Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests

< Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 22:51, 4 February 2011 (→Denver Police Department). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:51, 4 February 2011 by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) (→Denver Police Department)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Help:Contents

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fine structure constant

Answered – Danger (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, resolve recent deletion made by "Alphatronic" on 01/25/2011 in article http://en.wikipedia.org/Fine-structure_constant. This type of censorship blocks the article from new results. 216.31.211.11 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not publish ideas in scientific articles that have not received any attention from the scientific community. We do not publish brand new theories by random people. Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Star Lodge and Sawmill

Hello, I'm new so please bear with me. If I have posted in the wrong venue, I apologize. I have personal knowledge about this Lodge as it was built by my Grandfather and is presently owned and operated by Deborah (Dahlem) Christiansen's son Mike Christiansen and wife Betsy. (Elizabeth) Betty (Dahlem) Woodruff and son Keith Dahlem no longer own or operate the Lodge, nor do they own the Sleeping Giant Ski run.

Henry and Bertha (Simpers) Dahlem were the original builders and owners. They had three children my mother , the oldest, Mary Helen (Dahlem) Daly, Clarence Dahlem, and Harry Dahlem father of Keith and Deborah.

The Lodge was originally called "Star Mill and Mercantile" and later nicknamed "Red Star Camp."

Harry Dahlem and friends created a ski club in the 1930's and began skiing the slopes around the Lodge. In 1952 Harry Dahlem obtained a permit from the US Forest Service in his name and started managing the ski run. Harry died in 1954 and Betty became the manager.

In 2004 the ski run was closed. The Neilson family purchased the ski run in 2007. It reopened in 2009 and is now run by the Yellowstone Recreations Foundation and funded mostly by donations and grants. I am unsure of the Nielson family relationship at this time.

I am unsure how to validate this information, other than through personal knowledge. What are your requirements? Thank you. Beaucheval (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the article. However, one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that readers must be able to verify the information for themselves. So, you are most welcome to add information that has already been published in reliable sources such as books, newspapers and journals, with references to show where the information is coming from; but please don't add information that has only been handed down. For more detail see Misplaced Pages:No original research. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some of what you remember like the former names can be verified in old newspaper articles. RB 66.217.117.185 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble with administators of a wiki page

Hello, I recently created an account with Wiki to start with editing a page, and left a comment on why I believe the comment was necessary. After the edit was undone, I then reverted to 'discussion' only on why the page should be edited back to my edit. Since not logging on to wiki yesterday I have now have been accused of being a sock puppet of another user (who I think I might know from a fan site?). I am not a 'meat puppet' though. It is a very small point that I am arguing. All the administrators of the page keep rejecting our comments but their own reasoning comments go against the 'agreed' criteria of their page. There are 3 criteria, and our argument relates to the 1st of the 3 required. I am trying to use common sense in my arguments and being very polite but I feel they are just making up the rules as they go along? Can I get someone neutral to get involved? The page in question is "Honorific Nicknames in Popular Music" and my edit would be to remove "Mary J Blige" from the title of "Empress of Soul". There is only 1 cited reference to her being called that title, and she is 'commonly' introduced as "The Queen of Hip Hop Soul". I would love Mary to be called the "Goddess of Soul", but this is not the case. Mary and Galdys Knight are my 2 all-time favorite singers in the world, so I am just trying to prove a factual point here, not insult any artist. Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"who I think I might know from a fan site" this suggests you're being less than honest. I particularly liked "These guys on the wiki page are fucking idiots and morons in the extreme!" If you want assistance it's best to be upfront. Rehevkor ✉ 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rehevkor is posting comments I have made off-wiki, whithout my permission, which I believe is frowned upon by the Wiki Arbitration Comitte? I have not made those remarks to the editors in question (or named them off-wiki. Rather my frustration coming out when talking to 'friends'. Anyway, he/she is only posting bits that he/she likes, not my full correspondence. If you look at the sock puppet investigation for Comprendo, you will see all correspondence to Rehevkor and my questioning on whether I am considered a 'meat puppet'. I am happy to post my own correspondence on the fan site I belong to, but not others. It will show that I am a huge fan of Mary J Blige as well (and way before) Gladys Knight, and that I am also arguing with 'Comprendo' and others over the issue.

Anyway, I am asking for third-party review of the 'page' and my discussion with the 'administrators', not about the sock/meat puppet issue. I am sure someone is already there to make a ruling on that.

I am just feeling a bit downtrodden because of how I feel I am being treated, so would like 3rd party input, especially as I was not aware of all the rules, and everyone else seems to be throwing them at me.

Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I already linked you to the policy relating to off-wiki personal attacks - which you made in a public forum in a topic related to Misplaced Pages, findable with a simple Google search - which state the attacks are "admissible" and "attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community". If you have a problem with this, don't personally attack other editors, here or otherwise. As for the content issue, I have nothing to say. Rehevkor ✉ 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes my friend, you did show me (as a brand new editor) that reference after you had copied my comments to Wiki. How is that being useful to my learning if you 'shame' me and then show me the error of my ways afterwards? That just makes people want to avoid wiki in the future, rather than learn and keep going. I didn't even know the rules when I made my personal comments. And the site in question is not a 'public forum' as you have to be one of the limited 150 fans to comment. I did not mention any editors names so I'm not sure if I would call it a personal attack, and I did not write any similar comments on wiki (where I realized many millions of people could see them). I did not even realize you could 'google' my posts on the site. Now that I am aware of this policy I will stick to it. However, am I not entitled to free speech to friends? Or is this against Wiki policy too? I think you are simply doing what you shouldn't and wikilawyering me before I have a clue as to the policy's. I should not have to be an expert at Wiki policies before even starting. The first idiom or whatever of Wiki is to BE BOLD, no? I never meant any personal attack on the editors I was referring to - if I did I would surely have commented on wiki - to them personally, not on a site that I thought was secure. My username on Wiki is the same as my fan site name, my face book account and my email address. I am not trying to hide from anyone. So, I would appreciate you schooling me in future with a little more kindness in future, otherwise please leave the schooling to more friendly people please. Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, this isn't a good response after saying you "never meant any personal attack." --Kinu /_c 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Henry Christophe name

Resolved – Posted at article talk page. Danger (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All the many letters letters sent from King Henry Christophe to Thomas Clarkson, an Abolitionist who served the King's interests in England and elsewhere in Europe, are signed Henry, using the English spelling. The King despised and feared the French, although he did have Clarkson make overtures on his behalf to re-establish trade relations. He had assistance from Clarkson to employ teachers, artists, and doctors to help set up educational, cultural and health systems in the new country, and was an admirer of the Kings Henry of England. His official proclamations as well as his correspondence use the English spelling, "Henry". One source for documentation of this spelling is the collected letters and papers of Thomas Clarkson, now in the rare books and manuscripts section of the British Library: Add.MSS 41,262A-C. This note is based upon a viewing of that collection. LeGrace Benson/ Arts of Haiti Research Project and Associate Editor, _Journal of Haitian Studies_.

I suggest you post this on the article talk page where it will be seen by the editors most interested in the subject. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Resolved – Danger (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Jeremiah_Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references I just cannot figure out how to fix the apparent problem with inline citations. I thought referencing the following page would help but I can't make it work: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=339139&interval=20&&PHPSESSID=ovb92edordbuahsma14d3ot3a1 Any assistance changing the page would be appreciated. Thanks. --AbilityGuy (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem was as such, but it seemed to be something to do with a general reference masquerading as an inline citation. Removed the ref tags, rearranged slightly, and it all seems to be fixed. Rehevkor ✉ 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The presence of two Reflist templates probably didn't help either. Rehevkor ✉ 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over a phrase

An editor (RC) changed the following sentence by adding the bolded phrase before the comma: "Although the Coens are coy about an explicit confirmation, the St. Petersburg Times's Steve Persall wrote that it was a retelling of the biblical story of Job in the modern American era,; others find the connection spurious." Putting aside the extra punctuation (which I just noticed), I reverted the edit because I couldn't find anything to support the assertion in the cited source. RC reverted back.

After opening a discussion on the Talk page, I discovered that RC's source was a link on the cited page to a 47-minute interview. Why that wasn't cited still isn't clear to me. Fortunately, I also found a link to the transcript of the interview (I really didn't want to listen to a 47-minute interview), and I asked RC to identify what part of the transcript he (if RC is a she, I apologize) was relying on. His response made no sense to me (still doesn't). So, I asked again for him to quote some portion of the transcript. His response was unhelpful: "You said you saw the transcript, so you are aware that my summary is accurate. If you know of any contrary evidence, feel free to share it." His edit summary implied that he couldn't quote a negative.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm dense, but I can't figure any of this out. I also don't like the added language ("coy"), which I think is unencyclopedic and improper editorializing by RC.

I know it's just a phrase, but can someone help sort this out?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's really a question for the WP:ORN, since I think the question is whether a conclusion is being drawn from hints and clues. It also seems to me better to leave the Coens out of it, unless a source characterizes them as "coy" on the point, and just focus on what the various sources actually say. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Another noticeboard I was unaware of. :-) I'll wait a bit to see if other editors comment before taking any additional steps.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think the phraseology with 'coy' is particularly encyclopedic either, and to use it implies WP:OR. Edit summaries were never intended to be a way of 2-conversation to avoid talk page discussion and do not help resolve the situation. However, this is being discussed in a reasonably civil, if not outwardly friendly manner, on the article talk page and still has some way to go before dispute resolution needs to step in. The appropriate, very short part of the interview transcript should be reproduced on the talk page (with attribution) for evaluation by the wider community involved in that article, as to whether it is acceptable as a reliable source and allays suspicion of original research.Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, but I haven't had any success getting RC to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position, but as you were the one who discovered the transcript, perhaps you could either do that, or clearly demonstrate that the transcript does not address the issue - which ever the case may be. Kudpung (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that barring this sentence appearing in a quote, I have trouble imaging what could be said in an interview primary source that would substantiate the word "coy". If, for example, the Coens danced around the issue, hinting that (whatever this is about) is true, that still wouldn't substantiate the word, but rather a neutral statement such as "Although the Coens have not provided an explicit confirmation..." "Coy" characterizes the Coens' speech, as judged by the person adding the source, and thus smacks of original research. On the other hand, if an outside source itself provided a characterization of the Coens' statements as "dancing around the issue..." then rephrasing that as them being coy would seem okay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the transcript - - in case anyone wants to give it a look before I get around to it later today. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I resisted doing this because the burden is on Ring Cinema to justify his assertion. However, that clearly isn't going to happen, so I looked at the transcript. Let's look again at the assertion (bolded) in the following sentence:

