THC Science

Archives

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

(Manual archive list)

"Jews and Communism" article

I've never done this before, but I guess there's always a first time: Jimbo, if you're back from vacation, I'd be curious to get your reaction to Jews and Communism. I just became aware of its existence because of an ANI thread. I am deeply disturbed by this article, as it has an all-encompassing title and yet deals only very skimpily with the main intersection between Jews and Communism, which is one of hostility, persecution, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and conflict. Instead the point of the article is a simple-minded "hey, look at all the commie Jews." To my knowledge, there is no article on Gentiles and Communism or Russian Orthodox people and Communism, so I can understand the outrage that some people feel concerning this article. It doesn't help that there is an opening illustration that could have come from the pages of Der Sturmer. [The illustration has been pushed down the page since I wrote this] Anyway, I'm curious how you feel about it, and whether the discomfort some editors feel about this is well-warranted or not. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating the Soviet Union with "Communism" when you characterize "the main intersection between Jews and Communism" as "one of hostility, persecution, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and conflict." Actually, the subject of the relationship between Jewish radicalism and emergence of the communist movement is well documented in the scholarly literature. I urge you to haul this piece to AfD if you think this is not the case. I'm sure there is an article somewhere entitled History of Jews in the Soviet Union or some such, which is an entirely different, also encyclopedic, topic. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You are conflating.." Uh yes I am, you betcha, just as I would "conflate" "Nazism" and "Nazi Germany." "Actually, the subject of the relationship between Jewish radicalism...." Such an article deserves to exist. But this is not it. This one is about "Jews and Communism." Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's this little country called China... Another place called Cuba. And so on... Just saying. You may have a legitimate gripe about the current article title, I'm not saying you don't. But, really, are we going to argue content here? Like I say, this topic is a 100% drop-dead certain GNG pass, in my view, but you are free to differ and challenge the piece. Carrite (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic Germans and the Nazi Party is just as notable, but there's no article about that. Wonder why? USchick (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff does not exist... What's your point? Like I say, take it to AfD, see what happens. "Other stuff does not exist" will not work for you as an argument there though... Carrite (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually been to AfD and then to Deletion Review, "no consensus" on both occasions. I'm kind of disappointment that Jimbo hasn't weighed in on this. I hope he does. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's scary. The main reason I participate at AfD is so that encyclopedic-but-uncomfortable-for-some-people topics like this are never thrown under the bus... Carrite (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, look, here's the thing. I wasn't trying to whip up a discussion here, believe it or not. I've tagged the article for neutrality (my only edit to the article) and it can be discussed there. However, I did react in a strongly negative way to the article, it repelled me in a way I've never experienced before, and I just wanted to appeal way on up to the top man to see how he felt. That's all. If possible, that is, if he'd be so kind. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a neutrality tag is the way to approach it, as long as that's just not a drive-by tagging, followed by no discussion. And I think there is a legitimate case to be made that the title is bad and needs to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I started a discussion, but so far no takers.[1] Operators are standing by. Coretheapple (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming up on 10 days with very little time for WP, if this is still simmering then I will play with it a little. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be welcome. This needs to be hashed out in a thoughtful manner on the talk page, but I sense that people are a bit worn down there, as well as gotten caught up in conduct issues (which, as you know, tend to be a highway to nowhere). Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish revolutionary movement and international communism? That might work. Here's one off my shelf, by the way: Melech Epstein, The Jew and communism: The story of early Communist victories and ultimate defeats in the Jewish community, U.S.A., 1919-1941. It's actually a reasonably big literature, it would probably Speedy Keep at AfD, definitely Keep. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jewish revolutionary movement in Europe? Carrite (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a topic makes someone uncomfortable is no reason to delete. It may be that the article could better be addressed with a split, e.g. into one about Communist attitudes toward Jews and a second about Jewish attitudes toward Communism - I certainly don't know that's a good idea. This isn't a matter for AfD, just content organization. We should be glad we have an article on the topic, though given that it doesn't use the word "doctor" except in the refs it seems like it could use some expansion. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this issue here Coretheapple, I considered doing so myself. I will only say that I hope there will be lots of editors, including Jimbo, who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community.Smeat75 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my purpose was not to argue for deletion, which I actually don't advocate, but to get Jimbo's input. True, if I were him, I wouldn't touch the subject with a ten-foot pole. There's an old Jewish saying, "silence is also an answer," though I am not sure what it means in this instance, Jimbowise. Coretheapple (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the Wikimedia Board meeting and therefore unable to comment at the moment on what looks like an issue worthy of serious study.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gotcha. I would really love to get your view on that when you get a chance. Thanks. oh, and while you're at that board meeting, remember to ban paid editing.... just sayin....Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working on that. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I hope! tx. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very keen to hear any comments from you about this article, Jimbo.Smeat75 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While not binding, I think that it would have a very positive impact on the talk page discussion, no matter what. The talk page, as you can imagine, is not exactly the Garden of Eden. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, there are no reliable sources that discuss "Jews and Communism." There are of course sources about Jews and Communism in one country in one period. Hence your source The Jew and communism: The story of early Communist victories and ultimate defeats in the Jewish community, U.S.A., 1919-1941 is about Jews and Communism in the U.S. from 1919, when the Communist Party was founded, to 1941, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union became allies. There is no source that ties that together with Jews in the Soviet Union, or the role of Jews in the Chinese or Cuban revolutions. So we have no sources that summarize the relationship between Jews and Communism or identify the literature. As a result the article is just a collection of mentions of people of Jewish background who became Communists. TFD (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we have an article Redheads and Communism or Christians and Communism? This article Jews and Communism looks like synthesis, a polite veneer installed over ugly bigotry. Perhaps there could be an article about Jews and communism (antisemitic canard) if it is notable as such. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article "Jewish Bolshevism" also known as "Jewish Communism", which is about the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think that Jehochman hits the nail on the head. That gets to the heart of the problem with this article, that it is phrased so broadly that it could say practically everything. As it happens -- purely a coincidence of course! -- it winds up reading like a Stormfront article. (see below). Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the article mentioned somewhere too. I will admit I tried to avoid looking directly at it, for fear to see what I thought. Nonetheless, I looked and saw. To describe this article as merely 'uncomfortable' is a vast understatement. I searched the article name in Google and the first page was.....disgusting. Just look at the page as it was created February 27, 2014. Absolutely disgusting. WTF? Something definitely needs to be done here. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are trying to do something about it Dave Dial, can others please come and help us at the article and on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to do there. The page should be deleted. The obvious result for this AfD should have been "Delete". Now, there just needs to be an admin to go there and delete the page, and start issuing blocks to editors who want to recreate the page. It looks like a straight forward POV Fork that has no reliable sources that equate being Jewish with communism. As I pointed out, if you search the title of the page, you get this. The AfD and search results should be enough for anyone to just do what needs to be done. Dave Dial (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well saying that Dave Dial, and I completely agree with you, but admins are not going to do that, Coretheapple and I are trying to ring alarms about that article all over the place, but admins etc are just ignoring us. For instance a current AN/I I started - [2]- about an editor who in my opinion controls that article in combination with one or two others, has not seen a single comment from an admin, it seems they just don't want to get involved. So once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us, maybe you can think of some way to get an admin to do what you suggest that I don't know about. In the meantime, that dreadful, dreadful article is sitting there on this site and I feel we have to try to do what we can to alleviate its poison.Smeat75 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I sure can't do anything about it. Jimbo, maybe. Probably. Admins definitely can. Look, Jimbo is well aware of White Nationalist trying to get their POVs inside Wikipedia. Here are some threads from Stormfront calling for editing Wikipedia and inserting their POV on WWII and Jewish articles.

And you have the White Nationalist/Stromfront recent tirades about "Jews and Communism", many of which are almost word for word mirroring of the article in question.

