Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 11

message: Mr Wales will be interviewing Asha Haji Elmi tomorrow. Part of the interview's goals is to produce source material which may be cited for expanding the Wikipedia article about Ms Elmi. We need help developing questions whose answers can be useful for the article. The questions are being developed at Wikinews as the interview will be published (and permanently archived) there. - Amgine 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Asha Haji Elmi 

message: A lot of examples of comparative important uses the amount of deaths to say that it should receive more attention then a comparative article with a lot fewer deaths thats a lot longer...
I know this is not a politically correct thing to say, but while sentimentally it might be nice to think, the amount of death an event causes is not the main barometer for its importance. While undeniably as a death toll rises its importance also rises, its hardly been a reliable way to gauge how it affects the world. The September 11 attacks really only had a moderate amount of casualities, but ultimately has resulted in current Iraq war, (no I'm not saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, rather that because of the events of 9/11 set forth a series of events that have resulted/majorly influenced the war in Iraq) Along with a myriad amount of other things. This is true for a lot of events that happen in the "Western World," and its important to seperate true systemic bias from trying deny the reality that certain events (and hence certain people, and yes certain countries) are more important in sense of an encyclopedia. In short Wikipedia should reflect the world as it is - not as we'd like to see it. 
Thats not to say that there shouldn't be more information on signicant events for countries that do not receive much attention. 
(Madrone 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument risks being circular though, with the importance of events measured by their influence on other events of importance.  So massacres in Central Africa (to take one example) also set off wars, which to the people there are way more important than the Iraq War, but which themselves get less coverage...  Some kind of "how many people did this affect" measure may be the best crude measure of significance available, despite its drawbacks. -- Danny Yee 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, and agreed.  I'm going to modify the particlar statement about 9/11 to say that the 3,000 WTC deaths are treated as more significant rather than more "world-changing" which is what I think that section is really getting at.  Unless someone can develop a measure of world-change I think it would be best to avoid any statements about the relative significance of changes wrought by different events.  BTW, I can't tell if this counts as a policy page you're supposed to discuss before changing, so if that's the case revert and let's discuss. 12.46.32.10 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death is not a barometer for importance of events 

message: Systematic bias also results from people who are paid to edit wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest

message: I believe fans of Discworld cause systematic bias on Wikipedia. I have been reading Wikipedia for years, and have been continually annoyed to reach the bottom of an article and see "also, [so-and-so] is mentioned in Terry Pratchett's wondrous Discworld!" I am tired of seeing Discworld mentioned on every other disambiguation page. There is nothing that can possibly be so important about Discworld as to justify its mention on 1238 pages (according to search). I used to consider myself an inclusionist, but along the way, somewhere, something must have gone terribly wrong. I know you are all worried about things like the leaders of countries and widespread torture across Africa being less well-covered than television show contestants, but this epidemic must be stopped. — vivacissamamente 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are absolutely right. We need a subwikiproject to address this imbalance; what about mentions in Simpsons, ro Family Guy? What all this focus on a bloody novel series? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I come across them, I tend to remove such references simply because we are not the encyclopedia of pop culture. — mark ✎ 09:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discworld 

message: We are having an interesting discussion at Talk:Valencia (city)#Survey. Feel free to join in or we could start a parallel discussion here. I nominated the page move myself but realised that User:Bolivian Unicyclist has made an important point there. Nonetheless, this does not only refers to Valencia but there are many other cases too. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one: Naruto (see Talk:Naruto#Move_to_Naruto_(manga_and_anime)).  Jun-Dai 06:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City names and disambiguation dabs 

message: References to people's weight are routinely removed from Wikipedia on the basis that they are unencylopaedic or irrelevant. Attempts to set up categories and list of obese people are denied. Meanwhile, there are categories and lists of short and tall men and women. Category:Human height exists yet Category:Human weight does not. Napoleon's height may be discussed but the obesity of a government official in charge of a country's obesity policy is taboo. I believe this is due to systemic bias of Wikipedia editors who have been brought up not to comment on people's weight. I'd imagine that many editors here have characteristsics that correlate with obesity (sedentary, American, etc). The level of detail in the articles about obscure fast food chains is indicative. Fatipedia. Curtains99 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Height fluctuates slightly, but is relatively constant once adulthood is reached.  Weight, on the other hand, can vary widely within short spans of time.  A hypothetical category or list of people by weight could be argued as unmaintainable.  Powers T 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity 

message: I would like to request help to the users at this project to resolve recent series of conflicts in the article Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea.
Originally called Seven Year War, the war was changed to Imjin War on the basis that Seven Year War was less common & that the title was confused with the French and Indian War.
As it turned out, one of the users had used sock puppets to promote Imjin War.
Following this, the JPOV editors pushed along the tide and flipped the table over, changing the article's name to the current one.
That is not only it. Please read the introduction. 
"Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea refers to the 1592–1598 Japanese-Korean war masterminded by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, which originally had the professed aim of conquering China."
I think this issue is relevant to the project because the JPOV editors claim that "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" is more prevalent (which was proven false under my Google searches) and that high school text books use such phrases. 
But I think this is systemic bias because more Americans are likely to study Japanese history than Korean history, and, thus, share viewpoints with Japanese.
Thereby, even if I conceded that "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" was more common, we should still vote on Imjin War on basis of the sytemic bias of the American public. 
Thanks. (Wikimachine 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should file a requested move and take it from there. E  Asterion u talking to me? 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, this issue seems more fit for Wikipedia:Neutrality Project. — mark ✎ 10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. (Wikimachine 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea]] 

message: I just noticed that Wikiproject:Morocco and Wikiproject:Western Sahara have been placed under the category Wikiproject:Middle East, using the G8 expanded definition for Greater Middle East. I do not think this is appropriate at all. Your thoughts? --E  Asterion u talking to me? 10:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to raise such issues at WP:WNP. — mark ✎ 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countering systemic bias inside [[WP:CSD]]? 

message: I think it would be helpful to have a template for Anglocentrism. This would be useful in articles concerning the British Isles, or the UK, where there is a bias towards England. --MacRusgail 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglocentricism 

message: Can someone please check this deletion nom and comment? - Ganeshk (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian town deletion nom 

message: I would like to call your attention to WikiProject Historical information, which aims to better the quantity and quality of historical information in articles not about history. (E.g., to have "invention of the wheel" and "wheel through the centuries" sections in wheel.) Anyone who is interested is invited to join!—msh210℠ 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Historical information 

message: http://www.iabolish.com/slavery_today/index.html
I know it's a partisan website, but then again, I can't imagine a pro-slavery website, and it does link to other sources.
It talks about slave raids in the Darfur conflict, which interests me because our article currently only talks about the killing.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is the right place to ask the question, but I'll answer as best I can. It's a borderline case. In theory there's no problem in citing it where it's reporting on incidents, rather than giving opinions based upon them, but you should be careful that they are reporting accurately. Ideally the incidents in question should have been reported in the mainstream media and would be cited to there, if not then I think you'd have to make the possible bias in the source clear in the text. --Cherry blossom tree 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is iabolish.com a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? 