Steve Persall wrote that it was a retelling of the biblical story of Job in the modern American era; others disagree, and the Coens declined to confirm the connection in a National Public Radio interview with Teri Gross in 2011.

I did a Find in the transcript. The word Job is mentioned only once. Here is the passage:

Gross: What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems and he goes to a rabbi...

Ethan: No boils with his brother has a sebaceous cyst on the back of his neck.

Joel: What was the germ? What was the beginning of it? ... Is that the question

Gross: Yeah.

Joel: Well, interestingly, the beginning of it, it proceeded from a very early discussion we had about possibly doing a short movie about a rabbi that we did know when we were growing up who was sort of loosely based on the eldest rabbi, the rabbi that's called Marshak in "A Serious Man," who was a sort of mysterious figure who each of the bar mitzvahed kids would go in and see just after their bar mitzvah. But we weren't really quite sure what happened in that room with this rabbi after you were bar mitzvahed and you went in and you had a little chat with him.

There's more discussion about the film, but Job is never mentioned again. So, how does this support the assertion that the Coens "declined to confirm the connection"? They weren't even directly asked. They were just asked what triggered the film, with Job mentioned in passing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They weren't directly asked? They are asked "What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems?" That's direct. Job is mentioned in the question and Gross even tries to lead them to it by offering some evidence that implies the connection, yet Joel Coen mentions something else! Keep in mind that Gross is not concerned with the question that concerns us (i.e. was Job the basis of the story?). She's doing an interview and inviting them to say what they want on the subject. This is our best evidence on the subject and it doesn't confirm anything more than the possibility of an inadvertent allusion to Job. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you apparently agree that this is the passage you're relying on. That's some progress. Even if you interpret the Job allusion as a direct question about whether the source is Job (which I don't think it does at all), the Coens' answer hardly qualifies as "declined to confirm". That would mean, for example, that each time a politician doesn't directly answer a question, a fairly common occurrence, you could say he declined to confirm. That's crazy, and it's certainly not worth even mentioning in the article. Just because you think this is the "best evidence" on the issue doesn't mean it's good enough evidence of anything. In any event, the Coens talk some about what triggered the film, and they never mention Job or deny Job. They just talk.

The phrase you added should be removed - it's simply your interpetation and, in my view, is unsupportable. Maybe now that I've narrowed this down, other editors will come back into the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Declined to confirm" is not supported by the transcript. You might safely say "have not confirmed" perhaps. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Have not confirmed" implies that they haven't commented. They have and we have them in front of us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming one could say "have not confirmed", first, what would be the reason for putting that in the article? Second, how would it be phrased? Would we say that in the interview, the Coen brothers did not confirm the connection? That would imply that they were truly asked about the connection (which I don't see). We could also say that they didn't confirm that they eat eggs every day. I see such a statement in this context as misleading, as well as trivial. Just because we can say something doesn't mean we should.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Ring Cinema thinks the interviewer's question is "direct", I'd like to parse the question. Here it is again: "What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems and he goes to a rabbi..." First, it's not a complete question as the ellipses indicate. The interviewer was apparently cut off. Second, it doesn't ask the interviewees about Job or even about "1967 problems"; the question describes the protagonist, meaning it's the interviewer's understanding of the character. Third, the Coens clarify the question in their follow-up, and their clarification is simply "What was the germ? What was the beginning of it?" The clarification has again nothing to do with the supposed Job connection. Then the Coens answer the clarified question. Not only did they not decline to confirm, they didn't even "not confirm" as they weren't asked to confirm anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One really has to strain to avoid concluding that they are being asked if the Book of Job is their source. They are asked for the germ of the story and the interviewer in the same sentence brings up the parallels to Job, except implying that it's being framed in 1967 terms. Ethan gets the allusions and chimes in with one of his own, right? So it's really quite clear. Yet, even though they are asked explicitly for their source, explicitly asked how Job fits into it, Joel repeats the question and says nothing at all in any way about Job in even the slightest way. In other words, my friends, we are asked to accept that if the Coens actually had based their story on the Book of Job that they, when asked about their source and the parallels to their main character's 1967 type problems, would still have said nothing about Job but instead talked about some rabbi who wasn't even their own rabbi. Now, please, this is not difficult. They were invited and they declined the invitation. Let's try to get this right in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The way to get it right is leave out our own inferences. If it takes four or six sentences to explain why one person's interpretation of the exchange is the correct one - and *still* leave some people unconvinced - then both sides are probably injecting too much of their own thinking into the process. At best the interview is subject to varying interpretations; and as such it is not very strong evidence of much, one way or the other. In my view the best solution is to offer no inferences at all about what conclusions can be drawn from the interview. JohnInDC (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so your view isn't open to interpretation (smile), you are saying that the phrase and the citation to the interview should be removed from the article. The interview isn't being cited for anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, your inference, JohninDC, is kind of illogical. You're actually criticizing my argument for being complete. No, I think a criticism would be if something is missing. Completeness is a virtue. (I'm not going to waste time on your assertion that no one was convinced, since obviously you are making that up.) So, on the substance, Bbb23 still can't explain why the Coens would say the story's germ was the old rabbi when the interviewer had invited them to connect it to Job. (See, there it is in one sentence for those of you who want the brief version.) Until I hear that explained, I'm going to be quite certain that my view is superior. His smile reveals that he's not trying to make the article accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm making up arguments and Bbb23 is trying to corrupt articles. You should tread more lightly, RC. It's unbecoming. Otherwise - I stand by my reasoning and argument. Report what they said, not what you make of it. JohnInDC (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(Which, in fairness I must add, your recent edit would seem to do.) JohnInDC (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You still want to maintain that some others were unconvinced, JohninDC? Is there a secret page where others are responding to my post? If there's not, then let's quantify the number of comments after my post and before your claim that some others were unconvinced: zero. In fact, no one has challenged the accuracy of my summary in any meaningful way. You've offered opinions, but in cases where we can check the basis of your words, evidence is lacking. So forgive me if I insist on accuracy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, and with thanks to John for trying to draw all concerned parties to reason, this discussion has gone on long enough here, and I suggest you all take it back now where it belongs: the article talk page, and I won't accuse anyone of forum shopping if they later escalate it to a dispute resolution board decided by admins. Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be all sorted now. And it probably wouldn't hurt, once this discussion is archived, to create a link to it from the article's Talk page (inasmuch as all the talk seems to have taken place here). JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but although I believe it is better, it's still wrong. With respect to my original complaint, it now says:

