Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 970

Archive 965

←

Archive 968

Archive 969

Archive 970

Archive 971

Archive 972

→

Archive 975

Reliable sources for Evgeny Prokopenko

The subject is a well-known rock/pop drummer in Russia and moved to the US in 2016, so most of the sources are in Russian. I had to use Google translate to better understand them, then only used sources that I thought are good enough. However, the submission was declined for not using reliable sources. Most of the sources were old, passing the "time test," I guess, and many had his picture, and not just "casually" mentioning him. As you may know, bands are referred to in their band name, or the lead-singer gets quoted. Rarely, do we see drummers quoted or asked deep questions about their contribution. But that doesn't mean that they were an important contributor to the band's sound. In this case, with the demand and popularity of the drummer, there is something to be said about that. Should I list all the sources I a have been given, then someone can help me with which ones are reliable and which ones are not? I believe this is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kazmology/sandbox. Thank you for your help. I cannot wait to continue to contribute to the growth of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazmology (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kazmology and welcome. I'm afraid music biographies are not my strong point, but as no one else has answered you, I'll try and give it a go for you! I do take your point about individual musicians not getting the same 'fame' as an entire band. Whilst you could use all the sources that you have been given (but see below), I fear he simply isn't going to make it under our WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. By way of example, it was only last year (after he had released a single on his own) that BTS band member Jungkook was eligible for an article here, and he's a darned sight better known than most foreign band members!

I am concerned you use the phrase "have been given" sources. This tends to suggest you have been given material to work from and are receiving payment for creating this article. Is this the case, or do you personally know this individual? If so, you inevitably have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare on your userpage, and you would also be obligated to declare under our policy (called Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure)) if someone is offering to pay you to create this article. (See the hyperlinks for these important policies). Other things that make me think you might have a direct connection with the subject are the plethora of wholly un-encyclopaedic and quite unacceptable peacock phrases like this one: "Evgeny became a well-known and very in demand session drummer. But his keen intellect and ability to make any song better with his creative musical interpretation landed him a place as drummer of Russian alternative rock band, Magnetic Anomaly in 2007[3]. Magnetic Anomaly were huge in Russia, and became the sound of an entire generation. So much so, that they were placed in the Russian rock history website". I would observe that Mr Prokopenko doesn't yet have an article about him on Russian Wikipedia, nor does the band he played in have a page here on English Wikipedia. Perhaps that would be the place to start? I'm sorry I can't be more positive about the likelihood of this draft article ever being accepted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  

Turn off notifications

Hi, because I created the page Brexit withdrawal agreement, every time someone creates a link to it, I get a notification saying "A link was made from <page> to Brexit withdrawal agreement." Many people do this, and it has become annoying. How do I turn it off (for this specific page only)? ― Heb the best (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Heb the best: there's an option in your preferences that controls that. I don't think you can toggle it per article, but you can disable it. See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. It's the option to alert you on a "page link". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article

I would like to change the name of the article 'Jack De Garis' to 'C. J. De Garis'. I am aware that there is a Wikipedia policy of using familiar names ('Bill Clinton' not 'William...' is one example given), and so on, but I am very certain that this individual was known as 'C. J. De Garis' in his lifetime and indeed the newspapers, etc and even De Garis himself used 'C. J.' over 'Jack'. Assuming that I can show (to whom?) that this is a valid change to make, can it be done? Or would it be necessary to build an entirely new page for 'C. J. De Garis'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidnicholsknowsbest (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Davidnicholsknowsbest. You change the title of a page by moving it: the option is available to any but the newest users. See the link for how to use it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Publishing a previously deleted Draft

I'd like to create a page for Catz 'n Dogz, and have been putting it together in my sandbox. On creating the draft, I was notified that Draft:Catz 'n Dogz has previously been deleted, and that I should contact the user who performed the action. I was wondering whether I need to do this before publishing my draft or after? And what kind of information do I need to get from the user who deleted the page ? Thanks! Littletishtash (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably drop them a line before publishing the article, to ask why the page was originally deleted, and whether there is any reason why your new page should not be published (e.g. a previous determination that the subject isn't notable - see WP:NMUSIC for discussion of notability in musicians). I see that you have a COI notice regarding this subject on your userpage - if you are connected to the subject in any way, you should submit the draft for review via AfC rather than publishing it directly. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for the useful information! Littletishtash (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use photo of missing persons

I am struggling with uploading images of a missing person for an article. Photos are on FBI and National Center for Missing and exploited children , so I feel they would fall under fair use rules. Cannot seem to get them to go through in upload wizard, can someone point me in the right direction? --Jewelsmc (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jewelsmc. All image files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but there are additional restriction placed upon non-free files. The concept of fair use and Wikipedia's concept of non-free content are slightly different things as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Background. Copyrighted content is allowed to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, but each use is required to satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and there are ten individual criteria which need to be satisfied for a use to be considered to policy compliant.