So yea, in any case there are hundreds upon hundreds of threads on White Nationalist websites talking about "Jews and Communism", and Wikipedia. The article should have been deleted. There were way more editors who stated the article should be deleted as a POV content fork. Dave Dial (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An admin already voiced their opinion in the AfD and DELREV yet you wish to find some other admin, since you don't agree with the outcome, and have him/her flat out delete the article and block any and all dissenters. Reiterating knee jerk emotional outbursts that you are "disturbed", "disgusted", "disgraced", or whatever is not helping your case nor is suggesting that other users are covert "neo-Nazis" of some kind and digging up threads on this "Stormfront" forum as a pathetic attempt to discredit users by tying them to a conspiracy of some sort. Coretheapple has compared this article's title to absurd ones like "African-American rapists" (communism is inherently as evil as rape apparently) when its title is derived from Oxford University Press's "Jews and Communism", claimed it has illustrative propaganda from "Der Sturmer" when it's actually a Soviet creation (spin it as anti-semitic regardless, who cares about reality right?), and even projected onto other users as having employed derogatory terminology like "commie" (apparent anti-communist feelings of Coretheapple). You now also have Smeat bluntly canvassing by asking like-minded users to "help" at the talkpage. The incessant and false claims of TFD that there are no reliable sources that discuss "Jews and Communism" is flat out nonsense. There are a litany of reliable scholarly sources in the references section with the most prominent being "Jews and Communism" by Oxford University Press which alone includes the works and opinions of at least 14 different scholars on the subject yet he's quick to deem the topic non-notable. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dave Dial raises an alarming point. It underlines the concern that I expressed originally that this article is fodder for bigots and has no place on Wikipedia. Jimbo, you've been silent. I posted this here to get your input. I know your busy, but I think that this is a content issue that could really use some help from you. So, when you have a chance.... Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. You're citing a user who had a "fear" of even taking a look at the article due to an apparent personal taboo. All articles are subject to possible abuse especially, for example, ones under ARBMAC and ARBPIA, but that does not mean we should allow that nor what some extremist forums parrot dictate what articles should and should not exist. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT wrapped in a cloak of moral superiority. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't want to look at the article from personal experience. Not some taboo. I know what these types of canards are for. I have a lot of experience in working with the ADL and SPLC bringing light to these attempts to promote antisemitic conspiracies. And yes, having an article titled "Jews and Communism" is definitely an attempt to promote that same conspiracy theory in an article we already have, Jewish Bolshevism. The fact that you created the article on February 27, 2014, with "A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions." The article went to AfD and the majority of editors wanted to delete the article or merge it with the conspiracy Jewish Bolshevism article, by a count of 25 to delete/merge to 14 keeps. In which the closer starts out his reasoning with an "Oy vey, what a mess". As if it's a joke or funny that antisemites have been pushing this conspiracy and there is no reason for concern of a WP:POVFORK. Either the closer is ignorant of the "Jews and Communism" canard or thinks it's funny. And no, your line of "what's wrong with communism" isn't going to work with me. I've heard all of the end round justifications before. It's not the communism that's the problem, it's the promoting that somehow the Joos! controlled it and lead us into WWII. There are no neutral sources called "Jews and Communism". None. And there is a reason for that. It's an antisemitic canard. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the book "Jews and Communism" by Oxford University Press also immediately an "attempt to promote that same conspiracy theory"? What anti-intellectual nonsense. The article did indeed go to AfD and DELREV, but they both have results you apparently can't come to terms with. One should know that Wikipedia's WP:NOTAVOTE so it doesn't matter how many emotional outbursts are mustered: it's about arguments. For your information (I doubt you bothered to read past the lede) that line is directly from American-Jewish historian Albert Lindemann so feel free to "report" him to ADL, SPLC, and whatever else organizations you may be connected with. The only users I see that are throwing around this nonsensical "Joos!" and "commies" rhetoric and absurd theories are coming from those who want to delete it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does Albert Lindemann's religious background got to do with anything? Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said he was religious? This is how reliable sources describe him. [3] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point in bringing it up? Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take offense? What's your point of dragging it out? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because (to repeat myself) I'd like to know why you think the religion of the writer is pertinent. I don't see the pertinence, but obviously you do. What is it? Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very important for you to identify a source from a Jew, right? Can I ask you something? Where did you get the material to create your article from? I ask this because it's strikingly similar to the article on Metapedia(for those who don't know, Metapedia is a White Nationalist Wiki) titled "Jewish Bolshevism" http://en.meta pedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism. So similar in fact, that I looked at your original article you created on February 27, 2014 and the references you used and compared them with the Metapedia article http://en.meta pedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism.

