Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Famines

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (including independent states)
Famine Years Deaths (in millions)
Bengal Presidency
Great Bengal Famine 1769–1770
10[1]
Maratha Confederacy, Mysore, and Madras City
Chalisa famine 1783–1784
11[2]
Maratha Confederacy, Hyderabad, Mysore, Northern Circars and Madras City
Doji bara famine 1789–1795
11[3]
Company Rule in India
Agra famine of 1837–38 1837–1838
0.8[4]
British Raj
Eastern Rajputana 1860–1861
2[4]
Orissa famine of 1866 1865–1867
5[5]
Rajputana famine of 1869 1868–1870
1.5[6]
Bihar famine of 1873–74 1873–1874
0
Great Famine of 1876–78 1876–1878
10.3[7]
Odisha, Bihar 1888–1889
0.15[8]
Indian famine of 1896–97 1896–1897
5[4]
Indian famine of 1899–1900 1899–1900
4.5[4]
Bengal famine of 1943 1943–1944
3[9]
Total (1765–1947)[10][11][12] 1769–1944 64.48

Thanks for taking up the topic at British Empire. You will find numerous sources with direct links for easy verification at Famine in India. It is an article I have substantially expanded and my goal is to get it promoted as a GA. Since you have an NPOV barnstar, can I ask you to please take a look at the POV tag issue? That would be the next step towards taking the article to GA. Feel free to do a peer review if you have the time and inclination. You can also find several sources in the templates I've created, for example see the "Famines in British India" template (deaths are in millions). Zuggernaut (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the Famine in India article the other day, and that there was an NPOV dispute connected with it. Will have a look. --JN466 02:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Ed Miliband

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Ed Miliband was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Close discussion?

Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion#Close discussion? SilkTork *YES! 11:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments

Hi, Jayen, thanks for your thoughtful comments about one source mentioned in the request for arbitration enforcement about an editor who reverted including that source in an article. I have to say that I am puzzled that including sourced content in articles has proven to be as controversial as it is since I became a wikipedian in April 2010. I see that you have participated in taking several articles through the Did You Know?, Good Article, and Featured Article processes. I'd love to learn from your example how to do that. I have in mind to expand two long-time articles (a stub and an article long tagged for lacking any sources) through each of those stages, and I have been gathering sources and editing off-line to prepare for that. If at any time you have advice for me on how to edit better, I would be glad to hear it. I note that you reply on your own talk page to posts on your talk page. Please feel free in turn to use my talk page to reach me any time you have suggestions for me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course

I'll be happy to comment and or help if I can on the AE appeals. Thanks for bringing it my attention.(olive (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. --JN466 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --JN466 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Ganga/Ganges

Hi Jayen466. Apologies for my remark on that talk page. I made it, and now regret making it but can't unmake it. It was definitely unwarranted. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; it's alright. It occurred to me myself that what I said might be seen as patronising (although it really wasn't meant that way). As regards the BE discussion, I do feel that Zuggernaut is being stonewalled a little bit there, and that the discussion has at times been rather impolite towards him. Whether we like it or not, editor demographics do play a role in the interpretation of NPOV, and we have to be equally wary of indications of nationalism, or even purely unconscious bias, on either side of the debate. It's unfortunate, but also simply human. --JN466 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do think you're confusing Hindu nationalism with a redressing of the ills of colonialism. But that's your call and I don't doubt your good faith. And, that's what makes wikipedia what it is. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian painters

I would appreciate your take on this. Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

About this, you might wish to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content_changes, which says, "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it." Editors at policy and guideline pages aren't actually required to obtain permission before making changes.

That said, I do think the changes could be improved. I'll read through the discussion later, and see if I can help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am well aware of that. I didn't remove them just because there was no talk page consensus for them. The thing is they weren't just copyedits, but involved content changes -- some of which I did not agree with, and which moreover related to ongoing discussions and proposals at the WP:BLP policy talk page. I didn't have time then to expand further; real life called. --JN466 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what I figured; no harm done (assuming, I suppose, that no newbie sees it and thinks it's ideal behavior, but I seriously doubt that will happen in this instance).
Do you recommend that I skim through BLP's talk pages before thinking about the SAL discussion? I don't watch that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would make sense. Also related is the BLPN thread Wikipedia:BLPN#List_of_atheists, including the discussion of the proposed editnotice. --JN466 09:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop

Hello Jayen466, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

dissertation and wikibreak

yes, finally finishing it I hope. Although I'm planning to add a few tidbits I've found to a couple of articles. Hoping to get back to wikilife in the new year. auntieruth (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Good luck with it. :) --JN466 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Thank you

Thank you for this post.[1] We are in complete agreement. Should you run into any more difficulties, feel free to ask me for help. I am quite sympathetic to the concerns of editors who have generated quality content. Jehochman Talk 12:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It is only right, and I hope that reason will prevail. --JN466 12:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To continue on CoS stuff

I think you missed my points.

