User:Yksin/WP discussions

This is an archive of stuff I've said in discussions around & about Wikipedia that are for one or another reason significant to me. Significant, not comprehensive. Go to the original discussions for context.

Unless you're me, please don't edit this page. If you want to respond to a point, please go either to the original discussion (I provide the links for each item), or leave a message on my user talk page. Thanks.

Articles I'm interested in

Alaska

Talk:Kalifornsky,_Alaska - Distinguishing Kalifornsky CDP from Kalifornsky village

FYI. A few days ago I edited this article with additional info from the Alaska Community Database & from some other sources in order to help make clear its status as not a town or city (no local government), to add some local history, and to disambiguate it from Kalifornsky village. I also changed the page Kalifornsky from being a redirect page to being a disambiguation page. I'm working extensively on improving the article on Peter Kalifornsky, after whose ancestor Kalifornsky village was names (& eventually also Kalifornsky Beach Road, & hence Kalifornsky CDP). Also added sources for the info I provided; the original article has no sourcing, though given its standard look in comparison with other Alaska community pages, it looks like it came out of somebody's database -- maybe one from the U.S. census, since it doesn't have the look of the Alaska Community Database, with which I am intimately familiar. -- Yksin 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska/Communities - Current vs. historical Alaska communities

Here's an issue I think worth considering: although the Alaska Community Database from DCCED (why can't they give state departments names we can remember nowadays?) provides a pretty complete listing of communities, census-designated places, & boroughs or census areas that are recognized today, if we go only from that list we miss a lot of historical communities that are no longer lived in. Ghost towns, historic Alaska Native villages, etc.

My case in point: Kalifornsky village, which is quite a different animal... er... place than the CDP that's been given the name Kalifornsky by whoever in government is in the business of establishing such names.

I created a stub for Kalifornsky village the other day, & will be expanding it quite a bit in the course of my work on Peter Kalifornsky, whose great-great-grandfather gave Kalifornsky village its name. I also added Kalifornsky village to the List of places in Alaska. Is it appropriate, then, to add it to this list? Or should there, rather, be started a list of historical communities that no longer exist, except perhaps as archaelogical sites? -- Yksin 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Alaska_Natives

This is more by way of an FYI than anything, I guess. As part of an effort to improve the coverage of Alaska Natives both for this project & WP:ALASKA, yesterday I created Category:Indigenous languages of Alaska, got all relevant languages in Alaska sorted into it, created pages where needed (for example, to differentiate between "people" & "language"), added language infoboxes for almost all of them (a very few already had one), & in most cases also added info based on writeups at the Alaska Native Language Center, Yukon Native Language Centre, Ethnologue. Still a bit of clean-up to go, but I'm really pleased with what I've accomplished. Now I'm heading into the rather frightening work of trying to sort out all the weirdnesses that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) has wrought that makes Alaska look so different from the Lower 48 of the U.S. Wish me luck. --Yksin 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Finnish mythology & folklore

Talk:Finnish_mythology#I.27m_taking_this_on

Having read this & related articles, I couldn't agree more with the comments above from people like Snowgrouse, Narsil, Tuohirulla, etc. about the inadequacies of this article (& many of the related articles), the need for references, the need to keep a clear separation between authentic ancient mythology & traditions & the revival of some traditions in Neopaganism. As it happens, I've been collecting some pretty good reference materials on Finnish & Finno-Ugrian myth & folklore, etc. for several years. I don't speak/read Finnish (I hope to someday), but there's been a slowly growing corpus of reliable stuff in English from some of the real experts in the field. So I've begun going through it methodically, taking notes, & will be making some serious edits soon.

I already redid the stuff on the (nonhistorical) St. Urho a few days ago, & have been making random minor edits on related pages already. I was shocked to discover that somewhere in the history of the page on Ilmatar (the Lönnrot-invented mother of Väinämöinen), someone had decided that she was also the mother of Ilmarinen & Lemminkäinen!!! Yikes!

Wish me luck.

Yksin 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I plan to do a lot of work on Finnish paganism too -- I've kinda got a working idea (as I wrote on that topic's talk page) of how to divide up the subject matter between the two pages. About Finnish neopaganism I know far far less, since as far as I know it's mainly in Finland (whereas I'm in Alaska), & probably also mostly in Finnish, which I don't know. But I'll do what I can. Thanks for your welcome. -- Yksin 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Finnish_Paganism#Mythology_and_paganism

I've been mulling this over for the past few days while getting set to do some major work both here & on the Finnish mythology page (see the Talk page there for a rundown on my intentions), & basically have come down to a sort of division in my mind: "mythology" as being the cosmogony (origins), cosmology (structure of the cosmos), & mythic stories, etc., & putting into "paganism" more of the day-to-day practices that came out of the structure of belief. That's my working theory anyway. -- Yksin 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT

Talk:Steve Stanton -- City of Largo nondiscrimination policies

I'm not sure the nondiscrimination policies currently cited in the Reaction section of the article would prohibit the City discriminating against Stanton.