The Coens themselves have allowed that, while there may be allusions to Job, the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

There's no support for the Job part of that sentence - only the interviewer alluded to Job, not the Coens. A better, and supported, wording would be:

The Coens stated that the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

Second, RC has changed the opening part about Persall. It now states:

Steve Persall wrote that the main character would remind Bible readers of the Book of Job despite some important differences.

Persall's only statement in the article was:

If this sounds vaguely familiar, you've been reading the Bible. The Coens turn Larry into a modern-day Job (actually 1967), but even Job eventually caught a break.

Apparently, the phrase "despite some important differences" is RC's gloss. A better wording would be:

Steve Persall wrote that the main character might remind Bible readers of the Book of Job.

I'd make these changes myself, but my assumption is that without some support here, RC would revert any change I made.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Factually wrong, Bbb23. Ethan mentions the brother's cyst as analogous to Job's boils. That's an allusion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an error in the transcript there. Ethan actually says, "No boils but his brother has a sebaceous cyst on the back of his neck." --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an offhand, humorous comment and doesn't support what the article now says. You also don't address the "despite some important differences" phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If there's a suggestion to improve the article, I'm in favor of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reasons (exhaustion?), no one has chimed in on these two issues, so I'll reluctantly leave both incorrect (one last dig) assertions in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Bbb23, your views have apparently been rejected on the merits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions about wikilinking led to angry response

I saw User:Sf5xeplus merging two successive Wikilinks into one in the Tecnomasio and again in the China Railways HXD3B article. Not having come across the Misplaced Pages policy on this yet, I asked him about this on his Discussion page. He answered on my Discussion page, helpfully pointing me to the appropiate WP:MOSLINK point. Checking WP:MOSLINK, I found another point that to me seemed to allow successive links in the above cases, and noted this in reply. To which I got a quite angry end-of-discussion reply. What did I do wrong? (I note that in recent weeks the two of us worked together on several articles in what I thought was a constructive cooperation, which makes me even more stupefied.) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you differentiate the example you give from the one given in the policy: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in Irish Chess Championship (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link (e.g. to Irish Chess Championship) instead." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the company name example? That may be rephrased as "CNR subsidiary Dalian Locomotives" or something similar in an article body (as in the example). I asked however because I saw this used in several articles and places, including uses of the Template:Infobox locomotive, a list of technical data where such a long form would IMHO be out of place. Regarding the other example, the two wikilinks in a motor type, I see that as a perfect example of "Articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles, due to their larger number of technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context".

What about the behaviour aspect? I note that there wasn't any edit war, I left Sf5xeplus's edits and only started discussion to sort out the policy. Was I acting improperly, and what now. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (linking)#General points on linking style is absolutely clear and unambiguous on this point, and it's also basic common sense. Some rare exceptions are allowed, but even then a wokaround should be considered. The comments made by the user on your talk page appear to be uncalled for, and of an extremely vile nature totally unacceptable for Misplaced Pages communications. If you feel strongly about the filthy abuse, take it to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts, but investigate first (and it might take a while) to see if the editor has a history of gross incivility - it may help your argument. Kudpung (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely take this to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. The regulars there will look at the editor's past behaviour. Copy this "diff" into your report (including the square brackets).

