User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Christian POV on wikipedia

What do you guys think about my essay on the Christian POV on Wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is biased against unbelievers like me and Jimbo, for a start ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this POV needs to be countered. The latest example is at religion where an editor thinks a 20 religion symbol image i created (diff) needs to be deleted because some religions don't have enough followers. This subequently forced me to start an rfc on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that attempting to 'counter POV' by promoting another one isn't necessarily the best approach. Why are symbols for 20 religions any better than 12? Where is the symbol for atheists? For agnostics? For people that don't think you can meaningfully reduce complex cultural constructs to abstract symbols... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The essay is inapt. Wikipedia covers a multitude of non-Abrahamic religions qute well -- vide Islam, Hinduism and its subgroups, Buddhism, and even your "Paganism and New Religious Movements" as a whole. I admit Wikipedia does not give huge theological detail on Aztec (32K) and Mayan religions (56K), perhaps, but that may be related to the lack of adherents to those theologies at this point, not due to an Abrahamic bias of any sort. And we do tend to refer to Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods as "myth" which I suppose is POV, but the place to object is on the article talk pages for those gods and religions, and I do not se any "Christian bias" involved. Collect (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, i spent quite a while working on that image and downloaded software for it. So its quite annoying when someone single-handedly undoes your work. Pass a Method talk 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, putting effort on something is not a reason to keep it. I understand it's frustrating. --Cyclopia^talk 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the one with twelve symbols as of now looks better than the twenty and I don't see the twenty adds much worthwhile. At that rate we should be adding Pastafarianism and Jedi religion and people will be arguing that communism andatheism are religions, we'd soon be well over the thirty mark. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as Kelapstick says. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. LadyofShalott 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I tend to agree that there is a bit of a Christian bias in wikipedia. Certainly, there is a tendency for the English-language wikipedia editors, many of whom are themselves Christians, to develop content related explicitly to Christianity or their own personal brand of it. However, the same could be said about the comparative lack of development related to towns of population of less than one thousand people relative to the level of development of content related to, say, London. The best way to attempt to counter such bias, probably, is not by basically non-productive essays, but making some effort to find sources to use to add or develop non-Christian content. Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion seems to have been basically created to help develop that content, although, admittedly, it still has a lot to do there. And I do think that maybe actually doing something which directly addresses the matter, a la WP:SOFIXIT, would probably be the much more effective, useful, and productive than simply starting opinion pages. There are a huge number of sources available on the subject of religion in general, with User:John Carter/Religion reference still listing only a small percentage (maybe around 10%?) of those reference books related to religion in general which can be found to have been reviewed in academic journals, with more being published almost monthly.

Regarding the implication that academic sources reflect a Christian basis, clearly, those published by Christian universities or publishers about Christian subjects almost certainly do. Any reasonable person would expect that to be the case there. The fact that there are more of them available in English than, say, journals about Shinto or Islam, is also rather transparently obviously true. That does not mean however that editors who might be interested in developing content related to those subjects would be inhibited from doing so. All they would have to do is find the sources. And, yes, that sort of action would be more useful than writing essays.

The other concern this editor has expressed before is regarding relative weight as per WP:WEIGHT regarding material relevant to multiple religions. Unfortunately, that page is one we are more or less obliged to follow. It makes no sense for the article on a Christian patriarch or pope who had antisemitic tendencies to give as much weight to his antisemitism as to the material related to the topic for which he is more notable. Certainly, there is no inhibition to developing that content in spinoff pages, if they are notable enough, or to have a summary section of that in the main article (or one of the main articles, for really broad subjects like Christianity), but that is another matter entirely, and also covered by existing policies and guidelines which have been found to be broadly appropriate for all content areas. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

John, you are not yourself free of this Christian bias, so the fact you are self-aware of "a bit of a Christian bias" makes it all the more appalling. Pass a Method talk 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How is 'narrative' more neutral than 'myth'?

I'm a bit tired of this claim. My OED says that narrative means "a spoken or written account of connected events." And it defines 'account' as "a report or description of an event or experience." Am I the only one that thinks this suggests that 'account' means an actual account of events? Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality (version of 06:17, 7 December 2012) begins with these statements.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Similarly, the question of naming narratives that some people believe to be myths provides opportunities for commonality in article titles and in article text. The titles "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis flood narrative" are neutral in regard to whether the narratives are true or false. The same naming convention can be applied to beliefs of followers of any religion, without any disadvantage to believers in those two narratives.