Article text currently reads " If the vote to fire Stanton is upheld, the City of Largo will be in contravention of its own non-discrimination employment policies," citing | A-3. Implementation of Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition Policy.

The source, dated in October 2003, reads:

A-3. Implementation of Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition Policy

Human Resources Director Sinz reports that the City Commission has approved the Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition policy effective immediately. The new policy specifically prohibits bias, prejudice, intimidation, coercion and harassment by any City employee at the work place, during business trips, or at City functions. The new policy mandates treating all human beings with respect regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Any verbal, physical, or visual conduct that belittles, demeans, denigrates, or shows hostility toward an individual or group will disciplined up to and including discharge.

The policy thus mandates "treating human beings with respect" with regards to gender identity/expression, but does not actively prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity/expression. Given that in 2003 the city had just undergone a contentious debate specifically about whether or not to include gender identity/expression in its human rights ordinance -- a battle which was lost by those opposing discrimination -- I doubt the city would have implemented a nondiscrimination policy for city workers. -- Yksin 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Boraas

• Strong keep. I have been working extensively on improving articles on Peter Kalifornsky and Kalifornsky village and hope to be updating these pages further soon (hopefully by the end of today). In the process of researching that article, I've come across numerous references to/by Alan Boraas, and his expertise on the Dena'ina can't be denied. I don't know that I can commit to overall improvement of this article, but I will certainly be adding the references I've found in the next few days as I complete work on the Kalifornsky articles. -- Yksin 12:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've made some major additions to the page, some based on a bibliography I found, some on an 2000 article in a local paper, etc. There are still significant holes in his bio, but some significant improvement, I think. Still conducting research. -- Yksin 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia projects

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Comments_from_WPBiography_box

People doing WikiBiography Project assessments might note that there's a suggestion in the box for assessors to create a comment about what they might suggest for future editors to improve the biography being assessed. I usually do write such a comment -- if there's not already a comment box, writing one leads to the creation of a comment page.

Another editor, well-meaning, thought that I'd made a mistake in putting my comment on a separate page. He moved my comment to the article's main talk page & marked the comment page for speedy deletion, then informed me of his action. I explained the procedure, so now he knows -- but I've also started prefacing my comments on the (usually new) comment page with

WikiBiography Project assessment:

so that other editors running across them won't make the same well-intentioned mistake.

I'm suggesting this as a practice other WPBiography assessors might want to use.

Wikipedia internal

Notability

Talk:Timothy_Noah#Noah_on_NPR

Timothy Noah was on National Public Radio this morning discussing this article (& his articles of course) -- which led me to this talk page. Interesting timing for me, because I had just been reviewing the latest in an AfD discussion on an article I have an interest in, & had been reflecting how AfD nominations can sometimes prompt article improvement, and also on questions of "what makes someone notable for Wikipedia." If anyone does take the time to do real research on Noah to improve this article (I'm sure for example that one could locate his birth date in one of the "Who's Who" volumes, for instance), & includes a section on this little tempest in a teapot, his appearance on NPR might also be mentioned. --Yksin 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the NPR story in 2007 press citations box at the top of the page. -- Yksin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy_Noah#Notability_tag

Yes, the issues he raises are legitimate. I doubt the need to include everyone (Noah's cleaning lady example, or me for that matter -- not yet anyway), but certainly important journalists, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc. ought to be here. I'm pretty much a newly-minted Wikipedia editor, though I've used it to look stuff up for a long time. Seems to me that one reason it has the kinds of gaps Noah refers to -- such as a Pulitzer Prize winner -- is because editors are interested in what they're interested in. They tend to put their efforts into what fascinates them.

Another issue may be the dependence on the Internet itself as a source of information: has anyone thought to look Noah up in Who's Who? -- maybe his birthday & place of residence are there! When it comes right down to it, some of the best information on many topics is found in books, in the library, that you have to physically go look at and take notes from. Look around & you'll find some of the best articles on Wikipedia are written by people who took the time to go to the library & do that work.

Another problem: A lot of attention has been paid in this discussion on making sure we can source where Noah lives, when he was born -- better take those "facts" out until we can verify them with real sources. But what we've failed to note is hat unsourced "facts" are endemic in Wikipedia. Not necessarily because they aren't factual -- but because the editors who placed them there failed to source them. While assessing bios for WP Biography, I've come across numerous articles, even top-notch articles, that fail to properly source their facts.