Generally, a non-free picture of an individual is only allowed when the subject is deceased and there is no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image (either public domain or freely licensed) can be either created or found. It doesn't have to be a free version of the exact image, just a free image which is capable of serving the pretty much the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. Fo reference, non-free pictures of still-living persons are almost never allowed except in certain circumstances like those given in item 1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images_2. A non-free image of a "missing person" might be allowed even if they are still considered to be living, if it can be reasonably demonstrated that a free equivalent can neither be found nor created; however, this would only be likely when the image is being used for primary indentification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone Wikiepdia article about the individual in question, and other types of non-free uses or uses in other types of articles is going to be much harder to justify.

I apologize for being a bit general in my response, but it's hard to provide you with any more specific information without knowing what the actual file is, how it's going to be used and which article(s) it's intended to be used. You can also most likely get a more specific response either at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or perhaps even at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria. Uploading a non-free file is not a very technically complicated thing to do, but it's probaby best to figure out whether the intended use(s) are going to be policy compliant first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The images, there are 2, would be used in the infobox only. One image of the missing person at the time of her disappearance and an age progression photo from the NCMEC website. This is new to me and I have the rest of the article figured out, the uploading and approving of images read like ikea instructions to me. Again, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I very much want to get her information in a place where so many can see it and perhaps offer information.

Jewelsmc (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Jewelsmc. I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion because it kind of sounds like you might misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. A Wikipedia:Article is only intended to be written about subject deemed to be Wikipedia notable, and the content of a Wikipedia article is only intended to reflect content found in reliable sources which can be verified through citations. An article is not intended to be a free web host for gathering information or serve as a noticeboard/forum where people can post things which might help lead to finding a missing person. I'm afraid if you tried to create such an article that it would end up getting deleted rather quickly as not being in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. You might be better off trying a website such a Wikia or even Facebook if you hoping to create a place where people can post information which might help in finding this person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from ones own published work

Hi there! I am a retired newspaper journalist whose beat was history and travel. As you can imagine I interviewed many people over the years. What I would like to know is:

1) Say for instance I wrote an article 1 000 words long but because of space considerations in the newspaper, it was cut down to 800 words. The facts in the discarded 200 words are as accurate as the other 800 words. The article was published and now other people are allowed, according to your rules, to quote me. I would like to know if I can add the discarded facts to Wikipedia and quote the person interviewed even though the quote does not appear in the original article?

2) Am I allowed to quote myself if my work has been published?

Kaboodilski (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kaboodilski - regarding your first question, no, you wouldn't be able to cite material that hasn't been published, and adding it without a published citation would be original research. Regarding the second point, per WP:SELFCITE, you can reference your own work, but you need to be careful not to step over the line into self promotion. Hope this helps GirthSummit _(blether) 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, Kaboodilski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sure you have many interesting stories to tell!

• For question #1, the only way you would be able to use any discarded facts is if they were published somewhere else. One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that of verifiability, which means that someone should be able to verify any fact in any article using only published reliable sources. If the facts you obtained through your interviews remain only in your notes, from Wikipedia's point of view, they were never discovered.
• For question #2, the answer is technically yes, but to be on the safe side, you might consider making an edit request on the article's talk page and allow other editors to add it for you. Make sure to include the published source in your edit request! CThomas³ (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

_(blether) 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the prompt response.

Thanks for clearing up the first point.

With regard to the second point, I would like to emphasize that my intention is definitely not to promote myself but rather to add quality content to Wikipedia. It's awful knowing that you have information which will improve an article but which you are not allowed to include.

Kaboodilski (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

CThomas³

I just had another thought.

What if the original article was republished in full on the internet on my own website? Would that be acceptable if taken to edit request?

Kaboodilski (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaboodilski I'm afraid that wouldn't help, since your personal website unlikely to be considered a reliable source. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I've written hundreds of history articles for my town's weekly newspaper but I do not cite my own work. Main reason is small town papers have minimal editing and no fact checking capacity. I also do not cite my own blog. Instead, I cite the published sources I found. In my circumstances, I do not cite or take quotes from interview articles I wrote. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly formatted article

Helped

I stumbled across the article for Will Hudson today. It is formatted rather oddly. The page has a notice about this. I started editing it today but a lot more work is needed. There are many lists, quite a bit of trivia info, and even a section for abbreviations within the article. Should certain things just go? What would you suggest? Thank you, Teahouse hosts!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39. Welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry for the long wait for a reply. Yes, it is rather weirdly constructed and needs to have a lot of trivia and uncited content cleared out to make it a more readable, encyclopaedic article. The lead could be shortened and references moved into the body, and all the tangential information deleted. By way of example:

Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra

Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included:

• Kay Kenny
• Elisse Cooper (née Mabel Elisse Cooper; 1914–19620), who, in 1944 married saxophonist Joseph Gabriel "Gabe" Gelinas (1910–1949)
• Jayne Dover (née Jane Rappaport), while signing with Van Alexander Orchestra, the she married Martin Melcher, who had been doing publicity for the band
• Ruth Gaylor

could be reduced to

Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra

Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included: Kay Kenny, Elisse Cooper, Jayne Dover, and Ruth Gaylor.