Comparison of Metapedia article sources to Wikipedia

Strange that the references are almost identical, eh? Down to the exact page number. So, did you just look at the Metapedia article and decide to make one in Wikipedia, and just pretty it up a bit? Or did you create the Metapedia article too? Note, We are not even allowed to link to Metapedia articles. So you have to take out the space between Meta and pedia to go to the link. Dave Dial (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should figure out what to do with Jews and Communism. Perhaps it could be redirected to Jewish Bolshevism, deleted, or edited. I'm not getting into that issue. The AFD and DRV discussions were seriously disrupted by a few bad actors. Any editor can try those processes again. What I've done to help resolve the matter is to block User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER who seem to be tag team POV pushing. Their behaviors individually are blockable, but there's a pretty strong suggestion that they might be working together given the obvious connection between their usernames. I don't doubt that a bunch of single purpose accounts will show up to POV push at future discussions of the topic. Please label them with {{SPA}} and make judicious use of checkuser. Also, request that an exerpienced admin close the discussion, somebody who is familiar with these sorts of ethnic battlezones who would not so easily be confused to say "no consensus" when there is a clear consensus among reasonable editors being disrupted by a few loud, bad actors. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it fascinating how one side gets the ban-hammer for editing in tandem, while one of the ones from the other side got to remain a bureaucrat and admin for years afterwards. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why antisemitism is regarded as political death. There is a reason Markos purged DailyKos of all Truthers and antisemitism. It's unacceptable. There are no "sides" to compare with. Most rational people much rather stand next to some person who thinks God talks to him than the filth associated with Neo-Nazi/White Nationalism. To even state that the people who produce such filth as a "side" is far too much. I for one, totally support the move to ban these two. As for anyone else, I can see people not realizing what was going on. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia can cover an antisemitic topic without itself promoting or proselytizing the antisemitism though. We have an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy that discusses the matter of the state of Israel being accused of apartheid-like actions against the Palestinian population under its control. The article dos not take a side, nor advocate that the analogy is true or untrue; it tells what it is, the history behind it, who says it, and who rebuts it. The article has survived at least 9(!) AfD attempts by the pro-Israeli/Jewish editors here because they claim it does indeed advertise and push antisemitism. It doesn't, and nether should this article, if written properly. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, totally support the move to ban these two. - so do I. Many thanks Jehochman.Smeat75 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get the point. The canard of "Jews and Communism" is already covered in the Jewish Bolshevism article. All this article does is prove to the rest of us that the pro-Israeli/Jewish editors may have a point. Those who want Israel to stop the settlements and occupation of the territories are taken aback by the blatant antisemitism that still exists, and in fact seems to thrive in certain parts of the world(Easter Europe). These types of articles do nothing to help people who want a fair solution in Israel, it HURTS them. It just shows that we are still not ready. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Tarc, what makes this article problematic and, in my view, irredeemable, is the was it is titled and focused (albeit by now-blocked editors with an obvious agenda ~~and oozing-out-of-pores prejudice~~). This would be like an article on African-Americans and crime, and for it to be exploited by Klan-leaning editors as a laundry list of African-American hoods over the years, rather than African-American organized crime, which is neutral, specific and focused. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I "get the point" entirely, I'm afraid, and this is why I have very little to do with the I-P topic area these days; the complete inability of the Israeli/Jewish side to see criticism of their state/ideology/religion/everything in any manner save through the lens of "OMG ANTISEMITISM!"...and the few occasions when the other side points out "OMG ISLAMOPHOBIA!", they are usually pooh-pooh'ed aside and ignored. A notable exception being the WP:CAMERA affair, something that was too big to fit under a rug. We even see it here right now, with you two freely slinging around comparisons to the KKK and to "oozing-out-of-pores prejudice". If Direktor or Producer hurled a similar comment to one of you, the block would be swift. Will Hochman or another admin be swift to block you for such severe WP:NPA transgressions? I won't hold my breath. This isn't a Wikipedia-exclusive problem, out entire Western culture walks on eggshells every time AIPAC gets their hackles up. They harassed Chris Christie last month for having the gall, the audacity to refer to the territory occupied by Israel as...gasp, the occupied territories. It's systemic, endemic, whatever-demic bias, from the top of society on down. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact this is really the first time I've blundered into the subject matter. It was raised on ANI at the same time that I was following another thread. I read the article and was disgusted by it to the point that I decided to raise the issue with Jimbo. First time I've ever raised a content issue here, and boy am I glad I did. This is the kind of article that gets Wikipedia in extremely deep doo-doo. You seem to be conflating with some kind of "Israel-Palestine" set-to that has no bearing on this article and still gets your dander up, evidently, big time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you said had a singe thing to do with what I said, actually. Yes, I am well-aware that you're a Jimbo's page and ANI dweller, not an I-P regular. One point missed is that you think it's A-OK to denigrate two editors as racist pigs on a highly-trafficked and public page such as this, and suffer no repercussion whatsoever. Yet they get no chance to offer a defense, no "let's bring this to ANI for community input", just a single "off-with-their-heads" by one administrator. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right there. I've struck it, and can delete if you think that's better. But that was by no means your only point. Your principal one was to place this article in some kind of universe of Israel-Palestine bickering. I think that's totally off base. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, did you say "ANI dweller"? God forbid. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: Jewish <> Israeli. These are two different, but overlapping, groups. You should not assume this is an I-P dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon. From 1948 Arab-Israeli War to Messianic Judaism to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, or even to apparently unrelated areas like Martin Luther, the same cast of actors play the same roles, over and over and over. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "actors"? Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about the recent blocks of User:PRODUCER and User:DIREKTOR as being perhaps overly bold. Do see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR/Archive#Report_date_February_22_2010.2C_21:52_.28UTC.29 for a prior review of a similar concern. I don't see WP:DE, personally - each pushes the envelope, but, sadly, so do others on this article. I have no opinion on the quality of the article - it clearly irritates some, and I don't understand the topic well enough to offer a fair assessment. However, the information brought up today about the apparent origin of the article in Meta Pedia is disturbing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book Jews and Communism which PRODUCER introduces as his coup de gras is actually a collection of articles by different authors about Jews and Communists in different countries at different times, and no attempt is made to tie this together. As the editor states, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." (p. 8)[4] Until there is the article fails notability and there is no way to determine the weight to assign various aspects. TFD (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, and beyond that, as Joe points out, there is the possible connection between this article and a similar one in the far-right wiki Metapedia. That was discussed above and I think needs to be thoroughly examined. Everything else may pale in significance, depending upon how that plays out. This may very well turn out to be the thwarting of an immense embarrassment for the project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Metapedia article, "Jewish Bolshevism", is largely copied from this article. Compare the edit histories of the two articles. Still, odd that they would do that. TFD (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A four year old sock puppetry report with a negative finding does not prove the accounts are unrelated. There could be two people working in coordination, or one person with two network locations, or one person with two browsers and a proxy. Lots and lots of ways to fool checkuser. You have to look at the user's behavior. In this case it's very simple because each is behaving badly on their own, sufficient to justify a block. The fact that they might be coordinating with one another is further tipping the odds, but not the key to determination. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And who do you think you are to simply ignore and override a CU finding? Leroy Jethro Gibbs, going with your "gut" feeling? Why even bother with the CU process at all if any admin and just set a finding aside and decide "yep, they're connected, so *BLOCK*" ? Tarc (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. It cannot reliable establish that two accounts are unlinked. And in particular, WP:MEAT applies. —Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that has been around these two editors can tell that they are not connected. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin has unblocked User:DIREKTOR. It has also been reported that the article on Meta was copied from WP, not vice versa. See User talk:DIRECKTOR JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks are probably no longer needed, and if I prove wrong, they could be reinstated later. Pharos is reviewing and revising Jews and Communism. This is a positive development. DIREKTOR gave good answers to some of my questions, enough that I must give them the benefit of the doubt. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you would unblock DIREKTOR, since he didn't create the article and TParis has stated he is pretty sure they are not sock/meat puppets. But that still doesn't explain how PRODUCER creates an article that is so admired by the White Nationalists over at Metepedia that they copy the article into their space. Has anyone here read Metapedia? This page en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_group_tactics (called "Jewish group tactics") is indicative of the type of 'articles' on that site. This is a problem here, and one that editors should keep an eye on. I don't think Jimbo(or any average Wikipedian) wants to be associated with that type of filth. Dave Dial (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most immediately alarming thing about it. If we suffer it's existence, (I personally would like it gone and quick) then it should be radically different to a near copy on a neo-nazi wiki. It should be rewritten urgently at the very least. I think we ahould be rid of it. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather ugly guilt-by-association trip you're both pulling there, tbh. I'm sorry if some skinhead website happens to agree with an article on the Wikipedia, but per the WP:CC BY-SA we cannot put restrictions on how others use material taken from here. I'm sure there's any number of distasteful organizations that celebrate the parts of the Wikipedia the agree with and ignore the parts they loathe. We don't delete content because external groups condemn it (e.g. images of Muhammad) nor do we delete content because a repugnant org loves it. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit OTT. I was merely saying it would be wise to materially alter ours. Nothing to do with guilt. It just looks crap. Irondome (talk)

Would you say the same thing if we had an article like the other one I gave(en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_group_tactics called "Jewish group tactics")? Your reasoning(to me) doesn't make sense. It's not like some Skinhead likes a flower article or something. It's an article titled "Jews and Communism", the same old canard the Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists use to prove that the Joos were at fault for WWII. Jews and Banking, Jews and Communism and Jews and Homosexuals. And on and on and on. Anyone that knows the devious nature of the Neo-Nazis knows this type of sneaky stuff is what they thrive on. Tell a big lie and such. I've put away my investigative hat long ago, and am not getting back into this bullshit. I saw the article and avoided it, because I don't want to delve into this type of filth again. I thought it would be deleted and I could ignore it. It's greatly disappointing to me that it's still there. The closer should be ashamed of themselves. Dave Dial (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, having an article on an antisemitic topic doesn't mean that the Wikipedia is supporting or legitimizing it. The existence of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories doesn't give credence to the Tea Partiers, does it? Tarc (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G*d dammit. As I have already stated, we HAVE an article called Jewish Bolshevism that covers the canard already. Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do note the word "theories". Theories on Jews and communism would at least be a start. Something in the title that notes its contentious aspect Irondome (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just add, since you brought up the Obama thing. We have an article called Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, in relation to the article being discussed here(Jews and Communism) it would be akin to some Yahoo making an article called Barack Obama and his fake birth certificate. See? Jewish Bolshevism =Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Jews and Communism = Barack Obama and his fake birth certificate. Is there any doubt by any reasonable person that the Jews and Communism is a WP:COATRACK for every yahoo that believes that stupid canard? I mean, really. Dave Dial (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews and Communism" is not a coatrack for "Jewish Bolshivism", from all appearances it is a wholly separate topic. Again, this is why I have very little to do with editing in this topic area any more; too many editors playing up the victim card just as they do in real life. None of this is genuine encyclopedic editing, it is just another front in their war. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dial, I do understand that you don't want to look at filth, neither do I, but if we just turn away we are allowing filth to be promoted on this site we are participating in. I hope you won't do that. I cannot. I hope all who have posted here or see this will, as you say, "keep an eye" on that page.Smeat75 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only describe this entire incident as being the equivalent of a Wiki-lynching. I and Direktor are indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. No benefit of the doubt for editors with thousands of edits and who've spent years on Wikipedia. He throws a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence to back his preposterous acts he "points to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claims he's "too busy" to do so. [5][6] It's only until numerous editors tell him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was that he decides undo this nonsense. [7][8][9][10][11] One uninvolved admin characterized the matter as Jehochman "running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds." [12]

Over the course of this block a tirade of insults and slurs is thrown by users that claim or infer that I or Direktor are anti-semitic, affliated with Stormfront, similar to KKK members, have an agenda, ooze "pores of prejudice", etc. All without any fear of sanctions. Accusations are thrown out liberally knowing those who they are directed at are blocked and can't defend themselves in any capacity whatsoever and backpattery is sent to those complicit in this demagoguery and for winning the "battle". [13][14] Evidently these sorts of editors are not interested in discourse, but rather in passionately attacking, villifyng, and browbeating - in every single possible way - the editors that they disagree with. Etiquette? Who cares we'll get away with it, attribute rhetoric like "Joos!" and "commies" to them, associate them with loons. Sources? Theý don't conform to our opinions, they are all anti-semitic "canard" or extremist "memes", toss them aside.