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy of List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011

List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 is the latest addition to List of terrorist incidents articles. The problem is, the article does not follow or adhere to the same narrow and specific criteria used to include incidents. See List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, etc...etc..

I am most concerned about whether or not the article is a legitimate extension of the List of terrorist incidents family.

I believe List of terrorist incidents, 2011 should be moved to a unique, independent article rather than acting as a simple re-direct to List of armed conflicts and attacks.

I've filed other issues at OR noticeboard with little cooperation from editors involved in the dispute. Fortunately, most of the content has since been removed by uninvolved editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article was not recently moved from List of terrorist incidents, 2011, so I'm a bit confused about you calling it that. It seems, at least to me, that the scope set out by Passionless is both well-defined and reasonable for an article titled "List of armed attacks, 2011" (since conflicts themselves are not listed). That title has the added benefit of avoiding the POV trap set by the phrase "terrorist incidents". It also allows for both state and non-state actions to be listed without the need for debate over the legitimacy of the idea of state-sponsored terrorism, which seems to be an issue in this case, or over which state actions are within the scope of a declared war and which are not. If the list is restricted to notable events with their own articles, it may even become a manageable beast.

But if there's a real desire to keep the "List of terrorist incidents" moniker, I suppose it could be split off, even though, in the words of Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" of bickering and needless neutrality issues.--Danger (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the discussion was about previous edits. this is the original version. 90% of the article lacked any sources, reliable or not. So in the talk discussion you'll see I was never opposed to the article, but it's difficult to stomach the idea of placing the US military alongside acts committed by registered terrorist organizations. Narrow, explicit perimeters exist to define "terrorism" that are considered standard at List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, etc. If the article remains part of the List of terrorist family, the events imply acts committed by both Western forces and registered terrorist groups are in the same league.

Now, if editors could find reliable sources that place the US alongside Al Qaeda, then the edits would be acceptable but right now it is a radical change from what was seen as the norm for List of terrorist incidents article. Other involved editors seemed to disagree with the complaints made by Passion and his ANI was closed.

Editors principally responsible for the content didn't seem to grasph how reliable sources work. Passion claimed this source supported his edits, but I told him several times that the source could only be used to support the Iranian parliament POV. The Iranian parliament is not an authority on terrorism.

In any case, the article is okay right now on its own but I don't see any similarities to List of terrorist incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If the article is okay on its own, then what are you asking? As far as I understand, you are free to split out the redirect at "List of terrorists incidents, 2011". --Danger (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All right sounds good. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I had to search for this conversation, the one that Wikifan referenced in his edit summary when he created a point of view (POV) fork. A content fork, especially one for the purpose of WP:LABEL, does not follow wikipedia's rules, so I have put the content back onto a single page. And for the source you requested wikifan, if you do not accept government X's label, how can you accept government Y or Z's label? Passionless -Talk 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Passion, I think you misunderstand what constitutes a content fork. If you are referring to the MSNBC source that included statements made by Iranian politicians, I can refer you to WP:USEBYOTHERS. The Iranian Parliament is not an authority on terrorist organizations. Statements made by members can only be attributed to those members, and cannot be used to support claims that the CIA is a terrorist organization independent of the Iranian parliament. I made this more than clear in the talk discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what a fork is and what you did was a perfect example of one. And what you made "more than clear" is only your opinion, just because you think something and write it down, does not make it true, do you understand this? You can say "The Iranian Parliament is not an authority on terrorist organizations." all you want, but that does not make it true, it is merely your POV. Passionless -Talk 08:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article: "Gamma Beta"

I know in the past the article "Gamma Beta" was deleted, but I was hoping to have some help get this article active. The article is about an Asian-Interest Fraternity, which is currently the largest in Texas.

Some assistance on this would be very much appreciated. Hawee (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been subject to numerous deletions and I don't see much chance for it surviving another attempt to get it published on Misplaced Pages. However, this was the most recent AfD discussion, you can ask the deleting admin if he will userfy the deleted page for you.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gamma Beta (3rd nomination)

--Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The admin isn't responding and seems to have retired. 67.9.148.238 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet (musician)

