early 20th century was a leading European centre of art, classical music, culture and science until its complete destruction on February 13, 1945

the term I am a little worried about is "Complete Destruction" I do concede that it was bombed heavily and I in no way condone that and still reel from the loss of life in both Europe, England and Germany and Dresden.... But Dresden was not completely destroyed and I would argue that London was worse hit than Dresden over years and years of barrage!! My Grandmother spoke of the horror for years of beeing bombed and my mother still wakes up in cold sweats from it! So there are two points to this make Wikipedia less definative...as they aren't always the facts (just opinions) and you can't write it as though they are....

Cheers Steve

P.S. Very childish...But....Hitler started the bloody war....we weren't invading countries willy Nilly were we!!!??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarr222 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir:

I noticed that Lewis Jackson of Oklahoma City, OK is not listed in your list of Distinguish Cross Medal winners for action in Vietnam. He was awarded around 2006 after lost papers were discovered. He served 1966 to 1968. Has Honorable discharge. His cell # is 405-208-3290 for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.38.180 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On 11 April at the Pakistan Air Force article I reverted an edit because of the nationalistic and unencyclopedic use of the word "crushed":

"During the war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to go to the Middle East in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived, Egypt's and syria's militaries had already been crushed by the IDF."

(Link to diff)

In this context the abbreviation "IDF" stands for "Israeli Defence Forces". The text was added by an anonymous editor with IP address Special:Contributions/93.172.4.107, which according to www.infosniper.net geo-locates to "Tel-Aviv (05), Israel". I noted this in my edit summary.

My reversion was undone by UplinkAnsh on the same day. He stated the following in his edit summary: "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter." (Link to diff)

I am already in a dispute with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article regarding his unencyclopedic and unverifiable edits. PNS Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine which sank during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

"At the same time Indian destroyer INS Rajput started moving out of port on a mission to Bangladesh.[11][12] What followed was a deadly game where both sides were on tenterhooks."

Diffs of my edits to remove such text followed by reversions by UplinkAnsh:

• Diff of edits on 20 March 2010
• Diff of my edits on 3 April and UplinkAnsh's reversion on 6 April

I have attempted discussion with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article and have found it to be a waste of time. He repeatedly reverts my edits and, although offering to discuss the matter, constantly ignores the points put forward by myself and the references. Thanks.--Hj108 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out netural editors here that Hj108 has been consistently trying to get me banned by rather than working towards betterment of articles by providing refrences and solving disputes on talk page. He has been consistently complaining on almost every noticeboard that his own views(which are unrefrenced) which he claims to be the official Pakistani version are not being added to PNS Ghazi article.

I would like to trace the details of conflict

1. 18 March: I started to add refrenced data from reliable sites. I found sites based in US, Russia and India. However Pakistani media or offical Pakistani Navy site did not mention the incident and I found no refrences. I invited Hj108 to add more Pakistani sources and discuss on talk page. However Hj108(79.76.228.29) replied only a couple of times not getting into serious discusion and maintained that his views based on a UK based self published site pakdef.infoshould form the bulk of articles text.

Rather than adding more reliable sources all he consistently blanked all all sources which I cited. Following are some of his edits/reverts in which he had blanked comlplete sections of articles along with citiations

• 1st revert : 03:24, 19 March 2010
• 2nd revert : 20:17, 20 March 2010
• 3rd revert : 03:52, 4 April 2010

He then started to complain across various noticeboards.

Following are the list of his complains on various noticeboards and reviews by netural editors

• 1st complain:Complain on Wikiquette
  • Result: Diff of edits done by netural editor
  • The editor also asked us to solve the dispute on talk page but Hj108 rather than entering a discussion again complained on Neutral point of view Noticeboard.
• 2nd complaint:Complain on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
  • Result: He recognised that Hj108's views were completely borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE. He also found history section on offical Pakistani Navy site which only mentioned that the submarine was sunk in 1971 with no details, and another netural site based in UK which contained details regarding the article. Hj108 who now had started discussing on talkpage and Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, started calling all cited sources as unreliable and still maintained that pakdef.info contained the only correct and offical Pakistani version.
• 3rd and 4th complaint:He has presently complained on Complain on Administrators' noticeboard and

Complain on Content noticeboard

Following his persistence of adding large amount of data form pakdef.info I verified it's reliablity at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please note the the mission statement of this self published site states:

• Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
• We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
• PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Editors at Reliable Sources noticeboard also agreed that this site was self published.

Clearly this site which Hj108 whole heartedly believes indoes not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. Hardly the qualities WP requires of RS.

So, from my end I have only added refrences from reliable sources to help improve the article PNS Ghazi. If offical Pakistani Navy site and Pakistani news articles do not give details of the sinking of the submarine and only mention that it sunk in 1971, it does not mean we have to add original research of Hj108 and self published site as offical Pakistani version to achieve neturality. I have consistently told Hj108(79.76.228.29) in each of my edit on talkpage he is free to add refrences from reliable Pakistani sources and make edits to the article but his original research does not matter much on wikipedia.

I however accept the edit on PAF article was a mistake. I was working late that night, going through articles history and rather thought the word "crushed" had just been added. I undid the latest revision and went to sleep not checking the results. However my intention for the edit can be seen by the edit summary in which I stated "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter". --UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I seems that Swissôtel has launched a little soapboxing campaign during the last weeks. There are several new articles from various authors about individual Swissôtel hotels across the world that are seemingly professionally dressed up with infoboxes, references and so on. While some buildings may be notable per architectural criteria the lot of them seems trivial to me as simple subsidiaries. What makes them look alike though and made me suspicious is that many of them use ((infobox company)) with a local Swissôtel logo while such a hotel is not a company of its own, so there seems to be some sort of method behind it. I've prodded some articles and fixed a few others but I thought I'd leave a comment here for future reference. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone feel like cleaning this up quick? Dimitri is currently linked from the feature article on the NYT's global edition homepage, citing that he is 1375th in line for the British throne (I changed it in our article to 1374 based on the list itself). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like content). Here is the latest draft that I am seeking help with: [[18]]. Can some of you give me input on any content issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this page is watched and issues acted upon, however there does not seem to be a more appropriate venue in this case. The article Abdul Majid Zabuli appears to contain a large amount of original research and unsubstantiated claims and is certainly not adhering to WP:NPOV. If some kind wiki-soul wants to work on it to bring it inline with policy and guidelines it would appreciated, otherwise it will need to be stubbed back as unsourced and POV. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Moved to user space

The article Clan Moutray is over three times as long as any other entry on the English Wikipedia. Could someone with more experience in such situations take a look? Thanks! MoozerSkadoozer (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved to userspace. Yay for being bold! MoozerSkadoozer (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NORAD and 9-11

NORAD statements were debunked by 9/11 commission report

Hi, first off thank you for trying to correct what you think are inaccuracies. However the current information is presented a bit awkwardly so i have some suggestions that may help move this forward. You might do well by breaking each point (issue) separately. As is it's all rather bundled so I personally find it hard to follow what you think should be fixed. I suggest doing each as - Text currently states ____ but statement _____ seems wrongs and should state _____, here is a source to confirm this statement. Thoughts? In this way I think you'll find editors more able to quickly sort out what's wrong, how it could be fixed, etc. That article gets a fair amount of traffic so I think this method on the talkpage may be effective. Does that sound acceptable as a first step? -- Banjeboi 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Text currently states under the caption Post-September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command), "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States", but this statement is wrong and should state, "After September 11, 2001 NORAD erroneously said its mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States. In point of fact, NORAD did monitor all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States, as affirmed by The 9/11 Commission Report:

"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."1

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."2

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."3

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."4

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."'5

1. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, Page 18. 2. Ibid, 20. 3. Ibid, 27. 4. Ibid, 30. 5. Ibid, 28.74.96.13.139 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello there Editors, I need some help in here. Honestly, I am not that good in composing an article, likewise with my grammar. My job is computer programmer/technician and I was only assigned to create an article (User:Tfrasheed/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed) for my boss. And believe me, I'm having difficulties in the following notifications stated next to this paragraph, but am trying my best to figure it out. I keep on reading, all of them on their help pages.

  * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since April 2010.
  * Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since April 2010.
  * It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since April 2010.
  * It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2010.

About the notability, I already included all the possible links and references we do have online and in local books at our office. Next the articles link to it, which was already done, I think if it is enough. Then about the conflict of interest, in this section I am that newbie guy. Sorry for being spoon-feed user. But I have to ask how could I avoid that conflict of interest. Is there a need to change some section in my article or need additional explanations? And the last is improper references to self-published sources, I think I already removed it from the article before it was deleted. lastly, do I need to change the photo of TFR? because every time I upload a new one, it is subjected to speedy deletion and it says that it was copied from another webpage. I am afraid about copyright but the photo is our own office file and I am handling them all.

Please let me know if I properly posted my query and questions in this section or there is a need to move it to other discussion page. Thank your very much for your kind support and help. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in going through a list

http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/shortpages.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&namespaces=6&filter=none&offset=200&limit=100 in respect of images lacking sources, I noted a number of images whose naming suggests that they might need someone more experienced to review the sourcing.

