Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

Malta locator map

Can anyone take a look at Talk:Malta#Terrible map. I'd think it's a no-brainer that a locator map of Malta should be centered on Malta and not Denmark, cutting Africa out almost completely. Apparently a literally Eurocentric map is a "Wikipedia standard"? I'm baffled by this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Article of Malta use standard European map (used in thirty articles), centered in the center of Europe - to show the whole of Europe on map - this is a logical. It does not matter whether the state lies in the northern or southern or western or eastern part of Europe, map is correct and show all states of Europe. Everything is good and logical. Malta is European country (only European), Wikipedia not use maps of Asia, Africa, Australia etc for show European countries. User Dennis Bratland try push own map - only half of Europe and... Africa! Totally nonsense. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man is wrong. It is not "a logical" to insist on using a European map to show the location of Malta, if that map is centred far from Malta and does not make Malta's position or geography clear. We can find a better map. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments should be at Talk:Malta#Which_map_should_we_use_in_main_infobox.3F because they are just wasted here inasmuch as the closing editor will not see them. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on COI for alt med practioners

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcing the Wikiproject Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange

Hi all! Inspired in part by a conversation here last fall[1] about making Wikipedia more welcoming for second-language editors, I have started a new Wikiproject, the Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange, for editors to assist each other in writing for Wikipedia in a second language. If this interests you, I urge you to sign up and start participating; we need a critical mass for the project to be effective. Tdslk (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Video on racism in the US

• This ‘Redneck’ May Have Just Started A White Revolution Against Racism (VIDEO)

Strong language (NSFW). Some will find this refreshingly frank, others may find it offensive, or simply self-promotion. A classic rant offered here as a gesture of support for all the US editors who are attempting to make the encyclopedia more representative and useful for the rest of the world too. --Djembayz (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Closed (Detective Conan) and titles in various English-speaking countries

There is a discussion about the lead in Talk:Case_Closed#2015_Break

The versions of Detective Conan (as the series is known in its original Japan) produced in the United States and distributed to Canada, the United Kingdom, and presumably Ireland are known as Case Closed. The article uses this title and the modified character names in this version. However there are also English-language manga and anime versions of this series produced in Singapore, released under the original title "Detective Conan" and using the original Japanese character names. The distribution network of the company making the Singapore manga version includes Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Thailand (the latter two, AFAIK, are the two countries on this list that are not largely English-speaking). Animax Asia has aired the Detective Conan anime in the Philippines (Archive). The series is known as "Detective Conan" in almost all non-English speaking countries.

I proposed stating that the series is known as Detective Conan in Japan and Southeast Asia in the lead of the article, while the lead currently only says it is known as Detective Conan in Japan. One Wikipedian argues that the Southeast Asian English versions serve only a small number of people, and they are too insignificant to mention in the lead of the article. I argue that not mentioning the Southeast Asian versions in the lead is a form of systemic bias.

Question: Is it systemic bias to exclude the fact that in some English-speaking regions have the series released as "Detective Conan", or is it in compliance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style?

Animax Asia profile (Archive) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if its systemic bias but its definitely confusing to not have it bolded in the first paragraph. I suspect some of the editors are under-estimatimg how popular the South East Asian version is. -- haminoon (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Its a very confusing talk page. The section you link to doesn't even mention the lede until a few indents have taken place. I suggest you start a new section with your proposed text for the lede. -- haminoon (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do that :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Case_Closed#Proposed_lead - If I find out it was also released in South Asia (India/Pakistan) in English under that title I will ask for a requested move. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of WP:DIVA

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOP. Doc talk 07:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted [...] Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." -sche (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Best practice is to just post the link without any commentary other than, "project members may be interested in this." That said, additional commentary is seldom going to sway anyone, we are able to assess the information ourselves. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Poets."--Lucas559 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Padma Shri Awards (1960–69)

Pick any year. Are all the women being listed after all the men? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Nine reasons women don't edit Wikipedia (in their own words" - 2011 article

