Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 648

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.

Archive 645

Archive 646

Archive 647

→

Neutral point of view is difficult at some points

Neutral point of view is difficult at some points though it is one of basic principles of Wikipedia. As everyone can edit every article. So you can edit an article to which you are opponent. For example

Christian view of Bible and Quran
- Bible: Christians believe Bible is a revealed book and a True word and Order of God.
- Quran: Some Christian testaments declared Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a false prophet so Quran is a man-written book (May God save me from this!)
Islamic view of Bible and Quran
- Bible: Muslims believe Bible is a revealed book but it was changed from its original form so present Bible is not a True word and Order of God.
- Quran: Muslims believe Quran is the final, true and unchangeable word and Order of God.

When here are so much trenchs in views, neutrality of view is perhaps very difficult. Sinner (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sinner . Not to be rude, but... I'm not totally sure if there's a question in there. NPOV can very often be difficult, so much so that we have the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard for times when situations arise that need wider community discussion. In general, with regard to religion, we simply record what people believe as what they believe without really "taking a side". Determining the nature of absolute immutable epistemic Truth is more of a place for philosophers and theologians, and not really for an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The word rude while referring me shows answerer does not agree with above content (even I ensure it is a truth). That is we can't agree on everything, so can't become so neutral as required by wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. He was not saying you were rude, he was hoping he would not be considered rude for saying what he said. Everyday English can be harder to understand than formal written English. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not central point of question, neutrality is difficult at points where you do not agree with basic idea of a subject when you are opposite to it. Sinner (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, really. If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it. There is no requirement, no expectation, that you edit on every topic, but there is an expectation and requirement that, when you do edit something, you approach it with a neutral point of view. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, even subjects like bible and quran can have other points of view than christian and islamic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And (which I hope is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, really), the bullet points above are not universally representative or "true" regarding the points of view of Christian and Muslim people, either. For instance, most Christians in my part of the world do not believe that the Bible as a whole is a "revealed" book - it is commonly accepted that it was written by human hands, and interpreting the texts and contexts of the times when the Bible was written, in order to make it relevant for people today, is a major issue for theologians and Bible translators. But that's not the only point of view or belief, and it would be equally wrong to say that it is universally representative for Christians. --bonadea contributions talk 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, "If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it." C. S. Lewis said much the same thing about reviewing books to which one has a personal antipathy.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sinner -- Look at the bright side. Where there are differences between Christianity and Islam, they can be laid out in bullet points, as you have. Where there are differences between creationism and science, the two sides argue without even a common vocabulary. I am quite sure you will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully using the tact and wisdom you demonstrated in your post. Knowing your interlocutor and his views does not require that you agree with them. As salamu aleiykum. (Peace be upon you) Rhadow (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sinner! We're all the children of the Almighty Creator. This we have in common. As for Atheists and Idolators, they ideologically refuse to accept this commonality - yet even then they would have to agree that we're all human beings. Ultimately, beyond any differences, the fact is, we are all people, we all have ideas, we all have feelings. That's not blasphemy - it's just reality. Whatever goes beyond that is simply, up to us as a generation of folks, who are preparing this planet for who goes beyond this time in history. Hopefully that will be our descendants. Following in our footsteps.
To remain neutral, to many of us in Wikipedia, will mean ignoring what seems to be blasphemy. That's definitely a problem. It is absolutely forbidden (to ignore blasphemy). The biggest problem is within, though. We all are imperfect beings, doomed from the time we're born to make errors. That's how we can learn. From our errors.
So would we rather make the errors by choice, so we can bring enlightenment - or rather by blunder, not even recognizing we've made an error? To build ideological bridges is a positive thing. To further communication is a positive thing. To bring light to the future of humanity is a positive thing. Which means we have to wrestle with neutrality. Life is not a party. It's a wrestling match. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2422889236x We are creatures, we are not children of God, I believe. Sinner (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The word "children" isn't meant literally, it's a colloquialism. It's a metaphor for "creature." Of course the Creator of all things created us, and we are only his humble creatures. Also I note that your original reply ... much more extensive and verbose, was accidentally reverted:

I agree with most of your opinion but everyone has his own beliefs and according to my belief, I am ardent opponent to your phrase, We are all children of Almighty Creator (ﻧﻌﻮﺫ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﮧ) . For me, sayings of Quran are precious than my life, Allah says:

Say Allah is One, He doesn't need anyone, He neither bore anyone, neither He was born by anyone, He has no spouse. (Quran:112)

