User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/580

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Changes to Wael Hallaq

Dear Liz,

I submit the following for your consideration. First, as I explained recently to Flyer22 on her talk page:

1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African." 2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.

Second, I continue to disagree that the phrase "is a prominent scholar" requires citation, and here is the argument I presented to Flyer 22 for the same:

3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.

Finally, I understand the concern you expressed as "Removing sourced material," as the opening "non-Muslim Arab" was indeed cited, and the citation removed when I removed the opening phrase.

Seeking resolution to this persistent rolling back of my edits, I will do the following: 1) I will remove "non-Muslim Arab" for the stereotyping reasons outlined above 2) Despite my continuing disagreement, I will not replace it with anything (i.e., I will not insert "prominent" or any other descriptor) 3) I will retain the citation, and move it to the term "non-Muslim" which now occurs in the second paragraph, deemphasizing the fact so as to avoid stereotyping

Regards, RaHHaal (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable, RaHHaal. Note that these guidelines about language like "well-known", "accomplished", "top-ranked", "most important", "the best", "spectacular", etc. are applied to all profiles and are actually a big problem on articles about entertainers (actors and singers). It's not a standard that is being unjustly applied to this article alone. It's a constant battle on Wikipedia against superlative language.

As for Wael Hallaq's prominence, you don't have to find a reference that specifically uses that word. It can be any reference (from a reliable source) to his importance as a scholar that you can find. One source you could cite, for example, is any prominent award or honor he has received or if holds an endowed chair for his professorship. That would demonstrate his prominence.

I think Wikipedia has a particularly high bar for academics...there are many scholars who I think should be listed on Wikipedia but there are Editors who evaluate academics and they can't have a regular record of teaching and publishing, they have demonstrate they are exceptional or notable outside of their academic discipline. Since most academics spend the their time on research and don't seek out media attention or publicity, this is a difficult standard to meet.

I'm glad we could come to a compromise you can live with at the moment. Note that if these edits are challenged by others, we'll need to move this conversation to the article Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference desk

Hi Liz, I am not sure if there are any admins or other well-meaning editors who 'police' the reference desk, sorry I can't really help here :( GiantSnowman 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Giant, you can help me if you'll indulge me in one more question: Have you seen disputes concerning the Reference Desks (regarding users, incidents or policies) posted to AN or AN/I in your tenure here at Wikipedia? I'm just wondering if that's where a discussion like this would happen. Thanks for your assistance! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have certainly been dispute about the RD posted at ANI - but if you're seeking more guidance then I'd try AN. GiantSnowman 18:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it's just an observation, Giant. But now I'll search the AN and AN/I archives and see if it is an issue that has come up before. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Why don't you run for admin

Greetings Liz, I saw your comments at Jimbo's page and was wondering why you don't run for RFA. Your editing history seems to support that you would do well. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's flattering, 71.126.152.253, thanks. But I have some strikes against me:

• Though my first Wikipedia account was registered in 2007, I was a sporadic Editor until July of this year. I doubt that I'd get credit for all of my edits under my other accounts (including my IP account) and there seems to be a 12 month minimum for consistent editing.
• I'm interested in the processes of how Wikipedia runs smoothly, assessing consensus, examining policies, voicing unpopular opinions that should be heard, dispute resolution. I don't see my forte as content creation and that's, pretty much, a basic requirement for all successful RfA. Lots of GAs, FAs and DYKs are often emphasized.
• They now require extended "tours of duty" (2 or 3 months) in a variety of areas (AfD, AfC, Vandalism, NPP, etc.) and I'd rather find something I'm good at and stick with that (along with regular Wikignome activities) then round out my resume just for the sake of an acceptable future RfA.
• Plus, I've looked at the editing stats of long-time Admins. Doing Admin grunt work, putting out fires, checking unblock requests, requests for help, and the like, seems to consume all of the time that Admins used to spend working on the encyclopedia. It's like being an engineer and getting promoted to be a manager and finding that instead of doing creative work, all of your time is spent filling out paperwork and attending meetings. Yes, you get these powerful tools, but it looks like much of Admin work is borderline unpleasant and they are constantly criticized, no matter what they do. Yeah, sign me right up! ;-)