message: I don't know if this has been discussed extensivelly before, but I think one of the most pressing forms of bias is in the images in articles. Far too many articles are dominated by pictures of white folks, usually young and attractive; for example, fairly important articles like human leg, arm, vagina, pregnancy, human back, hand, face, and others. I think we should start trying to change this; perhaps we could get a list of affected articles going to get an idea of what needs improvement, and try to look through pictures we have available to get better representation among the pictures.--Cúchullain t/c 05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to agree, but I'm not sure what could be done. I've flicked through some non-european Wikipedias and they all seem to use the same pictures as us. We could ask them if they could provide alternates, I suppose. There are possibly pictures on Flickr etc we could use but I'm not too familiar with those sites. Not too helpful, I'm afraid. --Cherry blossom tree 23:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK

message: I get the impression there is a number of editors in wikipedia with a systemic aversion towards the use of diacritics in personal and geographical names, generally arguing that those characters are not part of the English alphabet. Has anyone else experienced and/or noticed this? Regards, --Asteriontalk 10:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I think bias against diacritics is among the least serious biases affecting Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 07:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And, in any case, they are simply wrong. I haven't seen much active argument about this; it's just that articles that predate our switch over to Unicode sources couldn't have diacritics in titles. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Jmabel. I am aware of that. I am mainly talking about this user's actions: .  I understand there were problems before switching to unicode but this is no longer the case, AFAIK. Thanks, Asteriontalk 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of [[diacritics]] 

message: Most of the articles on 'Christian metal' and its constituent bands are extremely biased in the following ways:
* They subtextually try to legitimise the genre (which is not regarded very well within the real metal community)
* The articles are all written in a fashion which presupposes the reader is either a believer in Christianity, or at least acknowledges the existence of a deity (a bias which is all over the place here)
* The articles sometimes have an evangelical tone, and also suggest that evangelisation is morally good ,something with which many do not agree, but it is surely not necessary to find citations for things like that in an article on a heavy metal band.
* The general flavour is just too preachy, upbeat, and familiar to be encyclopedic.  They read like reviews in a bad magazine.
* When I attempted to fix it, I was accused of being biased, and reported to the 'requests for investigation' section to try to get me banned.  While I admit that I do not think highly of the subject, it strikes me that the prevailing - and badly informed - opinion is that I am 'biased' just because I don't like it, whereas as dedicated and fanatical fans who support the music are not biased.
Any suggestions, feedback etc. would be helpful. The Crying Orc 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possilbly in bad-faith.  Please see WP:RFI.  --Limetom 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor (Limetom) is one of the people who have been marginalising dissenting voices aggressively.  In this one's case, it involves following me around and reverting changes I have made. Or commenting in places that I have, like here.  I have warned him about assuming good faith, so I hope he will stop accusing me of acting in bad faith.  The Crying Orc 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An area suffering from systemic bias

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: This pending vote to move the article that discusses the practice of "passing" -- for white or for some other ethnicity to avoid race-based social or psychological consequences -- plans to re-locate that article to a less visible or downright obscure name. Moving Passing to Passing (sociology) is intended to make way for a DAM page that makes it easier to find the article on "overtaking" (i.e. "passing") other vehicles on the road, and other uses of the verb "pass". The concept of passing is being treated as obscure and outdated -- if not downright phoney (there are suggestions to delete it altogether). In fact, there is a huge debate going on now among people of color and within multiculturalism about racial classification, and whether people like Homer Plessy, W.E.B. Du Bois, Walter Francis White, Oona King, Michael Manley, and Barack Obama should be re-classified ethnically. This article provides crucial background on the stigma associated with some racial heritages, how it has been coped with, and how it is still being coped with by some individuals. Historically, talking about "passing" has been taboo, since it threatened to expose minority-group "passers" to hostile or disdainful treatment on the one hand, and it stigmatized individuals and families belonging to the dominant group on the other. Today, the concept and its history are part of a growing, painful but important debate about ethnic solidarity vs individual identity. Regardless of how you feel about that issue, passing is integral to that cultural discussion and needs to be highlighted, not hidden away. Please, go to the talk page and vote. And add to the article too, if you can. Lethiere 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote at [[Talk:Passing]]

message: An interesting and now frequently repeated suggestion to move the article on Java in Indonesia with a population of 120 million,  a history over 1500 years old (last 500 with European influences) an the most populas Island in the world as it isn't sufficiently notiable compared to the Java programing language that was originally developed between 1991 - 1995 as Oak and released under the name Java in 1995. The suggestion is that Java should be moved to Java (Island) not even identifing that its part of Indonesia. Then the page Java be redirected to the disambiguation page. The reasons being argued is notibility, that Americans associate Java with the programming language or the coffee (incidentally from Java) rather then the place. Gnangarra 07:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that its the first time either - this is probably the third time that this has occurred.  It really reflects a very limited understanding of world geography  SatuSuro 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java -  Island vs Programming Language 

message: Since scientism, economism and militarism are well known sources of bias, these three definitions should be considered.  Views of energy are particularly subject to all three, so a project just about that should be considered.  If anything what's there isn't anthropocentric enough.
*Science.
Many articles on scientific topics use language that suggests that the current scientific thinking is "true" or unchallengeable;  Some even smack of scientism - claiming to find objective moral truth in empirical facts.  In climate change and evolution and even particle physics there is some challenge to this, but in other subject areas bald statements that claim much more than scientific method would advise, continue to exist in otherwise good articles.  This is probably because there are so many students who write for Wikipedia, and perhaps more young people, who forget (or never knew) that theories change.  Realize that in 1904, before general relativity, it was believed that "F=MA" was simply "true" without any need to qualify this at all.  This is bad science, and it's a bad Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.97.236 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.
:You can write an article about how science works and what is the problem with models. Any view on how the world works is a model with more or less inaccuracy while serving the purpose of helping us to understand our environment. Modern science is just about trying to find a way to explain things better. Wandalstouring 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientism 

message: I tagged "The average Wikipedian..." passage with . It is presented as fact, but may not be. I tend to agree with some of the points presented, and I cannot imagine many would disagree. But common knowledge is not fact. Verification is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not fact [or common knowledge]. Yes, I know that this is not the article namespace, and so it does not necessarily have to follow the Verification policies. Because it does, however, organize people to work direclty with the article namespace, and it presents this information as fact, I think that verification is necessary. Please consider this before deleting the tag. --Iamunknown 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has surfaced before; see here and here for two fairly recent examples. The gist of the argument for not having the verification tag is indeed that this is not article space; and additionally, that a glance on userpages broadly confirms the statements. As there is currently no demographic data available, we are not going to able to source it with reliable sources. Since many editors do recognize the trends (just like you) I personally think that it is fine to keep the statement. — mark ✎ 07:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't understand your last argument. Yes, this project merely organizes people to work on neglected topics in the article namespace. However I don't see how the existence of an unsourced passage in the project's mission statement would affect the work of these people in article namespace. WP:CSB does not, after all, instruct people to compromise important guidelines like WP:V and WP:CITE or something like that; in fact, many CSB regulars are editors who attach great importance to reliable sources. — mark ✎ 08:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't follow your second argument. The verification policy is specifically applicable to articles only, as you say. I don't see how you make the leap that since this project organises people to work on articles it also needs to be verifiable. If you're going to start applying policies to it then the whole page is original research. Deliberately so. But then so is most of the rest of the Wikipedia: namespace, and most of it also affects the way people work on articles. --Cherry blossom tree 12:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The tagger has a point, but this issue can be mitigated through careful rewording. Instead of saying "The average Wikipedian is", one could rewrite this to say "The average Wikipedian is likely to be" or "The average Wikipedian is believed to be". The verification issue would still be valid here, but with such rewording the statement would be more accurate and less misleading. --B.d.mills 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The average Wikipedian..." 

