Help desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 4

South Africa wikipedia page

I wish to bring to your attention the gross untruths included in the SA WIKIPEDIA page which seems to be locked for editing purposes?

How do we get it unlocked? Thank you in advance,

Denver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroxa (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you're talking about the page South Africa, the page is semi-protected due to excessive vandalism. Once your account is autoconfirmed, you will be able to edit the page yourself. --Eurodyne (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in the meantime, Denver, you are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page Talk:South Africa. If you add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) this will add it to a list of requests that some users regularly look at. Please be as specific in your request as possible (eg "Please change [this text] to [this text]", not "Take out the gross untruths"); and give citations to reliable published sources for all your changes. --ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target readability/comprehension level for WP?

Hello! I'm helping a new editor to master some of WP's styles and policies. A question has arisen about what level of readability or comprehension we should be aiming for. For example, what rank on the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests should a typical WP article have?

I've hunted around unsuccessfully, so it would be great if someone can point me at the appropriate MoS entry, if any. Also, this issue gave rise to the question of whether any automated WP tools exist for doing this assessment, similar to those used by MS Word, etc. Tnx much! jxm (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that each article should be written so as to convey the material as clearly as possible. Obliging editors to use short words and short sentences, or just omit difficult material, so as to attain a Flesch–Kincaid target score, would be counterproductive. Maproom (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A typical Wikipedia article varies in readability from section to section depending on which editors have been involved. There is no consistency in reading ease or reading level across or within articles. That would require actual editors, which is contrary to the model. Science and mathematics articles are particularly obtuse, since writing clearly about those topics is an uncommon talent. Tell your friend to write for high school level English speakers. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the easy answer is "as simple as possible, but without omitting any relevant information or being overly verbose", which is not really an answer. There are some clue in the MOS though: MOS:JARGON jumps to mind when dealing with technical language. Also, my understanding of WP:LEAD (although I am not sure it can be supported by a direct quote) is that the lead of the article should define the subject, the whole subject, and only the subject with the simplest language possible; all details go to the body of the article, where more technicality is available.

@Jxm: See WP:SIMPLE for information on the Simple English Wikipedia, which strives to make articles written simply. RudolfRed (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a specific value of Flesch-Kincaid or other metric that is set as a goal. And there is some variation. Some particularly technical articles will likely be harder to read. I don't think any editor is intentionally making the material hard to read but making it easy to read can be hard. RJFJR (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for yr help. This info is all very useful. jxm (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Fox

Why is there such an abbreviated bio for Christine Fox? No education, other previous positions, awards? As the highest ranking woman to ever serve in the Pentagon surely she has some other notoriety besides being inspiration for a movie. I'm looking at the previous Deputy SecDefs bios and something doesn't add up here.

Christine Fox most recently served as the acting United States Deputy Secretary of Defense from December 3, 2013 until Robert Work's confirmation on May 1, 2014. Until November 2013, she was the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense—one of the most senior civilian positions in the Department of Defense. She previously gained notability during her work at Naval Air Station Miramar, where she was the inspiration for the Top Gun character "Charlie", played by Kelly McGillis in the movie. In her role as acting Deputy, she became the highest-ranking woman ever to work in The Pentagon.[1] She officially retired from the Pentagon in May 2014.[2]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.37.229.206 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Fox. It's still a stub because no one has done the work to collect references and expand the article. We're all volunteers. RJFJR (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to solicit community opinion to clarify an unclear situation of some significance

A recent block exposed the fact there is no official Wikipedia guidance for how journalists who wish to contact Wikipedia editors, should be treated.

Two possible views can be summed up by the statements of Dennis Brown, the Administrator whose block seems to have set the precedent for future cases, and the dissent of Administrator Floquenbeam, who said his thoughts were wrong, but has yet to indicate how it could be prevented in future.

Attempts by me to get Dennis to vacate the precedent have been rebuffed by him. See his talk page, where he recently blanked the whole discussion. No other Administrator has yet given their views, although I would think it would be wise to solicit the thoughts of everyone, not just Administrators.

Dennis' view:

Journalists are not special little snowflakes that deserve exceptional handling. I will treat them like any other editor: either they are here to build an encyclopedia or they are not.