Old article but very focused on ways Wikipedia discourages female editors [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi All, I started a bibliography on harassment on Wikipedia in my personal namespace: User:Vaughn88/sandbox/counteringbiasbiblio. If others think it is a good idea, I will transfer this to: WikiProject Countering systemic bias/harassment/bibliography, where it can be added to by others. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a great idea and I'd also suggest compiling bibliographies of sources useful in various systemic-bias related areas. But that's another discussion entirely. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea. After some recent controversies about pro-Israel bias and harassment of those who don't share that bias, I looked into some old conflicts and found [3] re User:RK who was an early POV warrior. At the time the ArbCom process did not exist and it seems Jimmy Wales was played like a flute by some of these folks. Is it any better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Grey Wolves (organization)page

It is totally biassed.Although grey wolves is an legal assocation in Turkey it is described as a terrorist organizaton and neo-fascist.Many users struggle to change that but some other users prevent this and behave unproperly according to wikipedia rules.You can look history and talk this page.Grey Wolves (organization) Best regards Unknowledge (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tax protester arguments" and "Tax protester"

The regional balance/scoping of Tax protester arguments/Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments/Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to geographic location question in list of WAMU mergers

Regarding the Pacific First Bank merger listed in 1993: PFB had its headquarters in Seattle, WA, had purchased some branches (in the months before being bought) from Great Western Bank in Ontario, CA, and had its operations located in Tacoma, WA. 2606:6000:CFC0:2C:8E6:E63F:3BAE:81D2 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Devie Dragone, August 2015 <employed at PFB at that time(1993)>

Colonial terminology and Native American articles. Page move discussion.

Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015. As I said there: It has been proposed (at Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015) that Calumet (pipe) be renamed and moved to Ceremonial pipe (Native American). There are systemic bias issues here, and I humbly request that anyone commenting here be at least somewhat familiar with the issues we deal with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, or willing to learn about this. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support move, but perhaps a RM should be done at that article and then notify folks here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's where the link goes. :) - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus

The 2015-08-19 issue of The Signpost has a lead editorial that is worth reading: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus - kosboot (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an op-ed piece, not an editorial. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

Systemic bias in sports

Per WP:FOOTY only players for fully professional leagues are considered "automatically notable".

This appears to be biased in favour of Developed World and large countries.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

In passing, I'd draw attention to the practice in biographies of baseball players to identify players who were born outside the US, or whose ancestors were born outside the US and who are not white, in the lede.

George Herman "Babe" Ruth, Jr. was an American baseball player

but

Orlando Manuel "Peruchin" Cepeda Pennes is a Puerto Rican former Major League Baseball

David Américo Ortiz Arias, nicknamed "Big Papi", is a Dominican-American professional baseball player.

Luis Ernesto Aparicio Montiel, nicknamed "Little Louie", is a former Venezuelan professional baseball player

We appear to be scrupulous in identifying the ethnic background of Latino players, but far less so about players born in Holland (Wilhelmus Abraham Remmerswaal (born March 8, 1954) is a former relief pitcher in Major League Baseball). MarkBernstein (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass killings

Currently, there is a appeal filed to unsalt and undelete the article Mass killings in capitalist regimes. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC on MEDRS and Should we Reject Sources Based on their Country of Publication?

RfC regarding an amendment to MEDRS, specifically asking if we should or shouldn't allow high-quality sources to be rejected simply because of the country in which the research is published. Any interested editors are welcome to comment. LesVegas (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

How to handle currency conversions and/or equivalents of school grading systems

In many Wikipedia articles it's common to give equivalents of currencies from non-English speaking countries. They may be converted into U.S. dollars, Canadian dollars, UK pounds, Euros, South African rand, etc, and often the conversions come from reliable sources cited by those Wikipedia articles.

The question: When should these currencies be "converted"? Should there be an attempt to include more kinds of currencies other than the USD and/or UKP, or should the currency conversions not be stated to avoid systemic bias claims? Should the currency conversions only be included if reliable sources do so?