The categories Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths can be Category:Creation narratives and Category:Flood narratives, without any disadvantage to anyone, and readers can decide what to believe and what to disbelieve.

See Matthew 7:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21, 22, 23.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Creation Myth has a specific academic meaning. You essentially want to rename them to avoid offending readers sensibilities? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The phrases "creation myth" and "evolution myth" are not neutral. The phrases "creation narrative" and "evolution narrative" are neutral.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You've kind of dodged the issue where the academic sourcing says "creation myth" most of the time, not "creation narrative". I don't know what you are talking about mentioning evolution. Are you comparing science to "a symbolic narrative of how the world began"? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports creation. Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports evolution. The category title "Category:Evolution myths" is not neutral. The category title "Category:Evolution narratives" is neutral. I am discussing a neutral presentation of views.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. 'Scientific' creationism is fringe pseudoscience, and WP:NPOV policy doesn't extend to pretending otherwise. 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a Christian, I'll add a big Amen! to that, whoever you are. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Only me - messed up the signature... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a pagan.....I'll ask.....how does this improve Wikipedia?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What you reckon to be a fringe may be wider than what you reckon it to be.

• In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins (June 1, 2012)
• Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
• In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation - John F. Ashton - Google Books
• Reviews of Books with Scientific Evidence that God Exists | X-Evolutionist.com: "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation"

—Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take your soapbox/pulpit somewhere else - creationist 'science' is pseudoscientific bullshit, by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That a god-botherers-bullshit lobby promoting a particularly warped version of 'Christianity' has managed to fool so many rational US citizens is unfortunate, but of no relevance to its validity as 'science'. Anyway, Wikipedia is an international project, and cannot be driven by the misperceptions of a single nationality. If you wish to promote creationism, there is an alternative 'encyclopaedia' available, as I'm sure you are aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You probably meant this one didn't you? *cough* John lilburne (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that 46% of Americans believe in creationism has absolutely no bearing on what the scientific community thinks of it. It is a matter of fact that scientists of the relevant fields universally accept evolution. If anything, those stats are a rebuke to the US educational system. In short: Science is not a vote. Yazan (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fifty scientists sounds like a lot (human beings are just bad at statistics) until one puts it up against things like Project Steve: 1200 scientists – and counting – who endorse the theory of evolution, and who are all named Steve. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', no matter how much one wishes it were. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Ihave to admit that Project Steve is pretty awesome. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The "creationism" side issue is pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion -- Wikipedia has no systemic "pro-Christian bias" as far as I can tell. By the way, two large blocs of creationists are Orthodox Jews and Muslims - the latter making up a very large number of people. Collect (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is just plain wrong, but I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the post where I started this sub-section (other than to repeat the mantra 'myth not neutral, narrative neutral'. I'll add that some people think 'story' is neutral, but I always think of stories as something someone made up. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the term myth is that it has two distinct meanings. The technical meaning is an explanatory tool for teaching about a culture or religion's practices, beliefs, and history. The common meaning is an imaginary tale. Unless you have a means of preventing a reader from using the common meaning, even when they are unaware of the technical meaning, then "myth" is a loaded term best avoided anywhere a full explanation of the intended meaning cannot also be conveniently given (such as article titles). --Allen3 ^talk 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And the problem with the word narrative is that it implies that the account is of real events. How is that neutral? Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The word narrative applies as well to a series of fictional events as it does to a series of real events. Ignoring this fact just shows you are, as North8000 points out below, just playing word games. --Allen3 ^talk 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pro-religion scientific atheist so maybe I have a perspective. Billions of people in the world have deeply held views which conflict with scientifically determined fact. I don't see where it's in Wikipedia's mission statement that we have to actively target, assault and disparage the deeply held views of billions of people. Cover facts as science, and cover religions as beliefs without slamming their beliefs with commentary like using pejorative words like "myth" to refer to those beliefs. The common meaning of "myth" is "false", trying to avoid that is just playing word games. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that "myth" necessarily means "false". I would take to mean something that many people believe in, but has no scientific proof. For example, the unicorn is described as a "mythical creature". There is no evidence that unicorns ever existed, but equally there is no proof that they didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming common usage & meaning is "false" or "mis-conception". I Googled it for an example and came right back to a Wikipedia article. Tornado myths, where the first sentence of the lead starts with "Tornado myths are incorrect beliefs...." Here's an article that directly addresses the question and says so. [1] North8000 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that link is not useful either - it claims that a myth is "a statement that almost everyone thinks is true but really isn’t" which is clearly not the case because it's not "almost everyone" that believes in creation, Bible truth or for that matter unicorns. I actually wonder if the word has vaguely different connotations on either side of the Atlantic, as Allen3 suggested above. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be surprised. I've run across words that have completely different common meanings in Europe vs. USA where most believe otherwise. "Liberal" for one. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of the discussion above, I find it interesting that our article on Creation myth says in the first sentence that a creation myth "is a symbolic narrative...", while our article on Genesis creation narrative says in its first sentence that the "Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." It looks to me like "we" (at least currently) are using them interchangeably. As for the meanings of "narrative" and "myth", I think that traditionally "narrative" has implied "truth", but it is increasingly being used in place of "story", meaning it could be either true or false. Academics and journalists will write about, for example, the differing "narratives" of nationalities fighting over the same piece of land, which implies that at least one of the "narratives" (and probably both) are not completely accurate, because they can't both be. On the other hand, there is a sentence in the Creation myth article that says that the word "myth" in that phrase does not imply falsehood, which obviously is contrary to how most people use and understand the word "myth". I was thinking of moving that sentence up to the intro, perhaps as the second sentence of the article, so people will understand that "myth" as used in the article does not necessarily mean what they think it means. I am hesitating because the sentence in question is not sourced. Neutron (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not speaking about any one instance in particular, (I see it again and again, e.g. the "phobia" articles) but I find it beyond ironic that people fight like hell to get the pejorative word used because it is pejorative, and one of their main arguments in that quest is to claim that it isn't pejorative. North8000 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles about namecalling terminology