Although it's posted here, the concern is about the 'sourcing' of the content, not the nature (In any case WP:NOTCENSORED).

It would be much appreciated if a group of suitable admins could check the sourcing on the relevant images.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a complete copy and paste of the website listed on the article, which is in the public domain apparently (hence not posted at the copyright noticeboard) however I think it is a) extremely bad form, b) has been written by an account that has been blocked for two weeks for actual copyright violations and c) may fail WP:N or certainly exist as a merge with Inspector General or Office of Inspector General. Thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

the website SGGH ^ping! 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've added the US Gov attribution template to this and two other similar articles (also copypaste) by the same editor: The Department of Defense Whistleblower Program and Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense. The editor in question is blocked for disrupting an AfD, not copyright violations, but I've warned him/her about this problem and am checking their other work. They created 13 articles over the space of 2 weeks and I found large chunks of text pasted from copyright sources in two further ones (now cleaned) and am checking the rest. Voceditenore (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. SGGH ^ping! 13:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please may I have some assistance with the Kingston University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, particularly the Controversies section. As you will notice from this section one former employee has been involved in a long-running dispute with the University, and unfortunately Wikipedia has been used as his personal battleground against the University.

Is this section appropriate for an encyclopaedia? One of the issues listed is notable and may deserve a line or two, but surely a complete section listing all the petty grievances against the University in such detail is inappropriate? Also if you notice from the edits this content has been added by one or two IP addresses with an obvious vendetta against the University. Take a look at the Talk page and you will spot these one or two IP addresses arguing against the sensible majority who have raised issues with this content previously.

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, so I think this article would be greatly improved if some experienced editors would take a look at this. I hope this is the correct place to raise this issue, if not let me know. Thank you. Pandabearcollective (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As of this state of the article I don't see any petty grievances but I'd say that all the personal harrassment entries are rather unencyclopedic, unfortunately such things tend to happen at large organisations. The Hisb-ut-Tahrir, the external examiner case and the survey exaggeration should stay though as they go beyond the university's own scope of interests. De728631 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

As a reader, I have been disturbed by the article which mentions how easy it is to make a japanese curry form scratch, but doesn't give any link, nor information about how to make it. Since I have been looking for such an information for long and without success, I decided to add :

"However, the instant curry roux are so generally used that it is nearly impossible to find the recipe to make it from scratch (at least if you do not understand japanese.)"

This a fact and I hoped it would incitate someone to add such a link for the benefice of all readers.

I got immediately reverted by User:Kintetsubuffalo who menaced me on my page with the following inappropriate message (which is clear harassment) :

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Japanese curry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with him and made other modification, which he kept reverting systematically, arguing that wikipedia is not a blog or a howto (I don't agree with his interpretation of my changes) and those changes were non-encyclopedical according to wikipedia first pillar but diregarding in his move the fifth wikipedia's pillar and Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic in the move.

So, since the discussion ended up as being impossible with him, I asked for a third opinion, which appeared not to be more constructive in any way (he reverted me like Kintetsubuffalo, without even checking my modifications, and btw, he is a japan fan too, so they both might know each other). So I wonder if all english speaking wikipedians have turned like those two... in which case the english wikipedia is probably dead, or is there still a way to save it ?

So, what can I do, now ?

85.27.42.125 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to have a reliable source for that information, otherwise it is not verifiable and can be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

An IP is making extensive edits on Trabzon, which includes the removal of large chunks of apparently verified text. I personally do not see how those edits are neutral, and I don't put much stuck in the edit summary supplied by the editor after I reversed one series of edits. But this is not my area of expertise; perhaps there is an expert here who cares to weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified the editor, here. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A series of disruptive edits bordering on vandalism was undertaken from IPs on the following two pages:

• Research associate‎‎
• Research fellow‎‎

This succeeds a dispute between me and another editor. In the discussion following an 3O, I added references and tried to reason with user, but user in a highly unfocused and conflated manner of speaking just kept referring to his/her previous statements. Now reverts from IP remove references or state that IP likes this version better.

What is the best way of dealing with this multitude of issues that don't seem to fit one category. Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

IPs can be dealt with by requesting a semi-protection for the article. That means that only logged-in editors will be able to edit the page. So if this dispute between you and the other editor continues, you may eventually ask for arbitration by administrators. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor recently created this article which I initially deemed to be a hoax judging by the random character username and because Google turned up nothing. But after reading the Navassa article I thought maybe it may be factual after all. Can anyone confirm if this is indeed real or all made-up? -- œ^™ 00:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved to the author's user name space, so much for credibility. I for one would tag it as a hoax anytime because Navasse certainly did not declare independence. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So indeed it was a hoax, okay. Received no response from the author either. I deleted it. btw it was I who initially moved it into his userspace until I could verify if it was a hoax or not. -- œ^™ 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. I've been discussing this since finding yesterday on a NPP. It's not, in its present form, encyclopedic, it has but one source in English, and I am positive it qualifies for a CSD, AfD, or soaking in gasoline and lighting with extreme haste. However, my judgement has been called into question as the guy who wrote it believes I am "not acting fairly" and "i am so critical" - so I'm withdrawing and handing this over to the community. I haven't been able to reach a result which is acceptable to both the creator and myself, so I'll leave it with you. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I made this article redirect to People's Committee to Protect Ukraine (article I created); this article was a WP:CFORK all the time. I removed the delete tag; I suppose redirects don't have to be deleted! Since the article is in Queue for a WP:DYK the content of People's Committee to Protect Ukraine should be good enough not to delete it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

People's Committee to Protect Ukraine is a DYK right now ! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like content). Here is the latest draft that I am seeking help with: [[19]]. Can some of you give me input on any content issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consider moving all etimology sections to Wictionary, where they would be more appropriate, and linking to them. I always find etimology sections to be annoying, irrelevent, and just a prime target for vandals looking to create urban legends.

Daniel Kellis (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say, whether you personally find them annoying is hardly a criterion for moving them and in many cases they are far from irrelevant, especially when it comes to foreign words and terminology. So generally moving etymology content out of Wikipedia would be grossly counterproductive. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In Sybian, I removed a promotional paragraph that only had primary sources, and a promotional video. Nobody else commented on the text, one other editor supported the removal of the vid.

WLU (talk · contribs) reverted[54] the removal, reinstating the video and the text.

Therefore, I am seeking other opinions on these two issues;

1. Talk:Sybian#Development 2. Talk:Sybian#Advert

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

According to an edit summary on the Shannon Bolin page, a friend of the subject worked in collaboration with her and added a multitude of unsourced material to the page. Now I assume that the thing to do in this case is revert (per WP:V and since we can't know that this person truly does have a connection with Bolin), but I'm worried that, in this case, a blanket revert isn't going to be beneficial and may just spark a pointless edit war. Is there a way to do some finagling with OTRS? Should it be removed until such point that the individual can verify their identity? I don't see anything particularly controversial there... 96.52.5.187 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Their identity is a bit beside the point - facts need to be independently verifiable via reliable sources. The identity of the editor is irrelevant to that fact. You cannot have <ref> me, because I made this product/work there/know a person who made it/etc<ref>. See WP:V.  Chzz  ►  23:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a question here, whether Wikipedia discourages a template with red links in majority?

I created a template to replace Template:Jiangxi which is almost redundant with Template:County-level divisions of Jiangxi. But my edit was reverted and I was told to create more articles before changing back to my version. However, I find it frequent templates with many red links on wiki, such as Template:Driving licences in Africa. Thanks.--Symane TALK 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your template consists almost entirely of redlinks so I too think you should first create some well-defined articles to fill it. Furthermore I don't see any need to replace Template:Jiangxi. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The content in the bibliographical information on William C. Rader of Medra has been changed and manipulated repeatedly by Medra affiliates. William C Rader is a fraudulent stem cell quack and has never used the scientific method to prove his findings of improvements in his patients. His claims are pure lies. Patient testimonies are all that he has and these testimonies have been manipulated. He is under investigation by the FBI and FDA and the California State Medical Board has suspended his license.

The documented proof can be found on the Ripoffreport.com by typing Medra in the search engine. The BBC Panorama investigative program exposed william C Rader as a fraud in an expose called THE TRUTH ABOUT MEDRA. CBS 60 MINUTES exposed Medra as a scam in their program, 21st CENTUY SNAKE OIL.

Manipulating the Wiki page, has been a way for Dr. Rader to advertise his snake oil and to prey on the most desperate and vulnerable, charging them 30.000 for a 5 second injection that is scietifically impossible to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraudattorney (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that, over the past month, the article has been significantly whitewashed. I've reverted back to the May 12 version, which is at least more neutral. More eyes are probably warranted on this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Another user is intent on describing a rugby match as "stunning" within this article [55]. Despite attempts to explain that this fails WP:NPOV and WP:PEA, my removal of this needless word is reverted without discussion. Advice needed on how to proceed. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This sourced article clearly disagrees with this nonsensical viewpoint that the fact of Franc's stunning victory is "opinion": http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/history/2966114.stm Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As does this one: http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/sport/rhesport14.htm Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And this one http://www.btvision.bt.com/sport/irb-world-cup-semi-final-new-zealand-v-france/ Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

and this one: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ericjanssen/100003005/all-blacks-vs-france-1999-the-greatest-rugby-match-ever/.