He hasn't born anyone so He has no children, we are His creatures. For me, neutrality at this point is completely impossible. Sinner (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe you accidentally deleted a block of entries when you replied, and this is what got reverted. Your reply was reverted along with everything else. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On serious matters when your mind forces you to remove matter that offends you, you may forget rules and you can take a step that is surely harmful for wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We're all fallible. Our minds "force" us to forget rules. We make mistakes. If anything, the fact that we forget rules and make mistakes is what makes it so important for us to have other people around us. Good people. People who can remind us what those rules are. I guess, that's why we have this Teahouse!. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

All the information by reliable sources is not true. For example, In a clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

50 Afghan troops killed (Pakistani claim)
Only 4 troops are killed (Afghani claim).

Both countries are hiding something. Pakistani claim may be too large and Afghan claim may be too small. What to do when sources aren't neutral like this. Sinner (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This question has not been answered. What to do when two conflicting sources provide different information? Sinner (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The answer will usually be to cite both if the sources are both reliable and the topic notable. Dbfirs 07:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nazim Hussain Pak, that's a considerably different question than you started out with.

If you have two different sources of comparable reliability, it's acceptable to report what both have to say. If there's a discrepancy between the two reports, that discrepancy may be left unresolved by the Wikipedia article. It's not our job to declare the truth, just to write things that can be verified. That notion of "comparable reliability" is where our neutrality is put to the test. We have a policy that fringe and extreme points of view should not be given undue weight. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Even we should cite if both sources are not neutral? i,e. If both sources support their side? Sinner (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, our articles must neutrally report the positions and arguments of all significant sides of an issue, while giving each side it's due weight such that minority or fringe opinions are not overstated nor majorities over-represented. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on long enough. There is no expectation that sources are neutral. We, as Wikipedia editors, have a duty to write from a WP:NPOV, but that may mean juxtaposing the opposing views of biased sources. For the writing to be neutral, it cannot attempt to resolve the discrepancy between opposing viewpoints. Where neutral and reliable sources can be found, we prefer to use them, but that is not always possible. From your example: official statements from governments are not presumed to be reliable as to the facts in matters where that government may have an interest in misrepresentation; all we can do is establish that a source reliably represents what that government is claiming. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Does wikipedia object when a user follows all the rules of wikipedia but something in his text shows his group, i.e. A user who writes Muhammad (peace be upon him) is surely a Muslim. Allowing it seems to be best. If you want to gather people from all groups around one desk, you should respect views of every group without taking a side. I'm addressing to wikipedia, Sinner (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It does, a little. We don´t write holy bible/quran/book etc, see for example WP:PBUH and MOS:HONORIFIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Some users and specially I am in favour of using such titles. As title of this discussion, I'm not neutral at such points. Muhammad cursed those who do not say peace be upon him following his name. Because His Excellency was written before name of Nawaz Sharif, PBUH can be written following name of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Sinner (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak Wikipedia should not, and will not, endorse or oppose any religious belief in its articles. The use of "PBUH" or similar honorifics would be an endorsement of a particular religious view. It is not acceptable, and will be reverted when noticed. Repeated insertion of such honorifics would be considered Disruptive editing and is subject to sanctions. The same is true for rendering "God" as "G-d" as some christian sects prefer, or referring to the christian scripture as "The Holy Bible", this is not a policy aimed only at Islam. It is also not negotiable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to do that on talkpages, feel free. Not in articles. Here [1] is an extensive discussion on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles mostly state evolutionary history of biological species, they do not mention religious view over creation of species except human. Wikipedia should favour neither religion nor science. Is this not a discrimination between religion and science? Sinner (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WP does mention these things: Creationism,Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism,Islamic views on evolution,American Indian creationism,Objections to evolution,Teleological argument and quite a few others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The ratio of articles about evolution is very high. Every article about species discusses history of their creation according to unacceptable evolution without discussing their origin In mythology. Sinner (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If you try to edit WP from the POV that evolution is unacceptable there will probably be problems at some point. If you can find good sources and make more articles like Raven in mythology I see no problem with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The best I found I should not disturb Wikipedia because I do not agree with something. I should do my best to improve this Project. I can never become neutral in some fields, I shall not disturb those fields. Wikipedia needs a lot of improvement. Give me some useful advice about this. These are last words of Sinner in this thread. Sinner (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there an automated solution? Hundreds of vandal edits by IP

I have just uncovered a [IP vandal]who has been altering charts of data in articles about international airports since April (hundreds of edits). The edits are done consecutively, removing information from the charts, and I find it is too much work to chase them all down, let alone correct them. The person was warned and blocked in early June. Is there an automated way to get rid of all this person's edits? And I hope it is an admin, rather than the unfortunate editor who tried to undo some of the damage, who accomplishes this.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: There are ways to request mass reverts. I am not sure how they technically work, but in any case the good place to request this is at WP:ANI. Check out first that it has not been discussed previously; Materialscientist (the blocking admin) probably knows if anything happened after the block. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a finished list of books in my sandbox ...