Dear Jimbo Pardon me for canvassing here, but have you taken a look a how much of an Orwellian turn this project has taken of late? I just have to turn my head away in shame, but I am so concerned about this, it should be brought to the attention of the highest people in wikimedia. The latest most popular trend with massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV, seems to be ARTICLES ABOUT NAMECALLING TERMINOLOGY - Or articles that *should* be about impartially "describing" the name calling terminology, and who uses it, how it came to be, and why. But instead, these articles ADOPT the P.O.V. of those forces who employ such name-calling terminology, for which there are no shortage of "sources", just as there is no shortage of agenda-driven academia. These sources are not merely taken as evidence that these viewpoints exist, as they should be. These sources are further being taken as evidence that the viewpoints in them are hallowed and correct, and all opposing sources are wrong and unreliable.

When I say "articles about name calling terminology" I mean terns that virtually NOBODY would self identify as, polemic terms that are always applied by political opponents and detractors who are pushing for an agenda. I would like to see the articles describe, rather than adopt, these polemical povs, but it seems the view now is that even neutrality policy can be overturned if the partisans are vocal and numerous enough. There are several examples I have seen in the last month, but the most prominent is "Islamophobia", which I noticed after a message was left in the religion project talkpage. Some thoughtful editor there has suggested the content be moved to the more neutral "anti-muslim sentiment" [more parallel with "anti-Christian sentiment" amd "antiSemitism"] rather than the special word "Islamophobia" - a derisive term designed to convey that they are suffering from a disease or condition, who would oppose Islamic thought. He also suggested the page Islamophobia become a new article explaining the history of the word, who uses it, why it is used, and who disagrees with it.

Like I said, NOBODY self identifies as "Islamophobe" and NOBODY would accept that title on themselves. It's an exonym strictly applied by outsiders to their politico-religious opponents. But as the many shrill partisans of the word have explained with much characteristic venom, this is all neutral, good and proper, because those who advocate use of the term, includes such infallible sources as the BBC News and the British Police - and how could they possibly have a POV, that is anything other than absolute neutrality?

