Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 18

Is Wikipedia biased against English as a second language Wikipedians?

On 23 October, an unregistered editor posted this on Talk:Main Page:

a not official chemistry holyday more important then main festival of major religion? as hindu i think wikipedia is bias.

Despite the English errors, I believe most would understand the question. Why did On this day feature Mole Day but not Diwali, the most significant festival in Hinduism?

Materialscientist reverted the post, warned the unregistered editor with {{uw-english}} and did nothing about the actual issue (not featuring Diwali).

Note the choice of warning. Does the message text look like Hindi, Tamil, Punjabi, Spanish, French or any language that is not English?

Some editors who are native speakers of English have certain prejudices against editors who use English as a second language.

For example, I was recently told that "if you can't speak English well then this project is probably not for you".

English has many more second language speakers (500 million to 1.5 billion) than native speakers (300 million to 400 million).

Furthermore, most second language speakers live in regions that are poorly covered on the English Wikipedia (the systemic bias that we are trying to counter).

There are many additional challenges that such editors face, but can we start by acknowledging and dealing with prejudice against such editors?

--Hildanknight (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, perfect example. Wikipedia policy has nothing to offer in this case. You can remind the editor to not bite the newcomer, but they will point to some policy that the newcomer broke, like they're supposed to know about it. And the issue never gets addressed. Editors slant toward their own interests, so unless someone pushes their POV to include a holiday, it's never going to happen. This is why individual voices are so important. First you need internet access to participate. This automatically excludes most people on the planet. USchick (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: For the specific issue, the community could make a list of the most significant holidays in each major religion. Is that so difficult? For the general issue, how can we influence the attitudes of the Wikipedia community towards ESL editors? --Hildanknight (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holidays and Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays may be of interest.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: One way to do that is for ESL speakers to throw WP guidelines at native English speakers when the latter complain about the formers' English abilities. If ESL speakers do that long enough, gradually the native speakers will realize that making condescending comments like "if you can't speak English well then this project is probably not for you" is not acceptable. It violates one of the Five Pillars – "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" – being a clear case of incivility ("disrespectful comments"). – Herzen (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Good suggestion. Note that pages that explain policies, guidelines and processes are often written for the native speaker. They may have unnecessary figurative language, cultural references and complex sentence structures. An ESL editor can understand that editors must be civil and cite reliable sources, but may not understand certain details of what is not civil or what makes certain sources not reliable.

By the way, the "if you cannot speak English well then this project is probably not for you" comment was a reply when I pointed out that a footnote in the GA criteria is confusing to ESL editors: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."

--Hildanknight (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I edit the Spanish, French, and Chinese Wikipedias and those experiences gave me insight into this matter. I am not perfect at those languages and there are times when I make mistakes. Many editors in those Wikis understand that they need to include everybody, not only the native speakers or those fully fluent. Therefore on the English Wikipedia we need to welcome those who may lack English fluency. @Materialscientist: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been immensely grateful at times for help from native speakers of other languages. The fact that their English isn't flawless is greatly outweighed by their own facility with a whole new set of sources that English speakers can't readily access. Add this to the extra effort required to fix wikipedia pages where you're not fluent, I think ESL editors need all the help and encouragement we can give them. We need to see past bad English, and look at the intrinsic worth of an edit. If the edit was worth doing, then it is worth fixing the English, and thanking the editor. I thought this was just common sense and good manners. Maybe it ought to be policy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: If you need help with Mandarin Chinese (my mother tongue) or want to practise the language, feel free to contact me. @Fiddlersmouth: Thanks for appreciating the unique contributions of ESL editors to the English Wikipedia. How can we influence attitudes towards ESL editors? @Tryptofish: Any ideas?

Sometimes new articles with useful information about notable topics, but obviously written by ESL editors, are tagged for deletion as nonsense. I discovered lots of close paraphrasing in a series of articles about Singaporean architecture and I believe the fellow Chinese Singaporean who wrote them a few years ago, had problems writing the info in his own English sentences.

--Hildanknight (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hildan: Thank you for the offer! I'll keep it in mind. I may start a stub or two on the Chinese Wikipedia this weekend :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Looking forward to reading the stub (or two)! Any ideas on how to influence attitudes towards ESL editors? --Hildanknight (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a "friendly reminder" template reminding users that ESL contributors have the same rights as native speakers? (even if no policies were breached) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, I tried to come up with an idea. In my experience, the way to get something into wide awareness on-Wiki is to have a simple blue-linked shortcut that editors frequently link to (examples: WP:NPA, WP:IDHT). (Think of it like an advertising slogan.) So maybe we can formalize Herzen's idea of quoting policy back to the violator. What might work would be a sentence at WP:CIVIL about editors who act in good faith but have limited English, accompanied by a memorable WP: shortcut. It might take a while for it to get widely used, particularly because its primary clients would be ESL editors, but if other editors would be alert to it and willing to step in with a link, it will start to have an effect. I don't have time to create this myself, but perhaps other editors here will. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for the excellent suggestion! Perhaps WP:BITE would be a better page to add the statement than WP:CIVIL, but most importantly, we need to brainstorm the content of the sentence to add and the new shortcut to use. What do you think of WP:BITESL? --Hildanknight (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Further input from @Carolmooredc: @Guy Macon:, @Jytdog: @USchick: and others would be most welcome. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are three separate issues here:

1. Suggestions by contributors with poor English skills
2. Article edits by contributors with poor English skills
3. Misuse of templates.

As for suggestions by contributors with poor English skills, we need to welcome them, and

"mole day but no deepavali? a not official chemistry holyday more important then main festival of major religion? as hindu i think wikipedia is bias"

is a perfectly fine suggestion -- and he makes a good point. Materialscientist should not have reverted the comment.

As for article edits by contributors with poor English skills, we should encourage them to instead make suggestions on talk pages, and we should clean up -- not delete -- any edits that consist of good content with English errors. I think a couple of templates would be a great help here.

As for misuse of templates, Template:uw-english should not be applied poor English. It should be reserved for comments made in another language, and I personally wouldn't use it on a first offense.