which I would like to promote to a regular entry. How do you do that? Albretch Mueller (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Albretch Mueller. The list in your sandbox does not currently resemble an encyclopedia article (and I'm not sure it ever can), and so does not warrant a move to the article mainspace, at least at this time. We do have specialized types of articles that are stand-alone lists, but such entries are not just a simple list of entries but contain prose, including a lead section providing encyclopedic, context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the scope of the list and criteria for selection. All articles must be verified by citations to reliable source, and the list you've composed has none. If an encyclopedic stand-alone list article is possible for this list topic, then, in addition to reading the page I linked to our stand-alone list guideline, you might look at Wikipedia:Featured lists, to emulate. However, the reason I said above that I'm not sure a suitable article is even possible, is because lists cannot be on indiscriminate topics, and I'm not sure that books "targeting persecution" (as your edit summary there indicated it is), is a suitable topic, and not too broad for a list article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If at some point this is ready for a move to the mainspace, it would have to be carried out by an administrator, since your sandbox page history has unrelated revisions that would need to be scrubbed from the move. If this becomes ripe for a move, a request could be made at the technical section of requested moves, noting the page history issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to copy the text from the current sandbox to WP:Draft space when no other editor is involved in the creation of the text? (I'm not recommending that this be done with the current content.) Dbfirs 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: If and only if a draft remains edited by a single user, and if and only if that user (not someone else for them) copied the content to a mainspace page, would it be acceptable from a copyright standpoint to perform a copy and paste move. However, even then, retaining the edit history of the draft is a much cleaner process, and many users would want it retained. Any copy and paste move by another person would result in an untenable situation. First, the person would have to comply with our licenses by stating what they were doing in the edit summary, and provide a hyperlink to the source of copying (see WP:COPYWITHIN), and then the sandbox would have to be retained forever so that the edit history providing the list of authors who own the copyright to the content remains available for credit. Ensuring that is a very dicey proposition indeed, and just very messy, even if there was a way to guarantee it; it attenuates the attribution to another page's history for no real purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see. The "prose" and the other technical aspects you mentioned relating to that list I can fix in minutes. That list would be part of other pages. What I can't understand is why you consider "targeted persecution" paid for, trained and coordinated by the government an "indiscriminate topic"? Wikipedia does have pages about MKUltra, COINTELPRO, Project SUNSHINE ... even about Directed-energy_weapons which could be seen by some as barely disguised advertising. What is the problem then talking about the victims of such weapons? Albretch Mueller (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Albretch Mueller: Where does that list end? How many books are there, throughout history, in all languages, that fit within the ambit of "targeted persecution" as a topical scope for a list, and wouldnt that be an exercise in applying highly subjective standards, that would be difficult to winnow using unambiguous criteria? Maybe the following will better clarify what is meant by an "indiscriminate list". Once again, I am questioning the issue, and am not sure it is not a valid list topic, but it certainly is not, at first blush, obvious that its scope is not too broad:

By the way, no matter your familiarity with the topic, no one in the world in a matter of "minutes" could do a decent job of writing prose providing historical context, background, topical scope, criteria, while properly citing suitable reliable secondary and independent sources using transparent inline citations (and that is most important part of such a list). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