message: I recently added the following to the description of the average Wikipedian: "is from the Northern Hemisphere". I would like to expand on this by providing a more detailed explanation, but I am reluctant to do this without prior discussion.
There can be no doubt that the bias exists. Many general Wikipedia articles are written by residents of the Northern Hemisphere for residents of the Northern Hemisphere, and in many cases this leads to wording that is confusing and potentially misleading to residents of the Southern Hemisphere. My user page has some examples of this bias, including a few from Wikipedia.
Here is a choice example from a Wikipedia article on Comet Hale-Bopp (which I have since corrected) that shows how misleading such a bias can be:
:"The comet was much less impressive to Southern Hemisphere observers than it had been in the Northern Hemisphere, but southerners were able to see the comet gradually fade from view during the summer and autumn of 1997."
The above is misleading because it described the comet's visibility from the Southern Hemisphere using Northern Hemisphere seasons.
The bias occurs in other places as well. For example, articles on battles and other historical events are full of such wording. Not all such use is inappropriate, such as referring to a campaign as a "winter campaign" if that is the historically-correct name. However, such expressions as "the faulty torpedoes were fixed by autumn" is imprecise and misleading.
The usual manifestation of the bias is the user of northern hemisphere seasons as general time descriptors to indicate a period of time that is shorter than a year and longer than a month. In many such cases, more accurate descriptions can be substituted such as month names, ranges of months and so forth. The substitution of more precise dates from primary references also has the side benefit of improving the accuracy of Wikipedia as a whole.
Not all use of seasonal references is inappropriate. These are all OK because they cannot cause confusion:
* Football is played as a winter sport in many countries
* The winter campaign caused the Germans to lose many troops to the cold
* Bears and squirrels hibernate in the winter
These are not because they are ambiguous:
* Orion is a constellation visible in the evening in winter
* World War II started in the summer of 1939
* Southerners were able to see the comet gradually fade from view during the summer and autumn of 1997
* The faulty torpedoes were fixed by autumn
I hope I have made the difference fairly clear - the inappropriate examples are time references that can be made more precise by substituting nonseasonal time descriptors.
* Orion is a constellation visible in the evening from November to April
* World War II started in September, 1939
* Southerners were able to see the comet gradually fade from view during the second half of 1997
* The faulty torpedoes were fixed by October.
Northern Hemisphere bias also manifests itself as a selection effect on Northern Hemisphere topics, but these are not as common.
What we need is a more concise description of Northern Hemisphere bias so the Systemic Bias article can include it.
The archives have a previous discussion on this topic that I started previously. --B.d.mills 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the world's land surface is in the northern hemisphere, and this includes most of Asia, a good chunk of Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. I think a northern hemisphere bias is inevitable for that reason. --MacRusgail 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason to work on countering it. The northern-hemisphere systemic bias often interacts with other forms of systemic bias, which gives many encyclopedia articles a northern-hemisphere, temperate-zone, North-American/European slant to many articles. Thus, the presence of a northern-hemisphere bias in an article can be a sign that the article is slanted in other ways as well. --B.d.mills 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As a Kiwi, this is an issue I often spot. One problem is when we have direct quotes and release dates. In this case, assuming that a month/month-range was never provided it's best to provide clarification in brackets IMHO Nil Einne 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Hemisphere bias 

message: Hi in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time, I've accidentally noted similarity in names of different users participating in the vote & so I guessed that they might be from the same nationality -India. And 6/7 at the time were Indians.
I think that this is an "internal" systemic bias, since Indian articles are written mostly and only by Indian users & they're mostly likely to be the only voters on featured article nominations on India-related articles & in result, making Indian articles attaining featured article status inevitable.
(I want to note that Indians are a special exception from other nationalities in Wikipedia because most of them can speak and write fluent English & thus can participate more in English Wikipedia while other foreigners can't & thus limit their participation in fields related to their nationality/culture & making participation of other third parties more likely.)
And I would like members of this project to come participate in the vote & read what I've written & what they've replied with & see the article & voice your opinions. Thanks a lot! (Wikimachine 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article vote on [[Indian_Standard_Time#Conspiracy_Here_.26_Absolute_Oppose|Indian Standard Time]] 

message: Anybody interested in legal issues re LSD? The section on "Legal status" in that article is currently about 80% USA-centric. Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSD: Legal status in various places 

message: The concept of God is showing a bias.  Perhaps the article on bias should not be biased.  Yeah, I know - General meaning.  Maybe it should change to more of a world and gender neutral view of things.
:The context in which the expression occurs (The more idealistic may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view" or "God's Eye View") makes clear that this project itself does not necessarily approve this view. Additionally, the language of this edition of Wikipedia is English, and 'God's eye view' is a perfectly fine English expression so I have reverted your removal of it. — mark ✎ 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the use of the term takes no position on whether or not a a god exists. It merely uses the concept of an all knowing entity to illustrate a point. --Cherry blossom tree 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gods Eye View" 

message: Hello,
Just thought I'd drop by and mention that a DPRK working group has been created as part of WikiProject Korea.  Might be of interest to members of this project, since our DPRK coverage has long been very weak outside of a few high-profile controversies.  Please feel free to drop by and kibitz, or even join.  Cheers, -- Visviva 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea working group 

message: Not only the lead article, law, itself, but also many of the sub-pages in this category take on a specific UK/US bias. This is often to the extent that the articles will quote legal cases and precedents without bothering to indicate which country they took place in. Several legal experts need to put concerted effort into CSB on these pages. It may even require a seperate WikiProject. Andeggs 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law 

message: As many of you might know, there is a Project Directory which tries to list all the WikiProjects in some sort of organizational framework. I am the person who generally takes on the duties of adding the projects to the directory. I am having some difficulty trying to figure out exactly how and where to list this project. Right now, it is listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia, because its scope is such that it doesn't fit comfortably into any of the other sections. I am personally less than convinced that this listing does justice to the project. Unfortunately, I honestly can't think of where else to add it. If any of your members can, or if you are thinking about creating subprojects which could comfortably fit into some of the other sections of the directory, please let me know. Thank you. Badbilltucker 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: There is a dispute concerning the title of the article on this Basque town. Please comment in Talk:Guernica (city)#RfC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugaar (talk • contribs) --Sugaar 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Gernika 