Materialscientist, do you agree with my assessment? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: This thread was inspired by a biting incident that started from a "suggestion", but my main concern is actual contributions from ESL editors. We really need much better coverage of African politics, Chinese architecture and women in Islam. The Wikipedians who are most qualified to write on these topics (and have access to the best sources) are probably not native speakers of English. Of course, there are ESL editors who focus on other areas (such as taking free photos or clearing admin backlogs) where English proficiency is not as important, but they face other challenges. I just came up with the idea that the Guild of Copyeditors could gather a team of copyeditors who are keen to work with ESL article writers on CSB efforts. @WhisperToMe: @Tryptofish: What do you think? --Hildanknight (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea. I would like to see a template that tells the ESL editor where to get help. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I, too, like both the idea of an informative template, and the idea of getting help from copyeditors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember that any such template has to be intelligible to someone whose first language is not English, and could be of any of hundreds of different linguistic backgrounds. I'm not volunteering to create the text. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We could make an English version with small words and simple sentences, a bunch of other versions using machine translation (clearly labeled as such) and then call for volunteers to check and correct the translations. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There could be auto-translation for some languages but they can be replaced by manual efforts as time passes. The other five UN languages plus Portuguese, Japanese, Italian, Korean, and German should be the first priorities, IMHO. Hindi, Urdu, and Indonesian also have lots of speakers. Vietnamese is a common second language in the USA (for instance many ethnic Vietnamese are in my hometown, Houston).

There may also be special efforts for Indian/Pakistani/South Asian languages and for Sub-Saharan African languages (countries where English is the official/primary language of education but nonetheless is a second language).

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Main Page" has a link to "Wikipedia:Local Embassy" (WP:LOCEMB), which lists 79 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavelength (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wavelength: ESL editors may confuse that with a real embassy.

--Hildanknight (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hildanknight, the banner says "Please understand that this is not an actual embassy ..."

—Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @Tryptofish: @HiLo48: @WhisperToMe: Our ideas need input from the wider Wikipedia community. I have posted my "team of copyeditors keen to work with ESL editors" suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors‎. Where should we propose the template telling ESL editors where to get help and the shortcut to a new policy sentence about ESL editors?

Per my reply to @Robert McClenon: below, the template could also point the editor to the Simple English Wikipedia and the Wikipedia in their native language. Other language Wikipedias need contributors even more than the English Wikipedia and there should be greater collaboration between the different language Wikipedias. Note that even with a team of copyeditors keen to work with ESL editors, working with ESL editors and treating them with civility remains the responsibility of the entire English Wikipedia community.

--Hildanknight (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

See my disagreement below as to the Simple English Wikipedia. Editors who have limited English should not be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia to edit. It is fine to direct them there to read, but not to edit. Poor-quality English is even more disruptive for readers whose English is limited than it is for native English readers. Direct those editors to their native languages, not to Simple English. I agree as to native languages, but strongly disagree as to Simple English. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Where to discuss creation of the template: I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Where to discuss a policy sentence and shortcut: I'd suggest WT:BITE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for pointing me to these pages. I have posted the policy sentence and shortcut at WT:BITE. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of the uw-english template on edits in poor English should be responded to by a template, maybe for incivility. Any editor who has been in Wikipedia long enough to know about templates has been around long enough to know that poor English and a language other than English are not the same thing, not by an order of magnitude. There should be a gently worded template having to do with grammar and spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Reminding ESL editors of their poor grammar and spelling would just discourage them and fail to help them improve their English. The template should offer links to useful resources, such as the Guild of Copyeditors, the Language Reference Desk or even other websites for ESL people. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreement with Conclusion, and Comments

I agree with the conclusion that editors whose English proficiency is intermediate should work with copy-editors. That is an excellent idea. The underlying issue to be addressed is not systemic bias against ESL editors, but systemic bias in lack of coverage of certain areas (e.g., African politics, Chinese architecture, women in Islam) that are not primary areas for native Anglophone editors. I have a few comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

First, there is a certain apparent tension between the guidelines of Do not bite the newcomers and Competence is required. Some native Anglophone editors are too quick to jump at editors whose English is limited, but some editors whose English is limited do not get the hint that there are issues with their English. There may be a Dunning-Kruger effect in that editors who know very little English will not realize that they know very little English. Some editors who try to edit the English Wikipedia know so little English that they can't even work with copy-editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Second, while the guideline of not biting the newcomers is a valid guideline, it is sometimes cited when it should not be cited. In particular, if it is cited by the editor who was bitten, it probably does not apply. If you have been editing long enough to be able to cite the guideline against biting the newcomers, you are not a newcomer. If an editor who has been around long enough to know WP:BITE is bitten, the issue is not biting, but incivility, which is still not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Third, the editors whom we should be encouraging to contribute to topic areas that need more coverage should be, in general, at English proficiency level 3, or a high 2. They can work with copy-editors. Editors who are at English proficiency level 4 generally don't need copy-editing. Editors who are at proficiency level 1 are not needed, because it is often too difficult for the copy-editor to figure out what they mean. The fact that they think that they can contribute illustrates the Dunning-Kruger effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fourth, the conclusion that editors of intermediate English proficiency should be encouraged to work with copy-editors is an excellent idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To clarify, I use "ESL editors" to refer to what you call "editors with intermediate English". The "systemic bias against ESL editors" is a key reason for the "lack of coverage in certain areas". Their difficulties are more than just English errors in their article contributions and prejudice from other editors. Pages explaining our policies, guidelines and processes are usually written for the native speaker. Miscommunication is another common problem.

I agree that "editors who know very little English" are usually not capable of making useful article contributions. They should be directed to the Wikipedia in their native language or the Simple English Wikipedia (which they may not be aware of). This can be done without biting, through a template in both simple English and their native language.