When I said "in a matter of minutes" I meant I have been working on bringing some certainty to such huge and devilish topic apparently no one wants to talk about and our rulers have an invested interest in having no talk about any of it: https://ipsoscustodes.wordpress.com/2017/ {06/15/main-individual-targeting-us/, 07/27/social-what-how-why-of-targeted-individuals-political_persecution_us/, 07/27/technical-what-how-why-of-targeted-individuals-political_persecution_us/, 06/15/well-known-targeted-individual-us/} Albretch Mueller (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Albretch Mueller, I haven't looked at the draft, but judging from what you have written above, it seems to me that you are here at Wikipedia to argue a case. If that is so, please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to do this. No Wikipedia article should ever present an argument or a conclusion, except when it is summarising the argument or conclusion of a single reliable source that it cites. And Wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. --ColinFine (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I did know about wikipedia: {<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy">Advocacy</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs">Righting_Great_Wrongs</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view">Neutral_point_of_view</a>} policies, which, for the most part, especially the first two I find reasonable and I reread in the context of your comment. I could also see how they could be "technically" used to get at writers, especially in connection with "controversial", complex topics. I also understand that people with a verbal grasp on things talk about and understand reality in their own ways. Of course there will always be argumentative and conclusive aspects to every statement anyone could possibly make, as "encyclopedic" as they may sound, including your very own "single reliable source that it cites" one! Some people may find quite hilarious and tellingly brain effed that wikipedia considers the New York Times to be an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#Satellites_used_for_covert_harassment">independent third-party and reliable source</a>. As I mentioned before and neither wikipedia nor you seem to have a problem with, even while pointing out issues relating to its "'encyclopedic' tone" and "verifications" since March 2013, wikipedia allows for manufacturers of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon">Directed-energy_weapons</a> advertise their technical details as an "'encyclopedic' entry" (which, let me be clear, I am not exactly complaining about and, even if questionably I find within the framework of what an encyclopedia is). Wikipedia has long entries with quite elaborate item lists and categorizations about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO">UFOs</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati">Illuminati</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism">Satanism</a>. Aaronia AG (one of the most advanced DEW manufacturers) CEO, Thorsten Chmielus, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmVKyOt2oVc&t=2m50s">cracking jokes</a> and compulsively laughing about definitely more than their DEWs tells us: "[our programmable DEW you can also use ] ... as a jammer, but I didn't say that, of course, because I think it is not allowed anywhere, but we call it 'field strength generator' and then 'it sounds more familiar' and you can use it". Anyone with a technical sense of reality would find preposterous the "discreet", "no-touch" aspect that the government claims as one of the "advantages" of DEWs. I wonder what would happen is people beam Thorsten and his family with the EM waves caused with the very DEWs made by his company as the government does to so many victims, even babies. He should no problem with it as long as they use 'field strength generator', right? Why is it that the victims of such abuses have no voice or place not even in an encyclopedia and find no venue anywhere? As I profusely pointed out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#.22Conspiracy_theories.22"> even here at wikipedia</a> they totally misrepresent "targeted individuals" as being conspiracy theorists and/or mentally ill, even though the technology enabling every single one of what they have been talking about for more than two decades is now being openly advertised and <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/nypd-surveillance-post-act-lies-misinformation-transparency/">the government keeps trying to hide</a> at the same time (<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/post-act-hearing-round-0">illegally</a> since they are using tax payers moneys). Albretch Mueller (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

on 'History of religions' page a few paragraphs don't seem to be neutral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions

Surviving early copies.... "Scholars were anxious.... The Bible's oldest historical... these additions are vague and contain no references, can they be deleted as they do not add to the accuracy of the page? Vgerdj (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vgerdj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, they can. You can remove unreferenced content and it can't be restored without references. You can also remove referenced content if it's inaccurate, or violates neutral point of view. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical Hits (talk • contribs) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Critical Hits and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you have been experimenting with editing Wikipedia. If you are ready to contibute to building the encyclopedia, please feel free to ask questions here. --Pine^✉ 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Any attention that could be directed to this talk page?

I just wondered if anyone had an answer to my question on the Spy Kids talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello C.Syde65 and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you wish to challenge the identification of "those things" as "Thumb-thumbs" in the article, you could put a {{citation needed}} template there. Use the reason= parameter to explain what fact you think is missing. Strictly speaking, the way you currently have asked the question, it seems more an attempt to use the talk page as a forum rather than as a place to discuss improvements to the article.

Wikipedia does operate a WP:Reference desk which is open to answering many sorts of questions, but I don't know how well they'd do at this one. You might be able to get a faster answer at IMDB or at a fan site like Wikia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably lucky because I use Wikia regularly, although I'm not sure of any fan sites on Wikia that are active, at least socially. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've decided I'm pretty sure the information is correct, as the information also exists on at least one other site, and looking at the strange people in black suits, they are thumb shaped - I always noticed they were sort of thumb shaped, but it wasn't until recently that I learned that they were actually thumb-thumbs underneath those suits - I was just very surprised, so I questioned the information for reassurances sake, so I guess I'm reassured now. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

Is Sandbox for practicing writing the article or will saving changes actually submit the article? Bcreichs123! (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bcreichs123!: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Please see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. By the way, if you are planning to write about yourself, make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability beforehand. Regards and happy editing! Alex Shih ^Talk 04:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous edit

Hi there, just want to ask how to stop anonymous editing on wikipedia? I've noticed on the page of "kantar media philippines" one user is removing the facts of that page and replacing it with fake information. Is there anythind we can do? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makki2017 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Makki2017: Welcome to the Teahouse . You can issue a warning to the user. If it's still happening after your warning, you can either request for the page to be protected or report to vandalism noticeboard. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@alexshih im new in wikipedia, can you teach how to request for a protection on the said document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makki2017 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Makki2017: Click Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and just follow the instructions there. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 06:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

someone else set up a stub for me. I need to learn what I can and can't do.