Also some published sources try to convert certain educational stages into certain countries into American or British educational stages (for example: Year 1 of Japanese senior high school converted to 10th grade (US) or Year 11 (UK)). Would including these conversions be systemic bias too? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is that "Systemic bias" is more an attitude and approach than a cookie-cutter formula. I don't think the things you are discussing here even fall under the systemic bias rubric any more than Imperial/Metric conversions do. (Unless an editor had a "those other people's ways are stupid" attitude - that's bias) There is a place for technical terminology and sometimes conversion is impossible. When it can be done simply and elegantly (as with metric/imperial measurement) that's good, but where it can't, we should at least try to use wikilinks to point the reader who is unfamiliar with a concept - like, say, the value of the Yen. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For currency, I don't know if there are specific guidelines on this, but currency is a bugbear; as comparative values change constantly. Reliable sources are key for converting values, I suspect, lest we fall into WP:OR. I suspect it's a case-by-case situation and really depends on why the conversion is needed. I've seen historical comparisons done within the same currency, but to compare two different currencies at current - changing - value is probably not doable in an article; I'd suggest just linking to the relevant currency and calling it good; the currency articles sometimes provide real rough guidelines for conversion. I did a pounds to dollars conversion once, for historical purposes, as the conversion could be solidified in time; and to get that little bit to pass FAC took several hours of my life that I shall never get back.. sigh. (see what I did at note (c) here: William_Robinson_Brown#International_purchases). Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool! That's a good note to have in the article. If the reliable sourced discussing the currency conversion date from the time when the transaction took place (for example "John Smith is currently making 2,400 yen per hour ($???USD per)") these sources may help. See Qian_Zhijun#History: I found sources converting Qian Zhijun's salary to U.S., British, and South African currencies. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As for educational stages, my thinking is to just like to the stages articles, which, one would hope, contain international comparisons; or just note the typical age of the students. Conversions could get out of hand, as you also have Au/NZ, India, South Africa, etc... There's a line between helping the reader understand a concept and being so dumbed-down that it's condescending. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

War of 1812

I am not a member of this Wikiproject and perhaps this is not the place for this but I think that the members should take a look at this article.

Despite the fact that many historians advocate annexation of Canada as a primary war aim for the US as well as irrefutable evidence suggesting this, this article makes only a last-thought, to-the-side mention of this, and then only as a debated "possibly". This is only one of the issues of this article, some of which I have brought up in the talkpage, and I think you should look into them.

I believe this is a result of systemic bias as many if not most Wikipedia editors are from the US. This particular article is under the "protection" of several POV-pushers who suppress the countless complaining editors with fallacious, contemptious or otherwise invalid responses.

Regards, Green547 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that before you wade into that quagmire (or anyone here), read this and [4] and note the author of the latter has his own WP article. No comments or endorsements from me as to content, just suggest awareness. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that--I appreciate it. :) Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bias as a result of cyberharassment

This past weekend I attended WikiConferenceUSA in Washington D.C. Among the excellent talks was one by Danielle Citron author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. I highly recommend watching her talk (on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-Y-FuzAH4t=42m47s -- the speaking begins at 42 minutes and 47 seconds from the beginning). Even though her talk was about harassment, she spoke about how it can affect people. I could definitely see the connection with Wikipedia - how argumentative discussions can affect people in predictable ways (for example, forcing people to be silent), resulting in bias. - kosboot (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

African-American architects

I restored this article, got rid of the most obvious copyright infringement and began to fix the references. This article needs more work and I'd welcome any help to get it in Wikipedia shape. I think there is much that can be preserved here but the overly promotional language has to go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Signpost editorial

Gamaliel, a Wikipedia Signpost editor, wrote a powerful editorial apparently inspired by many of the discussions at WikiConference USA. What has fascinated and horrified me are the responses. These responses made me realize for the first time that this project (Countering systemic bias) will never succeed if it focuses on articles. The real issue is Wikipedia editor behavior (that's why I say look at the comments). - kosboot (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Hăghiac, Răchitoasa to Răchitoasa (see Talk:Răchitoasa)

This is a merge discussion on the notability of this Romanian village, but has implications for Romanian villages in general. Any interested parties, ease have a look and consider commenting. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Request review of HIV posters in Commons

example poster which is not copyrightable due to containing only simple text and shapes

I am posting at this "countering systemic bias" board because this issue concerns a health issue and content in almost every language and from almost every country, but which was managed in English language projects.

Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed)

More discussion about this is at the Commons page or English WikiProject Medicine at "Request review of HIV posters in Commons". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Women in photography

You are invited...
	Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red May 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Talk:Ministry of Defense of Georgia#Requested move 30 May 2016

Talk:Ministry of Defense of Georgia#Requested move 30 May 2016 - Please see this requested move which relates to the official name of the Ministry (WP:NC-GAL) vs WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject Report

Hi! I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost. Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work here? If so, please ping me and/or respond here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Should have posted this earlier

Of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Improving Template:Systemic_bias with the concept of propaganda, especially on academic subjects

Of interest to this project: Improving template with the concept of propaganda, especially on academic subjects. 82.132.244.126 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Images of Scottish people

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Scottish people#Images about addressing the absence of women amongst the images used to illustrate Scottish people. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

An interesting study

This is just to draw members' attentions to a set of move discussions that have culminated in the following page: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. This is not a non-neutral plea for members to participate (it's rather late in the MR) if they don't want to do so. This is just to bring up the possibility that a "move" decision might open up a near future of many other systemic-bias-plagued articles to be cleaned and cleared of SB (a domino effect of sorts).  Temporal Sunshine Paine  16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Skin conditions and people of colour

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Skin conditions and people of colour, where your contributions would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

National Assembly (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

National Assembly (Democratic Republic of the Congo) is equivalent to the United States House of Representatives, but has only one source. It needs improvement. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Also see Spread of Islam in Southeast Asia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Systemic bias in the medical literature

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments - Last WWI veterans by country

I'd really appreciate comments from members of this project on a discussion I've been having with another user at Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans by country#Imperial dependencies. The user seems to think that Wikipedia should not consider colonies to be separate from the imperial power. In practice, this means that huge chunks of the world will be excluded from the list with the ironic excuse that a Jamaican colonial subject was, somehow, as British as someone born in London! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

US presidential election coverage

• 
  Male voters for Trump
• 
  Male dominance in Wikipedia
• 
  Female voters for Clinton

Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia and age profile of experienced Wikipedians are imho showing through very much in the differences how the Hillary / Trump articles are being written. What do you think? (See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikipedia for Trump). --SI 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you see and what you would propose be done about it? You've shown several graphics that show that a majority of male American voters support Trump, female ... Clinton, and a majority of Wikipedia editors are male. So? I gather you're saying that means that Wikipedia editors probably support Trump more than the American average. However Wikipedia editors are also supposed to be tech-savvy, which skews more toward Clinton; and more important, Wikipedia editors are supposed to leave their biases out of their editing, and almost all claim to do so. Can you be specific in which way you think that is not happening, and what you recommend we do about it? --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That graph of male voters would mean something if there were equal amounts of male voters everywhere. Since the populations of places like Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, etc. pale in comparison to just New York City, the graph is fairly meaningless. - kosboot (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of nitpicking it would be nice to improve content, there are more than enough sources on that issue: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] ... ... --SI 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC) P.S. sorry, I'm afraid my words might sound unfriendly, while I intended the opposite. Please accept my friendlyness being added retroactively, OK? :-) --SI 01:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat, can you be more specific what you would like us to do? There are already plenty of editors working on on pretty much every article collected with this election, just going in without a specific plan is not going to help. What, specifically, do you think needs to be done, and what would you like us to do? --GRuban (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking again, I will come back when I have sorted my thoughts on that, found the right words (and made the laundry ;). might take a while, sorry... (See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikipedia for Trump). --SI 02:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gender bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

there's a bunch of these, may want to look at a pattern. Montanabw^(talk) 07:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Interested in input

I would be interested in input (Delete or Keep) at this AfD for American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009. One of the arguments put forward is that we can delete this Honduras-election related article because the information is partly present at Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America. (Hillary Clinton is a U.S. politician.) BlueSalix (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not an accurate characterization of "the argument put forward." One of the arguments put forward is that the page in question is a WP:POVFORK from a large number of other pages that deal with the same content or could deal with the same content: Honduran general election, 2009; Honduras–United States relations; 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America additionally addresses it, but any implication that it is the basis for the argument is incorrect.