But I do wonder whether even this level of detail of non-notable names is actually that relevant at all?. I would also turn the bloated discography section into a single line per song etc. I note a discrepancy in his stated birth year - is it 1908 or 1909? Some of his early life content is scattered elsewhere in the article, so I'd collate that together. I wasn't aware that World War 2 started in 1941, so I'd think of either removing those three sub-section headings entirely, or choosing better names for them. To me, the referencing system and layout is a mess, but I am aware there are other ways of constructing articles with different referencing systems from the inline citation systems that I and most other editors use. I'll be honest and say that I've still not summoned up the mental courage to come to properly understand them, so I'm a little wary of saying 'change the referencing system' as we always give priority to what was first used in the article. Others here might wish to comment on that. Personally, I'm not hugely interested in most biographies here, but others certainly are. So you could try seeking input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Nick Moyes! I took it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians as you suggested and though they have not yet replied, a couple of people have edited the article, and someone added an infobox, so it's already looking much better. Here's to a better article! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi! I created a page called Wordbee a little while ago and it has been deleted. It's a company page and I stated on my user talk page that I am paid to set it up. I tried keeping the page as objective and non-promotional as possible and yet it was still deleted. I'd really appreciate any feedback as to why this happened and what I have to do in order to avoid deletion again. Thanks! TMFalkner (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

TMFalkner Good day. The article has been deleted as it fails corporation notability requirement - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordbee. Since the company doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH notability criteria, no amount of editing would make the subject merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I understand the reason was notability. But can you then explain to me how very similar companies have articles on Wikipedia, see XTM International , Memsource, Smartling. I don't see how they are any more notable than the article I created. Thanks. - TMF

TMFalkner, looking at those articles in particular, XTM International appears to have been approved by an editor who was later banned for violation of policies, Memsource appears to have been created before new article patrols were a thing on Wikipedia, and Smartling actually has decent sources provided. That having been said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the strongest of arguments on Wikipedia, because at the end of the day, we're all volunteers and we make mistakes, and Wikipedia is huge. I'm willing to bet that for any given policy or guideline on Wikipedia, you could dig up at least five articles that blatantly ignore it. That's not a justification for further infractions, however, and if you feel so inclined, you can nominate XTM International or Memsource for deletion (or Smartling, although that one will probably be kept). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TMFalkner. Wikipedia has almost six million articles and probably over a million of them are of poor quality. Experienced volunteer editors are working 24 hours a day worldwide to either improve them or delete them. I have personally been involved with the deletion of thousands of poor quality articles and improvement of hundreds of others. You seem to be implying that we should accept a poor quality article that you wrote because there are other poor quality articles on Wikipedia. That is an argument that simply will not fly here. Consider the three other articles you mentioned. The first has 19 references and the third has 13. Your article had five references. One was a press release - worthless. Two were to the company's own website - worthless. One was a routine directory listing - of little value. I have not checked all the references in the other articles but several in the third article were to major business publications. As for the second article, it has only two references but at least one of them is a major side-by-side software review. You are a paid editor on a volunteer project. Do your paid job right and do not waste the time of busy volunteer editors who understand notability much better than you do. Do your homework in advance and submit only the highest quality content to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to use it as an argument, I was literally curious what I was missing that they had already figured out. So that means if we had better sources we might have a chance of getting an article published? I know you're all volunteers and I appreciate your support!!

Cullen328 I'm not implying at all that my article should get published just because these others are published too - rather I feel like I pointed them out to you so you as an editor can do something about the existence of these. They might have many sources listed but take a closer look and you see what I mean, nothing notable about those either. (Except Smartling, I agree they have some reliable sources listed). The content I submitted was 100% non-promotional so I just don't see the issue. But I'll keep working on better sources. Thanks for the feedback.TMFalkner (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

TMFalkner, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of the quality of the sources that you cite. They are like gold. If you cite five or six high quality reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, then you are 99% of the way to success. Any competent editor can summarize those sources and format that content into an acceptable Wikipedia article. Without such sources, not even the most skilled editor can spin straw into gold. And when you rely on citing the company's own website and press releases to try to establish notability, well, that just gets volunteer editors upset. Don't do that again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

TMFalkner, you wrote "The content I submitted was 100% non-promotional so I just don't see the issue." That implies that you think that any content that isn't overtly promotional is somehow acceptable on Wikipedia. Nothing can be further from the truth. The topic must be notable and in the case of a software company or any other business or organization, it must meet the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Neutral, non-promotional articles are not allowed about any type of company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It makes no difference whether it is a local pizzeria, a dentist's office, a trucking company, a cabinet shop or a medium sized privately held manufacturer. Or a software company. The quality of the coverage in independent, reliable sources is what determines the outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(unident) I just PRODded Memsource and sent XTM International to AFD. Thanks for drawing attention to these low-quality articles. shoy (reactions) 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Can any of you help me on my article?