The stub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Decuir The bottom of the page describes this as a stub. It is possible to turn it into a real page, but I don't understand the process yet. I am the subject of the article. My wife found it a few days ago. I believe it was created a few months ago by someone at the IEEE. (www.ieee.org) Not knowing any better, I added a few engineering related facts: why I became a Fellow, other contributions to public engineering standards. (All these edits are provably true.) She then added a couple other facts, mostly family. I then got another message from Uncle Milty. It pointed to the conflicts of interest page, etc. Please advise how to proceed? JoeDecuir (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello JoeDecuir -- Your problem is not that the article is a stub. The problem is that the article appears to be written by its subject, which a conflict of interest WP:COI. Lemme work on it and see what happens. Don't you touch it, OK? Rhadow (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello JoeDecuir -- First, have a look at the page about you. Second, find some nifty web references to you that prove your achievements. It is okay if they are behind an IEEE paywall. Third, put them on your talk page. Fourth, tell the truth that you don't know me or care to know me. The rest will happen magically. Signed, your magician, Rhadow (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is best for you not to edit the page, JoeDecuir. Wikipedia:Simple COI request explains how you can request changes to it if there are inaccuracies or you want material to be added. In its present state, the article is likely to be deleted because it does not cite enough sources and therefore does not establish the notability of you as an encyclopedia subject, so if you know of any published sources about you, please do suggest them. See WP:42 for a brief explanation of how notability is judged here. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

JoeDecuir, the best practice when you have a conflict of interest but want a reasonable quick answer to a particular request is to make an edit request on the article's talk page. To do so, go to Talk:Joseph_C._Decuir, make a new section describing precisely what needs to be changed to what in the article, provide supporting references, and add {{request edit}} so that another editor will come, validate (or not) the changes and perform them. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep - as explained in the Wikipedia:Simple COI request link I gave above, Tigraan. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why my article has been deleted?

I have created my arcticle and it has good citations and it has been deleted several times. what should i do and please expalin me clearly point to point. My article name is Janrise.Shivakrishnakokkula (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Shivakrishnakokkula: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately your article was promotional, non-notable, did not have any reliable sources, in addition to your conflict of interest. I am afraid there is nothing you can do. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 10:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite still considered a Promo

I provided the following feedback to the reviewer on my second attempt, but guess I should request your collective assistance in getting the submission to meet expectations.

I am not a relative nor do I have any financial or ulterior reason for persisting with this task. I am interested in the history of this person who has a terminal illness. Hence it is certainly not an advertisement. That said, I definitely 'get' what you are saying. Third party references to verify her life and contributions are used frequently and a few more have been added She was very active from her 20's as a woman leading from the 'front' in international protests - not very popular with many governments of course. Now we realise in the South Pacific that the residuals of nuclear testing still remain. Rainbow Warriors are considered quite heroic here. I'm not sure how to re-write this because it is so interwoven with the politics and social fabric of the 1970's Should I remove all of the material under Life and Career? Many thanks for what must be a very difficult and time-consuming task as a volunteer. As a consolation, Susi certainly stepped-up in her prime too. I'm very grateful to both of you. Don

The revision is under Waihekedon and in my sandbox. Is that sufficient information to access it?

Thanks, D

Waihekedon (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot that could be done to improve the sandbox contents, including adding a wikilink to Rainbow Warrior, and removing unreferenced promotional statements such as "There are so many talented people, from around the world, who live there". Maproom (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Waihekedon. I looked at your draft last night, but I fell asleep before I could reply. My first suggestion would be to look at some other biographical articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't appear you have done that. Why do I say that? Because you will not find one single bio here amongst all 5 million plus articles that begins with the subject's name, followed by a colon and a sentence fragment. Why is this important? Other than the style issue, which is easily fixed, because what frequently does begin that way is a press release, the most blatently promotional type of writing that exists. Then the very next words are "movement builder", one of those terms that you only find on someone's resume. I doubt anyone would consider a "man on the street poll" to ask people to name famous "movement builders", right? I know it is not your intention to be promotional, but right off the bat in the very first line, your draft appears blatently promotional. Secondly, you have some book references. Those should contain the specific page numbers that reference the fact you are citing. Third, you have some references to Wikipedia. That is never allowed for anything. Fourth, you have numerous references to social media. Again, with a few very narrow exceptions, you cannot source things to social media.