So source it then, say that the game was described at the time as "the greatest ever". However, using the word stunning without any basis goes against or policy of adhering to a neutral point of view. However, the game was over 10 years ago, so who's to say there haven't been better games since? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated that your idiotic ill-informed opinions are not worth the bytes they are written in. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a mixed case of bad faith, npov, and vandalism. There is currently an 'undo-war' happening on the 'Islam' article. This 'war' is mainly between users Iwanttoeditthissh, WKTU, and unfortunately me. User WKTU is falsifying information on the page and has been asked to stop. We (Iwanttoeditthissh and I) have asked him to discuss this on the articles talk page but he will not. He also deletes warnings from his own talk page. We believe he is acting in bad faith as he will not stop to discuss the edits, and claims 'seniority' over us as his profile is slightly older (although with less edits). Please intervene. Alek2407 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%. In the edit sumary he goes on to say that 'Shia and Sunni are the only sects in Islam!' Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Relevant links are WKTU (talk · contribs), Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs), Alek2407 (talk · contribs), and Islam.

The above was posted here by user:Alek2407 who forgot to sign its name. Please see here where I presented my argument to all this and also read the bottom.--WKTU (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I did sign this look at my post, above Iwanttoeditthissh's. I also amend my previous post as he has started discussing the edits, but still continues to change things. Alek2407 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not signing, you copy pasted Iwanttoeditthissh's message.--WKTU (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible banned editor evading

On April 15, 2010, admin Fastily blocked Jigglyfidders (talk · contribs) indefinitely and the next day, on April 16, 2010, Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs) was created and began editing the same articles as Jigglyfidders with the same style and same POV. For example, Jigglyfidders changed the correct number of Sunni Muslims at Islam page from 85% to 75% [56] and now Iwanttoeditthissh is reverting to Jigglyfidders' version by removing sourced figures that is backed by Encyclopædia Britannica. [57] You can see that both names are made in a very similar style. BTW, Alek2407 (talk · contribs) may also be him because that one is supporting Iwanttoeditthissh's views and constantly reverting to Iwanttoeditthissh's version.--WKTU (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a place for sock puppet accusations. Please use the right board for this. I can guarantee that I (user:Alek2407) am not a sock puppet as I exists on multiple websites and if checked our IP's will not be remotely the same.

Alek2407 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You and Iwanttoeditthissh both share a similar behaviour, both of you are after me everywhere and refuse to leave me alone. Both of you are some how trying to defend Shias, perhaps you may be one person who belongs to Shia sect.--WKTU (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because we share similar views (against aggressive edits (BTW the original Shia=majority was wrong too) does not mean we are the same person. I am sorry you feel victimized but that is what happens if you start making critical biased edits. I, again, am not user:Iwanttoeditthissh (though he may be user:Jigglyfidders). As for my religious views, i am an atheist.

If you want to formally accuse me or Iwanttoeditthissh, please do so here.

Alek2407 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i am certainly not jugglyfidder, and you can see we have different IP address matches. Falsely accusing someone of sockpuppetry is not the correct way to resolve an edit dispute if you havent got a basis. You got dates wrong and need to understand alternate accounts policy before undermining legitimate uses. The reason i am apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia is i used previous wiki applications. Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As above. When two editors remove your editing contributions it is not because they are sockpuppets, more likely that they are just more experienced at editing Wikipedia than you, and are reading the same policy sheets. For instance, all admins are familiar with the WP:NPOV policy, that doesn't make us sockpuppets when we quote it. But if you want, WP:SPI is that-away. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My sockpuppet accusation is not just based on two editors removing my editing contributions. Read under Possible banned editor evading again. Someone (Jigglyfidders) editing Islam page gets blocked on April 15, 2010, and then a day later Iwanttoeditthissh was created and began editing the same Islam related articles with the same POV. Iwanttoeditthissh's appears like an experianced Wikipedian, someone who has been editing before the day he created the account. If you follow this thread 1 2 3, it's possible that he may be User:SyedNaqvi90 (a Shia Pakistani living in the United States) using sockpuppets. Anyway, thanks for directing me to the SPI and when I have free time I will file a report there.--WKTU (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Discusion continued here

Here's an interesting question. How can you appropriately use a tour booklet to source things in an article? for example at the The Labyrinth tour there is some information sourced from the tour programme (which i own a copy) and i've formatted the reference in the following way:

<ref> Syco Music. Leona Lewis - The Labyrinth, Official Tour booklet. Sony Music Entertainment, 2010. </ref>

This is based on the only information available about the booklet. It doesnt really fit into the ((citebook)) template as it has no author, no ISBN and no official publisher. Is the current sourcing method appropriate? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say your sourcing method is quite ok, after all you need not use the ((cite book)). But I guess Sony can be regarded as a publisher in this case, so for formatting just try "cite journal":

• "Leona Lewis - The Labyrinth, Official Tour booklet". Syco Music. Sony Music Entertainment. 2010.

if you like. De728631 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

EnOcean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all. It has been contended via out email response system (ticket number for cross-reference: 2010060810039512) that this article no longer is written like an advertisement, and hence the template warning at the top should be removed. If anyone so inclined and with the time could go through the page, remove any further instances, if there is indeed any instances left, of (what is in their opinion) advertising language, and then remove the template, it'd be much appreciated.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit and removed the template -- I'll add it to my watchlist and revisit it later to see if it has gained any more coverage. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A long and arduous conversation has taken place between myself and user:advocate4you at talk:surface feet per minute and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Advocate4you about the first equation in surface feet per minute. Despite consensus with 2 other users for the equation in this revision, Advocate4you refuses to compromise or listen to reason. Perhaps if more users contributed, then an absolute consensus could be made. Any help is welcome, and please let me know if I should be posting this in a different noticeboard. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit summary of the article and what has been said on the talk page, I would think that consensus has been reached now at least to use a <math></math> formula. I've therefore reverted user:advocate4you's latest edits and warned him not to continue this edit war. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems that it would be OK to do what Advocate4you is asking, which is to say something like ... "The formula is [blah], which the Brown & Sharpe Automatic Screw Machine Handbook gives in alternate but mathematically practically equivalent form as [blah]<ref name="Brown_Sharpe_Handbook">." — ¾-10 01:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the compromise with the "approximately equal to" sign. Here's why: First, you get the exact formula, which is what really matters in any article. The exact formula may be necessary for further derivation, understanding of it's formulation, etc. Second, you also get a formula that may be "easier to remember" as noted by Advocate. It is important that the exact formula remain to the left of the approximation, as is customary for equations where you approximate. In other words:

Spindle Speed = Exact Equation ${\displaystyle \approx }$ Approximation

I should point out, however, that if for some reason only one formula is desired, then there is no question in my mind that the exact formula should remain. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My reason for supporting what I described above is that, if it is a common method out there in the field, then it should be described in the article as simply a fact of common practice, even if it's not as mathematically excellent. For example, one can say that many people convert h.p. to kW in the field by multiplying by ¾. Well, actually, the perfect conversion factor is not 0.75 but rather 0.745699872. However, the fact that people often use ¾ as a "shop math" conversion factor is still a fact to be duly reported in an encyclopedia. — ¾-10 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And I would completely agree. My point was not so much in the presentation but more so in what was presented, and that the exact formulation is (IMHO) required, whereas the approximation is optional (but certainly appreciated). The notes about presentation were more about what I've found to be customary when presenting inline equations with approximations. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is a common method to use it this way or that way, we need more than one source that points out the significance of using method a instead of b. Otherwise let's stick to simple mathematics. And as to inline versus math formulas, why should we use two different sets in the article? It should be presented in a consistent manner, i.e. we either use inline formulas for both calculations, preferably without the nasty indention, or we use math output for both SFM and spindle speed. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused everyone when I said inline -- I didn't mean inline as inline with the text as it's is normally used -- I meant an inline eqution as opposed to a multiple line equation -- in this case, the equation containing both an equals sign and an approximation sign. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat dynamic IP and a few SPA's are going to great lengths to make sure singer Nonnie Berard gets listed somewhere in Wikipedia. The article on her has been speedied twice before being brought to AfD, where the result was a snow delete despite us having to use the ((not a ballot)) template, and the article has been G4-deleted several times after that under countless titles. I have noticed yesterday that Berard had been included in the list of notable people of Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, so I removed the entry. Earlier today, my removal was reverted by 174.69.222.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose only other edits (with the exception of this one) are all related to Nonnie Berard.

When told that this singer needs to be covered by reliable sources to be listed in Wikipedia, one of her "fans" threatened to start a petition. The argument fell flat, of course, but it shows that we're dealing with someone who will stop at nothing.