I’m making an article, but I’m using mobile so I can’t make an infobox or table. Mind if you can help out a little but? Maybe add an infobox? Thanks 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:B3 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Over the last year I've had to do much of my editing from a mobile phone, but I always ensure I'm editing in 'desktop' view, and never in 'mobile view'. You can find a tiny link at the bottom of the page to make the switch. It might be a little bit fiddlier with a small screen, but adding infoboxes in source editor, and simple tables via [[W{:VE|Visual Editor]] is still pretty easy to do from a phone. Sorry I can't offer to help out with the article, itself. I don't know how many US natural disasters there were in 2018, but don't forget you might wish to edit List of natural disasters in the United States instead, or add content to this section of Geography of the United States. It's important that you don't try to duplicate existing articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to add to what Nick said - there don't seem to be any annual disaster lists in the US. I did see 2017–18 North American cold wave but nothing that suggests the average reader is going to be looking for a subset of 2018 disasters. The material could be put into individual articles more effectively. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mobile view editing isn't really a problem for me, unless it's editing more than one section or a page with a large amount of prose which lags my phone. I probably do 95% of my editing on mobile view. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Need to Write an Article

My boss is an elected official, a newly elected state senator in California to be more specific, and she's asked me to write an article about her in this capacity. How do I get started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.214.110 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Check out WP:YFA to get started. However, from my observations, you have a conflict of interest that you must disclose on your user page. Interstellarity T 🌟 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most state elected officials do merit articles per the notability criteria for politicians. However, since this one is your boss, you should not directly edit about them per the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. (you will need to comply with the paid editing policy as it is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement) From looking at California State Senate, the only one missing an article is Lena Gonzalez so I assume Sen. Gonzalez is your boss. You can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. If you do that, I would strongly suggest you read Your First Article and pattern the draft in the style of other articles on California state senators. It would really be best if you allowed independent editors to write about her, though. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. A newly elected California state senator clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for politicians and is eligible for a neutral biography. Register an account and comply with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. When you have done so, I will assist you in writing the article. I live in California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Main articles

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I want to add a new section to the Junkers Ju 87 page, regarding its successor, the Junkers Ju 187. The 187 already has a seperate page, so I'd like to take some text from there and put it on the Ju 87 page. I will make the 187 page the main article. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? I'm new here, and I want to make sure I don't break any rules. Thanks in advance. Achtungpanzer44 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achtungpanzer44: Yes, this is allowed. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achtungpanzer44: You need to provide attribution, which is easy. See WP:CWW RudolfRed (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Selling women for sex is classed as 'entertainment'?

Hi everyone,

I wonder if you could help me. I have found something I think should be changed on the Wikipedia page about Osaka, Japan. Here is the page url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka Under 'entertainment' it mentions 'Tobita - A red light district'.

As someone who volunteers to help trafficked women out of the sex trade, I'm horrified that in this day and age when we realise that selling people isn't acceptable, a red light district would be put under the heading of entertainment.

Is there any way of changing the classification to put it in a category which is slightly less offensive? Or just deleting it altogether. I get that women's bodies (and possibly men's too) have been sold in that particular region for a long time, making it of historical interest, but it's still classing the objectification of human beings as 'entertainment', no matter how long it's been going on.

I'm not a programmer, a wiki editor or anything else, but I'm hoping someone with a similar realisation of how crass this classification is will be able to do something about it and stand up for the rights of those forced to work in the sex industry, by at least not putting it alongside going for a meal or to a nightclub.

Thank you! Jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.101.245 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for bringing this up. I agree with you that a red-light district does not belong in a listing of "entertainment", and in fact I don't think it should be listed in the "Tourist attractions" section at all. I've removed it from there. Maybe it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, I'll have a look at it to see where it might belong. In general, the best place to discuss article content is on the article's talk page (Talk:Osaka, in this case), just so you know for the future - it's certainly not prohibited to bring up such questions here, it's just that editors who are interested in a particular article probably won't see questions about it in the Teahouse. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: OTOH, editors interested in fixing this kind of problems may not notice the request at a specific town article's talk page, whilst the issue may affect more than that one article. So I think the good approach would be both starting a talk there and putting a short message to interested editors here. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Although, of course, I agree that prostitution shouldn't be listed as entertainment, I am unsure about not classifying Tobita Shinchi as a tourist attraction. This area is a point of interest also because of the old building there built from the Taisho era. The red light district label in my view does not only mean a place where you can currently procure sex but it also indicates an aspect of the city's culture and history. For instance, the Taiyoshi Hyaku Ban-building, was a former brothel that has been converted to a restaurant. The building is now a municipal cultural property. Japan's culture also includes traditions related to prostitution or women and men serving as entertainers (e.g. geisha, courtesans). I do not oppose the deletion, however, I suggest that we should always be mindful of the contexts. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