So in short, it doesn't matter if you say you are not an Islamophobe. If the BBC / wikipedia officially says you are an Islamophobe, you just are one anyway, even if you say you're not - because this is not a "point of view" open to debate, it's a neutral fact about yourself that the BBC knows, but you don't. The most vocal partisan at the Request for move has been User:AndyTheGrump, who has asked that I depart wikipedia for failing to see all this his way. I'm considering it. The mess of a move request is at Talk:Islamophobia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody? [2] Fram (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this source, Fram. It says (p. 15, p. 187) one Polly Toynbee stated she was an 'Islamophobe' as well as a 'Christophobe' in an Guardian editorial in the year 1997. It goes on to say that in 2005 she was again taken to task for having opined thusly against Islam, and she passionately defended her right to hold her views, concluding finally (p. 16) "... --which is why the word 'Islamophobia' is nonsense." So that's your source. Something tells me however that this would automatically be considered unworthy information to add to the wp article, for no other reason that it goes against the grain of the overall agenda being pushed, i.e. that nobody ever suggested the word is nonsense because nobody has a right to do so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Not when nobody has the faintest idea what's been talked about. I'd consider removing the entire block of text, to be honest, it's incoherent babble doktorb _words^deeds 12:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good idea. Let me know when you move antisemitism to "anti-Jewish sentiment", too. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do the only responses I ever get always seem like they came from a textbook for logical fallacies and arguments by flawed analogy? "antisemitism" isn't a word disguised to make it sound like it is a newly discovered psychological condition ending in 'phobia'. It is a long established term using the neutral, uncontroversial and easily understood Greek prefix anti- (commensurate with all other such articles) -- not a recent coinage with the polemic, inflammatory and confusing suffix -phobia. I came here because I really want to get Jimbo's response, for many years I have felt that I share his original vision of 'NPOV' when the project started. That is if some watchdog of this page doesn't hide it from his consideration as "incoherent babble" (strangely enough the other two out of 3 responses did not feign ignorance that I am indulging in 'incoherent babble', but seem to have at least grasped my point, maybe it just went over Doktorbuk's head) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What utter bunk. For example, the term "xenophobia" has been around for a long time, and does not suffer from the issues you're making up about the term "islamophobia". It means fear oder hatred of something. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If people other than Jimbo are going to respond, could you please read a book about logical arguments first? True logic does not operate by making flawed analogy after flawed analogy, although a number of prominent fallacies do. Relying only on analogies is usually a dead giveaway that you don't have a logical thing to say about the case at hand. Xenophobia is a bad analogy for several reasons, you are right that it doesn't suffer from these issues, but you are wrong that I myself am making up the issues with "islamophobia", which are well documented if you would not turn your blind eye to them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when one reaches for the Logic 101 card, it usually means they have little else but tolling to add to the conversation. There's nothing wrong with using "Islamophobia" to describe people who hate Muslims, it is a widely accepted and used term. Just like "homophobia" doesn't necessarily imply a literal fear of gay people, its widely accepted usage is simply hated or refusal to accept. Get over it and stop being so literal. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"when one reaches for the Logic 101 card, it usually means they have little else but tolling to add to the conversation." Says who? You? Did you just fall off the turnip truck or something? Logic is an essential tool for weeding out fallacies such as appeals to emotion, 'get over it' type statements devoid of true argument, and the like which are the bane of writing neutral, objective articles - resulting instead in attack pieces disguised as neutral articles. You really should look into pursuing logic sometime. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Til: part of logic, when discussing language, is avoiding the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You have used no logic in this discussion, in fact what you are engaging in is simply logical fallacy; simplistic appeal-to-emotion attempts, complaining about how we're being mean to Islam-haters by equating their racism with "a disease or condition". The thing is, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem. If you need a refresher on what service an encyclopedia actually provides, then by all means ask. An encyclopedia is not a producer of original content or opinion, it is a compendium of information from "Out There in the Real World". It so happens that "Out There in the Real World", many reliable sources use the term "Islamophobia" to when discussing hatred, often irrational, of Muslims. This encyclopedia reflects that reality, and this encyclopedia will reset your attempts to whitewash or neuter that reality just because it offenses someone's sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps a WP article summarizing traditional phobias versus pseudo-phobias: Write about the general concept of separating a traditional form, such as "xenophobia" or "agoraphobia" from the pseudo-psychological terms. This would help educate more people to the differences, such as "truthophobe" being a more recent invention, versus "pathological liar". Cite the linguistic terms used to categorize the non-medical words, versus catalogued medical conditions. In fact, there could be several articles, based on different aspects about the use of such words, then back-linked to various articles about psychology. We also need to write about veiled ad hominem arguments, such as saying, "My opponent's ideas are not as childish, clueless or ignorant as many people would think" (or "nor is he a total idiot"), where the technical use of a negative statement can be used to disguise a personal attack. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does indeed sound sensible. Finally a voice of reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, Wikid77, do you have a source for you proposed article? It looks a lot like original research to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel's argument is based on an entirely false premise: that the word 'Islamophobia' is somehow inherently loaded, in an unique way that say 'antisemitism', 'racism' or 'homophobia' aren't. This is of course nonsense in as much as any word may be loaded, depending on context. The question we should be asking is whether the word is in common usage, in contexts where there is no reason to assume any inherent bias - and the evidence presented at Talk:Islamophobia#Proposal to rename article to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" is overwhelming. Binksternet has demonstrated, through a long list of academic publication titles, that the term is in common use in academia. I have shown that the BBC routinely uses the term. I have shown that the Metropolitan Police use the term - though the term has also been used by others referring to them. I have shown that the Jewish Chronicle uses the term, and one would have to struggle to find an explanation for why they would be biased regarding this. It would be pointless to engage in further debate about usage - it is a common word, with a clear meaning that the media sees no particular need to explain to its readers. The correct title for a Wikipedia article on Islamophobia is 'Islamophobia', per both policy and common sense - and arguments based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, combined with WP:OR and pseudo-etymological waffle should have no place in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy is quite simple. It is like taking a bird's eye view of the struggling contenders in a controversial issue. Think of a controversial issue as like a playing field with opposing teams, if that helps. A bird's eye view of the field allows you to identify all the players, and where they stand. If you bring the camera down to just behind the Redskins line, or just behind Baltimore, that is called a 'point of view perspective'. Now in our controversy, we've got the BBC, the Jewish Chronicle, etc. on one side making accusations of islamophobia. If you look down from the birds eye view, you may be able to see that there is also another side - those being accused of islamophobia - and they are saying 'no, we're not, how ridiculous'. But not only do you seem incapable of taking a bird eye view, you cannot suffer wikipedia to take a birds eye view of the issue either, instead you want wikipedia right up there as one of the linebackers with the BBC and the Jewish Chronicle, and portray the issue from their perspective, which redefines 'neutrality' in rather machiavellian sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Facile and irrelevant false analogies prove precisely nothing. Given your evident misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV policy actually means, I can only suggest once more that it might be for the best if you ceased contributing to Wikipedia - at least until you can accept that it doesn't mean giving equal weight to Islamophobes, antisemites, homophobes and flat-Earthers, as the 'logic' of your arguments would seem to imply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, ANdy, you talk about 'logic' while making a strawman? How did I ever imply such a thing? Without you twisting my words to say something I didn't? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that your entire argument has consisted of endless battalions of straw men being sent forward from the trenches to defeat the combined forces of Orwell, Machiavelli and the Jewish Chronicle, I think I'm entitled to put up a few of my own... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Can you do anything besides reinterpret what I argued into something totally different and weird? Combined forces of Orwell, Machiavelli and the Jewish Chronicle! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So a user comes here about a concern about the naming of an article, and then several editors begin to run them down telling them their idea is "bunk" and calling the user a troll? Folks, this is not how we should be acting on Wiki. Let's take a breath and a step back.