--Hildanknight (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a language learning exchange

Hi, I just came to this conversation from Hildanknight's post at the Guild of Copy Editors' talk page. I have been thinking a lot about this, both because I am involved in that group, and because I am currently getting a Master's degree in teaching ESL. Although it would not solve all of the problems, I feel that it would be helpful to have a space on Wikipedia that would function as a language exchange. In short, it would be a space where people who are learning each other's first language could exchange their writing to be copy edited. I created a mock up of what such a space would look like here, and a draft of a guide here. This would create a formal space for what just happened above between WhisperToMe and Hildanknight! What do people think? If there is enough interest, I would be willing to put it forward as a proposal for a new Wikiproject. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tdslk: This is an excellent idea and I would be keen to help anyone learning Mandarin Chinese. There needs to be more collaboration between the different language Wikipedias and language exchange would facilitate that. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hildanknight:. I went ahead and proposed the language exchange project I described above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cross-Language Editing Exchange. If anyone thinks this is something worth creating, I would greatly appreciate it if you would add your name to the "support" list (and if you oppose it, feel free to explain why in the discussion section). Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tdslk: I have one question about the language learning exchange. A native speaker of English who is learning Chinese would write a draft in Chinese. The English Wikipedia only accepts articles written in English. Does that mean the draft would be posted to the Chinese Wikipedia? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. (And drafts should always be written in the sandbox at the appropriate language wiki, to make sure that language-specific mark-up, links, etc. hold up.) Tdslk (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Simple English

Editors who know very little English should not be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. Readers of the Simple English Wikipedia have just as much need for it to be in proper English as do readers of the English Wikipedia, and they also have a need for it to be in a smaller vocabulary. Depending on their level of English, they can work with a copy-editor and they can be directed to their native language. They should not be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia as contributors. It has fewer copy-editors to clean it up, and their contributions, until cleaned up, will be at least as confusing as here. The Simple English Wikipedia is meant to be read by readers who have limited English. It should not be edited by editors who have limited English. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Simple English Wikipedia should be written in Standard Written English with a limited vocabulary, as opposed to this encyclopedia in Standard Written English with a large vocabulary. Editors who have reasonable skill in writing proper written English can edit here; they don't need to know tens of thousands of words. Editors who don't know the grammar of English are a problem either here or in Simple English. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. I have had ESL students write for the Simple English wiki as a class project, but it only got posted after I had checked the writing. "Easier to read" is not the same as "easier to write". Tdslk (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There is no requirement to use a large vocabulary in the English Wikipedia. The requirement to use Standard Written English should apply to both the English Wikipedia and the Simple English Wikipedia. Readers who have a limited English vocabulary, because they are not native speakers-writers, are likely to be even more confused than native Anglophones, who have spent 20 to 75 years dealing with English of various qualities. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I understand and respect your explanation why editors who know very little English should not edit the Simple English Wikipedia. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Resources for ESL editors

@Fiddlersmouth: @Guy Macon: @Herzen: @HiLo48: @Robert McClenon: @Tdslk: @Tryptofish: @USchick: @Wavelength: @WhisperToMe: Which English Wikipedia pages, processes and resources would be especially useful to ESL editors (whether newcomers or regular contributors)? Currently, I can only think of the Guild of Copyeditors and the language reference desk, but there may be more. With a list of such resources, we can identify gaps in our resources and develop new resources to fill these gaps. In addition, the proposed message template for ESL editors would include links to these resources. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's my proposed project, of course. As for the GOCE, its requests page has a pretty steady 1–2 month backlog. It's in a weird limbo where not that many editors know about it, which is the only thing keeping the wait short enough for it to be of some practical use. Prominently advertising it to ESL editors could lead to the wait time getting out of control. Other resources might include Wikipedia:Local Embassy and Wikipedia:Intertranswiki, both of which seem fairly dormant, and Wikipedia:Translators available. Tdslk (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the problem is not so much resources as attitudes. Deleting bad English is lazy editing, and in certain instances close to vandalism. Editors should be encouraged to see past the grammar glitches and look at the informational content and quality of references. If this works out, fix the English - it's not hard. Otherwise revert and explain, on the editor's talk page, the reason for the reversion. This is where linking to resources become useful. Now I've seen it, I would favour Wikipedia:Local Embassy, but I really like the French page Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones. Might it be worth setting up a version of the teahouse for non-English speakers? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I partly agree and partly disagree about deleting bad English. Occasionally edits are clearly meant to be in English, but are so bad that it is difficult to figure out what is trying to be said. Those edits have to be deleted with an explanation on the talk page. I agree that deleting such an edit without an explanation is lazy and is close to vandalism, but occasionally an edit is really so bad that it is hard to correct. Those editors should simply be advised to go to their native language Wikipedias. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar.—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Very often ESL editors arrive at an article in English language WP as a result of a recent event. They encounter a situation where their version of the story is not being represented, because their country's sources are considered unreliable because the media is state owned. They try to add their edits, simply to be pushed out of the way by bullies who want them off the article. No explanation is given. No effort is made to accommodate them. A battleground attitude is established, an edit war ensues, they end up in ANI with the ESL person not understanding what happened. Problem solved. Systemic bias takes root against any opposing view that happens to be different from the "official" view in English language sources. Any further attempt is labeled as "no consensus" and "already discussed." USchick (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a wonderful description of a sadly all too common happening. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing it. Now that we have documented awareness, maybe one day someone will come along and propose a way forward. I'm personally blinded by the madness, so I can't see a way out at the moment. USchick (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a test case to work on