message: I have observed the following pattern over and over again, and I can site literally hundreds of Wiki articles that follow this pattern:
:GIVEN:  A political/philosophical/religious topic
:GIVEN:  A Biased Wiki Editor who is determined to slant the article according to his world view
:GIVEN:  After the article is slanted, the biased Wiki editor defends it as "NPOV" when it is anything but
:GIVEN:  Biased wiki editor polices the article, has help from a few friends, and keeps the slanted article from being changed
:RESULT:  A Wiki article, which is slanted, is posed as "NPOV"  This is the nature of Wiki.
:HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? 
Easily. The use of cited criticisms is the primary mechanism that wiki editors use to slant an article and claim it as "NPOV". Here is the format that a biased Wiki editor uses to slant an article and mask it as NPOV
1.  Cite the topic
2.  Criticize the topic immediately in the first paragraph, citing someone who criticized it.
3.  Include a "Criticisms" section armed to the teeth with cited criticisms.  Make sure that the criticisms section is lengthy and outweighs other material.  For example, if the article is on a political candidate that the wiki editor doesn't like, the criticism section will be vast.  When a user reads about the candidate, criticisms abound.  Of course, all criticisms are cited, and this is how an "intellecutal" wiki editor gets away with slanting an article.  He defends the slant by saying "NPOV" because all criticisms are cited, but the truth is that the sheer volume of criticisms and the manner in which they are presented makes the article completely slanted.
I saw this formula repeated countless times before the US mid term election regarding political candidates.  I would look at 2 political candidates running against each other on Wiki, for example the senator Allen / Webb race.  Here is how the articles looked on Wiki the day before the election.
CANDIDATE ONE FORMULA:  
Introduce Candidate.  Cite merits.  Cite positive contributions.  Cite accomplishments.  Cite charities.  Cite stances.  Cite achievements.  Cite awards.  No criticism section.
CANDIDATE TWO FORMULA:
INtroduce candidate.  Cite criticism immediately in the introduction.  Cite allegations.  (I.e. racism, fraud).  Cite critiques of business dealings.  Cite critiques of stances.  Cite record.  Cite history.  Cite more criticisms.  (the criticism section was over 50% of the entire article)
Because all criticisms are cited, the biased intellectual wiki author can get away with defending the article as NPOV.  But an agenda is obvious
Wiki is plagued...corrupted to the core, with this methodology. Criticize in the introduction, and include massive amounts of criticisms (all cited) in the article.  This gives it an overall slant.
THE FLAW IN THIS METHOD of course is that for any topic, if one looks, there will always be someone out there with a degree who criticizes it.  I can find an "expert" criticism of anything and anyone!  BUt the biased wiki author has the claim that simply citing an "expert criticism" is justification enough to include it in an article, even if the article is overwhelmed with them, as long as the criticism is cited.
The "criticism" section and use of overloading an article with cited critiques is the technique that wiki editors use to get away with bias.
This entire site is overrun by unemployed and/or internet addicted intellectuals that police wiki under the mask of "NPOV" when they are perpetrating an agenda to slant the site.  People like me just don't have time to engage in a war with these hawks.  Wiki has thus, a severe credibility problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that this does not really belong to the core business of WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. It may be better in place at Wikipedia Neutrality Project. — mark ✎ 09:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I left Wiki

message: Please, have a look and make a follow-up of the white people article.
You will find at least 3 types of systematic bias.
1. US bias at the definition of white.
2. Anglo-Saxon bias at the definition of white.
3.  Extreme White Nationalist related views and bias at the definition of white.
Articles like this should be a priority to fight bias. They compromise Wiki standards and credibility. Veritas et Severitas 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LSLM, you might want to take this up with the Wikpedia Neutrality Project. WP:CSB focuses on improving neglected content, it is not the NPOV police. — mark ✎ 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic bias, worst when about racial issues. 

message: Project members please see Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive for comments on the Rwandan Genocide article which looks like it needs input and improvements. --Zleitzen 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rwandan Genocide

message: Recentism is listed as a problem, but none of the suggestions on What To Do seem to address it.
A few things that help in my own experience:
#  Do not limit reading to media sources.  Read books about historical information.
#  Read primary sources about a subject matter in an earlier era.  (In fact, I just recommend reading primary sources from other times and places; it can be an enlightening experience.)
#  Try to order information chronologically whenever reasonable.  To have the most recent information up front may give it undue weight (and may also cloud how something developed).
Goldfritha 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true - also there is no tag for this Johnbod 13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a tag:  Template:Recentism.  OTOH, I know this only because I read the talk page for the recentism article.  Goldfritha 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix that.  Goldfritha 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note, this template is up for deletion here  Johnbod 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: There is an ongoing vote to delete a series of templates designed to incorporate the entire 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia into Wikipedia. Please see TfD Catholic Expand. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contering systemic bias: Catholic Encyclopedia: please vote 

message: Members please vote for St. George's, Grenada at the wikipedia creation and improvement drive. This article of a capital city is a substub in a sorry state.
Vote here to help improve that article--Zleitzen 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement drive

message: An editor has transformed Signing statement so it solely refers to the US practice, replacing the neutral description of 'statement made by the governmental executive power on signing into law a bill from the legislature' with 'written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law' and even notes that foreign use of the practice is not significant. I've tried to use an example from history of an executive making a 'signing statement' on a legislature provided law, from Robespierre's deist proclamation, and a more recent example from last year of the signing statement by French president Jacques Chirac over the implementation of labour laws. He seems to believe that these are not 'notable' occurrences, and because no 'notable use' of signing statements has been 'proven', that the article should say it only really happens in the US. --Barberio 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I dealt with this. Nikola 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Signing statement]] having problems. 

message: I've removed the recent addition:
:"* Articles where the article name can mean several different things, tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian. for example, the Manhattan article refers to the borough of New York city, rathern than a disambiguation page which may take a more global view on the uses of the word."
I think I know what the editor is trying to say - that often, where a topic has different primary meanings in various parts of the world, or different fields, we assume that the one most familiar to the majority of Wikipedians is sufficiently well-known as to not require disambiguation.
The first line needs to be rephrased; where there is a clear primary topic, it is desirable to default to subject matter more familiar to the average [reader] of Wikipedia.  The Manhattan example is poorly chosen, as it is the primary topic pretty much anywhere (its homonyms are all obscure U.S. entities).  A better example might be our article on Dia. Warofdreams talk 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in choosing primary topics

message: Category discussion of Asian American scientists, African American scientists, LGBT scientists ... see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1#Category:Fooian scientists. --lquilter 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevant category discussions (Asian American scientists, etc) 

message: As a long-time contributor (though not one who maintains much of any community presence), my sense is that Wikipedia really does have a systemic bias.  It also seems to me that this would be a good article within which references should be cited.  I've just marked a few examples of where references would be particularly useful.  
It seems to me that Wikipedia has a high enough profile (made most widely evident by its increasing press coverage and references in certain kinds of pop culture), that it should be possible to find references that corroborate items mentioned in the article that are not self-evident.  I realize that most of the articles in the Wikipedia "namespace" are simply the sense (or consensus) of the community, but it would be useful for that community to have a more objective assessment of its biases.  Citing legitimate references in this article would contribute to a more objective community self-assessment.
66.167.253.201 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion, however I would request you don't post on this page or edit the project page again. Thanks, Addhoc 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your reversion because reverted without explanation.  If you still feel a reversion is required, please accompany it with an explanation.  Thanks.  66.167.253.32 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I again request, you don't post on this page or edit the project page in future. Thanks, Addhoc 10:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with you posting on this talk page or project page, but you should be aware that the issue of citations has been discussed and rejected here on several occasions. Reintroducing it now is probably not a productive use of time. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 12:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs references 

message: at Meta: m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Venda Wikipedia --Grace E. Dougle 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is a poll on closing down [[Venda language|Venda]] Wikipedia

message: The Wikipedia policy to ban open proxies means that one fifth of the world's population, or an Internet community larger than in the United States, is banned from Wikipedia. Due to government censorship, for most users in China the only way to read and edit Wikipedia articles is through an open proxy. By banning open proxies, Wikipedia colludes with the blocking effort of the Chinese government and exacerbates the systemic bias of Wikipedia. That policy should change and users from China should be helped to use and participate in this wonderful project. —Babelfisch 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you link to explains how users in China can use open proxies to edit Wikipedia. --Cherry blossom tree 12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, a link to Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall (or the Chinese language equivalent) should be placed on the main page of Zh-Wiki, En-Wiki, and Simple En-Wiki to make it easier to find; new Wikipedians may find digging through the policy pages to find this info intimidating/confusing/waste of time. Wl219 09:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to propose this. I'm fairly confident it won't be added to the en.wp main page wherever you propose it, simply because it's irrelevant to the vast majority of readers. If you want to try then check Talk:Main Page. --Cherry blossom tree 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it's irrelevant. It's not just China that uses massive firewalls, Iran, Cuba, and other countries do too. And "irrelevant to the vast majority of readers" is precisely the kind of systemic bias we're trying to counter here. In fact, I suggest the TOR info be linked on the main page of every language wiki because net censorship is a global concern. Wl219 10:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to your attempt to link opposition to cluttering up the main page to systemic bias. I've considered this more and the most useful place to include the link would be at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext and possibly MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext - the messages shown to a blocked user when they attempt to edit. This is where it would be seen by the people who need to see it and not seen by those who don't. Neither of which is true of putting it on the main page. Does this sound sensible? --Cherry blossom tree 11:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does make sense. I will start threads on those talk pages to suggest incorporating TOR/open proxy info. Wl219 11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy colluding with censorship in China 