I think that there is some validity to this argument. I for one think that the suggestion to move the Islamaphobe article to a less POV title and then using the Islomaphobe as a place to descibe the term (or as a redirect to the newly placed article) is a fair one. I do not see this as the least bit unreasonable (although this probably isn't the right place for that discussion frankly). I definately do not think we need multiple editors who should know better filling this page with insults. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

When their first two sentences use the words "Orwellian" and "shame", they're not setting the bar very high, so it shouldn't be surprising when the rest of the conversation follows suit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess that justifies it then! Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well to be fair, it does doktorb _words^deeds 19:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't justify it, but the whole "stop biting the poor newbie, you meanies" thing doesn't wash when the newbie is who set the tone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I just ask Writ Keeper what exactly makes me a 'newbie'? And I'm not complaining about the nature of any of the responses to me, it's come to be expected once you get to know this place. Except the guy who said I was eating at the kids table in the kitchen while the grownups are in the next room, that is a bit magisterial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a general statement, not a reflection on you at all; my apologies, I should've worded it better. I don't mean to say that you're a newbie; it's more than possible you have more experience than I do, though I see why you would think I meant otherwise. It's just that Kumioko's rhetoric is reminiscent of the kind commonly used to defend actual Wikipedia newbies, and I don't think it's valid to use that kind of rhetoric even with newbies when the tone has been set from the start, that's all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well needless to say I don't agree with the way the users comments have been treated. It seems to me that we could have responded in a much better way than what I am witnessing here, Newbie or Oldbie. I find it ironic that so many think I'm a jerk and I am the one here telling others they are acting poorly. Sorta makes me glad I'm not editing articles much here anymore. Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're sure telling them, but that doesn't mean you're right. I'm not seeing all that much in the insult department, and in what little I do see, Til seems to be giving as good as they're getting starting from their original post, so I'm not really seeing your point that people are insulting and browbeating Til for having an unconventional stance (I do disagree with that stance, for the record, but that's neither here nor there). Looks more like a prizefight than a mugging. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well regardless of the original post and your sarcasm aside this discussion only proves to underline what's wrong with things in WP these days. I remember in the good old days a few years ago an editor would make a suggestion and the worst would happen would be that some folks didn't agree. What I see here in the current day more and more is muddslinging and folks like AndyTheGrump living up to their namesakes and just being jerks and others just mocking them. Just because someone makes a comment we don't like doesn't justify retaliating more of the same. And we wonder where all the editors have gone; why edits are down; why admins are drowning in some areas and why we aren't recuiting the numbers of editors we should be/used too. Because they see shit like this discussion. Someone needs to cap this thread and move on.Kumioko (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"muddslinging and folks like AndyTheGrump living up to their namesakes and just being jerks" Pots, kettles, anyone? And when someone starts a thread by calling everyone they disagree with "massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV", what should they expect? Then again, if it is 'narrowminded' and 'partisan' to object to an attempt to whitewash bigotry by inventing entirely bogus 'neutral' terminology, which seems to be the intent, I'm proud to be a 'partisan'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