There are three other lists where her name has been added, but I simply added a fact tag to two of them, given that some redlinks remain in them. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is attracting some difficult edits, and some 3RR reports based on content disputes where both reporter and subject have been treading close to 3RR. Rather than blocking all over, some eyes on the content disputes revolving around the subject would be appreciated. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently, there are to versions being disputed:

• In 2010, Professor Christopher Parker conducted a multi-state survey at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. He concluded that: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed.[58] The survey states that "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful [...] Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party.[59] James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal argued that Parker was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions. He opined, "it's possible that agreement with a statement like 'Blacks should do the same without special favors' reflects a resentful spirit, but it could also reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else."[60]

Which is my proposal, and:

• In 2010, Professor Christopher Parker conducted a multi-state survey at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. He concluded that: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed, even with methods designed to eliminate the effects of any ideology (such as conservatism).[61] The study's director noted that "if support for the Tea Party is truly a proxy for conservatism, the relationship between racial resentment and support for the Tea Party should evaporate once we control for conservatism. Otherwise, there's something else going on with support for the Tea Party....[but] even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment."[62] The study gauged resentment by presenting various questions on racial perception and found, for example that 35% of respondents who were Tea Party supporters agreed that "Blacks are hardworking."[63] James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal argued that Parker was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions. He opined, "it's possible that agreement with a statement like 'Blacks should do the same without special favors' reflects a resentful spirit, but it could also reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else."[64]

Which is currently up because I stopped after making my 3rd revert. I would appreciate it if anyone interested would compare the two, and opine. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: It might be best to disregard the "2nd version" of proposed text listed above.

The first version is being supported by ThinkEnemies, and contains selective quoting of a primary source which is both unnecessary and misleading; also, ThinkEnemies has declined to meet the burden of proof for his edits of this sort. Even despite the availability of perfectly legitimate secondary sources, he has continued to do a lot of handwaving about different proposed versions which seems to indicate little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (with a smattering of WP:OR). The second version of the text listed above by ThinkEnemies is merely a correction of the WP:SYN found in the first version. I was the editor and actually do not prefer the second version listed by ThinkEnemies above, as I think it spends a wee bit too much weight on the matter. I've provided a version, backed up with snippets from an RS [65]. It might help for me to copy what I posted on the talk page:

We have a useful secondary source [66] which has the following pertinent factoids:

• "Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology."
• a quote saying, "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

And, TE indicates above that another quote available is:

• "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment...."

I think a reasonable restatement of the above assertions might look something like:

In 2010, the study director of a multi-state survey conducted at the University of Washington concluded that, "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed, even with methods designed to eliminate the effects of ideology (such as conservatism).

This is actually a version which seems preferable to me, in regards to weight, accuracy, etc. If there are two contenders, then I would propose this one, instead of the second one listed above. BigK HeX (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You posted the "second version listed by ThinkEnemies". Are you saying you posted it with your 4th revert during an content dispute to make a WP:POINT? Also, it is fraught with errors and synthesis, unlike your "preferable" version which only has minor MOS and major POV issues. †TE†Talk 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations of bad faith are petty and unnecessary. I don't need you trying to psychoanalyze my intentions and creating your ridiculous strawmen. The reason I edited the content is pretty simple (and pretty obvious, since I posted it in the edit comment). I edited the content to the version you listed above because it corrected your horribly inaccurate WP:SYN version.

There is no "POV problem" with the version I referred to as being "preferred." You've had absolutely ZERO dispute that the edit conscientiously reflects the secondary source, and I'm more than willing to meet the burden of proof for my preferred edit, as made obvious by my efforts to post the snippets above --- quite unlike your blatant refusal to meet the burden of proof.

The blatant WP:OR which has been repeatedly used by various editors involved with this article to distort and degrade text that accurately represents the reliable secondary sources is asanine.

In any case, instead of repeatedly frustrating edits which legitimately represent an WP:RS, why don't you point out exactly how there's a problem with text that is nearly a cut-and-paste of a reliable source? BigK HeX (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your "asinine" grandstanding. All one has to do is navigate through the talk page and edit summaries. Your personal opinions and WP:OR do not apply here. Further more, your synthesis in retaliation to my NPOV edits make you look a bit, petty. Please don't disrupt just to prove your WP:POINT. Thank you. †TE†Talk 06:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T REFACTOR COMMENTS AFTER THEY'VE BEEN RESPONDED TO [67]. Some editors here don't appreciate it. Thank you. †TE†Talk 07:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, your "preferable" version is in my actual version at the top of this section, and in the article (see sentences 1, 2, 3). Should that be the end of it, Emperor? Do you just not like anything after your "preferred" representation, ignoring any and all wiki policies that don't suit you? †TE†Talk 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for not tripping over myself to applaud you for combining my preferred version with a bunch of misleading WP:SYN -- a WP:SYN resulting from your selective quotation of a primary source, which is why WP:RS recommends sticking to secondary sources. But if, in this world, editors don't have to justify their edits when contested, and attempts to "satisfy everyone" by creating a mishmash of proposed text from various editors are more important than proper use of sources to create verifiable text, then the fact that my preferred text is "included" in your mishmash is certainly worthy of congratulations! BigK HeX (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary problem with this section is the attempt to portray this study as more than it is. The author of the study polled a sample of white people in seven states (mostly 2008 presidential battleground states + California) and asked proxy question to judge possible racial attitudes. He seperated the population in to Strong and Somewhat supportive of the Tea Party Movement, and Strong and Somewhat not supportive of the Tea Party Movement. Those that had no opinion or did not know about the Tea Party Movement were not included within the analysis of racial attitudes. The biggest areas of conflict are the attempts to expand out the results as if they represent All Tea Party Movement supporters against everyone else, and make a statistical statement which is not made within either any of the sources. Arzel (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Disregard the above WP:OR which continues even despite being cleared up by consensus at the OR noticeboard. Arzel's repeated suggestion that the study has no statistical comparisons involving people who "had no opinion or did not know about the Tea Party Movement" and that they "were not included within the analysis of racial attitudes" plainly contradicts reliable secondary sources, and pretty clear statistics from the primary source. A secondary source CLEARLY states

On each [survey question], Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.

And then the primary source clearly has statistics full of measures including even "Middle of the Road" survey respondents who are not the ones classified by the study as "Tea Party supporters" or "non Tea Party supporters". IMO, the type of WP:OR on display here directly above has been one of the largest impediments to progress on this article, especially when pushed as tendentiously as the above has. BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been in a dispute with another editor over some information he wants to add to Mike Tyson for a while now. I attempted to get consensus on the article talkpage, but only one other person chimed in. Could a couple of other people check out the edit and see if it's good, or if I'm correct to want to keep it out as written? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gyaneshwari Express train derailment has an external link to dead people. Is that inappropiate? If it is, then remove it. --Kslotte (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia censoring the government of India? Not what I would have expected! Wnt (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is a WP:SPAMHOLE. Can it be saved? (Shutdown time is approaching.) MER-C 13:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPAMHOLE is an essay, and an ill-considered one at that. It seems no more inappropriate to compile a list of computer applications that have been made for a particular purpose than to compile a list of Abyssinian deities. You will know when the article strays from the encyclopedic if an editor starts removing products because they are "no longer available", as a good encyclopedia covers history, and the price list could become problematic if it leads to a similar urge to "update". I don't see any discussion on the article talk page (excepting a robot from 2008), so a content noticeboard discussion seems premature. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On a matter that I am not certain of to begin with (I only edit a little in these types of articles), I thought I would come here and ask about any relevant content policy. The answers hopefully will guide me on future editing situations at least ... The core issue is over my adding a properly sourced but incomplete episode template (the missing information, the episode title, is not yet available from any citable source). The other editor has stated "We never added untitled episode templates before this, so just wait until the title is revealed." (emphasis is mine)

• Is there any documentation or consensus to support this practice (or the contrary)?
• Is there any reason not to add an untitled episode template if all other data is WP:V and WP:RS?

Also, as I mentioned on the user's talk page and the article's talk page, this is an unusual situation where the last episode was bumped from #63 to #64 unexpectedly: "The fact that there is nothing more on the actual title of the episode does not diminish the official announcement that there is a 64th episode that will air on July 4." I know Wikiepdia is not news but I think it is a dis-service to readers of the article to omit known facts, ie: to know that verifiable new information is available and yet not present it when it is citable. I welcome your opinions and advice. PS: One more thing... I have seen many "Lists" like this where the template has Title-listed-and-Date-TBA ... why is that OK but Date-listed-and-Title-TBA is not? 66.102.199.223 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am currently trying, as I see it, to remove a POV statement in the intro to the article on the Six Day War; namely the unqualified assertion that "Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt". Numerous notable academics, including Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, John Quigley and Roger Fisher argue that the attack was NOT preemptive (ie Israel did not strike because it believed an attack by Egypt was imminent). Widely-quoted statements by Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin also clearly support this view. As such, though it may be argued that the "preemptive" view is more widely held than the "non preemptive" view, the latter cannot be described as "fringe". Nor can it be right, in my opinion, for Wikipedia to take sides on this highly-contentious issue and present opinion as fact.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Wikipedia should state the attack was not preemptive, merely that we should qualify the statement (eg "Israel said its attack was preemptive")

There is a detailed discussion about these points on the Six Day War Talk Page, however we seem to be getting nowhere. I would be very grateful if other editors would take a look. Phersu (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to either say which sources describe the attack as pre-emptive, or don't describe it as such - whichever provides a more neutral and representative summary of the available sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Males had a median income of $2,928,918 versus $71,518 for females. The per capita income for the city was $1,015,589. About 4.0% of families and 2.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.1% of those under age 18 and 1.9% of those age 65 or over."