message: Many artilces contain the following formal flaw: Suppose an article is about a class of things (e.g. "Harp". Inside the article, one instance or subclass is taking all the attention (e.g. "European Concert Harp"), while others are either completely ommitted or put in a rest-group "Other Harps arround the world". The genaral pattern is: An article with topic "Class X", wich has subclasses or instances A, B, C ... contains only or mostly Material on one instance (e.g. A) and ommits others or puts them on a lower level. So the structure might be like this:
:CLASS X
:: A
or
:CLASS X
::A
::Others
:::B
:::C
:::...
To fix such an article, the elements in the others-section should be lifted one level. If the amount of material about A is very large, it shoulc be moved into another article (in the aforementioned example, an article about the European concert harp should be created and referenced from the main article.
Is there an accepted name for this type of flaw in the Wikipedia community (something like "Category:Unbalanced Article"). Is there a category to mark such articles? Is there a policy about this already. I would like to create a Category to mark such articles (maybe with a template) if it does not exist already. In many instances, this problem occurs with eurocentric articles, but it is a formal mistake in the structure of the articles and might also occur in other areas. Traditional Encyclopedias all contain many instances of this flaw and Wikipedia could do much better here.Nannus 11:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On remark: maybe this is not the right place for this question? If you know any noticeboard in Wikipedia where this should be discussed, just please copy it over there.Nannus 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced articles

message: In Pontic Greek Genocide the title is disputed because this event is not called so in Turkey (Turkey is a problemtic country on such matters), but it is commemorated as a national holiday in Greece. Naturally, a Turkish minority and a Greek majority clash over the title (and forget to write a real article). The problem is rather that the English sources discuss whether or not it was an organized genozide and do not give a very clear support for anyone's claim. The other issue is WWII, as far as I could find out in all other language FA's France is listed among the important allies in the infobox(if a list of important allies is available), however in the English wiki this is disputed by a predominantly US-American community (assessing the actual contribution) leading to the proposal of constructions such as linking to a separate site with a list of all allies.
The problem is that the Greeks/Turks as well as the Americans want a common opinion in their native society to be presented in an encyclopedia. It wouldn't be much of an issue if the discussion was about the article itself. The problem is the significance placed on such details and that any attempts to solve in discussion result in a unstopable flow of black letters that in effect repeatedly contain the same information (+personal attacks, accusing of POV and grouping in one corner as pro or contra my community/tribe). How do I proceed? Suggestions? Wandalstouring 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to solve disputes under systemic bias influence 

message: I'd like to see more attention paid to systematic bias within a country.  With regard to my own country, I've had to edit articles that had California-centric bias in that they implicitly equated California with the entire United States or otherwise treated non-California viewpoints as inconsequential.  I suspect that the same problem exists with regard to other countries. Doctor Whom 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pray tell in which articles. Wandalstouring 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give some examples.  The article Contract city, before I edited it, referred to an "American term" that apparently is actually a California-specific term.  Other examples are the articles tagged with Template:Limited geographic scope within country or Template:Generic limited geographic scope.  Doctor Whom 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, yes. Ask any Atlantic or Western Canadian about Torontocentrism. --Charlene 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic bias within a country

message: I added a paragraph to the project to deal with bias in "pseudo-religious" articles.  This kind of covert, cunning, and ugly bias is common in articles that deal with loaded, politically incorrect or other unpopular topics where interested institutions censor free speech to indoctrinate the faithful and to silence those they see as heretics.  In especially subtle and subversive forms of this kind of bias, totalistic terms such as "terrorism", "gender" or other absurdly-defined terms are imposed throughout the articles with no distinctions to rape the language for political purposes.  In other cases opposing points of view from so-called "enemy", so-called "patriarchal" or so-called "problematic" people are blatantly censored where they contradict the "party line" of the interest groups who control the articles.  What happened to Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show on ABC (post 911) is what happens here on wikipedia too.  However, we all loose when one group is able to censor divergent points of view as Operation Iraqi Freedom is proving.   To me this kind of bias is much harder to detect and counter than the all-too-common religious biases are.  I ask that other editors glance at Orwell's Animal Farm, Patia's Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, and Griffith's Wild: An Elemental Journey to better understand the subtle and subversive biases that I am concerned about here.  For really rigorous editors, I suggest Legalizing Misandry or Spreading Misandry by Nathonson and Young because they have whole chapters that deconstruct what they call "fascist" ('gender'-as-female) feminist constructions that are so gynocentrically biased that one wonders if those PARTICULAR feminists care at all about balance much less about genuine scholarship.  (tired of countering blatant biases) 128.111.95.245 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep things short, which articles do contain stuff you think problematic? List them here. Naturally, there are quite a lot of opinions on certain subjects and it is often difficult to express them with due weight. Wandalstouring 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic biases within articles for and by "pseudo-religious" interest groups

message: (my italics) "Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be used for propaganda, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. It may also help you to understand why that particular country has its opinion on a subject, for example, how Mainland China thinks about Tibet or Taiwan may allow you to understand better why they act the way they do, and perhaps to better convince people as to why someone should or should not agree with their policies toward these countries, without necessarily being biased, but perhaps by pointing out errors in logic or thinking, by any particular side of the question, either pro or con."
Perhaps I am failing to see the meaning of the above paragraph, but I think the italicized part encourages original research and spreading one's POV through Wikipedia. It is not our business to convince anybody of the acceptability or unacceptability of anything, including a country's policy, either in the article text or on the talk pages. And it is certainly not our business to do it by means of pointing out what we perceive as errors of logic or thinking. If this is merely intended as a general advice for our activities in "real life" outside of Wikipedia, then that should be stated clearly (though I don't think such advices belong here in the first place). --Anonymous44 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We may present official doctrines and by sticking to the sources point out contradictions without stating that they are errors, simply to show the complexity of opinions. Usually there are some academic works on such delicate subjects which do specifically work out these 'errors', so it should be seen as an encouragement for research, not for personal opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is sensible, but it's not what the current text says. It states clearly that "you" (i.e. the reader, i.e. the Wiki editor) are expected to "convince" people. And while you're right that citing academic works that mention 'errors' is OK, the current text doesn't mention the use of any academic works and thus suggests that you are supposed to find the 'errors' in the official news outlets for yourself. So I propose that the part about convincing people and pointing out contradictions should be removed. --Anonymous44 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this passage encourage [[WP:OR|original research]]? 