This Wiki-Meta COPYVIO plagarism accusation was brought up before by TFD and debunked. Anyone who bothers to spend a maximum of thirty seconds(!) checking the edit histories of the articles can see that it was Metapedia that copied Wikipedia. But no, an editor chose instead to create a photoshop image of the websites as definitive proof of some sort and have others join in this charade. I cannot be held personally accountable for what information some fanatics choose to copy and abuse from Wikipedia for their own political gain. I don't own the website, I don't endorse it, I don't frequent it, and I certainly don't edit on it. It is disappointing, to say the least, that such charges are blindly accepted as fact by some and that this demonization continues to be pushed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PRODUCER and you are really funny. First you fight tooth and nail to create and WP:OWN the Jews and Communism article, then when the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists basically post it unedited on their shitty blog you run away from "owning" it -- hahahahahahaha, well sorry old man, you must OWN what you PRODUCE and you cannot run away from what you have directly helped the neo-Nazis via creating venomous crap on WP. You created the cancer and now it is metastasizing. "Mazel Tov" ! IZAK (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With that sort of reasoning feel free to demonize and condemn every editor that edits in fields like this, ARBMAC, ARBPIA, etc. since their contributions can be used at any minute to push something (be it political, religious, or something else) on a blog, forum, or wiki. I'm sure my articles on Chetnik commanders have been used as WWII collaboration bragging rights by some, but I don't allow this possibility to dictate what content I write, much less foster the anti-intellectualism and censorship you appear to prefer. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - PRODUCER I am as opposed to censorship as you are, otherwise I would not have spent a good part of latter years on WP, so please stop spouting that nonsense and please stop endlessly spinning words like a propaganda meister to mean something they were not meant to say or imply. Unlike most others who oppose you, I am not opposed to writing on this topic and having it, I just feel that it must be presented in a thorough historical context such as part of the History of Communism, but as you can tell from the fury that has been unleashed almost from the day you chose to unveil the topic (without consulting anyone) if I read everyone correctly there are two big problems: (1) The way you and DIREKTOR have presented the topic, as you can tell there are plenty of other editors, a vast majority who would deal with this topic in a far different manner than the two of you. (2) The tone and attitude you and DIREKTOR have displayed to other editors in the course of discussions. The endless put downs, the tiresome threats to run to ANI, the personal insults and snide remarks that are so stupid and babyish that makes the work environment and dealing with you guys so toxic. I actually agree with almost all your content but I disagree with the way you set it up and present it and the way you defend it by the way you almost viciously confront others who see it differently. Someone once said that "facts presented with bad intent beat all the lies you can invent" (I think it was someone famous who said that, maybe we should Google it) but I think you should get the idea by now. Otherwise this drama will go from bad to worse, and like in nuclear warfare there will not be winners only survivors and no one will be happy and WP will be worse off for it. Take care, IZAK (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI editors - "use the Talk page"

Jimbo, you have repeatedly said that editors with a financial conflict of interest with a Wikipedia subject who spot an error in the article should not edit the article directly, but rather solicit assistance on the Talk page. What happens if the request made on the Talk page is simply quickly deleted by the administrator who introduced the error into the article? What would be the next step, then? - 2001:558:1400:10:A091:D7AD:501E:A877 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would the administrator do that? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One next step would be to move from hypothetical to actual. What talk page are you talking about and what requested edit?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is not an overall policy regarding this scenario? It should be a case-by-case basis? Okay, here goes. - 2001:558:1400:10:A091:D7AD:501E:A877 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is overall policy but application of policy depends on the actual facts. In this case you omitted a rather important fact, Mr. 2001. Having said that, BLP considerations apply here and I hope people will review the situation to determine if there is merit in the concerns expressed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that considerate response, and I look forward to what the good Wikipedia community will do to restore factual and sourced information to the article in question. Still, I am honestly curious what "the next step" should really be. Surely, you don't want it to be "come running to Jimbo_Talk"? In this case, my next step was to ask a friend if they would restore the deleted request (upon their own neutral judgment), which they did. - 2001:558:1400:10:A091:D7AD:501E:A877 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things will always be difficult for long term banned users.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the intention that things be made this difficult, though? - 2001:558:1400:10:A091:D7AD:501E:A877 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In your specific case, which is unique as far as I know, you'd be better off working through OTRS than attempting to edit Wikipedia. It is only under my umbrella and excessive tolerance that you're allowed to post here on my user talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bow deeply to your generosity, Jimbo. - 2001:558:1400:10:A091:D7AD:501E:A877 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I can guess which article. The answer is: WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While accepting the RBI policy, the concerns expressed were IMO, valid. As Jimbo noted, the right way to address them is through OTRS. I picked up and handled the OTRS ticket (and had not seen this discussion at that time.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the fact that Kohs is permanently banned after being blocked by Jimbo, a BLP issue? Kohs' online presence is dominated by his vendetta against Wikipedia, after all. Not that I care much, but the fact is that anybody paying someone to edit Wikipedia for them is risking thier reputation - not just via Kohs' former services, it applies to everyone, and that's the obvious context of Jimbo's advice to avoid his services. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone asserted that the permanent ban is a BLP issue. The issue is that he identified what be believed to be a BLP issue in an article, and raised it on a talk page. Per RBI, the issue wasn't reviewed, but simply removed. We desire that if someone feels there is a BLP issue, that they should raise it onwiki by posting to a talk page of a notice board. If we automatically remove any such posts, it could result in a process problem with no way for the affected person to report it, but as Jimbo noted, there is an alternative–writing to OTRS. Which he did, and which I reviewed and which I felt deserved action.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, JzG is fudging some facts above. Saying "that Kohs is permanently banned after being blocked by Jimbo" is a bit like saying "that the Japanese Imperial Navy lost the Battle of Leyte Gulf after attacking Pearl Harbor". Yes, it is technically true, but it certainly leaves out quite a bit of activity in the interim. If facts be told, Kohs was actually community banned after Jimbo unblocked his account, and then JzG rallied a campaign to have Kohs banned. If anything, JzG fiddling with the MyWikiBiz article to place misleading information into Wikipedia is just an extension of JzG's campaign to antagonize Kohs. But no harm shall come JzG's way, because he is an historically abusive admin whom Wikipedians are afraid to confront, for fear of being told "shut the fuck up you whining twat". - 2601:B:BB80:E0:95DC:87B2:D746:6679 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he was banned, right? The precise timing is important in what way?--MONGO 11:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, removing the material is necessary because of the policy about primary sources and undue weight, rather than because as claimed it's not a reliable source. Under WP:CIRCULAR a Wikipedia reference is indeed a reliable source when Wikipedia is being discussed. However it is considered primary and may not be important enough to include in the article if there are no secondary sources. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:RBI is an essay. WP:BLP is a policy. Essays can't override policies. Ken Arromdee (talk)

WP:NOTPOLICY. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, curious as to whether the following was an endorsed action or a third party acting independently?

Jimbo, I'm curious as to whether this excision was an action explicitly endorsed by you? Or was it instead a third party acting independently and unilaterally upon your talkpage? Or ... ?

I find it odd to have come across a third party removing another user's question on yet another person's talkpage two minutes after the inquiry was posted. The user's question seems fairly straightforward to me—though Wiki-politics loaded—and doesn't appear, to me, to harbor any signs of blatant vandalism.