In any case, all input is welcome. Neutrality^talk 06:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pop & Suki

A discussion on this fashion firm recently closed as delete at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop & Suki) and I thought the case would be of interest to this project. While the article had a fair amount of lousy coverage, I cited four reliable, in-depth sources in the discussion ("Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.[25][26]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.[27][28].") which were summarily dismissed (in particular, the Vogue article as an "advertorial"). I have a fair understanding of the editorial caveats in fashion publishing, but what more depth/breadth of coverage should be expected of a new fashion firm if not exactly the four aforementioned articles? Dismissing, for example, the Vogue article above as an advertorial makes it easy to exclude similar Vogue reporting when assessing significant coverage (and independent notability) of many fashion-related firms.  czar 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of Wikipedia: Deletion review. It's a fashion firm, that's the kind of coverage fashion firms get. The only difference is where that coverage is printed, and here the sources you have listed are rather noted, so should suffice. Here are more, though: Harper's Bazaar: http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/models/a18575/pop-and-suki/ Elle Mexico: http://www.elle.mx/home/trending/2016/11/08/pop-suki-la-marca-suki-waterhouse-todas-las-it-girls-aman/ Elle UK: http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/news/a31937/suki-waterhouse-and-poppy-jamie-launch-friendship-themed-accessories-brand/ (not just translations of the Elle US article) --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The closer is okay with Wikipedia:Deletion review too but I don't think it's the best venue, since I think the issue was more of closing the discussion prematurely than the closer not interpreting consensus at the time of close. But anyway, I'll let the topic build in summary style at its current redirect. Feel free to chime in ({{ping}} me) if you have anything to add czar 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender bias template?

Is there a template for gender bias that can be inserted into an article talk page? Something similar to the globalize template:

but that identifies gender bias.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

To editor AugusteBlanqui: I don't remember seeing a specific template; however, you might find something useful at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. Some of those are general and can be adapted to specific needs.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 07:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: I created a template for Inclusivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Inclusivity. However, I have not had time to add the documentation similar to what is found on the globalize template. Systemic bias is not just geographical so there are some cases where the Inclusivity template may be more appropriate. Interesting recent article in teh Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/09/where-are-all-the-women-wikipedia

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have long been in agreement with the sentiments set forth in Laura Bates' The Guardian article. After reading this resource tool, I concluded that there is still so much to do, and not just on Wikipedia. There are still so many clients who prefer male attorneys, so many patients who would rather have a male physician, and so on, which of course affects the disparity between how much men and women earn. The issues have always been complex, and they are no less complicated in the 21st century than they were in the 19th, no less complicated on Wikipedia than offline. However, there is a growing number of people who tirelessly work to improve this situation. Bias is not going away anytime soon, because it is engrained in all of us to some extent. What we must learn, in my humble opinion, is to keep our biased opinions private and out of the public eye, much the same as we are learning to keep terms of endearment out of the professional workplace. End of "soapbox". You gotta watch me like a hawk, or I'll just go on and on. The template looks good!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To editor AugusteBlanqui: I went ahead and started the /doc page for {{Inclusivity}}, so feel free to tweak it wherever you think necessary. and Happy New Year!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

American judges

Shouldn't all members of Category:American women judges also be members of the parent category, Category:American judges (since that parent does not diffuse by gender)? If so, it currently isn't the case. czar 08:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And add the non-diffusing tag for those who are confused Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fulfilled prophecies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fulfilled prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia's nonprofit status

One thing I've wondered is, does Wikimedia's nonprofit status encourage Wikipedia to be biased, or unbiased? I think it could cut both ways. Suppose you've won the lottery, and now are financially independent. You can now publicly say whatever you want without fear of too much reprisal. You can openly praise or denounce any company or any individual (as long as you don't defame them).

So, for example, if you wanted to give a balanced appraisal of the company you used to work for before you won the lottery, you can do that. On the other hand, you can also give a negative appraisal of them, while simultaneously praising their competitor! So being financially independent doesn't mean you have an incentive to be neutral. Looking at the world of nonprofits, a lot of them are biased. For example, Greenpeace is a nonprofit, but it definitely has an agenda about environmental issues. Likewise, at the universities, a lot of the tenured professors express fringe opinions, because they are free to do so.