So, for all of these reasons, I don't think I'd do very well in an RfA and I'm not sure that Admin work is the kind of work I wanted to spend hours doing. But, again, I do appreciate your encouragement! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right that usually 12 months of consistent editing and some experience in deletion/vandalism/etc. is typically a must for an admin candidate. But there are actually a number of admins who spend a lot of time writing content, like Wehwalt, Casliber, Jimfbleak, etc., so if you do become an admin you can always keep that up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to know, Mark Arsten. Unless my circumstances change (that is, I can unpack my library!), I don't see myself creating a lot of serious content, which is really needed right now in the sociology area. The limitations of a small apartment and not having an office any longer, everything is boxed up, especially bulky reference books. But, luckily, there are always a lot of other necessary tasks that need to be done! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Hi I was just wondering if contributing to the encyclopedia itself ever interested you? What sort of topics interest you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Blofeld, 51.70% of my edits are to the Wikipedia article space so I do work on the encyclopedia itself. All sorts of topics interest me, I try to fix problems, especially regarding references, tables and categories, when I come across them...small improvements that help articles.

But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me. I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.

It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.

At least, that is my perception of what is occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, a massive cleanup job is needed on here and it's difficult to know where to start, and shoddy new articles which go under the radar are adding to the cleanup job and workload. I just didn't recognize your name which if you're a veteran here that strikes me as odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I first registered in 2007 as Nwjerseyliz but I made most of my edits logged out, as an IP. My most recent IP account seems like it is static as it only contains my edits if you check Contributions. But all I did was fix typos that I saw or run-on sentences, I didn't know much about formatting or how Wikipedia was organized.

I decided to become more active last summer and my first comments in the Wiki space reflect my confusion and frustration over where to find information on how Wiki operates and how to edit. Now that I know my way around, it seems obvious but back in July, I kept searching for topics with Wikipedia's search function, not knowing that I had to go to Advanced and check the "Wikipedia" box in order to find pages in the Wiki space. It was very frustrating and I'm glad the Editors who staff the Teahouse are incredibly patient.

My first serious edits, of course, stepped on toes. I wish Editors and Admins who post warnings on User Talk Pages would realize that casual Editors don't even know that policy and guideline pages exist...they don't know there are these articles they should read first or where they are and they couldn't find them without a direct link. So, I was labeled as "disruptive" and some of my edits were reverted because I was learning by trial and error. This scolding led to me spending a lot of time reading Wiki articles and noticeboards, in order to better understand Wikipedia culture and what expectations were. This is why you just started to seeing my name around the past few months and also why I also often advise against imposing blocks on new Editors because I know how much I stumbled around, ignorant of what customs and practices I was violating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nwjerseyliz still exists and if I go to other Wiki sites it logs me in under that username and when I return to en.wiki, I'm still logged in as Nwjerseyliz. So, you'll still see some edits there.

• Liz wrote: But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me.

I know exactly how you feel.

Liz wrote: I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.

Just to play devil’s advocate: Most, if not all, the articles I created were stubs, and while what you say above (still) applies to some, others have received some nice contributions. See for example Wage Earner Protection Program Act

Liz wrote: It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.

How true, sigh… XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was spending a lot of time in

WP:CfD last month, Ottawahitech

, but it could get so adversarial, it was tiring. I mean, the easiest thing is to vote Delete because it takes no effort (just like posting Block! on AN/I). But if you want to Keep, you have to find policies, guidelines or logical reasons to justify why content should exist. I also felt like I needed to notify everyone who might be effected by a Delete and found that the majority of Editors are not checking in daily and decisions in Deletions wrap up quickly (usually in a week or less). So, that effort didn't pay off with much response but I'm glad I did it.

I'm still finding out where I fit in to the Wiki world, where I can help out the most but also get some satisfaction.

I didn't mean to knock stub authors, some that I've seen are closer to articles while others are pretty meager. I just became curious how some Editors could create 100s (or 1000s) of articles and when I looked into it, they were often just a sentence-long stubs about some obscure type of salamander or gnat that lists their scientific name and common name and a reference to some biological reference book. A decent article could take weeks or months to craft especially considering all of the other things going on in life. It's quite an investment of time and effort to track down all of the necessary references so the subject is going to have to be one I already know something about. I truly admire Editors that have the persistence to take a so-so article to GA and FA status.