message: Hello,im from Venezuela,and i think this is the best and most importnt wikiproyect i've seen,im very happy i found it.I wass thinking it would be good if there wass a userbox agaisnt etnocentrism(cause its more explicit than systemic bias,and i dont know how to create them),and if there is a contest or an award for the best worlwide wiew article? --Andres rojas22 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, there is no userbox against ethnocentrism.  Should you wish, you can find out how to make one at WP:USERBOX.  I also don't know of any contest or award specifically for the best worldwide view article.  However, all Wikipedia's featured articles should take a worldwide view, and if you are keen to bring articles up to the best possible standard, that's the best process to go through. Warofdreams talk 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugestions 

message: I've posted a view about impact on systemic bias at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Other thoughts welcome! --VSerrata 08:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]] 

message: I have a serious concern: a recent article I consulted had a bright blue box "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines...".
OK, fine.  Someone with the label "editor" thinks that this article "doesn't matter".  He (or she) is entitled to his (or her) opinion.  But why do I have any reason to think the "editor" has any interest in this area?  If I didn't care about math or physics, maybe I'd mark the article on the Lorentz transformation as "doesnt satisfy MY notability guidelines".
Back to my point: the "editor" is entitled to his/her opinion, but I question two facets of Wikipedia:
*Why should someone with the term "editor" get to establish this bright blue box?
*Why should the editor's name be withheld?  If this editor has a passion for squelching articles on a particular topic, then his/her bias might show through, and such nominations for "doesn't matter" should be discarded summarily, or at least peer-reviewed.
Proposals:
*Nomination for such markings should be reviewed by an editorial panel.  If 5 editors on a random panel of 10 agree that an article is questionable, perhaps only then should the article be nominated for deletion, cleanup, etc...
*When used, the legend of the box should be changed to "editor [EditorsName] has expressed...".
Thanks for your consideration.... Harasty 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find who attached this notice to the article by looking at the article's history.  The editor should ideally also have noted on the talk page of the article where their concerns lie.  If they did not do this, you could ask them on their talk page.  Wikipedia has a notability guideline which is intended to apply to all articles, and you can check their reasoning against it.  I doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for your proposal, as these sort of notices are intended to be easily added and readily debated.  Should there later be a proposal for the article to be deleted, all editors will then have a chance to support or oppose its deletion. Warofdreams talk 03:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to peer-review nominations for editorial review 

message: If Wikipedia/Mediawiki introduces point system (plus points for postive and lasting edits and negative ponts for reverts) and then give editors having ponts above a threshold value some powers to mediate/vote etc this way very active users from not so well represented regions can have a say and can conter/balance bias to a certain degree. As number of users from non OECD countries increases the bias start getting addressed. May be such users can vote out biased admins as well. Vjdchauhan 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some proposals to introduce a points system, but I am unclear as to how this would enable editors from non-OECD countries to counter bias any more effectively than at present.  Wherever editors are from, some are more prolific than others, some put more work into their edits than others, and some strive harder to stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines than others.  So wouldn't we find that the proportion of highly rated editors from non-OECD countries was similar to the proportion of editors from non-OECD countries? Warofdreams talk 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introducing point system can help counter bias

message: The above debate about a Hong Kong pop singer was closed as "Delete" on the grounds that the article lacked English sources; most article content was supported by reference to major Chinese newspapers (e.g. Ming Pao, Sing Tao Daily, Sina.com), and the subject of the article also met WP:MUSIC criteria #1 (nationally charted hit). Granted, the article itself is fancruft, but I feel it sets a dangerous precedent that "pop culture articles lacking English sources will be deleted"; this will merely serve to introduce a bias towards American/British/Indian popstars and against those from the rest of the world. Comments appreciated on the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 3#Kelvin Kwan. Thanks, cab 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That was constructive. Exhibit A for Ugly American. Wl219 10:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The unsigned editor above is also responsible for this constructive contribution a few edits earlier: "Egg foo young also gives you AIDS."  GRuban 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Kwan]] 

message: Per User:Francis Tyers, I am submitting the following for inclusion into the main project page as the last sentence to the intro paragraph of the "The bias" section:
:Similarly, systemic bias may cause articles of local interest to places where few Wikipedians come from to be nominated for deletion for lack of notability because they are obscure to the majority of editors.
I don't think this is a controversial addition given the goals of the project and what JLWS originally posted above on this talk page (and the more recent Kelvin Kwan AfD, for that matter). Francis took it out and said to take it to talk, I'm putting it back unless people object. Wl219 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with it myself, and am surprised it was reverted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the ways in which systemic bias manifests itself. Of course it should be included. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic bias and [[WP:LOCAL]]

message: There's currently a systemic bias at WP:CfD. When categories are nominated for deletion, the category page is tagged. But no one puts categories on their watch pages, because the result is watching every page in that category, not just the category itself. Hardly anyone, I believe, puts categories on their watch pages as there is no reason to unless there was any reason to believe it might be sent over to CfD. When a category is nominated for deletion that have a main article, the main article talk page isn't even notified. So no one with any interest in the category under discussion is likely to be aware of it until and unless the bot is sent off to delete it five days later. So CfD discussions are the blind leading the blind with the sole guiding voice being that of the nominator who is the only person who WP:CARES.
Another problem is rationales that apply quite well to WP:AfD are being applied to WP:CfD in ways that don't make sense -- particularly WP:USEFUL isn't credited as a Keep reason since that's the main reason for any category -- categories are useful for browsing a group of related articles.
But the first issue at least is clearly systemic. Is this just a place to rant, or can anyone here do anything to fix this? -- Kendrick7talk 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking closer at the project page this might not even be the kind of "systemic" bias y'all are talking about or good at addressing. I'm going to cross post this over at WT:CfD, but if any one has any ideas, I'd be happy to hear them. -- Kendrick7talk 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Struck out some of the above; I was apparently under a mistaken belief. -- Kendrick7talk 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD systemic bias 

message: It would be a good idea to add examples in other languages to each general linguistics article, just ask the translators and foreign contributors
:Indeed. We even have a page for that: WP:LPOV. Feel free to help out! — mark ✎ 10:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: linguistic bias

message: There's a currently a large scale campaign to remove or at least severely curtail spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I'm concerned that some of the examples given as 'obvious' (and therefore unworthy of a spoiler) display Wikipedia's inherent bias. For example, it is asserted that the ending of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is common knowledge, even though to the vast majority of the world's population, it is not.--Nydas(Talk) 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias inherent in removal of spoiler tags

message: There is discussion as to whether Central Standard Time should be a dedicated redirect to the North American Central Time Zone although there are also Australian and European Central time zones. See Talk:Central Standard Time (disambiguation). Dl2000 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Central Standard Time]] - geobias?

message: First, my sincerest apologies.  In my zeal to modify your site's 'task template' for inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central banking, I inadvertently altered it.  Because I'd copied the template's 'html' and incorporated it on the Central banking site, I didn't realize I was reformatting the original table.  Can anyone advise me how to undo the mess I've made?  I'm so sorry. -- gospelnous 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. You saved your modification of the template (Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks), instead of copy & pasting it into your new template. All it takes is a simple revert. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the help.  I was able to make the modification I'd intended and include the 'task template' on the 'project' site.  Now, I'll need to figure out how the 'other tasks' and 'open tasks' links work.  Thanks again. -- gospelnous 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A (Major) Template Boo Boo - not systemic bias though . . . simple stupidity

message: On 8 June 2007, Can't sleep, clown will eat me speedy deleted Xiaxue. Six days later, Vague Rant undeleted the article per my request on IRC. The article was subsequently nominated for deletion.
Xiaxue is clearly notable; she has won several prestigious blogging awards and is often mentioned in the Singaporean press. In the interests of countering systemic bias, please participate in the deletion discussion.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment at [[Xiaxue]]'s [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaxue|AFD]]. 