While you're here, Mr Newbie-since-2007, could you enlighten us on what you meant by your reference to "an Orwellian turn" in your first posting here? Are you perhaps suggesting that we should use Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four as an instruction manual? You are after all proposing that we replace a perfectly common existing word with made-up NewSpeak terminology... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wie Andy duckspeak doubleplusgoodwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

.. some of us just fell off the end of Wigan Pier. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Orwell, and of language:

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them". George Orwell: Politics and the English Language. [3]

In our time, when an Islamophobic terrorist engages in mass the murder of children, I see no reason to dress what motivated it up (with "sheer cloudy vagueness") as 'sentiment' for no better reason than that other Islamophobes don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you still have not changed your tactic of merely misrepresenting your opponents' position with strawman positions that are on easier ground to attack, proceeding in a general slippery slope and guilt by association to something quite far removed. I distinctly said I want wikipedia to take a bird's eye view, if you can comprehend what that means, and not an involved view. Once again: The radical proposal under discussion (proposed by someone else, not me) is: moving most of the content to 'anti-Muslim bias', and having an article at 'Islamophobia' to evenhandedly explain the term and the controversy surrounding it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I have read the Quran, and wouldn't choose to follow it myself, but I've nothing against my neighbor choosing to follow it, and can certainly respect if they were brought up to follow the Quran, provided it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg as Jefferson put it. In fact, I don't mean this as a cliche, but quite literally, some of my most wonderful friends have been Muslims, both Sunni and Shi`a, at one point in the 90s I even had a Khuzestani Muslim for a flatmate. I am also very much against the persecution of Muslims, let alone any innocent people. So please do not insinuate again that I myself am Islamophobic by any definition. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in any more of your misrepresentations, spin and BS - you began this thread with a personal attack on multiple well-respected Wikipedia contributors (e.g. your entirely bogus ""massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV" claim), and singled me out. I will ask you here to withdraw your attacks - and should you fail to do so, I may well ask for sanctions to be taken against you. It is one thing to argue with individuals, but groundless attacks on multiple contributors (who may as yet be unaware of the characterisations you have made) is entirely unacceptable. I'm not particularly bothered by what you said about me - I've heard worse, and from people who actually have a clue about what they are talking about - but you at minimum owe the Wikipedia community in general an apology for your obnoxious behaviour. 'Crying to Jimbo' because you are losing a debate, and then accusing contributors of some ridiculous sort of conspiracy, is well beyond what might be seen as reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am strictly concerned about the neutrality of not moving it from a pov title to a more neutral title, and wanted to know what Jimbo thinks of the neutrality. You have associated me with a madman Breivik who took the lives of innocents who weren't even Muslim, because I want wikipedia to back off the subjective labelling with controversial namecalling words that you have already started to call me. If you want to press sanctions, go for it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What term is best referenced? This has nothing to do with shock value, it's the most common English usage. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