I suspect the above numbers are the result of typo or vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.192.48 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was vandalism, made more difficult to fix by well-intentioned editors who haven't read up on Wikipedia:UNDO. Should be fixed now. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on whether individual Bible verses (or, more broadly, any identifiable subset of a religious text not subject to copyright) should have individual articles, and if so, how those should be done, was started as an outgrowth of an ANI thread. So far, there are a few participants discussing things there, but more would be welcome--not sure this needs to be a full-blown RfC, but more interested editors never hurts. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This thread is discussed by editors in an external forum [68]

What are editors' views on the illustrations in this article? I put them into a collapsible gallery yesterday [69], and have been reverted by User:Max Rebo Band [70]. We are not censored, and the images arguably have educational value, but on the other hand, they're also very "in your face". Does the present way of handling them reflect community consensus and best encyclopedic practices? (Also see hogtie bondage for another article with explicit illustrations of bondage practices.)

I would suggest that we have three realistic options here:

1. Leave the images as they are.
2. Put them into a collapsible gallery.
3. Remove the images from the article, create a Commons category for cock and ball torture, and add a link to Commons at the bottom. --JN466 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave as are. Here are the ways you can reach "Cock and ball torture" on the encyclopedia - [71]. Which avenue of reaching this article makes less-than-encyclopedic treatment of images appropriate? Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for completeness' sake, you also reach the page if you're looking for the German grindcore band of that name, whose article is at Cock and Ball Torture. ;) --JN466 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My vote is on leaving them as they are (We are not censored after all), but i would suggest creating a disambiguation page and moving both pages to a different name. Normally only vandalism or directed searched should lead a user to this page which means that people should expect what to see graphical content. But in this case it is incredibly easy to end up on the wrong page instead. The capital letters are easy enough to miss. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a disambiguation page at "Cock and ball torture" if there are two uses for the term. Someone who isn't me should make that page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose we make Cock and ball torture a disambiguation page then, leading to Cock and Ball Torture (band) and Cock and ball torture (sexual practice). --JN466 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Pages moved to the suggested names and Cock and ball torture has been created as a disambiguation page. By the way - really a lovely page name to include in my page creation log, sheez. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. About your page creation log, view it as an exercise of your curatorial duties. :) It doesn't help the quality of our coverage in these topic areas if those who find them unpalatable avoid working on them. They benefit from wider input, and we've seen the potential for controversy they have when we get them wrong, or are treating them in a juvenile way. --JN466 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side-note i would point out that consensus is against collapsible galleries. The subject has been extensively discussed (and rejected) on Depictions of Muhammad, where multiple proposals have been made to collapse the images on the page by default as they may be offensive. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent consensus has supported a collapsed gallery at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, for example. (Update: It was collapsed for several weeks, but is currently being reviewed again.) --JN466 13:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think just how people get to a page is always a little unpredictable. If you start entering cock and bull story in our search field for example, cock and ball torture pops up as the first item in the dropdown. If your curiosity is momentarily piqued, or your mouse finger slips, bang you have an electrocuted penis on your screen. --JN466 14:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The status quo seems fine to me. William Avery (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. With regard to collapsable galleries in general across Wikipedia, a consensus reached on one article does not necessarily have bearing on another; circumstances can vary. For instance, one can expect to see depictions of Muhammad when they type Depictions of Muhammad. But this is not necessarily the case for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also find arguments that putting content behind a [show] button amounts to censorship to be less-than-compelling. I think the community is able to properly and sufficiently address the issue of a [show] button over there, on Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment on the specific case, since I have no desire to look at the images, but about the general principle, I fully agree with Greg L. Incidentally, since Hipocrite above brought up the issue of how people can reach the article - looking through the list of links, I would think that at least Teal (color) is a path from which people are not going to be adequately prepared for a fully illustrated article. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is no "consensus" at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. What there are are tricks. For example, summarizing a list of 6 to 3 contributors to a talk section and calling it a "vote" after the fact, posting hidden instructions over the gallery section making a special subpage sound authoritative, saying that because the gallery was hidden that that's the "stable status quo" and clear consensus is needed to change it, and so on. Plus, the majority of people on the article want to replace the gallery of non-notable, user-submitted images with fair use images (which would definitely be displayed without "hide" tags), or else to delete the gallery altogether and rely on the Commons category. In short, this article is not a precedent, and I encourage participants at this other page to consider the policy and issues afresh. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What you say, Wnt, is not true. There is a clear consensus; it’s just that “you don’t like it.” Your harping on this issue has strayed well into WP:Tendentious editing. You’ve now been warned on your talk page about your recent editing against consensus. There is a clear majority of other editors who are saying they disagree with you and would immediately delete that File:Mohammed in europe.jpg image from the gallery if you added it. The rest of us found that image to be utterly outrageous. Moreover, as you can see, it has finally been deleted. Your “neener-neener” response to not getting your way (∆ here), to allege that “there is no consensus” was disruptive. Please drop this now. Greg L (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not a precedent and one article doesn't necessarily have bearing on another, why are we drifting into a personal argument about a separate case here? The principle is that illustrating an article, and how to display those illustrations, are matters of editorial judgment, and that will of course vary from case to case. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that WMF's chair weighs in on a page replete with obscene S&M photographs only to take a firm stand in favor of saying, "it varies from case to case." Do you care to say whether you will continue to recommend Wikipedia for use by school children, Mr. Snow? --Larry Sanger (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, schools and libraries are forced to pay for professional third-party Internet censorship under the Children's Internet Protection Act. There's no way for volunteer editors working on an article about sadomasochistic practices to "clean it up" to parents' standards, and the parents are already forced to pay for a system that one expects must deny it to the children in its entirety. There is no disgrace for Mr. Snow to avoid committing Wikimedia to doing something useless, which would not satisfy offendible parents. If people are concerned with making a "clean" version of this article, they're free to copy all of the content and edit it to meet their own standards. Wnt (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asking Michael Snow. I know about CIPA, and that's irrelevant: my question is very straightforward. Does WMF still stand behind Wikipedia as a reference/education site that is appropriate for school children? How many people have said in recent months that "Wikipedia is not edited for school children"? If that's the case, shouldn't the WMF say so and post warnings? --Larry Sanger (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Warnings like this: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer? cmadler (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we don't do disclaimers. But sometimes it seems as though editors (mis-)interpret WP:NOTCENSORED to mean that we will never do anything that might lessen the offence caused to others. If you read WP:NOTCENSORED, this is not actually what it says; it is not a reasonable position to take in real life, and in my view, it is not a reasonable position to take in Wikipedia either. --JN466 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) ) (Actually, Cmadler, I misunderstood your post. I see now you were pointing out to Larry that Wikipedia already has various disclaimers in place. --JN466 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

• Getting back to the topic of this discussion, there seems to be some support for the notion that editors at a particular article are free to exercise their editorial judgment as to whether an image should be displayed openly, or in a collapsed state. A collapsed gallery has the advantage that everyone who wants to see an image can do so, and no one who doesn't want to is forced to. To my mind, that is a good thing. --JN466 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC

I guess it's time to change this "policy." More to the point, random Wikipedians like yourselves cannot speak on behalf of the WMF. Part of my question is whether the WMF will continue officially to support use of a pornography-laden resource in public schools. They should not, as long as there is no effective way to filter out the porn. I certainly won't let my own son use it under these conditions. --Larry Sanger (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are open to constant editing by anyone. So "vandals" can add sexually explicit images and other disturbing material. A Wikimedia policy against such images could suppress educational uses, but might actually increase the total amount of sexually explicit material as certain individuals react to the policy, especially if they have some well-written programs to assist them. If we are not willing to sacrifice the open access for all editors - and with it, much of Wikipedia's success - then we must abandon the idea of censoring the content to match a certain special interest group's preferences. However, there is no reason to think that mandatory "filtering" companies can't block access to most of the so-called pornography in classrooms, using their proprietary technologies to target words and automatically identify problematic images. There is also no reason why an independent Wiki (Citizendium for example) couldn't deliberately go through Wikipedia articles and copy en masse all those found to be non-pornographic, trusting a more tightly policed user pool to maintain them by the standards they desire. That is, no reason provided that the content has actually been created on a vibrant, actively functioning Wiki in the first place. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) I may not be Michael Snow, but I will answer your question and pose a couple of additional questions of my own:

• Yes. I do think that Wikipedia is appropriate as a reference and education site for school children. I encourage my 11-year-old son to use it on a regular basis.
• Do you think your son is likely to search Wikipedia for articles on cock and ball torture? If so, why?
• Let us suppose for a moment that Wikipedia did not have an article on cock and ball torture, and that your son was -- for whatever reason -- searching the Internet for it. Consider some of the pages he would be likely to find. Would you prefer that he read about cock and ball torture on those sites, or this one?