While I detest the slavery of any human, sex has been a paid entertainment industry since the beginning of time. Name the culture. As to any red light district being deemed entertaining, I see your point. It is at best a fantasy to suppose an industry that generates billions of dollars is not netertaining, or in some way offers something people wantCoal town guy (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Coal town guy. This falls squarely in WP:NOTCENSORED territory. We report on what reliable sources have written. If reliable sources refer to Osaka's red light district as a tourist attraction, then so shall we. We are not an instrument for cultural change. In some cultures (not so sure about now, but in my lifetime Japan was included) prostitution is a respected profession. We cannot interpret the world through American or British eyes. Whereas prostitution is an abhorrent cesspool in the US, the same is not necessarily so elsewhere. John from Idegon (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Another relevant policy-supplement is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Should information from 2010/2012 be deleted?

Hello. For details, please look at User talk:23.89.151.97. While using STiki, I reverted an edit on Yanceyville, North Carolina that removed a true data with citation. Then, a IP user reverted my edit, removing the content again. When I left a message on the talk page of the user, the user responded by saying that the data from many years ago is simply a "smear." Any advice on this? Should I leave a message on the talk page and revert the edit (or would this be considered the beginning on an edit war?). Thank you! William2001^(talk) 23:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@William2001: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The information should not be removed just because it is old, as it was presumably accurate at the time and is historically notable- it may need to be put in context, but doesn't need to be removed outright. I've reverted the IP user and suggested they discuss the matter on the article talk page- which is what should be done with any disputed information. I've also encouraged them to locate more up to date information that could be added. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! William2001^(talk) 23:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

WP:DENY

On the Talk:Pallava dynasty page a user called "LovSLif" has been making racist comments on me. This isn't the first time he's doing it. I'd sufficiently intimated him to not do so. But he's done it now plenty of times violating good faith. Who can take action against him? Where can I complain? Please help me. I am a new user, and I am sick and tired of such remarks. Please do something about it, I beseech you. Also I'd proposed the inclusion of some data with apt citations which had existed on the Wikipedia page previously. The same user has removed it a few months ago. Nobody reverted. But I did. So now the page has been protected since the past 4 days. When I responded to arguments, deliberately to delay the changes to be made on the page, he's threatened to take it to the Dispute Noticeboard. Also, assuming me to be of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me. That's quite racist. Please take a look. Thank you! Regards, Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Hi Destroyer27 Greetings. I have a quick read at the talk page provided and see no WP:PERSONALATTACK from User:LovSLif but content dispute , reliable source, what should be added and size of the info added. Pls bring this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and state your case. Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Dear User:CASSIOPEIA, Please read it carefully. The final comments made by User:LovSLif were racist. Assuming that I'm of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me, this violating good faith. Also other than that he's made several more awful comments, rather than addressing the issue. Hi Destroyer27 Pls provide section and what was exact comment were made.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallava_dynasty?markasread=164974632&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Origins_section Here, right at the bottom. For instance, he says 'why not include' when the points he feels contented with tamil zeal, simply shooting in air with lucid statement which themselves either contradict with his own perceptions/other comments with no head and tail, the same newspaper article states '42% of Tamilnadu is telugu people' will you still feel news articles better. just bcz it doesnt satisfy your zeal, and so on. Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Hi Destroyer27 Thank you for the info above. Personal attack would include legal threat, physical harm, "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality" and etc. To state a person " 'Tamil zeal" is not a personal attack (not a racist attack) nor statements you included above. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I see. Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid I can't respond to that. To say the least, it would be a violation of good faith. He was suggesting that I am making those edits on the page motivated by my ethnic fervour, which is certainly not true. I fail to understand why he sees this issue as a conflict of languages though. Would you recommend someone who can mediate our conversation even-handedly? Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @Destroyer27: - having perused the talk page you linked to, I agree with CASSIOPEIA that there are been no racist personal attacks made against you. Remember to assume good faith while editing. I would also note that is worth considering WP:BOOMERANG when making such claims which are likely to be inflammatory (courtesy ping for @LovSLif:. Irrespective of my reading of the talk page, the Teahouse is not the appropriate avenue to make such allegations of personal attacks, or to air such grievances. What is notable from the talk page, and edit history, however, is that you are engaged in an edit war, which led Abecedare to protect the page. Please read WP:WAR, and take appropriate steps to remove yourself from the edit war. As CASSIOPEIA mentioned, trying to resolve the dispute at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is a good idea, and will hopefully prevent escalation. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC). (Also, a minor point regarding signatures. Please sign posts with four tildes (~~~~), rather than pasting a previous signature, as it makes the timestamp incorrect (or else you are stuck in a frozen time vortex a few hours in the future). Thanks) Thanks CASSIOPEIA and Stormy clouds for clarifying on the same to Destroyer27. As you said my concern is only with 'reliable content'/'size of the content'/'WP:NPOV' and 'to safegaurd righteous data' with righteous order of emphasis. I took considerable time explaining point by point over all the speculations considering Destroyer27 being new user. I even ignored the derogatory comments made by the user. His comments may rather fall under 'personal attacks'. Below are a few such comments made by the user. Please have a look. -'On a serious note, you must change your username from "LovSLif" to "HateSLif' -'That said this guy is absolutely bigoted, and obviously he has never been to school, and I urge you to somehow placate his ethnic fervour' -'After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl' -'If you have some sense of shame, do not engage with me'. By LovSLif (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Hi LovSLif. As Teahouse is not the platform for the above matter, I do suggest you (1) for dispute on content added, fill at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to end this issue as it seems no consensus agreement resulted in the talk page discussion from both of you but on going warring and (2) as the comments made by Destoryer while not considered personal attack as per Wikipedia's guidelines but rather a put-down, sarcasm, uncivil, insult and disrespectful comments, if you wish, you would report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for admins intervention to end this uncivil communication. (courtesy ping to @Destroyer27:), Destoryer27, the above is WP:BOOMERANG inflammatory effect which per Stormy clouds stated. Always address/comment on the edits but not the editors and always be [Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] as this civility and respect is one of the cores Wikipedia's code of conduct and it is one of five pillars of Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Both editors have been blocked as socks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