This article was created in good faith ten hours ago by someone who clearly fits the description of an ESL editor. What has he experienced so far? An attempt to delete his article, which included a template driven message on his Talk page, and the slapping of multiple nasty tags on his article. Nothing else. No welcome message (until I stuck one there five minutes ago). Over to you guys. Help this new user. And his article. HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a high school in Begusarai, India, with nothing to make it notable. If it was a village, maybe it would have a chance of surviving as an article. I'll tell him on his talk page. USchick (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There are hundreds, possibly thousands of articles about non-notable high schools on Wikipedia. (And whether that's a real problem is debatable.) That's not the main issue here. The issue is the treatment of this editor. And to delete his article without doing something about all the others is not going to help him understand how things work here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the treatment of the editor. And it doesn't matter if this person is ESL or not. USchick (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is probably a lost cause. I found I couldn't easily ref the school because the local authority website was hopeless, and my Hindi is poor. The treatment of the editor doesn't quite violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, but the lack of care speaks volumes. In contrast, I consulted Hindi wikipedia two years ago, and I suddenly had this talk page. The contrast in treatment of newbies couldn't be more stark. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it may have something to do with the number of countries invaded by India compared to the "Alied forces?" lol USchick (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the old states spread their fair share of bedlam - they've had 2000 years longer than these upstart western loonies to spread chaos. On a serious note, I've done a rough cleanup and removed two nasty tags. Refs, I suspect, are an intractible problem, but the results of two minutes work ought to illustrate something Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So, is someone going to be brave and admit that it is non-notable, lacks sources (the only thing Google had to offer), has no real content, and we can't even find out if it really exists or not unless we actually speak a language other than English as our first language?

I suppose we could just leave it there along with the hundreds of other ones that are the same ... if so, can I now have a page for my non-notable primary school and it be left there so as not to offend me as I speak English as my first language and obviously I cannot be discriminated against??

And before anyone takes offence, that is a joke on how bad it could get if we choose to just leave it as a hot potato. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: The article is about a high school, not a primary school. In the West, high schools are presumed notable, so why should we not extend that presumption to high schools in India? To me, the real issue is how we treat the new ESL editor, not whether we keep the article he created. If we could help him understand how Wikipedia works, he may write articles about towns and universities in Bihar, India.

Another example from several years ago that I can remember would be the speedy deletion nomination of Water conflicts between Malaysia and Singapore, a topic where many academic sources are available! Another article by the same new editor, Chan Brothers (a multinational travel agency), was speedy deleted as blatant advertising. On his talk page, he replied to a warning template, but nobody read his reply.

--Hildanknight (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the first problem, we don't have high school in most of the country. At what age does someone go to high school in your country - Is it the same as theirs? Our primary schools kick you out at 11/12.

Secondly, as it seems impossible to find anything that supports it's existence, "naming a page high school does not make it so" (or something like that); indeed, as it has no supporting evidence anywhere (or at least that I could find) surely the onus is on the editor who adds to prove it. Existence has to stump "auto notability".

This is not about notability, it is about whether or not anyone looking at the created page can find that supporting evidence. If none can be found, normal procedure has to be enforced. If this page had not been accepted, and I had found it in the article creation for review list, I would have searched and found no evidence of existence, no refs, no mention of it anywhere in English, and with little to go on, I would probably have speedied it myself. That is unfortunate for the editor, and unfortunate for Wiki, but the five pillars must be adhered to. New article creation is, and those who help with it are, in need of help. Having a debate like this and keeping a page like that is not really an ideal scenario. Here, someone should have looked at it, asked the editor for supporting evidence, assisted with translating anything that could have been used - how is another matter, the only way would be to risk outing to get scans etc. as they cannot be uploaded to our servers (due to copyright/lack of permissions). If the editor does not respond within a good time, then copying it to their user space and a nom for deletion would be my route.

What happened to the welcoming committee? Where are the new user support groups? What the heck has this got to do with systemic bias, other than "we are biased against articles that do not meet our guidelines"?

The del nom was justified IMHO, so I guess that the first article example was perhaps not right for the intent you wished? :::Having said that, can now nom for del/user-space it (as it should never have been allowed through without proof of existence (alternatively, can someone give me a good reason why it should be allowed to exist, and my article "John Walton High School" can be added (It does not exist, but I can create a Facebook page to match the "High School Mortar" page which is the only thing that appears to support it's existence)?

According to the "Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited" [1], they name a school in Bihar as "Dr. Lohia High School, Mortar, Begusarai" - so, are there more than one? Is this "High School Mortar"'s correct name? Who knows? And I, for one, cannot reliably determine any of that. If that IS it's real name, and the creator of the article knows the school, why do they not know it's correct name? We can;t move it (as we don't know if that is it;s real name), and we cannot verify it, so if it is not it's real name ... Chaosdruid (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Obviously I would not create a page like that!

@Chaosdruid: Please note that the speedy deletion request was removed by an admin quite independent from this discussion, which is about treatment of the editor. As you correctly point out, the inability to reference the subject (even in Hindi - at least on the internet) trumps anything else. The correct course of action would then be to submit another request for deletion on these grounds rather than on notability, which was the original tag from the page curator. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Spin off the GGTF into a new WikiProject?

Gender gap task force (GGTF) talk page discussion. Better late than never, alerting main project in case anyone cares one way or the other. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote against - we already have wprojects for women writers, women scientist, women's history etc. Bias is an important aim. I would like to support anti-bias per se. There is soft support everywhere on the wiki and harder support here. Splitting it will I think just leave each female active editor with their own wikiproject. No woman is an island :-) Victuallers (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm annoyed I didn't post this sooner. Anyway, they've closed the thread, which had a consensus to change it, but I guess you can repost on the bottom there if you feel strongly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have a discussion about whether to have a project at that project then is that not some systemic bias? That's obviously a valid option but posting here afterwards for views appears much to late and long after the systemic bias that we are trying to avoid. I suspect your new project will do well, but at the expense of other sources of systemic bias. So good luck, I guess this will be abother project I will sign up to but will it change our behavior or just add a new flag to carry? Victuallers (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the topic was closed as premature after all the brouhaha over the GGTF arbitration (read it and weep). So they'll probably open up the question again in a week or two, if anyone's interested. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping this thread going Carol. If you get time then tell us when there is something to comment on. I missed the brouhaha, but I'm not sure I know which outfit to wear to these events anyway :-) Victuallers (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Pakistani wars