Hi there. Will someone please take a look at my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dambuleff/Sandbox) to see if the article I have written on 12th Planet (musician) is appropriate to release on Misplaced Pages. I will add an appropriate photo that fits to the Wiki guidelines if I get an editors approval that I have enough reliable sources and neutral information to make this page live. Thanks :) Dambuleff (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You put a lot of work into this and it is well written and arranged. Unfortunately, he seems a little light on notability. Sourcing to Facebook here is practically verboten, and blogs and nonnotable sites are equally disfavored. Once you move this to mainspace, you may have to contest a proposed deletion or nomination for deletion and your subject may lack the degree of third party coverage, awards, etc. that would survive a challenge.Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have done a little bit more research and found an article on Beatportal (a division of Beatport) on 12th Planet as well as an award as one of URB Magazine's Next 100 for 2009. If I remove facebook as a source would I then have an appropriate page? I am just slightly confused as the notability for this particular artist, as I feel the notability of the page I created is much higher than other DJ[REDACTED] pages (like Le Castle Vania's, for example). Thanks again! Dambuleff (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything you can do to add more reliable sources will be a good thing and you might take a look at notability criteria for entertainers and musicians. Notability is something of a moving target here and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a disfavored argument. After you have done all you can to improve it now, the best way to find out if your article has staying power will be to take it live, see if anyone proposes it for deletion and defend it as best you can. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnapriya5/Sandbox)

Hi there. Will someone please take a look at my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnapriya5/Sandbox Thanks in advance, Ratnapriya5 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnapriya5 (talk • contribs)

That link doesn't work, and looking at your contributions, you've never edited a sandbox as a sub-page of your own userpage, you've only edited the main Misplaced Pages:Sandbox, which gets over-written by anyone who wants to use it. So unless there is another link you can give us that I've somehow missed, then you need to go to User:Ratnaprya5/Sandbox and start the article there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Answer

Dear Editor,

According to an article found on Yahoos Associated Content, if you ever question a celebrity death Misplaced Pages is the first to know and will let the public know if it's a hoax or not. I'm doing a college research project on celebrity death hoax's on Twitter and was wondering if I could possibly have a moment of your time to discuss this subject with you.

Sincerely, Greta Crouch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.150.70 (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start with the article Reliability of Misplaced Pages and the other articles and references linked from there. Misplaced Pages articles should only report what has already been published in reliable sources. But even that does not guarantee that the report is correct; see for example the history of the Gabrielle Giffords article where early news reports turned out to be wrong. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Ducreux meme

This looks like a fairly heavy content dispute, I would suggest that you raise a request for comment. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Friends of the Five Creeks / Pacific East Mall

This appears to be a classic case for a third opinion. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did read that. So would I ask for a third opinion on each page or can I make a joint request like I did here? m.cellophane (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

It seems like a third user has gotten involved on Friends of the Five Creeks, so third opinion may not be appropriate. I suggest trying to work it out for a few more days and if you all still haven't reached an agreement, try the neutral point of view noticeboard, where you can definitely list all three articles like you did here. With regards to a discussion that's spread over several articles, I would try to keep the main discussion on a single page if possible.--Danger (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Foolkit

Resolved – Filer blocked, article deleted. Danger (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the page Foolkit - the free legal toolkit.

It was flagged as having multiple issues. I have tried to address each of these.

I would be grateful if somebody could review the page again and give further advice as to what else is needed.

Many Thanks.

Mumblerr (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a product brochure. In order to survive a deletion nomination, you would need to show it has significant coverage in third party reliable sources such as newspapers and generally meets notability requirements. . If by any chance you work for the company, please review the conflict of interest rules.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It got speedily deleted while I was writing the foregoing.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP:COI was pretty evident from the user's edits, including editing the user page of one User:Foolkit - Legal, whose existence an uninvolved user should theoretically not know about. I've blocked as a spam account/possible sock per WP:DUCK. --Kinu /_c 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nortrax Headquarters

I updated the Nortrax headquarters in their[REDACTED] section, http://en.wikipedia.org/Nortrax, and it was rejected/reverted a few days afterward.

Based on Nortrax's website in two separate locations, Tampa, Florida should be their headquarters, not John Deere's Moline, IL location. 1) http://nortrax.com/about/index.html 2) http://nortrax.com/branches/?region=FL&submit=region&x=0&y=0

Brian Oster Nehlsen Communications, PR agency for Nortrax <contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.161.59 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you continue with the discussion at Talk:Nortrax#nortrax. Talk pages are where edits can be suggested. As you have a self declared conflict of interest, that is the best route to follow. I removed your contact details as per the notice at the top of this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to Overturn a Vandalization Ruling on the Warped Tour 2011 Page

Today a partial block was issued on this page citing vandalism as a cause. The vandalism in question was, in bulk, a reference to "poorly sourced material" in the form of a reference to a playlist on iTunes Ping. The playlist in question should not be considered "poorly sourced material" for the following reasons: The playlist is created by and featured on the account of Kevin Lyman, the creator of the Vans Warped Tour to which this page refers. His iTunes Ping account is verifiable, as it is listed on the iTunes Featured People homepage. In this playlist, entitled "vans warped 2011," Lyman features bands that, according to the byline, "will be playing on the 2011 vans warped tour." This is also referred to in an update on Warped Tour's official website, stating that "he'll be adding new songs each week as new bands are announced to the tour." Lyman adds to this list periodically, as seen in his Recent Activity record. The official Warped Tour website also releases band information periodically, as illustrated by their statement, "More bands will be announced weekly..."