message: I've been perceiving what I consider a bias in categories created or put up for deletion and entered in articles. The specific issues that caught my eye concerns the Israel-Palestine dispute, but I suspect that this is an example of something broader and other conflicts where the Anglophone West favours one side will be similarly treated. So, please consider my example and discussion below as an illustration and not a demand to take a side in the specific debate.
In this case various categories such as East Jerusalem have been deleted and some Palestinian related cases are up for deletion. Because of the sytemic bias within the English language wikipedia, there is a preponderance towards a pro-Israeli perspective. Presumably the Arabic wikipedia has the opposite problem (but I don't speak Arabic so can't know for certain). Similarly Jerusalem is categorised as a capital (despite the UN not recognising it as such and the vast majority of embassies to Israel being in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem itself) and as an Israeli city but not as a West Bank or a disputed one. WP:NPOV focuses more on how the text of an article is presented and not on the subtext of the category system, but do others agree that the countering of systemic bias should extend to the category system? --Peter cohen 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic bias in categories 

message: Folks may want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová and weigh in. Murderbike 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to the Countering Systemic Bias group & just saw this post.  Unfortunately, the discussion was closed and a decision to keep was made before I had a chance to make a comment about this horrendous article. I just looked at the 18 references which are relied on heavily throughout the article. Of the 18, only 4 are legitimate, and one of those four does not even discuss material from the article it cites. Of the remaining 14 references, 6 claim to be linked to articles from the Toronto Sun, but are not. 1 reference is accessible for a fee of $12. 3 are linked to opinion/editorial works. 2 claim to be linked to the Toronto Sun, but are actually linked to a blog site. The final 2 are links to foreign, untranslated text, presumably Chezc. Are there any suggestions for next steps? I think I'm going to go ahead & remove the bogus sources and the related content since the article is disputed, but would appreciate it  if you guys could place the article on your watch page ... in case things get ugly. Thanks.  --Chicaneo 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article of interest. 

message: I've started writing this article in my sandbox, and wanted to open up to advice from folks here. I'm not Yavapai, and was raised by US public education, but am trying to be aware of slips in terminology that can make an article bad. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Murderbike 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yavapai people]]

message: It is a systemic part of life to have a point of view.  Fortunately, that point of view is usually relevant to the needs of the viewer.  If you succeed in eliminating the systemic viewpoint biases of Wikipedia (english language or otherwise) you will also succeed in eliminating most relevance.  Please back off and delete this "over the top" project and let the NPOV people resume business as usual.  Also, please remove the tag that someone has put on the aviation "brown-out" article. Bob 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how what you say relates to this project. It also seems that a general article which devotes three quarters to the USA merits the tag that has been placed on it. --Cherry blossom tree 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Herring 

message: Please note edits at Women's Aid‎, displaying clearly chauvinist pov of equating feminism with extremism, etc.. --Soman 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Women's Aid‎]] 

message: May I humbly suggest that this very WikiProject page displays systemic bias? I quote: 
"Read websites of newspapers in English, from other countries than your own when examining a topical or recent event or editing an existing article related to a particular subject. There are excellent newspapers in South Africa, China, Hong Kong and India, who run websites in English. The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times are not the only major English newspapers or media covering a story. The Toronto Globe and Mail, The Times, and the BBC World Service may provide new and different insights on a story that an American media outlet might not have. And they will cover stories American media will not cover because it's considered of low interest to Americans."
It's demeaning. Better would be to give a neutral list of news sources considered 'good' from the English-speaking world.
Njál 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Very important. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed this too. Nikola 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in this page 

message: I am thinking about a new template, similar to . It could be called  and add something like this:
:The five-second rule is a popular old wives' tale, and common rule among many people today[where?], regarding the eating of food that has been dropped on the ground.
It would be useful in cases where there is a concrete statement that should be of limited scope, but article as a whole doesn't warrant one of globalize templates. What do you think? Nikola 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New template?

message: If I may, I would like to respectfully request that this project - which I think is a very good idea - be a bit more conservative in the application of its templates.  While it is fully understandable why it is a good idea to fight bias about American only viewpoints in worldwide issues, I have been noticing the  tag being added in places where it is not necessary.  The only one I have changed, at this point, was Multiline Optical Character Reader.  Considering that the tag was added almost a year ago and had no follow up, as well as the fact that this is just a description of a piece of machinery with a description of how it is used by the USPS, I did not think that the justification that there is a single line mentioning that it is used in Canada as well requires a complete overhaul to state how the machine may be used in every country around the world.
As a compromise, perhaps this tag could be used in the same way that the  tag is suggested to be used: if a user adds it, that user should then take the responsibility to follow-up on it himself/herself after a reasonable amount of time.
This is just my opinion, and I always try to keep an open mind.  Please feel free to contact me if there is a desire for further discussion.  Thank you for the consideration.   Maijstral  01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Shortly after I Not Stupid's GA nomination passed, Haemo (who helped me copy-edit the article) gave me an Original Barnstar, with the following comment: "There's no "countering systemic bias" barnstar, so this will have to do. Good work!"
His comment inspired me to suggest a "Countering Systemic Bias" barnstar, to be awarded to Wikipedians who go the extra mile to counter systemic bias, whether by writing a dozen GAs about typically under-represented topics, significantly changing the demographic of Wikipedia or repeatedly protesting against policies which discriminate against the Chinese.
I failed Art, so please don't ask me to design the barnstar. However, since I excel in Literature, I'd be happy to provide ideas for the design. Due to my interest in fighting systemic bias, I'm considering joining this WikiProject.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countering Systemic Bias barnstar? 

message: This seems a worthy article, and it's worrying from a worldwide perspective that it's been nominated for deletion. On a broader note, perhaps there should be some fiction-specific examples on the project page? For example, Princess Mononoke has extensive information about the English translation, whilst Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope has nothing about translations into foreign languages.--Nydas(Talk) 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it should be renamed "non-English voice cast", being that there is no wiki country to be foreign of. Murderbike 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons]] up for deletion 

message: I have noticed examples of inconsistencies in how criticisms are handled in particular articles which could be an example of a systemic bias.  For example, George W. Bush has an allegation from Michael Moore which is considered acceptable while in the George Soros article there is resistance about including an allegation from Bill O'Reilly which has led to a locked article and "strong consensus" is needed to include it. However, there is basically a stalemate in the debate.  Both Moore and O'Reilly are controversial people so any input from them should carry equal weight.  This appears as a double standard to me.  Why include one example and refuse to include another example?  I'm not here to say wikipedia is pro/anti liberal or conservative or any other political persuasion because that is not the issue I am trying to address.  I believe that guidelines should be established on how to handle criticism that supplements core policies and provides a consistent way to handle criticisms and hopefully reduce edit warring to some degree.  Does this sound like a good idea? MrMurph101 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies in including criticism in articles

message: I discussed with other wikipedians on the Talk:Punctuation. I think that the article Punctuation violates the principle of worldwide prespective becuase while the article introduce puntuation in general but English puntuation is specially treated and separated from other languages. (I stated the reason at the talk page.) But other wikipedians replied me that "This is the English language edition of Wikipedia, which more or less justifies any bias toward that particular language." I don't think it is a justified reason to be bias towards one of the languages. I want to know whether this kind of bias is allowed officially? Any policy on wikipedia regarding this issue? Salt 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it a wikipedia policy?