Wassup' wi' dat'?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.— In addition to being concerned about 'what' was done, I also find the 'how' to be questionable. i.e. Reversion with no explanation in the edit summary and flagged as a 'minor' edit. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of it but very strongly endorse it. The question is pure trolling, and there is no way I, or any other Wikipedia volunteer, should be expected to put up with that kind of abuse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this then to be interpreted as precedent that anyone is welcome to arbitrarily delete threads they deem unpleasant from your talkpage—without even an explanation in the edit summary—and then flag such as 'minor'? And would this then be endorsed as a comportment example for the community regarding talkpages in general? --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.— BTW, I can see how the question that had been posted, while not vandalism per se, could be seen as rhetorical and baited; i.e. trolling. And understand if you are disinclined to engage with it. For the most part, it's that someone else appears to have made this decision for you, sight unseen, without explanation, and tagged such as 'minor' that is attracting my attention. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DENY. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See what Dennis has posted for more understanding, also you could have asked the editor why they did what they did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There comes a point where WP:DENY simply loses its effectiveness in the face of dogged persistence, though. There can't be an expectation that every question posed will be done in a nice, good-faith manner. Wouldn't it be better to just answer it, even if it is with a "this question is inappropriate" hatting? We'd at least have a record of it without having to delve into reversions. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very strong expectation that every question should be made in a nice, good-faith manner. If we don't have that expectation then we encourage the bad behavior of baiting/trolling and give ourselves an incredibly unpleasant environment. It is very well known that I will try in good faith to answer all kinds of questions, even pointed ones, but even I have limits. In this case, the editor was asking me to compare two completely unrelated things, bringing up a person I consider to be a danger to myself and my family, for reasons that I am not entirely able to share based on professional advice, as a way of (apparently) attacking another user, without even posting diffs or explanations of who they were talking about (and I have no idea). If this were a good faith question, it might be of the form: "Are you aware of a user saying things like this(link) and that(link) and who hasn't been blocked or even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that it's like an endless game of whack-a-mole, and WP:DENY'ing them does not seem to act as a deterrent. We all have limits, even those of us who occasionally revert on your behalf (apologizes for language) hit a short fuse once in awhile. I just wonder if the reversions may do more harm than good in that they feed the monster and just make them keep coming back. I've said before that if there was some feasible way to be more accommodating of critics...even the atrocious ones...there would be less of a need for Wikipediocracy/Review types of sites to exist. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accommodating critics is one thing. There is no reason why those engaged in trolling and harassment should be given the same leeway. Reso lute 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't appease someone whose only goal is to cause trouble. Ask Neville Chamberlain. WP:DENY, if done properly, is more effective than anything else. That it is not 100% effective is irrelevant. Of course, if others war over it or discuss it, it just undermines the effort. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification as to what I'm attempting to address

Jimbo, you may be missing my emphasis. I'm not particularly concerned with the content of the removed question. I came across it—in a kinda' round-a-bout way—while looking into this situation and presume that the first part of User:50.146.163.252's post refers to the same. As to the second part, which mentions a scenario involving Facebook, I as well have no idea—and am not really curious enough at this point to dig into it.

Again, it's the procedural specifics of how User:50.146.163.252's question was dealt with that I'm asking about. To use your phrasing:

'Are you aware of a user [doing] things like [removing another user's question on yet another person's talkpage two minutes after the inquiry was posted without explanation and flagged as 'minor'][15] and who hasn't been even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?'

Seeing someone censor—apparently arbitrarily, as it was unexplained and veiled as 'minor'—what gets viewed by the 'Top Dog' (i.e. you) is something I find concerning. If someone had presumed to do the same on my talkpage I certainly would have addressed it. At least in a "I appreciate the sentiment, but ..." manner. However, as this is your talkpage, I'm not really in a position to judge whether the action was presumptuous in this case as it's unknown to me as to whether (or not) you may have explicitly delegated such privileges to others. Is this to be taken as precedent? And if so, is it a general precedent or is there a select subset of the community who are privileged to do so? And is 'unexplained and veiled as 'minor'' the recommended way to implement such?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People do it here all the time, and Jimmy knows this. I've probably reverted a half dozen times on Jimmy's page, and it isn't usually on my watch list. I've even semi-protected this page once (see the protection log), which is when admin shut out all new and IP users from making any edits. People revert stuff off my page all the time, I do for other people all the time. Being an admin, I get a fair amount of IP vandalism from blocked editors, etc. Jimmy, being more high profile, gets more. All one has to do is look at the history of the page to see what was removed, surely Jimmy knows how. You seems shocked at this, but this is common practice. It isn't censorship, it is cleaning up. If someone trolled on your page and I saw it, I would naturally revert it without even thinking about it. If you see vandalism or trolling on my talk page and revert it, you will probably get a "thank you" notification. I wouldn't assume you were censoring, I would assume good faith. If someone does reverts good faith edits by an IP, then someone else would have reverted them back in. People aren't shy about that either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that trolls and troublemakers do exist, and given that anyone can posts on this page, a significant number of trolls and troublemakers have discovered that they can pose "questions" designed to spread FUD. Removing such posts is not censorship—it's just part of the cost of running an open house. Responding or hatting just provides encouragement, and that would drown out legitimate criticism and discussion. Re the question posed above: of course Jimbo has not "delegated such privileges", but of course he is aware of what happens here, and is fully capable of addressing unwanted actions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like everyone here on both sides of the argument to consider that this is Jimbo's user talk page and not a noticeboard, and act accordingly. Jimbo has the last say on what belongs, and can easily revert removals or remove things himself as he sees fit. KonveyorBelt 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second: "I'd like everyone here on both sides of the argument to consider that this is Jimbo's user talk page and not a noticeboard".

In most scenarios, I'd personally be likely to chastise most anyone who presumed to remove something from my talkpage before I'd had a chance to personally decide whether to perceive it as 'irate criticism', 'trolling', or perhaps even a poorly phrased 'eye opener'. Perhaps some aspect of it might 'hit home' in a manner not immediately apparent to spectators. Even if something were unkindly meant I might still find some diamonds amongst the coal, wheat amongst the chaff, to hold onto before discarding the rest. I could even see a well intentioned third party collapsing a post under a heading like "seemed like trolling", but to presume to remove without explanation while obscuring as 'minor' ... Nope, that wouldn't sit well with me on 'my' user pages.

However, I do realize that the talkpage of founder Jimmy Wales is subject to an exceptional amount of attention and hence may well benefit from different approaches than I might apply to my own. And anyone else might just even have a different opinion about how they encourage people to interact on their 'own' talkpages. Within a few defined guidelines, it's their/his prerogative. Hence, I'm here asking User:Jimbo Wales where he stands on such, rather than questioning/grumbling at the editor who made the reversion. While I would have objected, the edit didn't occur in 'my' userspace and so it's certainly not my place to chastise. Especially as I didn't even know if the person on whose page the reversion occurred was even bothered by it. Perhaps they'd even specifically encouraged such behavior. I came across a situation that appeared to me to be playing out contrary to my ideals and am proceeding to explore that contrast. Maybe I'll learn something about both myself and others in the process.

"and can easily revert removals or remove things himself as he sees fit" Note that Jimbo has previously mentioned that he hadn't in fact in this case noticed that the reversion edit had been made on his behalf. Perhaps he has the option to not display 'minor' edits in his watchlist toggled on? It is concern for such that has been leading me to emphasize "veiled as 'minor'". I, and I imagine many others, have come across article edits before which appear to have been flagged as 'minor' under an absent or disingenuous edit summary in an attempt to slip through something contestable. ... But let me reel-his-back-in a bit .. it occurs to me that I don't actually know specifically why the edit was flagged as minor or unexplained. Something inadvertent may have figured in on the human error and/or technology SNAFU front. But regardless, is anyone really going to assert that third party reversion is an appropriate place for a 'minor' flag?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the ethos of WP:Deny to make it all appear as minor as possible. So, while there is no "rule", in such a case, one way or the other, regarding the 'm' mark, in practice, I have seen it often done that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Less abstract more to specifics at hand

I previously expressed concern in terms of conjecture about general hazards of third parties burying unexplained reversions under 'minor' flags. It's since occurred to me that there's a case to be made surrounding the original incident at hand. User:50.146.163.252 had started off by alluding to a situation which connected some past unsavory stories in national media with recent disciplinary activity on Wikipedia. Leaving the post—which was addressed to Jimbo directly—up at least long enough for Jimbo to personally take note of it might have provided him the opportunity to get curious. Even a simple response (in thought or deed) along the lines of "Does anyone have any idea what this crank is getting on about?" might have led to some dialog between the curious and the informed. Personally, I think if I was in Jimbo's position I would have preferred to know ASAP that a situation had unfolded which plausibly risked bringing Wikipedia into a ripple of unflattering press. Rather than get caught playing catchup in an after-the-fact scenario. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews or Wikiwoos?

n:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green

"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of Sativex by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."