In this Ping playlist are twenty-nine bands. Twenty-two of them are confirmed as verified on the official Warped Tour website. As of sometime later today, February 2, 2011, the official Warped Tour website will announce seven bands that will play the tour this summer. One of the seven artists that appears on Lyman's playlist but has not yet been confirmed on the official website is Stephen Jerzak, who announced tonight that he would indeed be featured in Warped Tour 2011. Please note that both social networking links are verified as belonging to Jerzak by his official website. Given the evidence provided, I would like to suggest that Kevin Lyman's Vans Warped 2011 iTunes Ping playlist be listed as an official reference on the page specified. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that the state of Semi Protection currently imposed on the page be lifted for a trial period so that editors with a relevant interest in the subject may update the page in a timely manner, thus allowing interested parties to view the information before its official confirmation, as Lyman logically intends by releasing these bands through his playlist ahead of official confirmation. Should the page continue to see vandalization, it stands that it may then, once again, be placed under a state of semi protection.

AmyEliSomething (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Denied. Once a page is protected, it stays that way for a given length of time, in this case 10 days. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the reference at least be added by someone with the capacity to do so? On an aside, will the ban automatically be lifted after ten days or would I have to repost this request somewhere? AmyEliSomething (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban (or rather, the semi-protection) will be lifted automatically when the ten days is up. You wouldn't have to post anything new here to get that done.

Reading through the explanation of what you want changed on the article, I feel that Misplaced Pages doesn't need to interpret that "Lyman logically intends by releasing these bands through his playlist ahead of official confirmation" and use that interpretation to source material in the article. This would be rather close to WP:SNYTH which we don't do. There is WP:NORUSH and the confirmed bands will doubtless appear in an official confirmation soon enough - Misplaced Pages is not fighting to be the place to have the very latest news on this. If the interpretation about the significance of the playlist is widely held, then possibly a reliable secondary source (for example a music magazine, a newspaper, or a major editorially independent music website, not a music blog) will discuss it before the official confirmation happens; if so then this might be sufficient grounds to mention that discussion in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The band announcement made on the official Warped Tour website today verified every band listed on Kevin Lyman's iTunes Ping playlist; every band listed in the latter can now be matched up with the former. I suppose what I'm having trouble understanding is, ignoring the poorly made argument at the end of the original request, why a reference that is run by the event's head, verified by the event's website (as in link three), and endorsed by the application on which it is hosted is not considered a viable source. AmyEliSomething (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an acceptable source, but given that it's somewhat unusual, it would've needed a clear explanation to the other people editing the article. I notice that no-one has discussed this (or indeed anything else!) on the talk page for the article, which would be the obvious place to make that explanation. That's probably why there's been this confusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the talk page is nearly always the first port of call during disagreements, I'm unsure why it seems to have been taken here first. Rehevkor ✉ 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming an article (also, sourcing Eng. translations of foreign wiki articles)

Hi, I'm a rather inexperienced contributor with only one "original" article to my credit: namely Mermaid (film), which is my own translation of the article Русалка (мультфильм) from Russian Misplaced Pages.

When I created the article, I used the English title "Mermaid (film)" to be consistent with the link/citation on the English-language article about the work of Russian animator Aleksandr Petrov. However, it was subsequently brought to my attention by a native Russian commenter that it would be better to transliterate the Russian title Русалка (as Rusalka) instead of using the translated title "Mermaid." (Since the Slavic rusalka is only sorta-kinda similar to our Western concept of "mermaid.") Also, since the article is about a 1996 animated short and there happens to be a live-action, feature-length Russian movie from 2007 called Rusalka, for disambiguation the title should arguably be "Rusalka (1996 film)". HOWEVER, as a newbie, I'm not sure whether the preferred practice is to translate foreign titles.

Aside from all that, someone flagged my article as "lacking sources" -- for my future reference, would a link to the original Russian Misplaced Pages article qualify as a source? What's the proper procedure when preparing a new English article that translates an existing foreign-wikipedia article?

P.S. The short film in question can be viewed on YouTube and has no dialogue, making it easy to follow if you're not a Russian speaker. And it's well worth your time, since Petrov's labor-intensive "paint on glass" animation method is just fucking gorgeous!

Thanks for your help and guidance! Throbert McGee (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite straightforward. See WP:translate for full instructions, including the attribution template that has to be put on the article talk page. Be sure that what you make is a true translation and not a near interpretation of the original text. Note however, that not all Wikipedias hold their articles to the same criteria of sources and references as the en.Wiki - you may need to find additional reliable sources but they can be in Russian if they are verifiable. Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've added the attribution, and I've added the sources from the Russian page. Note that when you do a normal page move, the talk page automatically goes with it. Kudpung (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for help with this! Throbert McGee (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor Tcla75