'anti-muslim sentiment' appears not to be referenced at all - it is an invention of Wikipedia contributors. 'Islamophobia' is everyday language in academia, in the media and elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I just fact-checked that claim on google books and see 8060 potential sources mentioning 'anti-muslim sentiment'. So, you are sying wikipedians coined the term? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, 'proof by Google' - as if Google search results were of any significance (they aren't - they are unverifiable, and Google don't disclose the algorithm by which they are obtained, though it is a mathematical certainty that they don't look through every potential source for every occurrence of such phrases). Did you 'fact-check 'Islamophobia' for comparison ('about 47,000', for what it is worth)? My 'claim' was that 'anti-muslim sentiment' appears not to be referenced at all - can you cite a reference that (a) defines it, and (b) suggests that it is the common term for prejudice against muslims - the subject of our article. And how many books can you cite with the phrase 'Islamophobia' in the title? How many academic journals? Can you provide evidence that the phrase is in common usage in the media? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It appears quite likely that the vast majority of the sources found by a Google search for "anti muslim sentiment" don't even contain the phrase. If anyone doubts this they should do the search for themselves, and look at the results for finds after the first 15 or so pages: it lists The Paranoid Style in American Politics for instance, yet a Google search in the book finds no such phrase [4]. Google can't find what Google finds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles titles with pejorative terms should cover the term itself (when there's enough there to be encyclopedic), not the victim of the pejorative term as viewed through the POV eyes of the pejorative term. The common tactic is to claim that the pejorative term is more common. Guess what the an article on blacks 60 years ago would have been titled by that standard? Doubly so when a more neutral term is available and common. I tried a longer term lower key talk page effort to get one of those fixed and even that was enough to get set up on by the gang that was guarding it. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite policy for that? Can you cite evidence that 'Islamophobia' is a pejorative term. And why do you claim that 'gangs' are involved in determining Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A rule of thumb is that 3-4 experienced zealous editors can gang up and get pretty much anything done in Wikipedia.....POV an article, get someone in trouble etc. And it does happen. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that concern over adopting a clearly controversial and inflammatory term as our own, ought to override any appeal to islamophobia getting the most hits. I just bumped into this source which seems to be one of several, thoroughly detailing the amount of controversy this term has brought, there is loads of info here on just this one page: [5] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice it tells how anti-racism groups in France like LICRA and MRAP (French NGO) and others besides have denounced the word Islamophobia in arguing that they ought to call it by something less inflammatory, and many other arguments. Are they in the same boat with Breivik too? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I look into this, I see there are easily enough quality sources to reference an article about Opposition to the word "Islamophobe". Here's another particularly insightful commentary on how combatting prejudice against Islam can be undermined with terms like Islamophobia that seem calculated to be inflammatory. [6]Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting the source re France. No surprise there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's real easy to say, especially if you don't back it up. And even the United States government: According to this paper, before the year 2006, the US "government's position was that while there have been increased episodes of anti-Muslim episodes in the country, the word Islamophobia deepens the divide between the two sides." Very sensible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting the source, as should be self-evident to anyone that actually reads it - the source uses the word 'Islamophobia' repeatedly. No surprise there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I say this source doesn't use the word islamophobia? No, Obviously I know it has the word in the title. I said this info could be used as a resource for an article Opposition to the word Islamophobia, which is a considerably well documented topic. Don't pretend you have a lack of reading comprehension just to be able to pretend the word is not at all controversial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Put well sourced material with due weight in the appropriate section of the Islamaphobia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it beyond ironic that people fight like hell to get the pejorative word used because it is pejorative, and one of their main arguments in that quest is to claim that it isn't pejorative. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a tool to try to to help them establish or entrench those neologisms. And that is exactly what is happening. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When RS chronicles things, Wikipedia chronicles things. Be they new or old. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? 'Islamophobia' isn't remotely a neologism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Gangnam Montgolfier style

The sum of all knowledge arrives by many different means

According to a BBC News piece today, "one of the many innovative ways being used to get information into North Korea involves attaching USB memory sticks to balloons, and floating them across the border. These sticks often contain South Korean programming - such as soap operas - and also the Korean language version of Wikipedia."