United States Marines

I came upon multiple Pages of US Marines, they are referred to as Former Marines. to keep it short. "Once a Marine, Always a Marine." i'd appreciate it if this was appropriately stated. One example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Mawhinney Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzbaylessZz (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean. The slogan you cite sounds like something that would not belong in articles about people. Maybe you are requesting that the word "former" be removed? But a person who is no longer employed somewhere shouldn't have a title implying that they are still employees - unless there is some spcific title such as the academic "emeritus", I think "former" or maybe "retired" is probably the most helpful word. --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Retired is fine, Its not a big big deal to me. It's just known among all Marines, and a titled earned and kept for all time, Retired works though, Sorry to bother you over something so minor, Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzbaylessZz (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ZzbaylessZz. You might be better off asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History since that's where editors who are interested in articles about military related topics tend to hang out. This might even be something that came up before and a consensus was established to refer to this type of person in a particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Excess information has been deleted at the request of Beverley Bass. June 19, 2019

I'm trying to help my friend, Beverley Bass to correct historically incorrect information on her Wikipedia page as well as delete what she considers excess information, add her correct birthdate, etc. I tried to talk her through making her own edits, but she asked that I do it for her. She said the Wikipedia contacted her and she explained that the changes were at her request. Anything I / we can do to allow her to have the changes she wants? Lynn Rippelmeyer. I do have an account and have been attempting to make the changes while logged in. anything else I can do? Lynn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:980:2211:49CC:C2AD:B3FB:C2B9 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have an account, it is best for you to remain logged into it at least while working on the same issue. If you are here at the behest of Bass, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy. As you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid editing the article directly; instead, you may make edit requests on the article talk page detailing changes you feel are needed, so they can be reviewed by an independent editor. Unfortunately we can't just take your (or Bass') word for such changes; all information must be sourced to a published reliable source that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

331dot and Lynn: Did I understand correctly? Wikipedia contacted Ms. Bass? You should share the details of that with an administrator (like 331dot) as that contact was undoubtedly part of some sort of scam. I cannot think of any situation where anyone from Wikipedia would ever contact any individual, much less an individual who is the subject of an article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch John from Idegon. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(Purely as an aside, John from Idegon and 331dot, and as a point of pedantic interest, I have myself in the past attempted to make direct contact with the subject of more than one article - mainly to encourage them (both people and organisations) to upload photographs for which they hold copyright, and, in another situation to inform one individual that I had created an article about them. Contact with article subjects has to be done extremely sensitively, of course, but it can be a way to discover leads to reliable sources that one wasn't aware of, but never to acquire statements from them to be added directly into articles. In one instance I contacted a climbing partner of a recently-deceased mountaineer who I deeply respected and had created an article about in order to fact-check some images they'd made available that I'd moved to Commons, but which needed better captioning, and to get them to check some paper sources I didn't have access to. In another case I made contact to seek permission for intellectual rights of a public artwork installation to be released to prevent the deletion of other people's photos of that public artwork from Commons - but the ridiculous seven day deletion deadline defeated me, and I lost heart to pursue the matter with the artist's agent and to get them reinstated. So I actually do think this type of contact can theoretically occur, but inappropriate off-wiki contact has also led to some editors being indefinitely blocked. I'm certainly not advocating it, as it takes a huge amount of effort and persuasion for very little material/factual return - and it would never, ever, under any circumstances ever involve any editor soliciting of money to make content changes. Just thought you both might be interested, as it can happen, albeit extremely rarely! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC) )