What will decide if your article makes it to the encyclopedia is notability. Notability is shown by having multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, that discuss the subject in detail. While the book listed as reference #1 is an excellent source, totally reliable, it can only be used to verify facts. Since it is published by Greenpeace, it is not independent and does nothing to show notability. The rest of your sources (with the exception of the other book) are either not reliable (websites with no indication of editorial vetting, the aforementioned social media and Wikipedia) or do not discuss her in detail. Being mentioned multiple times in passing does nothing to show notability. Virtually all of the article below the first section is inappropriate if I am understanding what you are trying to communicate with your writings there. This information should be in the article, referencing some fact or another. Writing about her being mentioned in the media is not appropriate content. Listing her social media is not appropriate content. This draft needs a ton of work. I am guessing that somewhere, there is enough to show that she is notable. But notability is not conveyed by real world accomplishments. Notability is conveyed by someone totally unconnected with her writing in detail about her real world accomplishments. That is what you have to show. Your writing also has issues with maintaining a neutral point of view, which is why we discourage people who have a connection of any kind with the subject of the article from writing about them. Your posting here at Teahouse reveals that you have deep feelings about this woman, and that makes it very difficult to write with detachment. John from Idegon (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I get a bursary

I am currently upgrading Mathematics and need to find a bursary NFSAS is my last option I want to study Administrative management at TUT Any suggestions or bursaries inbox me at facebook Mpho Kayla Nkoshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by KayLAR (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello KayLAR. This is a page for helping people to edit Wikipedia: it is not an appropriate site for your question. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing a new WP page. Would someone be able to check my references?

Hi there! I'm in the process of writing my first article, and it's quite daunting, so kudos to all the Wikipedians out there that have written or contributed to articles!

It was declined the first time around citing lack of notability. Would anyone be kind enough to check whether the references I have now are good enough? If not, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers! Daishii (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daishii. Many of them appear to be ok, but I'm not sure about Capterra, whatever that is (It may be reliable and may not; I didn't click on any of its reflinks). The Canadian news and education websites appear to be fine though. You don't have the publisher listed on all the refs, which is not a huge issue but could be fixed. I think you have sufficient refs now to prove notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Daishii -- As a general matter, especially for new companies, less is more. Dump all but the top three officers. Dump the product features. Explain why e-learning is important. Mention the competitors. Three really good references are better than 23 trade rags. Fully qualify the references (dates, author, etc). If people want to know about the product, they go to the company's website. If they want to know about the company, they go to WP. Best Rhadow (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! I'll make the changes, resubmit it, and hope for the best! Daishii (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

First article

Hi I need help with writing a page that is on the verge of deleting. I want to know how i can write it within the guidelines User:Apmsia page

Apmsia (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find advice at WP:Your first article. Further advice is linked from the welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Side Bar with Picture Inclusion

Hi there, Can someone point me to the details I need to use, markup or code, to include a side bar with picture on a page I created and is live?Agapeom (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Agapeom. See Template:Infobox person. You can also find another article that uses that template, then copy the code over and make the necessary changes before saving. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hello there!

I need an advice regarding the fair use on small resolution images. I'm improving some contemporary artist's entries and some of them could really use an image. Obviously, I couldn't find any copyright free images so I am wondering is using rationale, fair use images would apply. I have several contemporary art books in my library, I could also scan an image and make it small enough in Photoshop.

The article I'm working on right now is Albert Oehlen.

A few days ago I created a new entry for a Korean American contemporary artist (learned about her during my CA courses) and had plenty of refs to create an entry: Draft:Won_Ju_Lim. Also some other pages link to it. The same image issue applies to this draft as well. I tried to dig info regarding this issue and since I couldn't find any copyright free image a low resolution fair use image might be the best way (According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976: The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.).

Oh, and another question regarding the draft. I saw that the AfC project is a bit burdened, what's more recommended? In the feature to move my drafts (if I consider them adequate and if the entry meets all WP quality guidelines) to the mainspace myself or to send them to AfC?

Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Robertgombos. A few things to unpack here:

Fair use images are almost never (if ever) applicable to pictures of living persons. They pretty much automatically fail WP:NFCC #1, because no one image of a living person is "special" and since they're alive, theoretically another image could at any point be made and licensed for free use.
Fair use images are never allowed on pages outside of article space, including drafts and user pages. So even if a fair use image could be found for a subject, you would need to wait until the article is published in order to add it.
No one is absolutely required to use AfC as a venue for creating articles. They can always be created directly into article space. Rather, AfC is a place where people who are unfamiliar with our standards can have their work pre-vetted for likelihood of deletion, and hopefully improved so that they don't lose their work by publishing an exceptionally poor article (see also WP:CSD) or one on a patently non-notable subject. If you feel that you are familiar with our standards for notability, especially as it concerns biographies of living persons, then there is nothing stopping you from publishing your article yourself. It might be a good idea to start with one, and make sure it gets reviewed and not nominated for deletion, and then go from there, but if Draft:Won Ju Lim is indicative of the types of articles you are creating, then I don't think you'll have much problem. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Timothyjosephwood. The information you provided on the correct usage of images saved my day. During my research I stumbled upon Sarah Lucas, and I thought that it's a "how to do it" example, but apparently violates WP:NFCC #1 (Image) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and I have nominated that image for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