Resolved – Tcla75 blocked for edit warring. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor has commited any number of violations of Misplaced Pages policy over the last week. Firstly this editor accused me of vandalism for a good faith edit. When I requested an apology this editor reiterated the accusation of vandalism when I was simply upholding the consensus. I know we should not read too much into past behaviour, but this editor vandalised Misplaced Pages as recently as 8 June 2010. I have never vandalised Misplaced Pages, and it is very difficult to keep cool when subjected to such an uncivil personal attack. Therefore I will not engage in any further discussion with them. In any event, editor Ukexpat explained things on the talkpage. Nevertheless this editor has engaged as an edit warrior against several other editors who have formed a consensus. I believe there is also a neutrality issue at stake here given the wording of the entry. Your help would be appreciated. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor's assistance isn't the best place to sort out behavioral issues. For incivility and personal attacks, I suggest you submit a report here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I have a question about notability. Just for an example, I'll use the Playboy magazine centerfolds. I fail to see how everyone of them has "received 'attention from the world at large,' achieved "enduring notability" and there certainly hasn't been "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" for the vast majority of them. If any "enduring notability" was achieved by all of them, it seems to have been done indirectly by association. Yet, I believe there is an article on every single one of these women.

Also, I have read several times where something is rejected because it's "not encyclopedic." I am confused by this since there have been a number of articles on people and topics that one would never find in Encyclopedia Americana or Britannica.

So basically, I'm asking if Misplaced Pages's guidelines are suppose to apply in all cases?TL36 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are but given it is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", with volunteers of differing levels of skill and commitment, some stuff squeaks by that shouldn't. However, if you follow the deletion debates at WP:AFD for a week or so, you may be reassured that there is a squad of people highly interested in making sure that articles meet high standards of notability. If you see articles you don't think belong here, consider nominating them for deletion yourself. However, in deletion debates please be aware that the argument that other stuff exists is not usually taken sympathetically. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the question another way. Yes the guidelines apply, but the guidelines are applied to each article on its own merits and decided by a consensus of those editors who happen to be participating at a particular discussion at a particular time. And therefore differing interpretations can happen. Active Banana ( 22:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Scott - Redistricting Amendments

My concern is accurately representing Florida Governor Rick Scott's withdrawal of a part of Florida's Constitution from Department of Justice approval.

There is currently an editing disagreement regarding how best to state Scott's actions. User Collect keeps deleting links to explain various concepts in the event that wouldn't be obvious to readers on two bases

The articles cited don't say what I say they do. However, all information I provided comes from the articles.
The facts do not present a balanced point of view. Instead of editing them, he deletes the section. I also disagree with his claim that the facts do not present a balanced point of view, especially when they're presented in chronological order and include no weasel words.

Here is my wording:

In the 2010 elections, Florida voters passed constitutional amendments banning gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts. In February 2011, Scott withdrew a request to the Department of Justice to approve these amendments, which according to The Miami Herald may delay the implementation of the redistricting plan because the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance of state laws likely to have an impact on minority representation. Scott said he wants to make sure that the redistricting is done properly. Several advocacy groups sued Scott in federal court to compel Scott to resubmit the acts to the Justice Department.

Here is Collect's wording:

In the 2010 elections, Florida voters passed constitutional amendments concerning the drawing of state and federal legislative districts. In February 2011 Scott withdrew a request to the federal government to approve these amendments, which according to The Miami Herald may delay the implementation of the redistricting plan. Scott said he wants to make sure that the redistricting is done properly. Several advocacy groups sued Scott in federal court, seeking to reinstate former Governor Crist's pre-clearance of the acts with the Justice Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.13.193 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of debates are absolutely integral to the process of improving articles. Please use the talk page - Talk:Rick Scott - to hash this out with Collect and any others who are interested. And, as a side note, it's often considered good practice to let other editors know if you mention them here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

personal promotion

It's not a biography, but a job CV. There are million experts across the globe with better profiles who would want to be here. As a fair public service organization, either you should also grant them such opportunities or delete such profiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.51.130 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You can propose that it be deleted by following the instructions at WP:DELETION. It's certainly short of good references, and arguably doesn't have a clear claim of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana has nominated the article for speedy deletion. If that is declined, I imagine an AfD will follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegians with Pakistani background

70.96.29.227 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Two users involved in this edit war have been warned. --Danger (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I make our page semi-protected like Apple's page

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Apple_Inc.&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.228.130 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1) its NOT "your" page

2) you shouldn't be editing "your" page

3) pages recieve protection only when experience has proven that the "cost" of fixing and preventing vandalism outwieghs the value of having everyone be able to contribute, at which point you can make the request at WP:RPP. Active Banana ( 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Denver Police Department

The "Controversies" section has been removed three times by three different editors. The controversies section (when present) makes up the bulk of the article and makes the article lose its focus. A user has reverted the deletions three times. I added an "unbalanced" thing at the top of the page, and there has been some unsuccessful discussion on the talk page. The question, I guess, is whether to retain the "Controversies" section or not. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

What should the "focus" of an article about a police department be? If its notable for beating people, that may be the bulk of the article. Removing the controversies section is inappropriate. Cutting down the description of the second and less significant incident to a sentence or two would make sense. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to give a neutral overview, including controversy. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True Jonathan, but we can't give excessive attention to a minority point of view. See WP:UNDUE:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

Controversy sections in general are frowned upon. Perhaps the incidents could be merged into a history section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages help forums