Lastly: respectfully, I do not think the content noticeboard is the best place to grind your personal axe with the WMF. I think we are best off keeping to the topic at hand. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to say a few things and, assuming Mr. Snow doesn't want to make his views known here, I'll leave you all alone.

Most people, period, do not know just how much porn and child-unfriendly material there is on Wikipedia. I did not realize just how many people were ignorant of this until quite recently. When most parents I have spoken to are apprised of this fact, they typically react with shock and outrage. This has also been--maybe more so--the reaction of educators I have conversed with. For the last few years I thought that the world had simply accepted that a wild and woolly site like WP would have porn. I thought they knew and had resigned themselves to it. But I assure you that that is not the case. The fact is that most people aren't aware of it at all, and their reaction is: I am not going to let my child anywhere near it.

I acknowledge that there are parents, like Tim Pierce, who have no problem encouraging their children to use sites where they know there is plenty of ridiculously inappropriate content for children. I am not entirely sure how they justify this to themselves, and right now that isn't my concern. But I think the vast majority of parents would have a problem with it and with WP's offerings in particular.

It is grossly irresponsible, therefore, for a civic-minded organization to endorse WP as an appropriate educational resource for children. After all, you say so yourselves: it is not edited for children, and there is a lot of adult-only content here. Anyone who maintains otherwise is either totally uninformed about the attitudes of most parents and educators, or trying to impose extremely permissive standards which most parents would disagree with.

It is time for you as a community and for the WMF as a non-profit civic organization to get realistic about this problem. The WMF may do this by not sweeping the problem under the rug, pretending that it does not exist. Acting independently of the WP community, as it does, it could acknowledge the problem publicly, which is very different and more significant than if Wikipedians declared a consensus that a disclaimer is warranted. But instead, Jay Walsh, absurdly, implied to the press that there is no pornography on WP. He actually said something more mealy-mouthed than that, but that was the clear implication. He and the WMF should not only acknowledge the reality of the situation, maturely and honestly, they should have the guts and decency to acknowledge that the adult content offerings of WP make it unsuitable, by most standards, for consumption by school children. --Larry Sanger (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We have always stated that Wikipedia is not censored. This means that we include images and other content that might be offensive to certain groups of people for various reasons we may or may not share in our own culture. Yet all these claims rely on personal judgments and therefor downright removal of such content would be a negative step as well, as we would deprive non offended people from accessing encyclopedic information due to the judgments of a single group. To put it this way: "Who can, and has the right, to judge what should be deemed offensive for all of humanity?". Any person that would stand up and claim that his opinion is the absolute truth supported by everyone is in my eyes nothing more then a deluded fool who cannot understand that the universe does not revolve around him\her or his\her opinions. Hence, my own opinion may be wrong, the minority or considered foolish at any one time. And therefor i never try to extend it past being my own opinion. Let people judge on their own what they deem offensive, and don't make a judgment for them.

That being said we should naturally be careful with images that may be considered offensive; They should not be placed for the mere reason to offend - instead they should only be included in article's that are clearly related to the image in question. For one, the images on our discussed article (Cock and ball torture) should not be placed in any other article without clear reasoning, including the related penis page since they are not inherently related to this subject. However, on the current article the images are relevant and encyclopedic, and on an article with such a name man should expect graphical content that may not be suited for minors. I would equally point out that article's have a definite border to image content. Nudity does not show sexual intercourse for example. And the penis page will not show the aforementioned images. In other words pages deliver graphical content related to their own subject - and man should expect that.

Let me assure you though that i did not particularly enjoy moving the above page, as i had to view these images several times in order to get it done. However i made a conscious choice to view and move the page, so it were my own actions that led me to view these images. Yet i am capable of separating my personal judgment on the topic's images from my ability to view this issue objectively. My objective sense tells me that these images are warranted on this particular article, as they illustrate the topic in a manner that words alone could not. As said before: Some people may consider them offensive or distasteful, but they are located on an article that explicitly deals with the topic.

And to response to your own reasoning regarding your son: These images are normally not found unless he explicitly searches for them, which would indicate that you presume he will search Wikipedia for such content. I would equally point out that a Google search would find similar material elsewhere - and while i do not feel like doing a search myself i can virtually guarantee you that the content he will find that way is a lot worse then what we host here on Wikipedia. Thus: Are you denying your son Internet and search engine access categorically? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Excirial. But I'll add an analogy about the difference between building up the content and selecting a palatable subset. People go to one building to buy their meat, but they go to another to make meat. In one building the cows are hacked open, all the vomity and fecesy stuff is washed out of stomachs and intestines, and fresh tripes are packed for transit. In another building people buy smooth little packages of hot dogs. Our goal here is to make meat, using every part of the cow. In agriculture, industry, construction - almost anything where labor is needed - there is always a place where work can be done freely. Wikipedia is such a place. There is a role for another kind of site to work at selecting and presenting this meat to make it most appealing, if someone will do this. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not very well put, actually. Excirial is missing the point. Yes, of course, I know that WP says it is not censored. What the WMF and the WP community go on to do is to say that WP is a good source for the education of school children. You don't connect the dots, and you should. You're saying that a source that has on the order of tens of thousands of inappropriate images, like those in Cock and ball torture, should be used by school children. Well, I and most parents and teachers would disagree, strongly, with you.

Boys, of course, love to search for naughty things. You mean you didn't? (Of course, when I was a boy, it had to be done in a dumpster, not with a computer keyboard.) The fact that he can find it elsewhere means exactly nothing about what we should do with Wikipedia. As filters for kids improve, the question becomes increasingly pressing whether they should exclude Wikipedia. My son, of course, will be using a filter, and I'll be helping him directly with the unfiltered stuff. That's how a lot of parents handle things, you know.

It is wrong for Wikipedia, both the community and the foundation, to portray its avowedly "uncensored"--read, absurdly child-unfriendly--resource as appropriate for children. This will remain the case until some sort of reliable filtering mechanism is available. At present, none is. --Larry Sanger (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

85% of people on this site don't have children. They simply do not understand what you are talking about. (And I say that as someone who allows his teenage son unfiltered access to the Internet—but I still think it is important to the project to address this issue, as I am well aware that a lot of parents take a different view, and that teachers simply do not have a choice in the matter). --JN466 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

85% sounds about right. You are correct that they don't understand what I'm talking about. That's why I'm trying to explain it to them. Anyway, if you will all do me the favor of not saying things that are so daft and damning to me as to require a reply, I will, as I said, leave you alone (for now!). --Larry Sanger (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I dare say even the earliest Netnanny/Safesurf applications could have blocked en.wikipedia.org as a domain. I would say that "As filters for kids improve", the question becomes whether they can block out individual images and sentences while leaving most of an article accessible. Certainly they can be expected to recognize which Wikipedia page is being requested, and to take a dim view of "cock and ball" anything. Wnt (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If folks want to know the WMF views on an issue then this is the wrong place to get it. Noticeboards are here to get input from other WP editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. By bringing the issue here, you can find the opinions of individual Wikipedians. The WMF has little or no sway here. The proper site to continue your beef with the WMF is either on one of the mailing lists or somewhere that way. Thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Sanger, if I felt the confidence to start a major, well-known Internet web site, I should expect to make a substantial amount of money by copying Wikipedia, getting volunteer parents from individual nations to screen the articles to their personal standards, and supporting the site with advertisements for "child-friendly" products. Why do you trouble Wikipedia when you could be making money processing our content? Wnt (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has forked Wikipedia once already, and decided to de-fork, I'll just tell you that you don't really know what you're talking about, and I don't have time to explain why. Also, all of my projects so far have been non-profit. --Larry Sanger (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I laud Mr Sanger's efforts and doing what he felt was the right thing in drawing attn to a ugly part of our encyclopedia. Not everything on here is encyclopedic and some image removal was definitely nec. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Larry: you said a short while ago that you would "say a few more things and then leave you all alone." Since then you have found a need to make half a dozen more comments. I will say again that this is not an appropriate place to have a general conversation about sexually explicit material on Wikipedia. Please keep to the topic at hand and avoid disruptive editing. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are several editors engaged in that conversation. Singling out one of them hardly strikes me as fair. --JN466 17:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely time to move this conversation, but where should we put it? User:Larry Sanger? Village pump? This is a conversation that's more than a month overdue, so let's put it in the right place and continue. Wnt (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You could start an RfC, but I have a feeling it will just be a waste of time -- people waving WP:NOTCENSORED flags and insisting it means that the grossest and most extreme image -- whether of gangrene or cock and ball torture – is invariably the most "encyclopedic", as though an encyclopedia were a picture book and not something you read. WP:NOTCENSORED has become our lowest common denominator – it makes it well-nigh impossible to argue for any exercise of editorial judgment or restraint at all. One editor shouting "not censored" is often enough for any common sense to fly out of the window. See Talk:Gangrene#Pictures..., Talk:Gangrene#Suggestion_for_pictures. --JN466 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Common sense says an article about gangrene should show gangrene. It's in the public interest to show the audience that such horrors still happen. I was in a prior discussion about this regarding gonorrhea (on Commons, oddly enough); in that case I believe just such pictures are often shown to young children by federal mandate in the U.S. as sex education. We want to create a pool of knowledge here - not a kiddie pool, but a pool deep enough to dive in and deep enough to drown in. But case for case, our pool is not as dangerous as most they'll swim in this summer. (I still support moving this discussion ASAP - an RFC is as good a place as any)