On the other hand, to the extent that Wikimedia seeks to cater to its donors' sensibilities in order to attract donations, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by those donors' biases. (Is it coincidental how many of WMF's board members have ties to Google?) But to the extent that Wikimedia lets Wikipedia be run by its community of editors, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by the Wikipedia editors' biases. These biases become self-perpetuating as a biased project tends to attract people who share similar biases, and repel (or, in some cases, expel) those who don't.

It's the same problem politicians run into when, say, they're trying to create a nonpartisan commission for redistricting. Where are they going to find the politically neutral arbiters? They can get retired judges to do it, but every one of those judges was originally nominated and confirmed by partisan politicians, often as a reward for political favors (e.g. helping with a campaign). Wikipedia elects its arbitrators, so we see the same problems there that we'd see in any other situation where judges are elected.

Perhaps Wikipedia is more biased than the for-profit Britannica, World Book, etc. were. Those encyclopedias had to cater to the sensibilities of the masses, so if anything, the problem may have been that they were too milquetoast or populist at times. They couldn't say anything that might offend readers.

One difference is that most revenue models for a for-profit free online encyclopedia would involve advertising, rather than user fees (as was the case with Britannica). A lot of proprietors of for-profit websites say that they feel like they have to watch what they say, so they don't lose advertisers (since the advertisers' customers might demand that they pull ads). But a donor-supported nonprofit, unless it lives entirely off an endowment from past donations, also has to pay attention to which side its bread is buttered on. (If it does live entirely off an endowment, and is insulated from outside influence by being governed by a self-appointed board, that still leaves it open to being influenced by the board members' biases.)

I question sometimes whether we achieved any additional neutrality from going the nonprofit route, that's enough to outweigh the disadvantages in terms of efficiency. A nonprofit has to devote a lot of resources to begging for money, rather than getting investors to put in that money (which, in the tech world, is often with little expectation of profit). And if the nonprofit is poorly managed, there is no way that a big outside investor can buy the organization out so he can revamp it. (Although this same problem arises in the tech world, where people like Zuckerberg have supervoting shares.)

Wikipedia tries to overcome all those problems by saying, "We'll just limit the articles to containing information from reliable sources." Most of those reliable sources are for-profit media outlets like The Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, etc., though. So whatever biases those for-profits have, Wikipedia will tend to mirror. On the other hand, as these media outlets become increasingly unprofitable, they end up getting taken over by billionaires who use them as their personal Pravdas to push various agendas.

What about clinical studies; aren't those scientific, and therefore neutral? They could be, if funding were given out for studies in a neutral manner, and if all studies were published, regardless of whether the results fit the funder's agenda. That's not the case, though. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding medical studies, I recommend reading through the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which have frequently discussed publication bias issues.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Wikipedia was initially part of Nupedia, which was part of a for-profit business. It was spun off into the not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation as Wales and Sanger thought it would be more financially sustainable be garnering revenue via charity. The popularity of wikipedia may have grown due in part to this choice, but the choice wasn't made to induce editors or articles, it was made to ensure financial stability (that is, to get make more money). This choice has been financially wildly successful, and is often discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-04/News and notes.

Your comment seems to suggest that wikipedia/wikimedia is a monolith. I think it is better to think of it in terms of its editors, each of which has their own interests. CSB recognizes that demographically, internet users in general and wikipedia editors in particular are not perfectly representative of the Earth's population. As the readership of wikipedia grows, it will diversify; the encyclopedia's coverage should diversify to reflect that. Further, lack of diversity hampers the growth and usefulness of wikipedia, even among current editors and readers. With this in mind, your question, "does Wikimedia's nonprofit status encourage Wikipedia to be biased, or unbiased?" seems difficult to answer. I'd say that wikimedia's nonprofit status might encourage more editors who like non-profits, while editors more interested in for-profit content creation might be more interested in writing elsewhere. I could see this introducing a bias, as people willing to volunteer for a non-profit might be less likely to be extremely poor and more likely to have free time (be retired, not have children, etc.) On the other hand, nonprofit status and a stance which frowns upon paid editing (see: Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)) may increase the number of editors whose life intersects less with high-visibility companies (as you said, it could cut both ways). But perhaps you could clarify. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting rid of the paid editors is another problem. Even forcing them to identify themselves as paid is a problem. Any time an editor has to shed some of his anonymity, and explicitly reveal what his agenda is, it tends to subject him to being targeted and possibly banned. (Notice how many ArbCom-sanctioned users are people who outed themselves at some point.)