That appears to essentially be his shorter post-block explanation for why he wrote this to justify this block at the time..... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Investigativereporter&diff=prev&oldid=804692191 "There are some problems with your account that makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. For starters, you aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but instead to improve your career, thus you haven't added a single edit of value. That falls under WP:HERE. Second of all, you make mention (on your user page) that your reports have been seen on "CNN, NBC and local affiliate stations", which means you are here with the goal of being financially compensated. While our policies on Paid Editing don't exactly cover this, your actions violate the spirit of those policies enough that I felt action was needed. Using Wikipedia as a means to financially enrich yourself requires disclosure, for starters (per the TOS and policy). Wikipedia, as a private corporation, is exempt from First Amendment considerations here, and blocking you in no way prohibits you from writing about Wikipedia. Using the encyclopedia as a platform, however, is not acceptable. (WP:FORUM, etc). This is no different that other editors that get blocked because they only use the site as a form of social networking and do not contribute to the content or maintenance in any way. Being a self-proclaimed (and unverifiable) reporter doesn't exempt you."

In contrast, the view at the time from Floquenbeam was this..... "If this was a legit reporter, I really don't think WP:NOTHERE and WP:PAID would apply, and I think/hope you'd get some substantial pushback."

As Dennis states, this has been widely discussed on Wikipediocracy, and worryingly, from his answers to me, Dennis seems to want people to have to go there to seek his full reasoning, while also sending people there back here to find it, insisting it is self-explanatory. But even on Wikipediocracy, informed opinion (as demonstrated by those actually looking at Dennis' words) seems to be against him.... "For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.......Putting journalists (or "journalists") in the "paid editor" bucket doesn't fit within the letter or spirit of the paid editing policies."

I must stress, I am not here to appeal or protest the precedent originating block as Dennis keeps insisting is my motive. I am here only to look out for the interests of bona fide journalists who in future might be blocked for these same reasons, and who on present information must be quite confused about whether they are allowed to be here at all if they're not "here to build an encyclopedia", or if they are, but they must present their credentials upfront and declare themselves as "paid editors" and not engage in any journalism.

I am unsure whether a simple effort at policy clarification is appropriate, given the magnitude of the issues involved, and the potential consequences of mishandling an actual journalist. Maybe a specific page of guidance needs to be issued for how journalists are meant to interact with Wikipedia editors, in a way that respects both, which can refer to related pages (WP:PAID, WP:NOTHERE, etc).

Then again, maybe there is no policy that needs to be clarified here at all, maybe this is just an issue of Dennis getting it wrong and not being willing or able to admit that. He states he is willing to change his mind if others show he has got it wrong, yet in this case, he seems intent on denying they see it that way, claiming he has consensus support from Wikipediocracy, and from the lack of anyone here overturning his block, even though he now denies it has anything to do with paid editing (on Wikipediocracy), but still seems clear it is about NOTHERE (both here and on Wikipediocracy).

Ultimately, the issue may be resolved by finding a person who Dennis respects enough to give them a full and complete account of what his reasoning is, both for the block and on the general case, such that it becomes clear what his future actions would be, and they align with the views of Floquenbeam et al.

And even though I'd personally think it unwise, I'm even OK with Dennis' view prevailing over Floquenbeam et al, and have Wikipedia block journalists at the drop of a hat if they do not meet Dennis' ideas about what they must do to avoid it. But it seems obvious that for that to happen, there definitely needs to be more clarity that this is acceptable to Wikipedia, because there is clearly a non-trivial level of disagreement with Floquenbeam et al, about whether this is a sound interpretation of WP:PAID and WP:NOTHERE, and indeed any other relevant policy or principle, whether Dennis personally agrees or not.