After writing the above I noticed that Wikipedia's gonorrhea had been stripped of symptom images, despite much call for them in the talk page. I have added back one (so far), File:Gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum.jpg, which is truly horrifying in a way that no consensual S&M photo will ever reach. But it comes with the caption that 28% of women infected with gonorrhea will inflict this upon their children, unless they get treatment with a simple antibiotic ointment. Telling this information to people interested about gonorrhea - and forcing the lesson home with a gut-wrenching photograph - is common sense. Wnt (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you start an RfC, let me know. While I have no problem whatsoever with the picture of the newborn, or your rationale for displaying it, I am very wary of the concept of forcing things on our readers "for their own good". Even if the intentions of such actions were well informed and purely based on wanting to serve mankind – rather than, say, a juvenile relish for provocation – there is still room for judgment calls to be made. If you compare our encyclopedia to any professionally produced general reference work out there, our judgments are markedly different. While that may sometimes be a good and trendsetting thing, it is by no means clear whether it reflects our contributor demographics, or the actual needs of our readership. And of course it also has an impact on what sort of readership you attract – or alienate. You may be aware that a large number of academics out there view this project with derision. If I saw healthcare professionals providing measured, data-based arguments for the "in your face" display of gangrene pictures on the gangrene talk page, I would keep my mouth shut and trust their expertise. The fact is, over the course of five years of talk page discussions at that article, I can't see a single discussion that would seem to have involved two people with relevant medical training. Does that not worry you? --JN466 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466, have you ever opened an academic medicine book? You'll find images like those above by the dozens. That said, your request is ridicolous. We don't need medically trained people to know that a gangrene image in the gangrene article makes perfect sense. In my opinion it's not matter of forcing stuff on people, it is simply a matter of the kind: you want to know what it is, well, here it is an image of what it is. Simple as that. And yes, WP:NOTCENSORED must make impossible to argue for any "exercise of editorial restraint", if this restraint means removing informative content. --Cyclopia^talk 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For a reference work directed at the general public, rather than medical specialists, at least two of the images are too extreme, and needlessly so. A good third of the article talk page is filled with complaints from readers about the images. In industry, people discovered a good while ago that it is not a good idea to think you know better than the consumers of your product what your consumers need. And anyway, what is the problem if the images are in a collapsed gallery, so users can mentally prepare for the sight before they click "Show"? As it is, the images are distracting the reader's attention from the text. Do you think showing the reader an image of a rotting leg is all we need to do to fulfil our educational mission as it pertains to this medical condition? --JN466 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at how responsible medical experts (I am tempted to write mature, knowledgeable adults) are presenting information on gangrene to the general public: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. These are all from the first page of google results for gangrene. Our article is the only one from that google results page that looks like an exhibit from a cabinet of horrors. Clearly, what makes "perfect sense" to you doesn't make "perfect sense" to the qualified individuals who put together these sites. On what grounds should I expect your editorial judgment to be superior to theirs? --JN466 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll counter with [78], [79], [80], [81]. The sites you cite are for the "general public", yes... in the condescending sense where sites "for patients" talk down to the reader. Our site is for the general public in the true sense, whereby I mean patients, physicians, medical students, scientists, thrill-seekers, dilettantes, and all. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Even these pictures, and I assume you picked the most explicit ones you could find, are far more restrained than ours. Please be under no illusion that scientists, physicians and medical students will ever use our site as an authoritative reference source, or that we would even encourage them to do so, given that they would be playing dice with people's lives. Our medical disclaimer makes that quite clear:

Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms. The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor. None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

That leaves, as you say, "patients, thrill seekers and dilettantes." When it comes to how we should write for (potential) patients, we are supposed to follow the models used in reliable sources. I would say that sources aimed at "thrill seekers and dilettantes" are not an appropriate model to follow for an encyclopedia. Last time I looked, our brief was about education, not thrill-seeking or dilettantism. Do you actually believe in your heart what you are saying here, or are you just keeping your end up and playing devil's advocate? --JN466 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources like specialist academic books or medicine journals use explicit pictures without problems. For a good reason: they show how something actually looks like, in addition to simply describing it. So if we are going to follow RS, well, we are doing that by presenting the images. The fact that other general purpose sites like the NHS introduction page or the BBC introduction page do not show the images only means that such sites do a disservice to the reader, by not showing informative images. I am a scientist, and I feel (I am tempted to say "know") that any resource that withholds scientifically relevant images only because of "taste" reasons makes a mistake. Reality is reality: you may not like it, but if you want to know what things are, you have to see them, not only read about them. Do you think showing the reader an image of a rotting leg is all we need to do to fulfil our educational mission as it pertains to this medical condition? - No, but it is one of the things we need to do to fulfill our educational mission as it pertains to this medical condition. And this goes for every subject. --Cyclopia^talk 16:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Specialist academic books or medicine journals" are directed at medical professionals, and they are definitely not our audience here, per our Disclaimer. Beyond that, you are basically saying that you consider your judgment to be superior to that of people who have real-world qualifications in writing medical reference texts for our audience. Perhaps that is something you might want to think about. --JN466 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First, you don't know who is your audience and who is not. I am a scientist in a quite reputable institution. You can believe it or not, but all my collegues regularly look on WP information for work purposes (including professors) -we know of course its reliability may be what it is, but it is often a useful starting point.

That said, if we can give our audience some of the information that usually only academics have access to, why not? All the better for everyone. Who wrote such references may have had all the reasons in this world to avoid images -this doesn't make it a better choice. The sites you cite don't have an image on diabetes or pneumonia either, so probably they simply avoid images altogether for some reason. Would you argue removing diagrams on our pneumonia article because the NHS chooses not to have images on the same subject?

What we should emphatically not do is treating our users like children, and this includes true children as well -there's nothing more frustrating for a clever kid to be treated with contempt because "oh, she/he's just a kid, she's not ready to see this picture". How do you know? Let the kid see it and, if he/she doesn't like it, well, ok. But teach them how does the world look like, in good and bad. --Cyclopia^talk 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that our articles should generally come with the same kinds of illustrations that reliable sources apply when covering the same topic. If our approach to article illustration ends up systematically different from that used in reliable sources, we are engaging in a form of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I think we have reached the point where there is such a systematic difference. Have a look at the goatse deletion discussion: many editors quoted NOTCENSORED, but I couldn't find anyone asking if reliable sources display the goatse picture when they write about goatse. It seems nobody thought that had a bearing on the matter. We have a strict requirement for our texts that WP:DUE weight is established by reliable sources, and I think it is time to make clear that this applies to the choice of illustrations, too. If someone wants to include extreme or offensive images, they should be required to provide evidence that reliable sources in the field use the same kinds of images. --JN466 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Nobody thought that had a bearing on the matter because it has not: to think otherwise is a fallacy. RS are used by us to source information, but in no way we have to copy the way they format information and/or their editorial decisions on information. WP is a project that gives structure to sourced information, not a mere mirror of it: decisions on how to structure and present information pertain to us, and us only. There is quite obviously no original research in adding pertinent images to an article (unless the image is OR itself); there is (usually) no UNDUE in adding pertinent images to an article (unless the images show only one aspect of the subject). (Regardless, RS about medical subjects -that is, academic publications- use gruesome images by the dozen, so your argument would pretty much obtain the opposite result than the one you advocate) --Cyclopia^talk 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RS about medical subjects use images some might find gruesome in contexts where they are pertinent, not gratuitously. The paper on the operation linked above is a case in point; if we had an article describing that operation, and the images were available, it would be absolutely correct to show them in Wikipedia. In an article that is a general introduction to gangrene, we should use images of the type reliable sources use to illustrate general articles on gangrene. Adding pictures from the above operation to our short article on gangrene, for example, would be WP:UNDUE and inappropriate, because reliable sources wouldn't use them in that context.

