User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-03
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Richwales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Rich, I've started a new discussion on updating the article in light of a new dictionary source. Your input would be greatly appreciated.--Cúchullain t/c 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- As you may have seen, things are getting a bit trying at the article and its talk page. If you're able, your input and review would be most beneficial.Cúchullain t/c 05:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll have to do some catching up, and I'm busy tonight and probably won't be able to jump in right away, but I'll have a look as soon as I can. — Richwales 05:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- As it turned out, I did have some time this evening, and I made a change to the article which I believe will be helpful. — Richwales 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- thanks. The anonymous single-purpose editor is bordering on tendentiousness and bludgeoning the discussion at this point, so rational input is most helpful. It may be time to step up dispute resolution.Cúchullain t/c 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like even more major changes are being made, and I see a lot of material has been excised. Unfortunately I won't have time to investigate or comment upon all of them for the next couple of days. When I get the opportunity I will weigh back in. I hope the article doesn't totally devolve into an uninformative partisan wrangle.Cúchullain t/c 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- thanks. The anonymous single-purpose editor is bordering on tendentiousness and bludgeoning the discussion at this point, so rational input is most helpful. It may be time to step up dispute resolution.Cúchullain t/c 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- The objection to using Barrett's "child of *any* immigrant" comment appears, to me, to be based on the idea that this is putting a blog post on the same level as the "official" DTD definition. Since both of these items came from the same writer, one could argue that if Barrett really considered the "child of *any* immigrant" view to be persuasive, he could and would have edited the main DTD definition accordingly. I think I can see both sides to this one, and I'm really not willing to get involved in a protracted dispute over it. Rather than seek either dispute resolution or edit-warring sanctions against other editors, I'd suggest trying to find other, more unquestionably reliable sources substantiating the claim that "anchor baby" is used by some to refer to children of legal immigrants. Or do you think I'm overlooking something important here? — Richwales 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection whatsoever to the idea that Barrett's reader comment isn't of the same level of the actual entry. But the problem is that it only makes more explicit what is already explicit in the entry. The entry doesn't say "illegal immigrant", it says "immigrant". Additionally, the NYT piece says "immigrant", not "illegal immigrant". The AHD entry is even broader than that-it's not just any immigrant, but any non-citizen. These unquestionably reliable sources already say this without the obfuscation.
- additionally, edits involving this comment are only a small portion of the edits that are being made, with little discussion. I see one recent edit removed material attributed to npr.com, for instance. I don't have the time right now to vet each of the various undiscussed edits being made each day. I hope the article isn't undermined by entropy and POV pushing from the various sides.Cúchullain t/c 03:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection whatsoever to the idea that Barrett's reader comment isn't of the same level of the actual entry. But the problem is that it only makes more explicit what is already explicit in the entry. The entry doesn't say "illegal immigrant", it says "immigrant". Additionally, the NYT piece says "immigrant", not "illegal immigrant". The AHD entry is even broader than that-it's not just any immigrant, but any non-citizen. These unquestionably reliable sources already say this without the obfuscation.
- I'm afraid I'm just going to have to stay out of this one for the moment. My main concern w/r/t this article has been, and still is, to make sure the pejorative nature of the term "anchor baby" is acknowledged. That doesn't appear to be at issue right now. As for the "immigrant" vs. "illegal immigrant" thing, that's simply going to require more sources. As long as the article is trying to make any use of the Double-Tongued Dictionary, people are going to come along challenging its reliability (and refusing to accept any prior consensus on the subject, likely claiming the earlier consensus is void per WP's sourcing policy). Given the DTD's status as a lightning rod, it may be better simply to take it out entirely and find more solid sources somewhere else that say basically the same thing. Beyond that, any outside editor coming along is going to see either a good-faith (albeit heated) content dispute, or disruptive editing (and it's a coin toss which editor might be perceived as being more disruptive). And I'm a bit too busy with "real life" right now to get heavily involved with the other details being edited. Sorry I don't think I can be of much more help right now. — Richwales 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that. As I say I won't be able to do much over there for a while myself, which will necessitate me disengaging for a while, which should be helpful at any rate (especially for my own sanity). I would like to note, however, that one of the various elements of POV pushing has indeed been to remove the idea that the term is pejorative, or downplay it. Anyway, I'm sure it can all be sorted out at a later date when things are less heated.Cúchullain t/c 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pakistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
RfC input needed
Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding Foley Square trial. I randomly selected you from the Politics/Law section of the RfC feedback request list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment made (see here). — Richwales 03:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
World Net Daily
Hi. You were kind enough to move my POV comment from an article talk page to my talk page. As you suggested I would like to ask something. I read another editor's comments to the effect that World Net Daily is not a reliable source, and can't be used period. Is it neutral for WP to reject an entire publication because of some of its editorial content? Cygdrive (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- It depends on the specific situation. In general, Wikipedia's policies on what is or is not a reliable source are described at WP:RS — and a general description of what neutrality means here can be found at WP:NPOV. A special page (the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", WP:RSN) exists for discussion of unclear cases. Individual editors may, of course, have opinions on the reliability of a specific source which may or may not be shared by the community. When differences of opinion arise, guidelines for dispute resolution can be found at WP:DR. Above all, it is very important to handle disputes in a calm, civil, and respectful way, always giving other editors the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are acting in good faith (see WP:AGF). And be careful to avoid "edit warring" (as described at WP:EW); edit warring is never acceptable, even if you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. — Richwales 17:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked over what I take to be the governing thread on WND. I can see the challenge this topic poses to the community, and I think your comments are well balanced. Using accepted reliable sources seems to save the community a lot of work in dissecting less reputable sources. My take from the WND thread is that there may be some cases in which the community will tolerate a WND citation, but gaining acceptance may take more effort than I'm willing to make. For example this piece from yesterday seems notable to me. The piece debunks a martial law scare, but detailed comments by reader jrboss93 raise more questions. What would happen if I cited this material in an article on the current administration? Cygdrive (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- My read of the above very, very long discussion is that material from WND may sometimes be reliable, but that we cannot assume in general that WND material is reliable, and that a decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. As for the specific piece you cited regarding the executive order, it might be appropriate to cite it as substantiating the existence of the executive order, and perhaps also as evidence of disagreement as to what significance this order may have. I would personally consider any suggestion that the Obama administration is (or any previous administration was) seeking to impose martial law as, at best, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. — Richwales 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
GOCE March drive newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
  Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk)To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)