I have occasionally done so as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is the statement that "Wikipedia contacted her", which suggests official contact- saying "a Wikipedia user contacted me" would be more accurate. But I digress. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your question. I was aware of these concerns a short while before you posted here as I was monitoring live 'recent changes' and noticed your and other editors' repeated deletions. I have raised my concerns at Talk: Beverley Bass and left a note on your talk page, too. We ask that editors with concerns about content veracity discuss their concerns before trying to implement them. Whilst we care deeply if any living person has content published about them which is not correct, we don't simply remove content that was based on already published, reliable sources just because the subject requests it. We are not an unreasonable group of editors, but we do ask that reasons for making such changes are aired and discussed between editors. I am aware that some edit summaries have suggested some sources themselves are not of good quality, but our article ought only to contain material that have been reliably published elsewhere. We should not be accepting content from what people say about themselves (even the article subjects!) Again, discuss these on the article talk page, please, which I note no-one has tried to do up until now. And, as you know the subject of this article, you might wish to declare that connection by reading our Conflict of Interest Guidelines. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Page is denied for seeming like advertisement and referencing issues, requesting a friend to give an example

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_M._Jindal this page is denied twice now because it sounds like an advertisement. I was wondering if anyone could just give an example of what I'm doing wrong? Everything is referenced and everything is a fact, and I removed anything that didn't seem necessary. Is it how I'm listing things in the history section? I think the top is ok, is that correct? I really have tried to remove anything that reads like an "ad" so I'm just unclear and at my wits end. any help is so very appreciated. Tuuzi (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tuuzi: There have been some improvements made. Sourcing is still questionable - at least fill out the bare refs so others can more easily review. This is the simple format I like to use for citing web pages: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webaddress.com |title=Web page title |date=yyyy-mm-dd |accessdate=2019-06-19}}</ref> where accessdate is whatever that day's date is. More info is at the Template:Cite web page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Timtempleton I removed tons of content that I couldn't reference well and added the Guyana references. I am at a loss if this doesn't work. I think it is simply too difficult because Guyana's news source isn't that reliable or reputable, and the US news coverage wasn't enough. India and Guyana covered it, so I put those links in.Tuuzi (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tuuzi. You are a paid editor and you are submitting a draft with references consisting of bare URLs? What the heck! Step up your game and do your paid work correctly. Format those references with complete bibliographic details like unpaid volunteers do. Study Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm seeing now what I'm missing, jeez I was just confused. No need to insult me Cullen328. Thanks so much for the help Timtempleton, I just needed to understand that as I read some old wiki referencing help page where I thought all I needed was the ref info.Tuuzi (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that experienced volunteer editors expect excellence instead of mediocrity from paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good that you've got what seems like a wide range of sources, Tuuzi. As for the issue with Guyana's press coverage - I remember a similar issue a while back on the Teahouse, where an editor had a very similar problem - the only sources available were accurate, but biased ones. It was resolved in a way that there was some way for the author of the article to mention the inherent bias in the sources they had, but I'm paraphrasing heavily - nonetheless, I'd ask around if that crops up as a problem again.

Also, don't be discouraged - we do have a don't bite the newbies policy. Understandable if Cullen328 did not realise this, but always good to keep in mind. It's true that paid editors should probably know what they're doing, but in all honesty, do we have policy on this? Paid editors should disclose their paid status as per the terms of use, but there's no requirement for them to be experienced.