There's not really any way to get away from the fact that Wikipedia will be influenced by people who get paid to put forth a certain point of view. Suppose the Washington Post is owned by a left-leaning billionaire who hires editors who will push his agenda. Those editors have their reporters investigate and write stories that will further that agenda, and they tell them not to pursue stories that would tend to work against that agenda. Then an unpaid user on Wikipedia cites the Washington Post as a reliable source. Does the process have integrity and neutrality because at the final step of this process (adding the content to Wikipedia), the person doing the work was unpaid? The only difference is, we can blame the bias on the Washington Post, but it was still Wikipedia that deemed them a reliable source.

Now, one might argue, we also deem the Wall Street Journal a reliable source, and that's owned by a right-leaning billionaire, so it balances out. In that case, why wouldn't the left-leaning paid Wikipedia users tend to balance out the right-leaning paid Wikipedia users also? Unless, of course, one side has a tendency to have more volunteers, and other side more paid users, than the other. In that case, maybe by banning paid users, all we do is reverse the bias, without achieving neutrality. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You are conflating two things that don't overlap much. Paid editors are mostly an issue re people and organisations trying to use Wikipedia for advertising. Political partisans exist in abundance on both sides of many issues, but apart from a few staffers editing their bosses bios, the contentious political editing is probably done by non-neutral volunteers. As for being constrained by the biases of the donors, the point about soliciting large numbers of small donations from readers is that if a small proportion of donors think that their $20 entitles them to get an article skewed, they can be shown the door. ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

Contributors here may be interested that an RfC for a policy on gender neutral language to become a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines is open for votes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. The proposed policy is limited is scope and so excludes articles, talk pages or any discussion by individual contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of article

Hey, requesting people who know about Pregnancy in art to edit this newly created page and add information about it.2.51.16.229 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Introducing the Community health initiative on English Wikipedia

Community health initiative
Helping the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects.

Hello! Today we'd like to introduce the new Community health initiative, the people who will be working on it, and most importantly how you can get involved. See the post at Village pump (miscellaneous), Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC))

Reporting cases of bias

As far as I can tell, there seems no proposal on the table for editors who may be experiencing bias and inappropriate counter-productive efforts to build an encyclopedia. Where do I ask for someone to address this issue on my behalf? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You can see by reading this project subject page that this is a collaboration of editors who deal with systemic bias in Wikipedia articles. Sorry you are experiencing any kind of bias and inappropriate counter-productive efforts here. If you are not satisfied by the editors at the Community health initiative, where tools are being developed for your specific use, then there is always the traditional Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where you should be able to report any specific case of other editors mistreating you or your work here. There is no excuse for such bias, no place for it on this encyclopedia project! These incidents are best handled by the editor who has been victimized.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding to that, if you are facing impolite unbecoming behavior, you can ask for a WP:Third opinion on whether the conduct is acceptable. WP:Dispute resolution may also be useful. Harassment and threats of violence, outing or legal action are never tolerated on Wikipedia. If you receive any kinds of threats (even off wiki), immediately report them to WP:AN/I or by e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation at emergency@wikimedia.org, and appropriate action will be taken. LK (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that! and I am taking the liberty of pinging the user to make sure the message gets to them.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in AfD results and bias towards keeping US/Europe/Australia transport articles

I have been trying to contribute for a week and I feel there is a certain amount of discrepancy in AfD results. This has been extremely discouraging, particularly because my second article was nominated for deletion within a few hours (despite similar articles in Europe/US existing for years). I have been contributing broadly about transport and places and I can't help but feel that articles about US/Europe/Australia tend to be kept while similar articles about India (and other Asian countries) are quite easily deleted. There is a requirement of WP:BEFORE but editors seem to ignore it and just vote for delete without even attempting to find sources. There is also a lack of will to WP:PRESERVE information. In cases of US/Europe/Australia, often editors ask for a merge to preserve information. However the same courtesy is not extended to other articles. Here are some examples to illustrate my point