One more question, Timothyjosephwood. I searched and added all the authority control tags I could find. In preview mode I get this message "Warning: Page using Template:Authority control with "ORCID", please move this to Wikidata if possible (this message is shown only in preview)". How to move those entries to Wikidata? Robertgombos (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Robertgombos. It should be fixed now. In a nutshell, Wikidata is the "under the hood" stuff that connects every article on a topic in every language together, as well as with the databases that use these unique identifiers. So you can add the IDs to Wikidata, and just put in {{Authority control}}, and the IDs will automatically populate. But this also means that they will automatically populate whenever anyone makes an article about the same person in a different language, so long as they get connected in Wikidata also. If you want to see what this looks like, go to the article and click on "Wikidata Item" in the options on the left hand side. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a possible error

I was reading the "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" article and noticed a possible mathematical error. How do I have someone authoritative check on that and, if there is indeed an error, how does it get corrected in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarson11 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ragnarson11: Hello and welcome. One way to do what you wish would be to post a comment on the article talk page to explain your concern; others that follow the page can check it for you(if you are unsure) and fix it if needed. Click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article to access the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ragnarson11: I see you edited the article. I have reverted your changes. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere says about CO₂:

"Each part per million by volume represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere as a whole.^[1]"

The small number in square brackets is a link to an inline reference for the statement, in this case http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html which says: "1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C". So the reference agrees with the article and disagrees with your change [2]. The presence of an inline reference means that the article claims the reference supports the statement, so your change effectively meant the article started lying about the content of the reference. Articles should never do that. If you think 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon should be 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide then post to the talk page with a more reliable source or sources than currently used, or some other convining argument for why the source is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

References

^ "Conversion Tables". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 26 September 2012. Retrieved 12 February 2016.

How do I make a data table

Does anyone know the command for the data table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname639 (talk • contribs)

Hi Noname639, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends what type of data table you have in mind. If it's about one of the information boxes at the top right of many articles then it's called an infobox. See Help:Infobox for general help. We can say more if you say what the page is about. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it recommended to cite article rather than referencing the URL?

Hi,

I was wondering if it were more impactful to reference publications with URL's or by inserting the citation.

Thanks!!

Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniechartrand1 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anniechartrand1: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Definitely use cite, since unformatted URLs are usually frowned upon. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good question, Ann. Citations are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia valuable: without them, content is in a sense worthless, because you can never be sure if the information was reliable in the first place, or if it has been vandalised since. To that end, a full bibilographic reference (author, title, publisher, date etc) if greatly preferred, partly so that the reader can get an idea without going to look for it how reliable it is likely to be. If the reference is available on line, a URL is helpful, but this is an optional extra, not the meat of the citation. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ann -- The most important thing is clear, expository text in the article. Make your point and put the footnote at the end of the sentence, immediately after the punctuation, like this.^[1] The interested reader can hover over the ^[1] to see what it is, click once to get the details, and click again to get to the original work. That's easier than making the user manipulate the URL. Only in extraordinary circumstances should you pull a quote from the source material to go in the article. Most of the time, it's just too much detail. Using the ^[1] allows you to support particular sentences and to reuse the reference My two cents. Rhadow (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Strunsky, Steve (February 2, 2015). "Port of N.Y. and N.J. handled record cargo volume in 2014". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2015-04-15.

@Anniechartrand1 and Rhadow: I want to disagree with one part of the above, while agreeing with all the rest. When Rhadow says Only in extraordinary circumstances should you pull a quote from the source material to go in the article. Most of the time, it's just too much detail. I tend to disagree. For example, in articles about an artist, or a creative work, it is common to have a "Critical response" section, citing several reviews of the work(s). In such a case, i think a short quote from each review cited is almost required, and surely a good practice. For example: Mahler on the Couch#Critical reception (an article which appeared on the main page, via the Did You Know? project). There are a number of other sorts of article in which direct quotes should be routinely used. I also favor the use of the |quote= parameter in citation templates, by which a quote can be put into the footnote rather than the article text. In any case there is no one-sizes-fits-all rule for the use of quotes, beyond that they must be cited inline and attributed in the article text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