Besides, I would argue that WP:DUE applies to all aspects of article content, including illustrations. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public," and "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." --JN466 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that undue weight applies to choosing illustrations for an article as well as to the words used in it is a novel one. I don't think I disagree, but it is not clear to me how to apply the argument to articles like Gangrene or Cock and ball torture (sexual practice). What viewpoint do you think is getting undue weight here? That gangrene is... bad? That CBT involved penises? I'm not trying to be flip, I just don't think I understand what you're getting at here. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, take that goatse article as an example. As the question of illustration there is a bit more extreme, it is easier to make the point. A lot of Wikipedians advocated showing the image in the article. None as far as I can recall cited a precedent of a computer magazine, newspaper or scholarly article using the image to illustrate their coverage of that shock site. If we find that reliable sources throughout avoid showing the image, instead using text to cover the topic, then I believe we should follow that precedent, as otherwise we depart sharply from the editorial judgment of reliable sources out there. Similarly with the CBT article, or hogtie bondage -- our approach to illustrating it should at least bear some recognisable similarity to how reliable sources approach it, e.g. a scholarly source on sexual behaviour, or a bondage encyclopedia for bondage fans, or anything else that qualifies as an encyclopedic RS on this topic. What shouldn't happen is that readers find our approach to illustration markedly different from that which they would find if they picked up a RS on that specific topic. --JN466 07:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is related to the significance of an aspect of the subject in the context of the whole subject. Now, a gangrene image, no matter how gruesome, does not illustrate an "aspect of the subject". It illustrates the subject itself. It is no different from having an image of a piece of gold in the article about gold: is it undue weight? I fully agree that UNDUE applies to images as well, but I acknowledged that above. It is simply not the case we're discussing here. The images do not put undue weight on a specific aspect of gangrene: they show how it manifests, pure and simple. About the argument that we should copy the way sources present information, I refuse that. Sources are queen when dealing with content. But they do not dictate us how to present content, and if we can do a better job than them, so be it. --Cyclopia^talk 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: RS about medical subjects use images some might find gruesome in contexts where they are pertinent, not gratuitously. : Sure. And now explain me how an image of gangrene on the gangrene article is not pertinent. If some source decides not to show these images, this doesn't mean they are not pertinent. --Cyclopia^talk 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, images and what they depict are article content. Again, to give you an example, if the article on Prince Harry only showed pictures of him in nazi costume (you may remember that a picture like that, from a fancy dress party, made the rounds of the media a while ago), then that would be an obvious case of undue weight. As for the gangrene article, I argued on the article's talk page that our images of gangrene were simply a lot more "far out" than those used by reliable sources addressing the same topic. I was unable to find a single reliable source that illustrated a general article on gangrene with pictures of such extreme cases as we used. And my feeling is that in this case readers have consistently complained about the images precisely because they are so far out. Yes, looking at reliable sources on gangrene might lead you to expect to see some gangrenous toes when you go to the gangrene article, but not an image like Image:Dry_Gangrene_with_dead_toes_and_visible_bone.JPG or Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG, prominently displayed. In my view, we may have been giving undue prominence to extreme cases of gangrene in our choice of illustration. I am okay-ish with the revised image placement in the gangrene article now, but the principle still stands. --JN466 07:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that all of this is also a question of the relationship between text and illustration. In a comprehensive 8000-word article featuring 15 pictures, 2 pictures of extreme cases might not go amiss, but if 2 out of 3 images depict such cases, it's different. --JN466 07:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That said, I must personally say that I see no problem at all in using a collapsible table as a compromise. I personally think it's a quite ridicolous gimmick (do you imagine someone not clicking on it, after all?), but if other people feel it is helpful, hey, it's OK. --Cyclopia^talk 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Making a conscious choice about viewing such an image, and being able to absorb the text first without the distraction, makes a difference. And I would just want to reiterate that catering to "thrill-seekers" is definitely not the Foundation's mission, nor is it what its donors believe they are funding. --JN466 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a collapsible table seems like a reasonable compromise. It is important to me that material not be rejected from Wikipedia solely because some editors or even sponsors consider it "inappropriate," but I don't think that a show/hide button compromises the encyclopedia's mission in any way. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not believe that the images that Wnt (t c) cited are "far more restrained than ours." On the contrary, I think that the images on http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1677-55382007000400008&script=sci_arttext ("Patient presenting Fournier's gangrene after debridement.... Note the bilateral exposure of the testes") are considerably more explicit than anything currently found on our Gangrene article, and most of the other images are in roughly the same class as the images we present. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, with respect, these images are presented in a highly specialised context, illustrating a surgical procedure, rather than in the context of a general introduction to gangrene. I would have no problem using them in Wikipedia, if we had an article on that particular surgical procedure. But do you think if I uploaded them and inserted them in the gangrene article, arguing that Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, I would be exhibiting mature editorial judgment, modelled on the editorial judgment displayed by the editors who edit our reliable sources?

That, to me, is the core of the problem -- we are very strict that our texts should follow WP:DUE weight as established by reliable sources, but when it comes to illustrations of something like goatse, many editors cry "NOTCENSORED" and argue that we should show the image, even though reliable sources do not. --JN466 13:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

JN466, I do not believe that Wikipedia exists only to show the facts you want it to show, for the audience you think should be reading it, and only if they have the attitude you think they should have. The impulse to wonder and experiment is fundamental, primordial, and it is not segregated between morbid curiosity and "respectable" research. The same child who puts the firecracker in the frog's mouth to watch it explode is the adult who examines the effect of disrupting a gene in a knockout mouse; it is the same impulse. The human impulse of compassion is also the same; the person who recoils from a photo of gangrene, or posts it in demonstration of the fecundity of pestilence, may be the same person who calls for increased research or health spending and takes effort to prevent it from happening again.

The underlying Victorian horror you express pertaining to vulgarity is rooted in the failure of modern capitalism to respect human rights: when capital is limited and precious, while human effort is available in unlimited supply, and the positive rights of the human being to life, food, shelter, health care, and employment are as null and void. In such an environment there is this constant fear of being common, therefore replaceable and soon replaced, under the philosophy of social Darwinism. You think that even a community such as ours, with all its eager writers and with such a relatively tiny budget of only $6 million a year, cannot possibly be allowed to survive unless it misrepresents itself as serving only such a purpose as you imagine that unseen masters will demand of it. But in reality we have found that there are many people not willing to give up and accept the brutal war of all against all in the name of governance; there is more pressure to change this world-view now than at any time since Joseph McCarthy defined the American era.

The people who love Wikipedia, who want to see it cover more and more, believe that all people have a right to know all things. There is no certification of caste and class and identity card and occupation; everyone is a physician in some stage of training, however little advanced. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the illustrations of our articles should follow the general model set by reliable sources, or do you think standards for illustrations should be different in Wikipedia than they are in reliable sources, reflecting community standards and preferences rather than those applied by reliable sources? --JN466 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gangrene images now appear to be in a gallery which should be on commons not en.©Geni 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the content noticeboard supposed to end edit wars rather than starting them? The hidden gallery breaks up the link between the wet gangrene section and wet gangrene photo, dry gangrene section and dry gangrene photo. The next step is to banish it to a mere Commons category, and after that, to agitate for the deletion of the images as they're "not in use". How to help build a free encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add that this is addressed in MOS:COLLAPSE: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used to hide article content. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions..." I don't believe that an unfocused discussion like this one overrides an established guideline, even if the article it strayed into was belatedly added to the header. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why Cock and Ball Torture has so many more nude images than almost every other sex based article on wikipedia, not only more, but they're so close that you almost have a solid vertical stream of it, I had to double check my URL to make sure I wasn't at ED. The argument shouldn't be about whether or not wikipedia is censored, it should be more about precedence, so take off your libertarian hats for a second and go look at other sex based articles, compare them to this.

That 3D image, there is no 3D image on pretty much any other sex based article, and is there really such a huge difference between a ring on the balls meant to stop sperm and one meant to strech out the balls that you need to see them both, right next to eachother?

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's also not a porn website. There are many sex based articles without ANY porn images, I know this must be the personal fetish of a lot of you guys, I don't see anything really wrong with it, to each their own, but you don't need to do this, you don't need to fight to try to keep loads of these images on here, I'm not asking for them all to be taken down, simply the ones which aren't needed. 72.208.6.122 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Something seems very odd about that article, but I think that it has more to do with a lack of information. It displays an apparent electrical rig, but it doesn't specify the voltage, power source, type of current... It has pictures of a "ball stretcher" and a "testicle cuff" which look about the same idea, but doesn't give enough information to tell what the relation is between the two of them. I would guess that the Poser photo isn't all that useful, and that one of the two testicle photos could be done without (i.e. referred to a Commons category), but not knowing the subject I could be missing the point of these photos (which should be explained in the article then). In general, I think that the "porn images" on Wikipedia are simply sexual topics that haven't been explained with sufficient encyclopedic detail and style. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Poser image should probably go; I don't see any educational value in that. Are there any objections to taking it out? --JN466 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Poser image deleted. The article does kind of explain what the difference is between the ball stretcher and a testicle cuff, so I have left both the respective images in place. I still think all the images could be shown in a collapsed gallery, but it seems there is presently no consensus for making that change. --JN466 08:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This topic should be moved to its own page.

I would like to assume good faith but it is difficult. Editors coming here are asking in good faith for help on issues of importance to themselves and to the encyclopedia. This page is part of the official dispute resolution processes and questions posted here are supposed to be a means to help prevent edit wars. But that is not what is happening here:

Move this topic to its own page or subpage and lets get back to helping answer preventative questions please. 66.102.205.40 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to put this on a subpage, as it currently looks like there's no consensus for any change and the discussion is, for the most part, over. No one aside from the OP has commented in this thread for 11 days. This was a good discussion, even if no change came out of it. So long as its participants can accept a "no consensus" result, the discussion will end and be archived eventually. Swarm^Talk 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)