• USA Bus stops (Merged) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthLine bus stops - These are regular bus stops for a BRT corridor. Editors voted for a merge to preserve the information. Contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghim Moh Bus Terminal where 2 delete votes got the article deleted.
• Singapore (Asia) Bus terminals list (nominated for deletion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore - I created this article as per WP:ATD-M to try to save content about bus terminals (not bus stops) being deleted (See list of articles merge here). It was nominated for deletion in a few hours. However, similar list articles such as Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations, List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London exist, despite many having much less references. I am also not particularly satisfied at the quality of the discussion. I wonder if editors are actually searching for sources.
• Bus station example (contrast discussion quality) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornell Road (RTA Bus Rapid Transit stations) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorong 1 Geylang Bus Terminal - Apart from higher participation, the discussion about the US bus stop was a lot more substantial. The same is not true for the article about an Asian bus stop where no one suggested a merge (everyone went for a delete).
• Road example (India and Canada) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thadagam road and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeshore Road. There was not much discussion or attempt to find sources, even though the road in the Indian city was quite an important road.

I would be happy to know if there is any way to address this. I understand that there are fewer editors from India and other Asian countries, which creates a problem. But I also feel editors could be a bit more aware and at least attempt to search for sources. I try hard to find references, and it is extremely discouraging if articles are going to be deleted simply because a number of editors vote delete (perhaps without attempting to search for sources). It takes a lot of time to find sources, add citations and copy-edit the articles. If Wikipedia will delete contributions so easily, I might as well not contribute.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Systematic bias and text direction

Is there any good tag for a section of an article which has a left-to-right-text bias (i.e ignoring languages such as Hebrew and Arabic)? I found such bias in Banner blindness#Location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Od Mishehu: I see only the general Globalize template, which has section and discussion parameters. The others listed on that page appear to be very specific to countries/states with nothing in-between.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory - project to Counter systemic bias

Hello everyone,

My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra). 

While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language editions.

Few months later, I propose creating the Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage

This project aims at countering the systemic bias related to context. I am presenting it to a grant and I expect that the site becomes a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions.

Here is the link of the project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)

If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it. In any case, I will appreciate any feedback, comments,... Thanks in advance for your time!

Best regards,

--Marcmiquel (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science. Zazpot (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Having a gendered category only when there's an article behind it

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Revisiting gendered categories: Let's have a clear criterion of "has or can have a proper article"

It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How to recognize

This group has quieted down since I first joined some time ago. I was wondering whether participants might be interested in drawing up a document to help others detect systemic bias in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). What might be recognizable characteristics that anyone could be instructed to detect? Does anyone have interest in pursuing such a project? - kosboot (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Park

You are invited to join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_E._Park_(2nd_nomination)

Sociologically, it's understandable some amount of systemic bias might exist on WP regarding academic areas some think not notable that happen to persued by whatever minority community among WP's overall population of contributors (I dunno, family studies? romance novelists? religion studies?). Yet, IMO, should contributors make an extra effort to stringently follow WP's guidelines in every case, any such biases may become quite effectively countered.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage all Wikipedians to chime in, as clearly I have a bias in nominating an article about a white male academic for deletion. I've only written one article about a person of color, and four articles about women (1, 2, 3, and 4) among the pile of work I edited about academics, many of whom were also white and male. As a white male in academia, you need to correct my errors, whatever the hell those are. Also, if anyone can advise if this issue should be taken to WP:AN I would appreciate your input. There's some sort of discrimination or harassment or canvassing here but I can't make heads or tails of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

He's saying we don't cover Mormon historians enough. It's not a personal attack against you specifically. --GRuban (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sociologically, it's understandable some amount of systemic bias might exist on WP regarding academic areas." You have missed the point. The question is, does Benjamin Park pass WP:NBIO? I do not think he does.

I am working on an article about an RC priest who was murdered by a Nazi. He is notable for at least two reasons: highest national award for valour, and a candidate for sainthood. As an atheist who admires the man, I spit on your idea of systemic bias. Narky Blert (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)