However i do agree with the above that proper bibliographic data is essential, and a URL is an addition, except for web-only sources. There a URL is vital, but as much additional bibliographic data as is available should also be provided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES -- Thank you, thank you. I learn every day. Today has been a great day. We pulled an article from the incinerator pile. A group is working on it. I think it'll be rehabilitated soon, better than new. Regards Rhadow (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

copying an archived AfD discussion

I'm trying to copy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab to a user subpage User:Thnidu/Egoboo, but all I'm getting is the header boilerplate "This is a closed discussion..." and DESiegel's decision. How can I copy the discussion itself?
Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Hello there! I am not sure what happened. But the easiest way would be to put {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab}} (I have done it for you). Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 06:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: 谢谢 -- Thank you! I knew about that "templatizing" truth with the curly brackets to transclude a page, once upon a time, but I'd plumb forgotten it. --Thnidu (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

is biography movie a notable reference

is biography movie a notable referenceRearm21 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rearm21: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest a quick look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Video links. As a rule of thumb, video links are fine to reference, but they do not assert notability usually. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 06:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a guideline stating that video sources do not usually establish notability, Alex Shih? I've not heard that one before. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, not really. But when it comes to asserting notability, the essay describes that in general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. Video sources often do not have such editorial oversight, and when they do, there is also the copyright issues to deal with. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to link to copyright violations on YouTube, etc. to cite, say, a documentary, though. I would have thought that something like a BBC or CNN documentary would be considered a reliable source for most things. That said, I'm taking this away from the question, which is about a movie - which suggests a different type of video source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rearm21: I think you're confusing notability and reliability. The subject of an article has to be notable, in the special sense in which we use the word here, in order for there to be an article at all. And all the information in the article has to be referenced to reliable sources.

If there is a biographical movie about someone, there is a fair chance that that person is notable, but that doesn't make the movie a reliable source. Biopics often omit or simplify facts, combine multiple people in the subject's life into a single character, and so on. See here, and continue into the next paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rearm21, Cordless Larry, Thnidu, and Alex Shih: As so often with sources, it depends. A biopic might well not be reliable. For example, the fairly recent movie The Imitation Game conflated some incidents, and simply changed others to increase drama. For example, it showed Alan Turing being instructed by Stewart Menzies in security issues, while the biography on which the movie was in theory based says they never so much as met. It shows Turing deciding on his own to suppress intelligence so as not to reveal that codes had been broken -- in fact this was a decision made several levels above Turing, into which Turing had little or no input. It shows Turing's post-war computer work as located in his private house -- in fact it was a project of the University of Manchester, and was located in one of their labs, and was not Turing's solo project. I could go on. In short the movie is not a reliable source for Turing's life -- or anyone else's. But its mere existence would help demonstrate Turing's notability, if that were not already amply clear.

On the other hand a true documentary will generally have some sort of editorial control. Productions such as Eyes on the Prize or Ken Burns's The Civil War are probably reliable sources, although not always the best sources . The term "movie" suggests a biopic or docudrama, but might be used for a full-length documentary. In any particular case, one could try to determine what sort of sources the film used, and how much care it took to present events with accuracy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Rearm21, Cordless Larry, and Alex Shih: Reviews of a biopic from reliable sources may say something about how accurate it is. --Thnidu (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Source of Publishing company

Hello, I am very beginner. Thank you for your support.

I tried to upload new article, but wasn't approved due to the reliable source. I thought this URL of the publishing company will work for that. Isn't it enough to authorize? There is no other official link from others in English yet. (There are many in Japanese page, and there is the Wiki Japanese page already.) http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9425

It would be great if you can provide advice on this.

Regards, Pinablue JPN Pinablue JPN (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pinablue JPN. Consider whether the subject of your article is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. The basic criterion is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". (See WP:PEOPLE for the full guideline.) Is that the case with the subject you've been writing about? I looked over your draft article, and I'm not persuaded. To me, it frankly looks more like a CV or LinkedIn page than an encyclopedia article. Please note that each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, so the existence of an article on jp.wp doesn't help establish notability here at en.wp. On the other hand, Japanese sources are hardly verboten, as long as they meet the same requirements for reliability and independence from each other and the subject. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 05:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pinablue JPN. We require coverage in independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic of a Wikipedia article. In this case, your only reference is to a book publisher's page describing an author of a book that they issued. That is not adequate to show notability. I recommend that you read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] "Conversion Tables". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 26 September 2012. Retrieved 12 February 2016.

[nj150202-2] Strunsky, Steve (February 2, 2015). "Port of N.Y. and N.J. handled record cargo volume in 2014". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2015-04-15.

[1]

[1]