James Marshall Y (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a glance at the SPJ Code of Ethics, fully expecting to see some wording discouraging journalists from becoming part of the story. I know I've read about such admonitions — one example is here, where the SPJ president talks about the need to avoid "injecting oneself into the story". OP makes reference to "whether they[journalists] are allowed to be here at all". That fundamentally misses an important point — any reporter has the complete ability to read every word written in every article as well as the complete history (except for revdel or oversighted material). In that sense, Wikipedia is far more open than almost any other entity they might wish to cover. The limitation is on contributing to articles, discussion of policies or talk page discussion of articles. That's why I noted the Society of professional journalists admonition against getting involved. I'd like to hear an explanation of how a journalist editing Wikipedia fails to cross that line. Maybe there is an example, but my initial reaction is that journalists should be reading not writing in Wikipedia.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really answer my question, it's more of an answer to the issue it concerns, so consequentially it would more properly be registered wherever I am directed. But to jump ahead and address it, I personally couldn't follow your meaning, or understand what "journalists should be reading not writing in Wikipedia" means in this context. I think it might help to reassure you that, in my head at least, this doesn't concern any issue where a journalist is part of the story (although guidance for that scenario would be relevant too), and obviously, while everyone can read anything on Wikipedia, journalism involves more than just reading, it involves contacting the people involved in a story, or whose views on a story might be relevant or pertinent. That is the crux of the issue here, since many (most?) editors here choose not to list any other means of contacting them except by direct message on their Wikipedia page. Which, if journalists are to be barred from writing on Wikipedia, presents a problem. A problem, ironically, that is easily worked around by pretending to Wikipedia editors that you're not a journalist until such time as you are ready to go to press with comments or opinions obtained by deceptive means...which I imagine the SPJ (and the Wikimedia Foundation) would have something to say about. James Marshall Y (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is presented above several times as a Dennis vs. Floquenbeam thing. For the record, it isn't. While a legit discussion could be had about this subject at a village pump somewhere, it would be better if it wasn't started by a scrutiny-evading sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock, as explained already to Dennis. Clearly he disagrees, but for your benefit, I will repeat, I categorically deny being the journalist (or "journalist") he blocked, or an editor hiding their "regular account". I apologise for pitching this as a Dennis vs. You affair, if that doesn't seem right right to you, but it is an inevitable consequence of you two thus far being the only Administrators prepared to say what you would do in a future comparable scenario. I think at this time, the views of wbm1058 are inadmissible since they have only opined on Wikipediocracy, and they don't appear to have the full facts. I will try now to convince him to make a statement on Wikipedia, and then we might know more. I am here to find out how and where this can cease being a Dennis vs. You issue, where everything and anything that is said is dismissed because it is coming from someone both of you appear to think has no right to say anything here. I have the right. Not a First Amendment right, in that Dennis is correct. But it is a right afforded me by the Wikipedia Foundation. Unless someone here is about to claim my queries and efforts are a violation of NOTHERE too, in which case, I think the journalists whose interests I am trying to look out for, will have got their answer. James Marshall Y (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offended by the WP:Sock puppetry allegations, which amount to a blatant lack of assuming good faith. This is not the proper venue for making such allegations, if you suspect sock puppetry, then WP:SPI is the proper venue, and if Mr. Marshall is being honest with us, I suspect that they would not mind a quick WP:CheckUser investigation of their two disclosed accounts. I don't see sufficient behavioral evidence for such allegations.

Note that per WP:RESEARCHER there are ten editors who have been granted permissions to perform title searches for deleted pages and view deleted history entries. Why have such permissions been granted to some editors who are clearly "not here to build an encyclopedia"?

The WP:NOTHERE rationale for blocking editors is the crux of the issue here. Please note the section Wikipedia:NOTNOTHERE, where exceptions are listed. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for any newly-registered editor to request a private email conversation with another editor about any aspect of their edits that the requester doesn't necessarily want to discuss publicly. Editors are or should be accountable for their edits. Of course any editor asked to initiate an email discussion may decline to do so. Investigative reporters are one group who should have valid rights to make such requests; they may not be the only one. Part of accountability is answering to the press, our "fourth estate". We should be thankful to have such checks and balances on the power of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia. I would suggest initiating a WP:request for comment.

You could do that at Wikipedia talk:Here to build an encyclopedia, or a higher-profile page: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I shall review those links, and ponder the rest. James Marshall Y (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For all the insistence that the individual is not a sock, the timing is interesting at least. I already indicated in my comment on Dennis's now-archived talk page discussion that it would certainly be possible for a legitimate journalist to present himself as such to the Wikipedia Foundation and get their approval for using the site to get interviews. In fact, I think journalistic ethics kind of indicate that should be done anyway. Alternately, it is certainly possible to contact individual editors through email, provided that they have email enabled. If they don't, it would certainly be possible for someone to leave a message on the potential interviewee's talk page. And, of course, it might be acceptable, pinging @Drmies: who I have discussed something like this with earlier, for a journalist to set up their own user talk page to indicate what it is they might be seeking through interviews and pinging individuals they wish to contact. But. In general, as someone who has taken part in both interviews and research studies regarding Wikipedia based on email correspondence, I think that is likely the best and least problematic way to go. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Berean Hunter has little to add here or we would have seen it in the logs, though I could be wrong. I am not opposed to the fourth estate doing some snooping here, though it is true that in principle NOTHERE would apply to journalistic investigations. Investigativereporter's edits don't impress me very much: I would think that a "real" journalist would be more transparent, and the vigilante journalism so prevalent on the Internet isn't all that real, as far as I'm concerned. If they had been more transparent I personally would have been happy to let it roll, if they identify themselves properly so that we can at least look at some credentials; John, I think you and I are of the same mind here. Sphilbrick's note on the ethics and practices of investigative journalism is important and to the point. I'm not sure I'd require "approval" from the Foundation, since I think this is something that we as editors/admins/etc. should be able to handle--but any investigative worth their salt would, I think, figure out what the organizational structure is and possibly get in touch with ArbCom or an admin or two, rather than diving headfirst into an article or articles full of socking/paid editing/whitewashing issues. In other words, editors here need to be given some evidence that they're dealing with someone in good faith, even if that someone's interest isn't article improvement directly. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover journalism may get some stories that transparent journalism couldn't. Of course an undercover journalist wouldn't start out by posting to their user page "My investigative pieces have aired on CNN, NBC and local affiliate stations." I too am puzzled that they would mention their pieces in a general sense, but then apparently fail to give specifics when privately asked for details. A journalist is either fully transparent and outs themselves to everyone's satisfaction, or undercover until it's time to file their report. I don't follow the rationale for semi-outing, and this may be why Investigativereporter has been labeled as a troll. Maybe they wanted to keep their identity secret so as not to draw attention from competing journalists who might steal their scoop? wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wbm1058 argument is wholly unreasonable -- "investigativereporter", come now, the conduct at issue does not even pass the laugh test (it's wholly bizarre for a "journalist"). We need not be fools, because someone else is acting like a fool, clearly the block was in reasoned discretion. And no we do not need any more "policy" on it - it never comes up, which shows how unimportant, and insignificant it is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change page name