There is no evidence for the claim that marijuana can literally cure cancer, and a concentrated spray of a specific chemical is not the same as a random mix of chemicals vaguely related to it. This is pure advocacy of fringe views.

How long must English Wikinews drag the brand down before it's put out of its misery? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news though. Reading the main page of the Africa news portal, I have just discovered that Nelson Mandella's health is improving! Unfortunately, thousands of people from Burkina Faso remain displaced following a flood that hit five years ago. Wikinews is a complete joke, but it isn't going away though anything on this page. I can't remember when shutting down the project was last discussed at Meta, however. Reso lute 04:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, if you attempt to discuss it on meta, English Wikinews puts a banner up, and the entire group of editors run over there to shout people down before any sort of coherent front against them can form. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get the thing fixed, you read what I mentioned at your talk page — this little essay at Meta:

When something needs done, make steps, reasonably small and balanced, to get it done.

...and please continue discussion in the right place, at Wikinews itself, without canvassing around your biased opinion. If you want more people to participate in that discussion, give them a neutral summary, not an exciting breath-taking op-ed with a flashy headline.

A cry for attention is incompatible with neutral intercourse. See. --Gryllida (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Adam considers your talk page an appropriate place to WP:FORUMSHOP, Jimmy. Sorry about that. However, the stretch he's had to make in claiming reporting that an individual stated something, to being Wikinews stated something, is quite remarkable.

Is this going to be a tolerated near-annual "Jihad"? --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jimbo has specifically stated in the past that posting to his talk page is not forum shopping - I don't necessarily agree with that view, but c'est la vie. You gotta take the good with the bad. Reso lute 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The utter baseness of the efforts to suppress the medical use of marijuana cannot be exaggerated. Spiritually rooted in the witch hunts of the Middle Ages and the open racism of the 1920s, they cast aside the work of three millennia of physicians to put forward a faith-based theory that "herbs cannot work", which can be enforced only by open violence against millions of people. Based on an outright lie (not out of character) by Nixon, they 'temporarily' permanently banned medical use of marijuana, then doggedly ensured that NIDA refused to study the mechanism for two decades, insisting that a drug with specific and reproducible effects on the brain literally had no receptor, then used bureaucracy to hold back all practical research for another decade. We don't have any idea of all we have suffered because of this - we don't know what drugs against pain, obesity, inflammatory diseases, sea-sickness or any other nausea, and other common maladies have been lost. There definitely is reason to consider use of cannabis against prostate cancer, though it isn't the first herb I would have thought of for the purpose. While I would not accept an anecdotal account as scientific evidence, I cannot blame a patient who tries using cannabis and sees remission from drawing the personal conclusion that it worked. To assert that Sativex, based on the two most prevalent active chemicals in cannabis, should have effects that cannabis does not, when it was created solely as a method to placate the bureaucracy while extorting a patent toll from ancient medicine... contemptible! But to insist, like a Putin or an Erdogan, that an entire method of distributing news be abolished because they allegedly made a single word error, already corrected (though perhaps not visible via the magic of "Pending Changes") that is worse. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's cute that you think anyone is arguing that Wikinews should be shut down because of a "single word error". Would you like to try again, but without the logical and argumentative fallacies? Reso lute 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see you also investigated and found out that they have old news articles in their archives. But I was responding to the OP (one colon) so as to avoid getting into that. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph quoted is advocating for fringe claims, but I like how you decide I'm objecting to a single word, despite explicitly discussing the next section as well. And I don't think merely changing one word to "asserts" is enough to atone for repeating claims that something will cure your cancer. The claim is downright dangerous, and would be deleted on sight if it was on Wikipedia and unbalanced, but Wikinews apparently is happy to be the worst kind of irresponsible tabloid. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to take from that sentence that Wikinews was signing on to it curing prostate cancer. In any case, guesses about serious medical conditions are the mainstream media's bread and butter. How often were people told that partially hydrogenated vegetable oil was better than animal fat? Anything about fat, salt, "complex" carbohydrates, whatever, sheerest guesswork pervades the news. They are so bad about this that Wikipedia pushes a special policy 'MEDRS' about it (though that goes too far). The difference is, any statement Wikinews appeared to make was at most parenthetical and accidental, whereas the mass media actively pushes fad ideas based on popularity or other forms of profit. I'm not keelhauling them over a word choice. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I don't have a major problem with the passage outlined above if there is a single word change. One of the most important concepts in writing about what others have said is the concept of a "success verb", and the nuances around different word choices. Compare: "John explained that 2+2=4" -> implies that I agree that 2+2=4. "John said that 2+2=4" -> mostly neutral on the question. "John claimed that 2+2=4" -> expresses that the matter is not proven at all. Other choices that are unlikely to be right for Wikipedia/Wikinews also exist: "John made the surprising claim that 2+2=4" -> I don't really believe him. "John lied that 2+2=4" -> I don't believe him, plus he said it maliciously rather than through simple error.

Often we should avoid "success verbs" and stick to the more neutral formulations. Not everywhere, though. "John Doe, an astronomer, explained that planets in this size class and this distance from the sun are less rare than previously thought." That's perfectly valid if that's an uncontroversial claim, because using a neutral term like "said" or a questioning term like "claimed" will mislead the reader.

All of this is quite separate from the question of what should be done about Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, it seems to me part of the problem with many of the sister projects is lack of editors. I recently raised a question elsewhere about maybe creating a WF "community portal," a link to which could, maybe appear below the extant c.p. in the standard skin, discussing active efforts in those entities. Maybe one of the first things that could be done might be a survey of what editors would like to see those entities do, and establish lines of demarkation between them.

It might also help if we could some of our topical WikiProjects in some way more actively involved in the other WF entities.

Specifically regarding WikiNews,maybe expanding its scope a little to include some "this month in (music, film, football, etc.)” columns might help a little, along with "feature stories" on topics like food and fashion which could present dubiously encyclopedic content, like, for instance, the various kinds of meat loaf.

If something like periodic columns could get started soon, they might be useful forthe upcoming US congressional elections. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good idea. It would also improve participation if there were a mechanism so that "stale" and archived Wikinews would be flagged for incorporation into relevant Wikipedia articles as appropriate, so that there would be less of a sense that rejected/deleted articles are wasted effort. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What if there's some sort of a partnership set up between the folks who do the "In the news" section here and Wikinews with a little link about it? Getting some admins here and there to work together to promote Wikinews shouldn't be too hard, I wouldn't think, and it'd be a nice start. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re those other kinds of articles, there are things Wikinews doesn't do on principle and things Wikinews don't do because nobody chooses to write them — but this page is not, sadly, a viable forum for in-depth constructive discussions about Wikinews. Constructive discussion is of course welcome at the Wikinews water cooler.

Regarding the non-Wikipedian sisters in general, local shortages of editors are symptoms of non-local problems, flowing both from the Foundation central authority downward, and from Wikipedia outward. (The foundation's neglect and dissing of non-Wikipedian sisters hardly seems relevant here; the problems of Wikipedia, though they pain me deeply as Wikipedia was my first love amongst the Wikimedian projects, I would not expect to go into here without being accused of trolling and Wikipedia bashing.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory word 'woo'