In short, some of the failings we've got here are do to the mixed nature of Wikipedia culture... maybe just to the nature of volunteerism. We're not getting paid to learn how to do a proper footnote or reference, after all. Those who do it right do it because what's the point of doing it unless you do it right. But not all Wikipedians, unfortunately, take that attitude. -- Yksin 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Slate_article

Yikes, there are so many circular arguments to this.

Having now read Noah's articles (as well as hearing him on NPR's "Day to Day" this morning -- see Talk:Timothy_Noah for article links, I see his point. "Notability" by its very nature is subjective. When enough people agree that someone or something is "notable," that's just a matter of a bunch of subjectivities getting together and taking a vote, & more often than not even their votes about "notability" is based on some kind of privileging. E.g., in the past (& often in the present), people couldn't be considered notable by whoever had the power to enforce the notability standards of the time unless they were white, or male, or spoke the right language, or knew how to read & write. (Language & literacy having very much to do with an article on a particular notable person I'm working on right now.)

In practice on Wikipedia, I've recently come across a couple of AfD discussions that revolved around notability. One involved someone I personally know (or knew), who was a political candidate deemed by many as not being "notable" unless she won her election (for U.S. House from Alaska), in spite of other achievements in her past. Okay, if you wanna look it up, here she is. Most of those who deemed her not notable were from other parts of the country, and knew little about Alaska politics, nor certainly about her local activities that made her very notable indeed to Alaskans, whether they like her or not. Including me, & not just because I used to know her. She got two AfD discussions, the first resulting in her deletion, the second in her bio being returned to Wikipedia. I was not part of these discussions -- I came across them afterwards. But it was ridiculous. How does someone not winning an election then mean they aren't "notable"? Is it the votes that make them notable, or not? What about their other achievements? It was that close to this person -- who a lot of people in Alaska would consider notable, as so would a lot of Native Americans -- having her bio removed based on "nobody outside Alaska except a few Indians knows or cares about this person." What hooey.

The other AfD, involving an Alaska academic, involved notability not so much because the guy is not notable, but because the original editor didn't provide enough information & sourcing. But poor editing & sourcing is an altogether different problem then whether or not someone is "notable." This AfD should be concluding in the next couple of days, & looks like he will be retained, mainly just because of significant work over the past couple of days (I'll pat myself on the back) to provide some real info.

Whether or not "notability" guidelines are retained in some form, (1) they need to be fixed somehow; (2) editors need to distinguish what the real problems with an article are before marking them AfD -- it's often not really a question of "notability" but of a lousily researched, lousily written, lousily source article about someone/something that does really count; (3) editors debating an AfD need to be mindful about their own biases & limitations that comes naturally out of them being, always, subjective persons with limits to their knowledge.

Okay, there's my two cents. -- Yksin 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability#A_new_start_with_a_new_goal - Rebuttals

Partial rebuttal to Farix 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• For the most part I agree with Farix's comments, in particular that "we are simply fooling ourselves when we say that notability is not subjective." I mostly but don't completely agree with "Notability should never be the primary reason to delete an article." I would say rather that to say: Notability in most cases should not be the sole reason to nominate an article for deletion. In most cases that I've seen, AfD nominations based solely on non-notability are usually rather about other lacks of an article relating to WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, and especially to articles being so short as to provide too little information to even evaluated the notabilty of the article's subject, or because the article is shabbily written. Too often editors who nominate an article for deletion equate "lack of information" with "lack of notability", or apply spurious standards of notability based on their own subjective biases. (E.g., a politician "not being notable" unless he or she wins an election, regardless of other reasons the subject might be notable; or simply because the editor doesn't know who or what the subject of the article is.)
• I guess I'm suggesting that "notability" should be the reason of last resort, only after first exhausting these other issues (NPOV, ATT, badly written, editors nominating or voting in the AfD process taking account of their inherent biases or limitations of knowledge) and still finding the article coming up short.
• My comments seem a little murky even to me; that's because I'm still trying to work out the language for what I think is wrong with the notabilty guidelines as they exist, or at least how I've seen them being misused in AfD discussions. -- Yksin 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition: [User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC) did a good job briefly articulating my concern in critizing the use of notability "solely as a soundbite in AfD." --Yksin 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability#A_new_start_with_a_new_goal - Summary

• AfD arguments citing presumed lack of notability should explain why the subject of the article is considered not notable, rather than stating "the article doesn't sufficiently document the subject's notability." Lack of sufficient documentation is a WP:ATT issue, not a WP:NN issue, & should be discussed as such. Furthermore, WP:NN is a guideline, not a policy; to the extent it relates to policy, it supports WP:NOT (specifically, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.) --Yksin 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)