• List of wars involving Pakistan‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm only adding this here since it was added to WT:INDIA so as to give the stub list atleast some chance of being neutral in face of the possibility that only WT India was informed for canvassing of shared POV. Lists are supposed to be a reflection of what the actual linked articles say. And an editor who couldn't get consensus at Kargil war main article to change the infobox to his favoured version is now edit warring at this obscure list to unilaterally add it. I'll like to have some neutral eyes on it. Another editor has now blatantly changed two war summaries to 'defeat' while the articles state something completely different and without getting a consensus there in one case while specifically failing to get their preferred consensus there at the other. This is synonymous to deliberate introduction to systematic bias by calling help from a more active wikiproject knowing that editors there will share the POV due to probable nationality. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for countering systematic bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to add a short subsection or atleast a bullet point forbidding editors to request help at country Wikiprojects (doesn't count for generic wikiprojects) for the purpose of content disputes (and more specifically inter-country / international disputes). This is synonymous to introducing deliberate systematic bias by inviting editors from a wikiproject with a very high probability of shared nationality and ofcourse as it is done at the posting editor's choice, it's almost always when they need an opinion where most from that nationality will share their POV. In my opinion and experience, this is never 'countered' by informing at the counter part wiki projects which are not as active or have a few editors or not as active WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It only takes only a few editors from the informed Wikiproject to come and tilt the balance of discussion due to POV and bias even if a majority of the editors know better so AGF for the majority Wikiproject members is moot. Same is the case with the less active counter part that may have editors who know better and do not get canvassed to the discussion and hence the few of the few is much less than few from the many (if that makes some sense). It shouldn't count as canvassing when an obscure article needs editing without a content dispute, it should be only considered during a content dispute or to game the system by doing the same later etc. I will also note that this act is not always intentional by the editors but has almost always the same result and informing them of WP:CANVASSING that specifically clarifies this will counter systematic bias. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom as I have seen this happen alot and I have felt that I can not (always) clearly suggest WP:CANVASSING to them though it does already apply in blatant conditions. This type of posting is unhealthy in such situations even if it is clearly not canvassing and promotes WP:BATTLE. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

• Oppose This idea seems to be oriented at limiting input, confining it to people who are NOT necessarily informed about a subject. It is equivalent to politicians who try to choose their electorate. That is the consistent problem with most AfDs, its always a very small group of very opinionated editors who may be or most likely are not experts in the subject under discussion. If it is possible to invite people potentially knowledgeable about a subject into a debate, thats a good thing. Yes that may sway the decision away from the trend. Remember, wikipedia is here to inform people. We are here to present accurate information. So the more informed voices we bring into the conversation, the more voices we bring into the conversation in general, the more likely we are to come to a proper consensus. Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems overly draconian to me. While some bias may exist in country WikiProjects, a lot of useful knowledge also exists there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I totally agree with Trackinfo; this is a perfect illustration of why this policy is one of the biggest hurdles dragging this project down (together with COI). NPOV already states that nobody is neutral. Sure, people related to a given country may be a bit more partisan - but also more knowledgeable. We need as much input as possible; the correct solution would be to make such canvassing mandatory for all and any parties; word should be spread wide - the more people who participate, the fewer partisants there will be, and the more reasonable ones will join. On another note: why single out countries? Why not forbid to canvass on religion-wikiprojects for religion article disputes? Etc., etc. A bad, bad idea that needs to be shot down now, buried and salted. PS. A question to the nominator: since you are proposing a rule that would affect a large group of WikiProjects, did you leave a note about your proposal at their pages? Or are you trying to, in essence, pass a law about a group without telling said group they are even being discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind this for religion projects either.. it would probably apply in a similar way... I only dealt with country disputes so probably that's why I used that example. While I recognize that more input is useful, I have seen the noticeboards being used as canvassing tactics to overwhelm the less represented projects or areas. Wikipedia is already trying hard to counter the systematic bias that comes in inherently due to no internet access to a majority of the world population and whose POV is often not balanced in. The ones that do give input from those regions should not be reverted out by multiple editors once a more active wikiproject is informed. While it is true that consensus counts the weight of arguments and not just the numbers, reverts don't and this unhealthy process refers to editors joining in to revert and then leaving one line arguments without further discussion. I don't think it is draconian as the suggestion is only limited to disputes and not for general improvement of articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, since I missed to answer the last part of your question, I've transcluded this discussion right from the point I proposed it to the much wider audience of WP:VPR, so please assume good faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposal assumes bad faith, which is a terrible basis from which to operate. Resolute 16:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It actually assumes good faith on the majority of the project memebers. However, WP:SPADE applies; what's been happening (or has the chances to happen) should be considered logically. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that you propose to deny that good faith majority the opportunity to comment because of a few bad actors. Resolute 16:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't want that and I am open to suggestions that would be able to achieve this without preventing the good faith editors... perhaps general guideline for them to not participate in reverts or something like that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose although I am not necessarily opposed to the idea in general. I guess the problems I see are that it is in at least some of these cases the people who are involved in national projects, or projects related to specific religions, who will be among the most knowledgeable about a topic. While those groups can and often do include some of the most partisan POV pushers, they also include some of the best informed editors, and I don't see it as beneficial to make efforts which might exclude the latter for the purposes of trying to keep the former from having too much input, much of which can often be seen by the closing admin as problematic anyway. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out all discussions are not closed by an admin.. the proposal is hoping to target disputes between 2-3 editors that don't go as far as an RFC, rather simple talkpage discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking more about formal RfCs than about discussions per se. I would suppose though that in the event that the non-RfC discussion does seem to be perhaps too one-sided, calling for RfCs would still be in both instances the apparent reasonable next step in such instances. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case more than often.. which is why I called unhealthy to do so in the first place. I do agree that it also excludes editors with more knowledge on the topic and assuming good faith most of them will not react in a nationalistic way (or may not respond at all which is even more the reason for this to go forward), but the few who do risk to introduce animosity between the original editors disputing by fueling it... perhaps some other way could be proposed by another editor to do this without preventing that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: If there is a dispute involving groups X and Y, and both of them have related wikiprojects, then the appropiate way to request more input is to notify Wikiproject X and Wikiproject Y. That's already said in the policy Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with others here that this proposal would only serve to limit input and that existing policy already addresses this issue. I also echo User:Piotrus' concern that this proposal appears to be an attempt to implement policy changes that affect a large number of editors and WikiProjects without their input. Mihaister (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's time to WP:SNOW close this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much.. You've beat me to saying that. I've removed the RFC template... but not closed as withdrawn because some one might just come along and drop an out of the box suggestion that doesn't involve implementing this proposal per se or any stopping at project noticeboards and yet helps in some way. Some one may NAC it if they feel that's not likely too. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• This topic just caught my eye, and I'm here to do just that: point something out without saying we should implement the proposal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#The Troubles at Christian terrorism, which I think is exactly an example of what you have been discussing here. I think it's an example of where one has to careful about subtle canvassing, but it does not rise to where we should WP:CREEP. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see why this proposal can't be implemented (and as I said, I wouldn't continue to ask for it with even an apparent consensus against it), but it is often a disappointing thing to see happening in content disputes and it is not a fair deal. I think for now this will have to be independently judged towards tendentious editing and current canvassing guidelines and if an editor has a pattern of gaming this way, it can still be dealt with. The proposal was to stop the ones who just do it some times so as not to surpass the community tolerance, though there's a lot of collateral there and wont be a feasible option as you and a lot of editors above said. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: this is a transcluded copy, please respond at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing to comment; it will reflect here. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom reform