Please don't bite the newbies, and be conscious that the person you're talking to - who may seem like a complete loon using citation formats for hamster bedding - could just be someone really unfamiliar with how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Things have changed a lot, so while it can be frustrating to see someone not understand that yes, you have to shove your URLs through the Cite plugin, you have to be patient. Experienced editors should respond to newbie mistakes with understanding, because we were all at that point once. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, I am extremely patient and helpful with new unpaid volunteer editors but I have to be honest with you. In my ten years of editing, a large majority of the paid editors I have encountered have caused serious problems and wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time. When I wrote my very first article Dirk van Erp back in 2009, I formatted my references properly from the very beginning. Paid editors have financial incentives that are almost always at least partly contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. It is entirely appropriate, in my opinion, to be more firm and direct with them than with unpaid volunteers, and I will continue to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I for one, Cullen328, did not think that your notice was in any way out of order - I was about to say as much to Ineffablebookkeeper but we edit conflicted. When someone is being paid to come here and write, and we have provided things like the TUTORIAL and ADVENTURE, I don't think it's excessive to encourage them to do the background reading rather than using (and thereby profiting from) volunteers' time.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ineffablebookkeeper: - I also feel that Cullen328 provided an appropriate response that in no way constituted biting, and you must be quite new here to consider Cullen328 to be the kind of editor who would bite newcomers. As for your point regarding the expected expertise of paid editors, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to have, what is in the case of on-line citations, a very basic aptitude for something they are receiving money for. The equivalence between new paid editors and unpaid editors is also invalid in my view, as (in many cases, but not all), given the difference in motivation between the two - volunteers will have a lot less resistance to providing assistance to fellow volunteers who are they to help build and curate an accurate encyclopedia, than those you are profiting off their time and effort in correcting mistakes. That is not unreasonable, and is worth bearing in mind. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record this person just paid me to be nice as I begged him to put him on wiki. Tim helped, and I'm making adjustments based on his note. I just missed that part of editing the references as I thought it was automatic. No need to be rude and keep going on about this! I definitely don't think my tiny compensation is worth being so jealous over. Put your own ads online and get paid for your hard work if you want to. Otherwise, you chose to edit for free and should not take it out on me just for trying to help out on wiki and getting a couple bucks. Take care. Tuuzi (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This was a simple misunderstanding on my part, and I'm not sure why there is so much discussion on the fact that I got paid (a very tiny amount) for my first contribution to wiki. I'm brand new here and I definitely jumped the gun on submitting my first draft, but to keep going on about this is simply moot when Tim clarified what I asked and now I'm fixing the problem. This is where noobs are supposed to come for help. None of you are making me want to continue helping out on wiki (paid or unpaid). My answer is solved above and only Tim was helpful, the rest of this is fluff content.Tuuzi (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Tuuzi: - quite frankly, as with many new editors, you seem to unfortunately have a few misinterpretations regarding what Wikipedia is and why we're here. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and we are not "jealous" of the fact that you are receiving payments for your edits. Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that you are receiving payment, tiny or otherwise, also means that it is not rude to anticipate that your article is permissible, and suitably cited - verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia, a core part of what Wikipedia is, and that's why it must be ensured stringently. More fundamentally, as a community, Wikipedia is not about money, and lines like Put your own ads online and get paid for your hard work if you want to. Otherwise, you chose to edit for free and should not take it out on me just for trying to help out on wiki and getting a couple bucks. make it seem as though you don't understand this. Wikipedia is about something bigger than money; personally, I am in this because I believe that knowledge is important, and worth curating and sharing in a trustworthy, transparent fashion. I envision this project as a shining beacon of information, the sum total of human learning - as something great. If you don't share this vision, that is fine, but if you want to make a few bucks off that vision, you should at least uphold the standards of the encyclopedia. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC).

Stormy, I've been trying and trying for a long time with this article. I totally agree with your statements about the importance of wikipedia which is why I'm here. I only wanted to do this because I want to help put this information about the first kidney transplant in Guyana out there! I am on your side with this, I just wanted to understand where I went wrong and this forum seemed the best for noobs until I actually used it. I wanted to just request the article be made, but I thought I'd save you all the trouble and just complete it. I really feel it was a mistake to even try now as the backlash is so strong and the article will likely stay in draft infinitely regardless of what I do because it seems I've just done nothing but make enemies here now. c'est la vie.Tuuzi (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Enemies", Tuuzi? You are incorrect. Asking you to do good work does not make us enemies. I have moved your draft to the encylopedia because you have been working to upgrade the references like I asked. Please finish that job and then stop editing the article. If you want any further changes, please read Wikipedia:Edit requests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

Thanks Cullen, I will do that with the future edits.Tuuzi (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The references at Rahul M. Jindal are dramatically better, Tuuzi. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

When did yyyy-mm-dd become an acceptable format for cite |date=? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How to handle discrepancies in birth date, number of children, type of advanced degree, etc.?

In my research on Cynthia Shepard Perry I found many discrepancies in different sources. For example, the birth date in her autobiography differed from the birth date on her birth certificate. In various articles, she had three, four, five, or six children. Her terminal degree was variously a Ph.D. or an Ed.D.

I resolved most discrepancies by sending a list to the subject of the article and to the curator of her papers. For example, Amb. Perry explained that her mother said that she was born on Nov. 11, 1928, but the doctor who attended at her birth was snowbound and could not file the birth certificate until Nov. 19. Her earned UMass degree was Ed.D., so the curator of her papers corrected UMass library publications that assumed that "Dr. Perry" meant a Ph.D.

Should I point out birth date and other discrepancies in Wikipedia in footnotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHHOSMER (talk • contribs) 11:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@HHHOSMER: Hello and welcome. Wikipedia information is cited to independent reliable sources that can be verified. As such, we cannot use personal comments from relatives of the subject to source information, as that cannot be independently verified. Birth certificates, unless publicly accessible, are also hard to use as a citation. What is needed are independent, published sources that have explanations about any inaccuracies in information. If different independent sources are contradictory, that should be noted in the article. This is the sort of thing discussion on the article talk page would be good for. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dead links?

What should happen to the two dead external links on the page about the New England Historic Genealogical Society? I am cleaning up the article. I have seen links have been marked as dead before, but to what end is this? Or should something else be done? Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DiamondRemley39: You've done a lot of work on the article since you asked about it last! Thank you! As for the dead links, a lot of times, you can use an archive, like the Wayback Machine to locate an archive of the page from when it last existed and update the source citation link to it. Orville1974 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiamondRemley39. You can find lots of tools and techniques for dealing with dead links at Wikipedia:Link rot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)