  • If the video is as BLP problematic as you say, why on Earth haven't you nominated the video for deletion? Either it's a big problem and it needs to be fixed, or it's not. I don't understand why the video is still there if the BLP problem is in fact so plain.
  • My second point was that your treating her claims as "things they didn't like" is greatly downplaying the scope of the claims. While that certainly increases the BLP issue, your downplaying of it bothered me quite a bit. To follow on your analogy, it would be like someone calling claims of sexual abuse by a priest "whining". I found your comment really jarring.

I do understand your original claim of a BLP violation now and agree a SPS shouldn't be used when it says negative things about others that can't otherwise be verified. Hobit (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The video was deleted from the article long ago; nominating it for deletion is something that would have to happen on Commons. Commons' scope is different. I believe the video was actually used on a Wikiversity page last time I looked. Otherwise, I understand what you are saying, and believe me, I don't want to minimise anyone's experience -- it is just that as a self-published piece, it is unverifiable and far from a reliable source for such allegations.
I was also remembering a recent real-life incident at our local school when I wrote what I did. Teenage kids had a social networking site up where teachers were regularly described as cruel nazis, communists, paedophiles and the like. It eventually caused quite a stir. While this may not be a fitting comparison, that incident was still in my mind. I imagined the article on our school having a YouTube video made by an ex-pupil, talking about their perception of the teachers, added to its article here. We simply can't do that, no matter how genuine and justified the complaint may appear. --JN466 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Quality improvement project

Jayen466, in a discussion between Jehochman and Delicious carbuncle at User talk:Jehochman, Jehochman suggested that Delicious carbuncle and I could try to move forward collaboratively together, by jointly working on a quality improvement project - striving to bring an article's quality up to being ready for WP:GAC or even maybe WP:FAC. I have suggested this recommendation from Jehochman to Delicious carbuncle, in a post to User talk:Delicious carbuncle. I have recommended a quality improvement project on the book Slaves of Sleep, a book well-regarded that received positive reception about the writing of its author Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard; the book is even considered a science fiction "classic". Jehochman suggested including you as well in this quality improvement effort. I would very much like to work with you and Delicious carbuncle together collaboratively to improve the quality of the Wikipedia article on this book which is well-regarded in literary circles. Would you like to work collaboratively with me on this, to improve that article's quality status, together? :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the offer, and would love to do some GA or FA work with you. It will have to be next year though, as I am currently snowed under with work (see above) and won't have much wiki-time for the remainder of the year. As for the project you propose, I have to tell you that I am not really that interested in Hubbard; I haven't read his sci-fi stuff (and actually never progressed beyond page 12 of Dianetics either -- shameful really). I'm not sure I could get access to relevant sources as easily as you can; I generally prefer to work from scholarly sources.
If I may make a counterproposal, without prejudice to the project you propose (which might still be fun, though I should probably read the book first): Sathya Sai Baba is an article that gets more than 1,000 hits every day. The article is and always has been a complete mess, arbitration efforts notwithstanding. I got some scholarly sources together a while ago, but in the end never got down to it. If we brought that article to FA, or even just GA, we could do Wikipedia a really good turn there, because it sticks out like a sore thumb in the NRM area. (It might be best to work in user space on that one at first.) It's also a really interesting case, because he has establishment credibility in India, while generally being seen as a fraud in the West, and both POVs would have to be represented and balanced in some way. If you'd like to help me with that one, that might be a really good project, too, in a month or so. --JN466 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. I would very much like to work with you on one or both of those projects. How shall we start? :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
As for SSB, I've found that editing the article directly can be messy. I was thinking we could start a draft in user space, using the current version of the article as a base, identify sources on the talk page (User:Andries may be of help there), and when it's matured, do an RfC on whether our version should replace the current one. Do you think that would be an acceptable process? --JN466 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Your proposed process does indeed sound quite logical as a sound way to move forward, but it would unfortunately be quite a bit of work to put into it - and then risk not having that subpage be accepted. However, it is probably the best option and an RFC could garner outside input from previously uninvolved editors. Also, I was thinking of creating a draft version, from scratch, using other "dead trees" type of biographical profiles of the individual - and then base the relative weight of various aspects whilst expanding that - upon those secondary sources. What do you think about that? -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think our chances at an RfC ought to be good, compared to present status. I agree that much or most of what there is now is relatively useless, except for parts of the lead perhaps. Yes, we might as well start from scratch. :) --JN466 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I will get on doing some research, probably first as I said above, by attempting to find some stuff in published biographical profiles on the subject in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Need any help identifying lists?