I think there is a vast difference in a woman's perspective and a man's perspective when looking at the exact same thing or situation. It is not to criticize any particular male / female / arb or anyone. What I am saying is that it is unreasonable to expect males to be able to see what a female would see in a particular situation, and it is perfectly normal for a male to completely fail to see what a female sees, and to be completely insensitive to what a female would see as a serious issue. The opposite is also equally true. There is a fundamental disconnect between a male perspective, and a female perspective, and it is unreasonable to burden anyone with the task of seeing things from the other perspective. It is impossible to do. As such, I think that there should be more female members in the arbcom, or there should be a separate board for dealing with issues in which gender is an issue. This should be brought to the WMF's notice and they should be petitioned to take appropriate steps.

Does this make sense to anyone ? I am not going to argue about this and this is just an idea for others to take further if they see some value in it. Otherwise, I am going to leave it as an idea whose time has not yet come. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that you won't get consensus for doing this in a formal way, because it all depends upon who the candidates are, who step forward to run for ArbCom. In other words, if no female candidates run, one cannot make them run. I see a lot of it as a recruitment issue, instead, for RfA as well as for ArbCom. Myself, I write a "voters guide" for ArbCom elections, and I make a conscious effort to support female candidates, as well as to name potential female candidates whom I would like to run in the future, in a section at the bottom of my guide. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with that approach; we won't beat systemic bias by thinking that men and women are fundamentally different, and that they see the world (and on-wiki issues) in fundamentally different ways, and then building a system around that. This would embed sexism in the system. In reality, men and women are all just people, and it shouldn't matter what hormones or appendages they've got - they should just follow our encyclopædic principles. Both are equally capable of doing so. I neither know nor care about the gender of editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Input sought for deletion discussion

Any thoughts on this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands Up United? Hmlarson (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the systemic bias problem there? bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hands up, don't shoot is a concept and not proposed for deletion. Individual organizations like Hands Up United need to establish notability first, otherwise they can be seen as spam. USchick (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

L.A. edit-a-thon this Sunday, December 14

Thought this might be of interest to some of you... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

L.A. meetup: December 14 edit-a-thon at the California African American Museum

Dear fellow Wikipedian, East of Borneo's "Unforgetting L.A." edit-a-thon series continues this weekend at the California African American Museum! Please join us this Sunday, December 14 from 11am to 4pm. Beginners welcome! You'll learn to create new articles that improve Wikipedia's coverage of African American art in Los Angeles, past and present. Please click here for full event details and to RSVP if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bias preferring USA based LCCN over ISNI

For template:Authority control I proposed to have ISNI listed before VIAF. Another change I implemented directly, moving ISNI before USA centered LCCN. Due to page protection I could no change every instance and started Template talk:Authority control#USA bias.

With respect to person data, LCCN is just a subsystem that via VIAF contributes to the ISNI data, see http://www.isni.org/content/data-contributors or International Standard Name Identifier#Data contributors.

How can that bias be removed? John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a technical issue. I don't know that you'll get a lot of responses, since to most people the concept of ISNI, VIAF, and LCCN is a lot of alphabet soup. Will try, though. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:GRuban - thanks a lot! John B. Sullivan (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not shown evidence that there is a bias. This is being discussed at Template talk:Authority control#USA bias. Until that discussion comes to a conclusion, posting here as if you have proven that bias exists is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, WP:FORUMSHOPPING for a topic related to cultural bias on a page WT:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Did you, Guy Macon, misunderstand something at the page you linked to and that is found in " Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." John B. Sullivan (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You sure do bring up the same issue in a lot of different places...

New section at Template talk:Authority control: "ISNI first"[2]

Another new section at Template talk:Authority control: "Valus in Wikidata are false"[3]

Yet another new section at Template talk:Authority control: "Integration with VIAF"[4]

And yet another new section at Template talk:Authority control: "USA bias"[5]

Aaaaand one last new section at Template talk:Authority control: "VIAF linking to English Wikipedia"[6]

New section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: "Tango link changes need reverting"[7]

Another new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: "User:Binksternet violating WP:BRD"[8]

New section at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab): "Reducing USA cultural bias"[9]

New section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: "Bias preferring USA based LCCN over ISNI"[10]

Looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me. And you still haven't shown evidence that there is a bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked per checkuser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Project Talk page template

Hi folks, at the Gender Gap Task Force talk page, there iswas a discussion about a template for the project. Since that group is a Task Force versus its own Project, any template would need to be a derivative or version of a master template for this Project. It's been suggested that the Template:WikiProject Christianity would be an appropriate example to follow.