But like the guidelines say, this isn't a race, Wikipedia grows as a cumulative effort and a new article can be added today, next month or next year and still be a worthwhile addition. Sorry for rambling a bit, I tend to get a little reflective in the morning when I'm drinking my coffee. Thanks for being a Talk Page Stalker! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Butting in here, I wholeheartedly agree with you about how it can take a long time to find sources, particularly at present. That's probably the main reason I'm working on getting together the lists of encyclopedic articles, and also trying to add some of the older PD ones to commons. Particularly for a lot of older topics, like maybe a 19th century mayor of Berlin, some of those older sources might be among the best out there, considering the possibly greater temporary significance of the subject at the time those works came out, and more space devoted to them on that basis, and the fact that, in a lot of cases, except some involving homosexual outing, revelation of subsequent sometimes questionable sexual or other forms of behavior, etc., there won't be a lot of currently regarded information about them that won't be included in those old sources. Granted, a lot of that sort of material can also, not unreasonably, be called "boring", but it might still be significant enough for inclusion here to some degree. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with old reference materials, John. They reflect what certain scholars believed at the time they were written, but our understanding about most fields, from physics to literature to anthropology, is not even the same as it was ten years ago. I'd say that even a reference text from 1993 is out-of-date, depending on the type of information it contains.

I've seen old Catholic Encyclopedias from the turn of the 20th century and reading them gave me a good idea about what a particular group of chosen Catholic theologians (but not laypeople) believed about the saints or the sacraments in 1907. But we not only know more 100+ years later but scholarship itself has changed. Methods of research have changed, there are more academic contributions from scholars in countries outside of Europe and North America and also, gasp!, women, too. While much of academic training itself has changed little over the past 150 years (unfortunately), the individuals who are doing the research have changed, immensely, the research questions that are being asked have evolved over time and so have the conclusions drawn from that research.

Older reference materials are valuable in that they can demonstrate how understanding of a concept or event has changed over time but they are, basically, a moment encapsulated in a time capsule. I'd argue that they should only be used as a reference if a Wiki article is discussing what people at a certain moment in time believed as these works do not reflect contemporary scholarship. That doesn't make them useless, just that their use has to be qualified and it should be noted that they are dated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

On the matters you referred to, I actually more or less agree, which is why I mentioned the example of an older mayor of Berlin, although I suppose any older biographical article about minor figures who haven't gotten much subsequent attention might be similar. Regarding matters of religion, yeah, I have seen how in some cases like regarding Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mani's early Christianity, and several other matters which have been significantly changed by recent discoveries would invalidate a lot of the older conclusions, but that number of topics, broad as it is, is probably still a non-majority of the total number of all the possible topics out there. Particularly starting in the era of when written sources became particularly common, say the end of the 19th century, and some works like the Chambers, Britannica, and a few other comparatively non-biased sources, the older articles on, for instance, countries which have since been merged, or conquered, or whatever, might still be among the better sources for those older topics. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rick Bronson

Thanks, Giant. I don't take reverts personally, I try to use them as a way to understand what I did incorrectly. I think I need a short list of valid reasons for deletion because I thought that being an insubstantial article was evidence enough. I mean, it was a sentence long with all of these external links! Is "it looks like junk" a valid reason? No, that's probably too generic.

What I find puzzling is that there are so many Editors who are a quick draw with Speedy Deletes...they seem to tag dozens of SDs all day long. And I find myself an Inclusionist and usually argue to Keep articles and categories from deletion. But when I find a delete-worthy article, I don't know the right way to get it done. Seriously, I've proposed maybe 3 AfD (over 3 months) and they were all kept. I must be doing something wrong because I wouldn't haven't proposed them unless I thought they would meet the criteria for deletion.

Any way, thanks for explaining it to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A reason as short as "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines" is more than sufficient for PROD purposes - you might also want to take a look at

WP:DEL-REASON. GiantSnowman

08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Giant. Thank for pointing me in the right direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions

Hi liz,

I just discovered Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions and immediately thought of you. I know you are busy but I doubt you will get a lot of requests if you list yourself there. Cheers, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Ottawahitech. I've wanted to get involved into some aspect of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I think I could make a contribution there. But while I've been editing WP, on and off, since 2007, it's just been fixing typos, grammar mistakes and the like and I've only been exploring, in depth, Wikipedia itself since July.

So, I'll look over 3O and maybe in a little while, I'll feel like I have the experience to be useful there. Thanks again, Ottawahitech. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Talk:Aaron Swartz

Should a parenthetical comment be inserted in the bio lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?

Illustration: “On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”

(This is my first RfC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dervorguilla! I read over the article text, the remarks already posted and left a comment. It looks like this textual edit has already been made so now it is a matter of Editors arguing for a reversion and I didn't see any such comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)