How can I change the name of the page Walter Steins into Walter Steins ? In the history, someone commented that Bisschop was his title, not his name. This is untrue, it is a double name, that's quite common in the Netherlands, like De Jong (1) van Beek en Donk (2), for example. Google gives results for living people with the name Steins Bisschop, moreover, I vaguely know somebody with this double name. Thanks in advance. 2001:9E0:8702:CF00:71DC:89BA:5181:6BB8 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only source listed at Walter Steins to which I have access calls him "Archbishop Walter Herman Jacobus Steins". No "Bisschop". Why do you think he was called "Steins Bisschop"? Maproom (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the Dutch Wikipedia, he is called Walter Steins Bisschop. For example this source is used: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/nnbw/#source=4&page=640&accessor=accessor_index&accessor_href=accessor_index%2Findex_html%3FSearchSource%253Autf-8%253Austring%3D%26first_letter%253Autf-8%253Austring%3Ds&view=imagePane. (look at the list at the left) The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences is very reliable. 2001:9E0:8702:CF00:71DC:89BA:5181:6BB8 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia-I don't know how to edit.

I visited Ship wrecks in 1977, and was planning to edit the article. I didn't know how, so I backed out without saving. In April 1977 the Oceanagraphic research vessel Holoholo sank off the Hawaiian Islands with the loss of 14 crew members. It is not listed among the losses. I would like to go in and add to article without scewing anything up.

SP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.97.238 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @99.65.97.238: and thank you for your question. We have an article on MV Holoholo which puts its loss in December, 1978. This date is verifiable from this NTSB Marine Accident report available on the National Academies of Sciences web site. So it should be added to List_of_shipwrecks_in_1978 instead. The List of Shipwreck in XXXX articles use a type of coding that is a bit different from the usual Wikipedia text so its probably good that you were cautious. You can always suggest improvements at the appropriate talk page, in this case, Talk:List_of_shipwrecks_in_1978. I've gone ahead and added it for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to edit Wikipedia then please be more careful, check with sources and cite those sources. And always give the right page name. You forgot "List of" in List of shipwrecks in 1977, added a space in "Ship wrecks", and got both the year, month and crew count wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing

How do I submit a page I have created for publishing? It is currently in draft mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.ca25 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To submit for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you expand the detail of your references to allow verifiability. For example, where you are citing newspapers you need to include at least a date, but preferably as many as possible of the parameters in a template such as {{cite news}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref: Fryerns Comprehensive

I don't know how to fix this, because it seems to have the tag that it says is missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fryerns_Comprehensive_School#Notable_former_pupils_("Fryernists") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Squirrel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Squirrel: Hello, I have restored the page. I am not sure what it was you were intending to do. A reference was inserted in the middle of am already existing citation causing the error message. You also removed the blue wikilinks from two other noted pupils (the double square brackets). If, as it appears, you were adding a name to the pupils, that is fine but it would typically be required that they already are the subject of a Wikipedia article. If they satisfy the criterion, please feel free to add them to the list - follow the formatting already used - and add any reference immediately afterwards with the ref. content between the two ref tags thus <ref>'Reference content'</ref>. Please see WP:REFB for a guide on how to add references. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]