Additional input would be appreciated. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Improving coverage of areas impacted by Boko Haram violence

Although the information available on Northeastern Nigeria, and on the refugees in neighboring countries fleeing violence by Boko Haram is somewhat limited, there is still much that could be done to improve the Wikipedia articles about this geographical area. It's rather distressing to see that despite all the tweets about "Bring Back Our Girls", neither Wikipedia nor major news outlets have made it a priority to assemble the basic encyclopedic information about this part of the world. --Djembayz (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This topic appears to be well covered in the following Wikipedia articles:

• Nigeria#Strife and sectarian violence
• Conflict in the Niger Delta
• Islamist insurgency in Nigeria
• Human rights in Nigeria#Women
• Women in Nigeria#Northern Nigeria
• Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria
• Boko Haram
• Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping

Some of the above need improvement, and I suspect that someone familiar with the topic could merge some of the above into fewer, better written articles, but I don't see any evidence that Wikipedia has not "made it a priority to assemble the basic encyclopedic information about this part of the world". Djembayz, I suggest that you read WP:SOFIXIT, then jump in and start improving those articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where one person can WP:SOFIXIT. Despite what you see at Gwoza, Refugees in Cameroon, or any number of other articles, WP:OWN is not my thing. There's a need for more eyes on this topic, not just mine. Info on current events impacting specific locations isn't always up to date; info on what tribal groups live in each place, what languages are spoken, what crops are grown, etc. is not there in most of the geographical stubs on Adamawa State, Borno State, Bauchi State, Yobe State; Gombe State locations need updating. --Djembayz (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Law firms in Uganda (Birungyi Barata)

I have recently tried to improve the categorization of Birungyi Barata, a law firm based in Uganda. When I re-visited my edit today I saw that this article has been nominated for deletion. I know little about the topic let alone the country, and since it is not well covered in Wikipedia, I hate to see the little we have removed from this encyclopedia. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the AfD, and a significant issue seems to be whether the page promotes a particular non-notable business. Perhaps a solution would be to create a page about law in Uganda, that would concentrate on the subject instead of on a single business. Looking at Category:Ugandan law, there seems to be room for such a page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: What about the other six articles in the category? Should they all be deleted and Law in Uganda will replace them? If so, who will create this new article? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that anything be deleted, just suggesting the addition of a new page. As for who would do it, maybe someone else watching here will get interested and do that, or you might consider posting at WT:WikiProject Africa. Otherwise: (1) not me, and (2) WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Article which might be worth reading

I posted this on the suggestion page of The Signpost:

Working Knowledge, the blog of the Harvard Business School, has an entry, Is Wikipedia More Biased Than Encyclopædia Britannica?. It's a summary of a working paper originally published Oct. 10, 2014, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia. The technique used was to search for key phrases associated with right- or left-leaning convictions. Based on an analysis of that search, they find Wikipedia leans somewhat toward the left. They then qualify that conclusion in two ways: 1) If they take in account that WP is much bigger than Britannica, then the bias is almost the same; and 2) the more edits an article has (they say it has to have at least 2,000), the more likely it will be balanced. (In the comments section I replied why I think the study is faulty.)

I've posted that here because it might be worth reading, allowing members to remember to focus on key phrases or code words which can indicate bias. kosboot (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC needs outside input

There is a current RfC related to countering systemic bias in the coverage and selection of articles on Wikipedia. It relates to questions about the inclusion of two books written and edited by women about autism from the perspective of narrative medicine. Please see Talk:Autism#RfC:_Further_reading. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Evaluative diversity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evaluative diversity 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/Evaluative diversity 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.

If it is not deleted, this article needs a wider set of editors, and editors interested in countering systemic bias may find this topic particularly interesting. Langchri (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Nicola Furlong

An IP continually adds the fact that the two people arrest are African-American, emphasizing their ethnicity for no other reason. Am I coorrect in removing the unbalanced approach? Sources say "Christian musician killed Nicola for refusing sexual advance, say police" and "American Teenager Likely to Remain Behind Bars", none use African-American and the addition seems to be purely racially motivated. Murry1975 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Go with the sources, definitely, use the sources to maintain NPOV. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 19:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

The article on Breastfeeding, and pretty much any associated articles are utterly rubbish. I really want to invite anyone to join in and work on these. They've been overlooked long enough, and I feel they could use a whole lot of love, seeing that it is a central subject that pretty much everyone has some relation to. Remember to consider WP:MEDRS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the problems with the article? --Hildanknight (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren article.

There are some issues on the Elizabeth Warren article, with non-Native sources being used instead of Native ones. Conveniently, the non-Native sources claim Native heritage is "difficult to prove"... No, it's not. The Cherokee have kept excellent records, and Warren's ancestors are not on them. The immediate sources I have on this, though, are blogs. I know mainstream, WP:RS news outlets interviewed Cherokee people about this, and I thought those sources used to be in the article. However, there has been a POV, biased push to minimize or disappear this issue. Could use some eyes and help on sourcing.[11] - CorbieV^☊ 20:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's far from clear that this is a systemic bias issue. Warren’s Republican opponent Scott Brown raised the question during his unsuccessful campaign; the preponderant weight of the reliable sources suggested that (a) Warren’s family regarded itself as having Native ancestors, and (b) like many American families, they may have been mistaken or may have been relying on sources that are no longer available.I’m skeptical this is the place to seek support for the old GOP talking point. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles I've seen on WP -- and, as my edit history makes clear, I'm a progressive who is sympathetic to Warren's politics. RS (the WaPo) demonstrates that 1) Warren never identified as Native American on forms until her mid-30s, when she identified as a "racial minority" on a law directory specifically aimed at recruiting minority professors. (For example, she identified as "white" and not Native American in law school and college applications.) 2) Warren stopped identifying as a minority/NA on the directories--and switched her identification to "white"--immediately after getting tenure at Harvard. 3) Warren has no documented Native ancestors; going back hundreds of years, all of her ancestors were classified as "white" by the Census. 4) while her brothers back her claim that her grandmother was Native American, many members of her extended family have publicly disputed it.