JN: at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Also_do_religions_and_orientations you said you'd finished the atheism lists, and were moving on to orientation and religion lists ... do you need any help finding them? A few are:

etc, etc. I'd help out, but one needs admin privilege to add EditNotices, as you know. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll create the editnotices for those right away. I am short of wiki-time at the moment, so if you could help me with identifying the lists, that would be great. Just drop them on my talk page, and I'll create them. Thanks! --JN466 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
JN: are all the edit notices using a single copy of shared text? That would be good, because if WP needs to tweak the text in the future, the change can be made in one place, and all articles EditNotice's get the change instantly. If it is not that way now, maybe it is a good time to set it up, before too many articles get the text. Perhaps use #REDIRECT in all the edit notices, so they all point to a single text? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea; I'll do some experimenting and see if it can be done that way. Thank you! --JN466 14:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It works as a redirect (see Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Baptists. I'll convert the ones I've created so far so they all link to the same one. Any preference which one should be the ones the other ones link to? We need two, one for beliefs, and one for sexual orientation. Cheers, --JN466 14:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is probably best to do it per Wikipedia:Editnotice#Batch_of_identical_editnotices; create it once as a template, and transclude it into the individual editnotices. --JN466 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've created Template:Editnotice for lists of people by sexual orientation and Template:Editnotice for lists of people by religious belief and am now transcluding that template into all the editnotices I create (and have transcluded it into all the ones I had created already). If you want to share the work, you could ask User:Courcelles if he could set the Account Creator flag for your account, which will enable you to create and edit editnotices. Cheers, --JN466 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
JN: I've added that religion template to several other Lists (Sikhs, agnostics, etc). Is there anything that should be done regarding the various list of Jewish persons? I'm not an expert in the BLP policy, but I understand that may be a special case since it is both a religion and ethnicity. But regardless, perhaps there is a need for a centralized, uniform Edit Notice for Jewish lists? In other words: no matter what the WP consensus is for the Jewish lists, everyone would agree that WP should have a uniform, neutral Edit Notice to provide guidance to editors that wander by and try to edit those lists. Note that one of those lists, List of Jewish American businesspeople, does have an edit notice already (Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople) but that edit notice is tailored for that one list so it cannot be used for other lists. -Noleander (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to solve the situation with our lists and categories of Jewish people, given that Jewishness can be both a religious attribute subject to BLPCAT and an ethnic attribute not subject to BLPCAT. (It's similar with Sikhs, although in that case the ambiguity does not seem to cause any problems in Wikipedia.)
I proposed recently at WT:BLP that lists and categories based on ethnicity (as opposed to nationality) should also require self-identification as an inclusion criterion, which would bring Jewish lists and categories clearly within the purview of BLPCAT. While the proposal received more supports than opposes, the whole situation quickly became very messy, and in the end there was no clear consensus. Do you have any ideas?
Thanks for logging the new editnotices! --JN466 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
True, those lists are not subject to BPLCAT, but they are subject to the BLP policy and to WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Here is my idea:
  1. There is a large amount of time spent in WP wrangling over these lists (religion, orientation, ethnicity, etc)
  2. For sanity, peace, and joy, there should be a consistent policy governing those lists, established at BLP talk page
  3. That agreed-upon policy should be communicated to editors via an Edit Notice on the List articles
  4. That way, editors that are not up-to-date on the BLP list policy will get a friendly reminder whenever editing those lists
  5. The religion and orientation lists have decent Edit Notices now, and the wording in those notices can be tweaked in the future
  6. The various lists of Jewish persons also are in need of publicity and uniformity for their inclusion guidance
Therefore, WP should create a standard edit notice for lists of Jewish persons. I would decouple this proposal from the "ethnicity in BLPCAT?" issue. I'd say the next step is to create a draft of such an edit notice, and put it into 2 or 3 articles as a trial (perhaps a prominent one like List of Jewish Nobel laureates?) and start a discussion in the BLP talk page to get feedback. It can always be undone if consensus goes against it, but putting it in place in a trial article or two would give people a chance to see it in action, and help them understand how it may help reduce future strife and aggravation. --Noleander (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A draft editnotice is a good idea. It might be safer to present the draft at BLP talk or on BLPN first though, and get consensus, before implementing it for any specific list. Would you like to draft something? We could tweak and discuss it here before we propose it. --JN466 15:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm super busy now, so I could maybe get to it after Jan 1 (in fact, it may be best to wait until after 1 January, just to make sure lots of editors are around). But if you want to draft it, go ahead. My suggested draft would be something like:
This list is subject to the WP:BLPCAT policy and the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list. A reliable source must be provided which verifies that the person is a member of the list.
By leaving the text very brief and sans interpretation, it makes it less contentious, and more likely to gain consensus. They key point is simply to show a reminder to editors when they click the Edit button on those lists. --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If we're keeping it that simple, I agree it would not likely to be controversial, and could be implemented as a trial on a few lists. Good work. --JN466 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a sentence about RS to that draft Edit notice. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's important. I'd propose using "both" in "Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list". Looks good to me now. --JN466 17:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This draft Edit Notice is generic enough that it could be used for many Lists of people, not just Lists of Jewish persons. That may make it more acceptable to the WP community, because it could be employed on any List that has been subject to controversy or edit-wars. So perhaps the best way to present this on the BLP Talk page is as an optional edit notice for troublesome people-lists, such as List of Jewish Nobel laureates or Some other person list that is controversial. Of course, I would not propose including this Edit Notice in all lists of persons, since that probably would not fly (even though its content, technically, does apply to all lists). --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We should probably link directly to BLPCAT, rather than BLP. BLP is a very large page, and most people might find it too long to read. I agree it would make sense to start with the lists that have been controversial. But I believe we have many lists that are not controversial, yet have dozens of unsourced entries. These may not be contoversial, but may still be wrong. --JN466 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to BLPCAT. For trial articles, how about List of Sicilian mafiosi and List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Or are there some other people-lists that have been subject to more prominent debates, and hence would be more suitable to demonstrate the value of the Edit Notice? --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
List of Sicilian Mafiosi sounds good. In List of Jewish Nobel Laureates we have to bear in mind that the only sentence of BLPCAT that applies is the first one, asking for a reliable source, and the last one, explaining that these principles apply to lists as well. --JN466 17:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but this particular Edit Notice draft was initiated precisely because the other religion lists now have Edit Notices, and it seems odd (biased?) for the Jewish-person lists (considered as a religion) to not have an Edit Notice. So, I would suggest that we tweak this draft Edit Notice so that it does apply, in a meaningful way, to the Jewish-person lists. That way, we avoid any perception of bias. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Another thing I meant to mention is that lists with unsourced entries are a nightmare to maintain. If you go in and delete all the unsourced entries, someone will say, "But this was trivially verifiable. Look, you could have just googled it". On the other hand, if you google 100 unsourced entries and reference the ones for which RS exist, it takes a day. --JN466 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I view the Edit Notice as a forward-looking action, helping future editors avoid SNAFUs. Whereas the "what to do with unsourced persons in lists?" is water under the bridge. The Edit Notice may prevent more water from going under the bridge. --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I think wider applications of such an editnotice may be sensible, simply to reduce the maintenance problem. I'll also propose an addition to BLP, saying that all List entries of living people should be sourced. --JN466 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice....

The subject of a BLP, just approached me about her picture in an article. article is here message from her is here. Like some advice on how to approach? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and respect her wish. She has e-mail enabled; you could drop her a line. --JN466 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your guidance. I have sent her a note. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source

Re [2] Why would www.scientology-cult.com be any more a Reputable Source than a critical site such as xenu.net? AndroidCat (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't, and could not be used for statements about a third party. Here it is used as a self-published source to source the author's religious self-identification per WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPSPS. --JN466 12:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

  1. ^ Kumar & Desai 1983, p. 528.
  2. ^ Grove 2007, p. 80.
  3. ^ Grove 2007, p. 83.
  4. ^ a b c d Fieldhouse 1996, p. 132.
  5. ^ Kumar & Desai 1983, p. 529.
  6. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III 1907, p. 488.
  7. ^ Davis 2001, p. 7.
  8. ^ Kumar & Desai 1983, pp. 530.
  9. ^ Kumar & Desai 1983, p. 531.
  10. ^ Bose 1916, pp. 79–81.
  11. ^ Rai 2008, pp. 263–281.
  12. ^ Koomar 2009, pp. 13–14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/December&oldid=1143079239"