The piece does not comment on whether replication lag is very high when transmitting Wikipedia via balloon, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sneakernet 2.0? Resolute 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Currently, Korean Wikipedia contains "224,691" articles. -Wikid77 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, one might wonder what else might be on USB memory sticks being sent into North Korea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the percentage of North Koreans that have a computer capable of reading a USB memory stick be quite low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korean Balloon Monkey? .. bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In reply to the IP address... wouldn't the percentage of educated Westerners that really believe that North Koreans are subsisting on millet mash and UN handouts, be quite low? Through Wikipedia I first got involved in working with students from Communist China, where almost everyone is (we're told) very poor. One of the students I was working with, from a basic-level (not elite) university, wrote an article about her university. Tentatively, we asked if she could take a picture. Were they allowed such things as cameras? Sure, she said, and the photo came right back, taken by the very latest model of iPhone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy Reddit's idea of "rules"

While similar to "Dont be a dick" this rule from Reddit is something we should consider implementing- "Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?" While we have policy and guidelines that in essence say the same thing, perhaps we should actually enforce that standard from Reddit... if it seems that something someone said would get them disciplinary action with an HR department for saying in the workplace, or a child would get sent to the principal's office for, to put it in language for our younger editors.97.88.87.68 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I'm not sure that Wikipedia, or anyone with a modicum of common sense, should use Reddit as a model. Unless they plan on starting a number of sub-wikis for jailbait, creepshots, etc. I would rather focus on remembering that the people who appear on Wikipedia are humans and let Wikipedia editors fend for themselves until that it done. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• As an administrator, how am I to enforce a rule that says "Would I say it to the person's face?" What if they are a jerk in the real world and really would have said that same thing? Laws or rules that are unenforceable are always selectively enforced, which is just a fancy name for tyranny. Wikipedia isn't the workplace. For most, it is an enjoyable hobby, or a passion. If more rules are the answer, then you are asking the wrong questions. We should try to work towards simplicity and ease of use, not policies that require an admin do a Vulcan mind meld in order to determine a response to incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with the IP that the phrase "Would I say it to the person's face?" is a useful device in some cases, as it might defuse a situation, without, dare I say, causing either side to lose face. However, in agreement with Mr. Brown, I wouldn't encourage codifying it into rules, partly because it is non-actionable, partly because the answer might be "yes". There are many things that are useful in disputes that, nevertheless, shouldn't be stuffed into the bureaucracy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to the issues identified by Dennis Brown, there are also cultural differences around the globe that make applying such a rule problematic. What might be perfectly acceptable in one culture to say directly to a persons face (at work or at social gatherings) may not be the same in another culture. You then have the problem of cultural bias influencing where the threshold exists; it's just too vague of a criteria to list into a policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many excellent ideals that we should live by that would make terrible policy or law. Saying "yes maam" and "yes sir" to your elders, for instance. The same is true of civility. Once you set the bar higher than the the boundary of universally accepted minimum, it becomes exponentially harder and harder to enforce fairly and equitably. The more "civility" you demand, the more unfair the system will become, no matter how honorable the intentions are. I believe that civility is more than sweet words; it is a two sided coin. The other side requires we tolerate other's choice of words, even if they are slightly offensive, as long as their goals are the same as ours, to build an encyclopedia. "Civility" demands that we accept each other's differences to the degree that we can and still function as a community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Laudable, even magnanimous, Dennis, but perhaps risky, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Driving is risky, this is much less so. Tolerance doesn't mean you agree with something, or even like it, only that you endure and overlook small things. And there are limits to tolerance as well. But just a little more tolerance of our differences goes a long way in being a more civil place. This is the side of civility that seldom gets discussed. "Dirty words" are much easier to point at, but much less offensive than intolerance. Wikipedia doesn't need child-proofing, it needs passionate, dedicated editors. Sometimes, they will bump heads, and sometimes the best solution is to just let them as long as it isn't dragged into the corredores. Insisting we block at the first dirty word is itself, uncivil. That is all I'm saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As usual, Dennis, you the voice of reason. I have to agree with you. Dirty words are indeed the least of our worries. Although they do sometimes come in handy at ArbCom election time... haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

-- Laozi

I think that the OP's principle makes a great essay, but a bad policy. The opposite of incivility is civility, not civility enforcement. It is also useful here to borrow Christian social technology and appreciate that incivility has the attributes of a demon, which transfers from one angry person to the next in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Each individual who accepts incivility, but returns civility, cools the system and returns it to order; just so the faithful are believed to have the power to cast out demons from the global memome. Wnt (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your quote about $50 smartphones in Africa

Hello Jimbo: I loved your quote about $50 Android smartphones causing disruption in African countries. [7]. I can relate myself to this quote as I'm also using a $90 Android smartphone in India and they are literally everywhere in my town. EngineerFromVega^★ 04:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazon and the WMF/Wikia

Jimbo, if this story is true, you and the WMF might should reconsider your organizations' relationship with this company. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

does Wikia=WMF? I thought the answer was no. 207.239.114.206 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)