All of these facts are documented in a WaPo investigation. Yet they keep being removed. No explanations are provided for these removals. It is an example of systematic bias and needs to be dealt with. Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the perspective of Native American groups, including the Cherokee, is being given little to no weight in this matter. Steeletrap (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

how about the perspective of the Delaware? Or the Lenape? just as likely, but.... MarkBernstein (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Democrat vs Republican is not the issue. It's actually a racial issue. What happened is pro-Warren news outlets often refused to talk to Cherokee protestors, or misrepresented them as conservatives when most Natives who protested her are actually leftists. This resulted in some of the coverage being from conservative news outlets. It was, and continues to be, a very odd situation. It needs to be looked at without the biases of either mainstream political party, but rather in terms of the Native Americans' rights to determine who is and isn't a member of their Nations. Warren only started claiming Delaware or Lenape after the Cherokee showed the ancestors she claimed as Native were white. I think she already had the nomination sewed up at that point. - CorbieV^☊ 18:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

articles under the project's watch?

Hi folks,

Thanks to a WMF staff member for first alerting me to it, I return occasionally to the article expressions of dominance. Noticing that its talk page has not been created, it occurred to me that, unlike many other WikiProjects, this project does not have articles that it considers "of interest" (that is, we don't banner particular articles). What do you all think about that: Should we banner or not banner articles that are of interest? kosboot (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How to handle African American firsts biographies, and history of desegregation in universities ?

As a followup to Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, I am having my first discussion at Talk:Donald R. Brown regarding biographies about African American firsts in desegregating professional schools. Can some more experienced people weigh in on this? --Djembayz (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education needs a WikiProject

Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education needs a WikiProject to belong to. Is there such an animal on wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Turning STEM pipeline into a DYK

STEM pipeline would make a great DYK-- anyone interested in trying it? --Djembayz (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes at AfD

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes is at AfD. --Djembayz (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Share what you know on Let's Talk Diversity!

Hi all, my name is María, I am community liaison for Learning and Evaluation team at Wikimedia Foundation. A few days ago, we started a new campaign to gather community knowledge on bringing diversity on Wikimedia. We are encouraging everyone to share challenges, problems and solutions when working to make Wikimedia projects more diverse. And eventually, also write Learning Patterns that address those problem and solution matches. Right now, we don't have many Diversity Learning Patterns, as you can see here.
I came to know about your project from User:Sj. I read your WikiProject and think that your experience is key in this campaign. So, I wanted to personally encourage contributors to this WikiProject to share what they learned on Let's Tallk Diversity!
Go to Let's Talk Diversity Campaign now.
Looking forward to your contribs! Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Some users have called for a Sexual harassment policy as something which might address gender disparity. More generally speaking, it's difficult to convince people to work on a project that seems personally hostile to them. For just a quick example I turned to the page called Arab–Israeli conflict (a redirect from "Israeli-Arab conflict") and found this on the talk page. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, groupuscule. Do you want to share this on the campaign page, as a problem? Also, if you have any ideas on how to make the community less hostile, feel free to add those, as well! MCruz (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Feminism-focused Inspire Campaign proposal for distributed editing to counter systemic bias

Dear WikiProject Countering systemic bias:

I wish to invite you to review an Inspire Campaign proposal that addresses this very topic, countering systemic bias, and offer feedback if you wish:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Full_Circle_Gap_Protocol:_Addressing_the_%E2%80%98Unknown_Unknowns%E2%80%99

What's special about this proposal is it looks to (re)value sporadic editing and respectfully honor the expertise of subject matter experts, without asking them to be responsible for 'fixing' Wikipedia's problems. This is a novel approach that perhaps could gain traction with edit-a-thons and WikiProject initiatives because it comes from a feminist pedagogical perspective for analysis in order to generate re-usable lists to share/work on. It's brings an offline alternative to "pinging" edit suggestions back to project pages. I have gained much from the Wikipedia essay on systemic bias and the current projects by this WikiProject and would invite members to take a look at the proposal.

Best

Monika Shameran81 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Consciousness-Raising Repository - Call for Feedback and Participation

This is a call for those interested in countering systemic bias by developing a resource on Wikipedia for collecting and publicizing stories from people who experience marginalization in the Wikipedia community. This is part of the Ideal Lab's Inspire grants. The purpose of the Consciousness-Raising Repository is to serve as a database of knowledge about the forms marginalization can take and as an outlet for users experiencing marginalization. Right now, we're putting together a diverse group of Wikipedians to oversee the construction of the repository and recruitment and collection of stories.

If you're interested in participating, please go to the Get Involved section and endorse or add your name to the list of participants.

We're also looking for questions and feedback to help crystallize the proposal. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to message me or ask them on the discussion page --Radfordj (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African American men in computer science

African American men in computer science is at AfD; as is African American women in computer science.--Djembayz (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Native Issues. Sovereignty, citizenship vs distant heritage, etc.

Two things:

1. If you have a lot of time and some strong coffee, the RfC on how to handle the section on the Native American heritage controversy is still ongoing, though kind of at a standstill, over at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section. I don't envy anyone trying to get up to speed if the issue is new to you, but we could really use some eyes on it that are familiar with issues of Native sovereignty and the differences between speculations about distant heritage and being listed as a "minority" based on those speculations (vs. Tribal citizenship). One concern of the minority viewpoint is that the issue of sovereignty (the reason the Cherokee were protesting) be touched on in some way, while the majority viewpoint is favoring leaving that out.

2. Any interest in a WikiProject Countering systemic bias task force on ethnicity/race? - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't touch #1, but my impression is that this WikiProject covers issues of ethnicity/race. Why do you think a separate group is necessary? kosboot (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dixie_(song)

An editor is garnering support for advancing the article Dixie_(song) to GA. Since the article contains a lot of what would be of interest to this group (for example, different points of view of how to regard the song today in the section "Modern interpretations"), I thought it would be of interest to members of the project. - kosboot (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)