I, for one, am unimpressed by those who use the neologism "woo" to designate pseudoscientific concepts. Certainly pseudoscientific concepts should be subject to critical and even scathing review where appropriate, but the users of the word woo tend to lump possibly useful concepts into the term, tarring the good along with the bad if there is any remote connection. The term is derogatory and dismissive, setting up a no-win barrier to discussion. I think Wikipedia talk pages ought to be free of this particularly offensive neologism. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard umbrella term used by science advocates and skeptics, I don't know of any other term encompassing the full gamut of pseudoscience, non-science, nonsense, unproven medical claims, paranormal claims and so on. Feel free to suggest an alternative term of equivalent breadth. No, potentially useful things are not included in the general term "woo". There are, for example, specific medicinal uses of cannabinoids, the term woo refers to the inflated claims made by those who believe it can be smoked without risk (false) and it cures cancer (which it doesn't). The problem was that Wikinews published a completely uncritical presentation of claims that fall into the "woo" bracket, according to the judgment of at least a few readers. Sticking only to the factually supportable claims for medicinal cannabis would have been fine, the problem was precisely that they didn't. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't find the term very helpful myself. It is a standard bit of jargon in skeptical circles, very fashionable recently, but I think it is not widely enough known to engage people outside of those narrow groups. Even as advocacy, I don't think it's a very helpful term of mockery for the same reason: it doesn't mean anything in the mind of someone in the general public, whereas "pseudoscience" or "quackery" are perfectly serviceable words.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like woo to me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be called "woowoo" could we try that instead? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you regard Sanjay Gupta's story about Charlotte Figi^[16] to be "woo". If I see a child like that I want to stand with the people trying to grasp at some hope, not the heartless marching morons who would smash her medicine and condemn her to a life of endless seizures. P.S. I just looked it up and she's down to one seizure a month.^[17] God bless "woo"! Wnt (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the wiki article to which you linked - "there is insufficient medical evidence to draw conclusions about their safety or efficacy." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do in those circumstances? Do you dismiss the observations as "woo" or accept that unproven does not mean disproven? It is a scientist's job to take speculative action based on inconclusive results - that is how we get conclusive results. The same is true of the journalist. This means, quite simply, that it is appropriate for Wikinews to give serious attention to anecdotes, reporting them faithfully, neither exaggerating nor ignoring them. It is the duty of politicians to refrain from cruelly attacking families who also need to make decisions based on a balance of risks and benefits, not just what is known.Wnt (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Random thing some unqualified guy said while probably high" (seriously, this was a pro-marijuana rally) might be reportable if and only if research was done to see if there's any accuracy, and to make clear what the objective facts are. Just because some random person says something doesn't mean that the journalist should simply report they said it, then not bother to check the claims. Checking claims is the heart of good journalism, reporting whatever crap you're told uncritcically is the heart of garbage journalism. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen this standard of journalism. By and large, in those rare cases where reporters go to a public protest, it's enough of a miracle that their paper covered the protest - they don't follow people home and ask for copies of their X-rays and prescriptions and interview their doctors to see if the remission had some other explanation. True, on occasion this goes really, really badly, but I don't see Wikinews doing anything worse than other news outlets. Wnt (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if Wikinews doesn't provide anything the MSM doesn't, what purpose does it serve? Hell, even Wikipedia itself does a far better job of reporting news than Wikinews (albeit partly because of greater editing mass). Reso lute 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you've forgotten why Wikipedia was first started -- as a free-as-in-freedom alternative to the Britannica. Nobody imagined it would be better, not at first. Wikinews may not be in a position to routinely surpass MSM - not in general, though any single editor is free to go all out, drive that extra mile - but the point is, it's free. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to apply the "notability" concept to news. Don't. If a yellow dingo said that sky is red during a FIFA world cup, it will be reported as such, as insignificant as it was. Gryllida (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would it be? and why would the readers care? Notability certainly applies to news, just not in the way it applies to articles on Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it better to be honest and include all observed detail. (No, I'm not speaking of a separate article dedicated to just that. Don't assume that.) Gryllida (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikinews criterion anlogous to (but different than) notability is newsworthiness. --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ is risen

Did you know that on Easter Sunday this hook appeared on enWikipedia's main page:
Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? Being discussed at ANI here.
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Added link to ANI discussion 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point being? Mat ty.007 17:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see us getting the Good News out there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh! If memory serves correct, we have The C of E to thank for the hook (and the article?). Best, Mat ty.007 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that many are insulted that Easter was used to make DYK nothing but a tool for our christian editors and that this same thing cant be done if we wanted to make a DYK for "Did you know God is dead". My very first DYK appeared a short time ago and the hook was: Did you know... that the kāhili standard (pictured) of Hawaiian royalty was made from the bones of an enemy king and the feathers of a bird of prey? I was pretty damned proud of that and it got 8000 hits the day it appeared while the Christ has risen only got about 3000. So the issue isn't really about the christian editors. Although, as I said, it makes it look like Wikipedia used Easter as an excuse to allow christian editors more privilege than the average editor. The issue is, that DYK appeared with no fact hook from the article and was purposely made to be a promotional christian claim on a day they find holy.

I don't really care about the actual DYK and what it said and what it appeared to claim as fact. I am concerned that DYK was and is being used a promotion for one particular sect of editors and went against the policy and guidelines of the project. If we allow this once, and it is fine, we really do have to allow it for everyone. Point blank, am I going to be able to add a DYK that presents as a fact, all of the legends and unproven claims in articles I expand. I tell ya what...I sure as hell expect it now. My personal opinion is that there never really was a man named Jesus and that he never came back to life or was raised from the dead...but that is just me. But the real issue and question is this....can DYK be used this way from now on? Can any religion or group or individual now be allowed to do the exact same thing. Currently the discussion at ANI seems to show that editors seem split. I would like to know what the wider community consensus is regarding DYK and the fact hook?--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's kinda sad that people treat "Christ" as if it is a dirty word. I found this DYK hook to be rather clever. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The amount of "promotional" hooks on DYK may be an issue worthy of debate, but the people singling out this one are the worst. Calidum 02:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a crap how "christ' is treated. If it is a dirty word to some...cool. If it is the most important thing in your life...cool, but don't fucking make the people trying to get a straight answer to be the issue. Calidum, THAT was a personal attack. I see that there is never going to be a straight answer as the entire fucking point appears to be to blur the god damn lines. Cool...it seems to have worked.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new article that satisfied the criteria for the DYK requirements, so it should have the exact same rights to a DYK as any other article, even if it does mention a controversial topic. WP:CENSOR is a great thing IMO, and going by that, "Jesus Christ is risen today" and "God is dead" each have the same rights to getting on the Main Page. The issue, at least from what I'm understanding, is that some people are getting up in arms over a Christian POV that this one supposedly is causing, and the Christians and uncensored people are fighting back (Bias alert: I'm Catholic, so I might be a little biased, but that's what it looks like to me). If there was an easy answer to religion, the whole world would be of one faith and be done with all this fighting, but as we can see, that's not the case. I'm a little surprised that this hook made it through DYK, but I enjoyed it; however, we should probably put in a written requirement that the hooks have to be more than the title to prevent stuff like this from happening again. God knows there's plenty of other controversial topics to write articles about. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that people are mentioning is one of presentation, if I understand correctly.. That is, in present form, it read as such "Did you know that…"Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"? This, of course, implies 'fact', when the 'fact' in question is disputed. If the hook was written more appropriately, and didn't present one disputed viewpoint as fact, there would've been no problem with it. Perhaps something like "Did you know that…some Christians believe that "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"? And then one could link to the hymn, without implying anything about anything. That's not necessarily a good hook either, but merely an example of a way to sidestep the problem that people are talking about. Personally, I think it is more or less a mountain-out-of-a-molehill. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said wherever else this was raised..AN or ANI or whatever...I myself am not Christian and really didn't view this as offensive or as a "presentation of fact". It just made use of the title as the complete sentence. In my wild and capricious youth I used to be an angry atheist, railing against every utterance of religion, taking offense when others expressed their faith in my presence, and so on. Reading Maleko's diatribe above, he sounds like every bad caricature of the type of stereotypical religion-hating liberal that Fox News invents every Christmas season to rail against. Sooner or later, one grows out of actually acting like that. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments, Tarc. I think Maleko is just writing off the top of his head and is a bit upset. I know when he calms down everything will be fine. I totally respect him and have the utmost confidence in his abilities. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it as offensive. I don't think anyone was rationally making the claim. Instead, I think people were concerned about presenting religious truth as encyclopaedic fact. Like I said, personally I think this is somewhat overblown in importance, but the concern is genuine. For full disclosure, my relationship with 'religion' is complex, but I'm not an atheist by any measure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current arguments are a mix of religious views and other non related issues. But to me this is simple. Either we allow everyone the same privilege or we restrict everyone to the same standard. At the moment it does appear that Christians are given a greater leeway to proclaim their beliefs as fact but that pagans and non blievers are told to shut the fuck up. Harsh, but that is indeed what I am seeing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Jimbo's birthday I should send him a ten foot pole so he can edit some of these topics with it. ;-)--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how Chinese Whispers works: a hook says that Wikipedia now has an article on a hymn that is so familiar that I (reviewer) thought it could go without a clumsy '... that a hymn is called "JCIRT"', a hook that also possibly didn't present a concept our readers had never heard of. And now this thread is named "Christ is risen", without quotation marks, without question mark. Interesting. Repeating (from ANI): I think it was not a good hook because what it said was too familiar to be interesting, but it made me smile, and possibly others. I apologize to those who didn't, and will not do it again. - Now I wonder if all this attention was planned ;) - Death is fact, I wrote two hymn articles in memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, has your advice changed on this, need a steer from you

Hi. Some time back you stated this; Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

I have been gnoming tonight (needed to chill) and I have been tagging a brilliant but totally uncited article, or at least I was about to, when a wikiwander took me to your quote. I totally get the BLP aspect, but what are your current thoughts on this on non-BLP articles? Have you had any additional thoughts to add based on your experiences since 06? There are so many excellent but virually uncited articles out there. An uncited article could theoretically section by uncited section be removed? It is not being done on any wide spread scale at the moment, but do you still advocate a deletionist method, or has your thoughts on cite bombing modified to being a bit more charitable to it. After all it provides a respite to an otherwise sometimes a potentially great article :)? I would favour a balance of the two, co-existing. Any thoughts would be most kind. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting if you could link to the original email so that I can absorb the entire context, but as I recall I was speaking primarily there of BLPs. I would extend that approach to information that might in some way be dangerous if false (medical information, safety information, etc.) and possibly a couple of other categories such as uncited claims likely to inflame nationalist passions and similar. I think that in other cases, a citation needed tag is the right way to go. But even there, I think that if something has been tagged as citation needed for an extended period of time (a year, say, but I'm not strict about the number) it begins to be highly suspect as being a hoax.

Hoaxes are damaging to Wikipedia, but they are fortunately rare. At least a liberal sprinkling of citation needed tags warns the reader that something may not be quite right.

In my own work I tend to pause to look for a cite if there is uncited information of any kind in a BLP.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the original email. Not much context, since you started the thread. Lots of discussion thereafter, though. The nearest BLP work on wiki that you did prior to your mailing list post involved a massive deletion of content from Playboy's Miss November 1992. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:D592:F716:EA4:5293 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimbo for the clear response, and to our colleague for finding the link! Cheers all Irondome (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, you said, "I think that if something has been tagged as citation needed for an extended period of time (a year, say, but I'm not strict about the number) it begins to be highly suspect as being a hoax," but I disagree. In my editing, I routinely come across citation needed tags that are many years old. Almost always, they turn out to be accurate and easily sourced. Hoaxes are very rare here and with all due respect I believe you do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation by saying that statements which have had a citation needed tag for a long period of time are "highly suspect as being a hoax". It is much more likely to be the simple case that no one has taken the time to verify an easily verifiable statement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right Sector

Voice of Russia has been rebroadcasting passages from a BLPGROUP (Right Sector) with the citations removed, branding the subject group and its leader as “neofascist” or worse. Example: “Ukraine’s Yarosh Put on International Most Wanted List, Accusations Brought In Absentia,” Voice of Russia, 5 March 2014 (“Right Sector is a radical Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and opposition group. It is described as having right-wing, ultra right-wing, borderline fascist or neofascist views.”). Readers can’t tell whether the passage is citing Financial Times or TASS.

The group’s leader now seems to have been marked for execution. Can the current revision of the article be rolled back a day to a version that relies more on mainstream sources? --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) 10:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion going nowhere. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Maria Danilova, “After Ukraine Protest, Radical Group Eyes Power”, Associated Press, 14 March 2014: “The Associated Press and other international news organizations have found no evidence of hate crimes … and some Jews have served in the Maidan’s self-defense units side-by-side with the Right Sector.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Wikimedia Foundation's stance on the unsuitability of a non-free image of Kim Jong-un

Hey Jimbo. Could you possibly review what's been going on at the talk page of Kim Jong-un, specifically the many and varied statements of admin Masem (talk · contribs) (over months and indeed years), who likes to use the term "we" in a manner that suggests he is speaking for the Wikimedia Foundation. As you know, according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC), Wikipedia doesn't use non-free media if a free version "could be created". That is derived from the Wikimedia Foundation's Licensing policy, which says Wikipedia's NFCC policy "may not allow [non-free imagery] where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". Given that language, and the reasons behind it (namely to encourage a largely freely distributable body of work), do you think that in the specific case of Kim Jong-un, it's reasonable to expect a free image (as in a real photo, not a propaganda portrait) of him could be created or obtained? If you don't (and I really can't see why you would), can you review the many and varied reasons/theories/arguments Masem has been using to fight hard (really hard) against this article ever using a non-free image, and assess whether they have been reasonable, proportionate or fair, as you would expect from a Wikipedia admin when debating issues of policy? I personally think the lengths he has gone to have gone way beyond what anyone ever intended in that policy language, and make Wikipedia look ridiculous when you consider the sort of cases where non-free content is allowed as a matter of routine, simply because without it articles would be worse off. It should also be noted that at one point, Masem even used your own words to justify his position, but he backed down when it was suggested he might like to come here and confirm with you whether he was doing your position justice or not. Krypto9 (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal persons and BLP

Is there a good reason for excluding business entities from the reasonable constraints of BLP protection? After all, they carry the status of a legal person, are an insatiable target of vandalism, (even sabotage), and can suffer harmful consequences, (wholly felt by living people; perhaps many). For example: the sourcing is not "BLP sufficient" to state that Badoo "uses controversial tactics to attract new users." – and also stipulate a "warning"; both within the article's lead. The article's body is disproportionately negative as well, while weasel sentiments are repeated; casting doubt. The sourcing however, is sufficient for "general verifiability", and: the explicit exemption from BLP allows, (practically encouraging), a less-stringent standard. It befuddles me that legal persons should be left vulnerable by a policy so well suited to include them! In my opinion, WP:BLPGROUP should be re-thought; or at least perhaps: re-written?—John Cline (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 ::::::::::I do note the word "theories". [[Theories on Jews and communism]] would at least be a start. Something in the title that notes its contentious aspect [[User:Irondome|Irondome]] ([[User talk:Irondome|talk]]) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 ::::::::::And let me just add, since you brought up the Obama thing. We have an article called [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories]], in relation to the article being discussed here([[Jews and Communism]]) it would be akin to some Yahoo making an article called [[Barack Obama and his fake birth certificate]]. See? [[Jewish Bolshevism]] =[[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories]] and [[Jews and Communism]] = [[Barack Obama and his fake birth certificate]]. Is there any doubt by any reasonable person that the Jews and Communism is a [[WP:COATRACK]] for every yahoo that believes that stupid canard? I mean, really. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 01:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
+:::::::::::"Jews and Communism" is not a coatrack for "Jewish Bolshivism", from all appearances it is a wholly separate topic.  Again, this is why I have very little to do with editing in this topic area any more; too many editors playing up the victim card just as they do in real life.  None of this is genuine encyclopedic editing, it is just another front in their war. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 12:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 :Dave Dial, I do understand that you don't want to look at filth, neither do I, but if we just turn away we are allowing filth to be promoted on this site we are participating in. I hope you won't do that. I cannot. I hope all who have posted here or see this will, as you say, "keep an eye" on that page.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 I can only describe this entire incident as being the equivalent of a Wiki-lynching. I and Direktor are indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent '''"shoot first, ask questions later" policy'''. No benefit of the doubt for editors with thousands of edits and who've spent years on Wikipedia. He throws a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence to back his preposterous acts he "points to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claims he's "too busy" to do so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=606238683&oldid=606237423][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=606246678&oldid=606245498] It's only until numerous editors tell him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was that he decides undo this nonsense. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=606198729&oldid=606198126][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=606222024&oldid=606213443][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=606241661&oldid=606240293][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=606235428&oldid=606215947][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=606236624&oldid=606235882] One uninvolved admin characterized the matter as Jehochman "running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=606295273]