message: Here's how your project influences some specific articles:
I'm a much better copyeditor than an author, but I have written a little in stock market articles because it's my job. I see complaints that the articles aren't international enough. But I haven't written about the Chinese stock market (for instance) for the same reasons I haven't written about kumquats: for one thing, it would often be wrong. Nobody is discouraging Chinese authors; in most articles there just aren't any. Complaining doesn't make writers suddenly know about distant lands; it makes them feel less like writing at all. Anyway, if someone wanted to read about the Chinese stock market he would be more likely to speak Chinese and use Chinese Wikipedia. 
On the Main Page, complaints about US-centrism appear more often than science articles get complaints from creationists. As a result, the Main Page often says things like "the U.S. state of Kentucky" but never "Liberia, Africa". Art LaPella 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are intended to bring attention to the bias so that someone who knows the subject can correct it, not to cajole people who don't know about the subject into writing about it. I'm afraid I don't understand your second point at all, why would an article say "Liberia, Africa?" Liberia is a country, not a state or province.--Cúchullain t/c 08:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has few Chinese editors because the policy against open proxies discriminates against the Chinese, who must use open proxies to circumvent government censorship of Wikipedia. Besides encouraging those familiar to the subject to improve the article, the tag also alerts readers of the systemic bias (lest they think the information in the article applies worldwide, when it may only apply to the USA). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "An article would say "Liberia, Africa" because if English Wikipedia readers don't know where Kentucky is, they are unlikely to know where Liberia is, regardless of the bureaucratic distinction between a state and a country." - what about, eg, a Liberian? English is  the official language there. But I doubt many Liberians know much about Kentucky. ArzelaAscoli 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe, somebody will want to correct the issue, and do the research on Chinese stock markets. I write on stuff that I'm not an expert in all the time. I go to the library, and FIND the info. It works quite well. Murderbike 19:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To research on Chinese stock markets at the library, you'd need to be fairly proficient in Chinese (although Wikipedia's policy on Chinese-language sources is ambiguous). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your influence

message: I don't know if any of you saw the recent Washington Post article by Uzodinma Iweala Stop trying to 'Save' Africa, but in it, its asked, "Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned?"  I thought this was a good question for WP:CSB.  Mutombo's work is discussed a bit, but Kanu's not at all.  Any soccer fans want to help out?  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Washington Post article and African humanitarian workers 

message: There is a big problem growing in the area of "logic" and "mathematical logic." The problem extends to perhaps many dozens of articles, and more every day. There is a group of people in the very organized WikiProject Mathematics who are of the strong opinion that "mathematical logic" is not "logic." This has lead to numerous territory issues in the creation of WikiProject Logic, which is intended as an interdisciplinary subject connected to philosophy, and perhaps linguistics, computer science, etc. 
Well these guys don't have to share anything if they don't want to, and they don't want to. They have as many people babysitting the wikipedia as they need to A) keep anti-logicist propaganda in the articles, B) have split project areas for logic stubs/math-logic stubs C) remove all the mathematical logicians from the logicians category D) remove several categories out from under the logic category (including mathematical logic) E) disintegrate numerous articles into conceptx (logic), and conceptx (mathematics) which are the same concept. The issues go on and on. It is a serious issue to the intellectual integrity of the wikipedia. I am not sure that this discussion page is where to go, but perhaps someone can suggest a way to address this. I have started an account for myself on meta wikipedia, but it is not clear when to go in there either. Please advise. Gregbard 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big problem 

message: I added a (very necessary) blurb on left wing bias here at Wikipedia. --Rotten 07:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reverted. the next bullet point mentions the potential for political bias. Ripe 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added a blurb on left-wing bias 

message: After a bitter dispute on Singapore Airlines, Russavia (who appears to have a vendetta against the Little Red Dot) nominated many articles about Singaporean hotels for deletion. I have previously mentioned here that when articles on non-American topics are nominated for deletion (or speedied) by editors unfamiliar with the topic, they are worsening Wikipedia's systemic bias. In the interests of fighting systemic bias, please comment at the deletion discussions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass nomination of articles about Singaporean hotels for deletion 

message: Requests for Comments have been filed regarding two users who have been seriously disrupting the Battle of Washita River (now blocked from editting), and it's talk page. If folks could weigh in, that would be great. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. Murderbike 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. This article is about Custer's November 27, 2007 attack on the Washita River camp of Cheyenne chief Black Kettle -- a major event in the Indian Wars that played a major role in pushing Southern Plains tribes, esp. Southern Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache, onto reservations. The article has been under full protection since 1 July 2007 -- over a month now -- in a heavily POV & mainly anti-Indian form, and we are having a great deal of difficulty in getting any movement to make it possible to improve the article.  We could really really use some help in the way of comments, statements, etc. from people outside the dispute. Please help! Thanks. --Yksin 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Comment re: [[Battle of Washita River]] 

message: Hey, it's your own fault for discriminating non-English countries, it's always bla bla this is not relevant to the English speaking people and a million references of "oh this is popular in the U.S." and "this is popular in the UK" throughout the site, isn't Russia bigger than the US? What if I went into every one of these articles and added "this is popular in the U.S. and Portugal" (if true), yeah, probably get deleted because the American/Canadian public doesn't give anything what the Portuguese think. LOST and 24 DVDs are sold all over the world, of course LOST only mentions US and UK releases which is logical since English-speaking countries are expected to have the higher audience, just don't come complaining about "Worldwide View" in Women when you obviously could care less about cultural relativity. --AnY FOUR! 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view? 

message: I created 2 articles (OAG (band) and Malaysia national field hockey team) where someone placed speedy deletion tags on it ( and ). Both due to notability issues. The tags have since been removed as i have justified their existence in compliance with wiki guidelines. I find this quite annoying. Wouldnt you? I believe this is due to systemic bias. Is there a way to make the placing of deletion tags more difficult? Suggesting an article in AfD would not be so bad. Ppl should do a bit of research first (wiki guidelines + google, etc) before requesting speedy deletion. kawaputrahello! 14:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree; in fact, I have raised similar issues before. Before nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, it is advisable to do a quick check on Google and consult relevant WikiProjects. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think a failure to assert the importance of a band (for example) should not be a criteria for speedy deletion. Maybe the article is still new and is still in the development stage. The template  can be used instead. Using the same example, the criteria for speedy deletion in WP:CSD#A7 should be expanded to match WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Alternatively, maybe limit power to place tags to administrators. My 2 cents. kawaputratorque 16:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion tags 

message: Dealing with historical religous issues, we are faced with sources written by historians and by religous communities. I feel there is a bias against religous views/texts and in favor of what historians produce. But each has their own problems: In academic view, actions of people are aimed to be explained based on "economic" , "political-social" parameters and less on spritual grounds. But as a matter of fact, we really do a lot of things for spritual reasons. The religous sources on the other hand usually avoid textual criticisms and apply a supernatural model to their knowledge. Both have drawbacks, and both can useful depending on the questions reader has in his/her mind. But based on my experience, Wikipedia seems to have a bias towards the academic view. --Aminz 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably because Wikipedia requires reliable sources, whereas, by their very nature, the veracity of religious texts are usually hotly disputed.  This does not mean that religious views/texts should not be discussed, but that academic sources which attempt to examine those texts dispassionately are far more appropriate sources than the original documents, for the purposes of constructing an encyclopaedia. Warofdreams talk 01:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in different type of sources 

message: Compare:
:en:Kim Holland
:nl:Kim Holland
Melsaran 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the bias? I don't really see that there's bias in there being two different Kim Hollands. Murderbike 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "bias" is that the Dutch-language Wikipedia has an article on a Dutch person and the English-language Wikipedia on an American person. This is, of course, caused by the fact that most contributors to the Dutch-language Wikipedia are Dutch, and many contributors to the English-language Wikipedia are American. A typical example of "The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors and manifests itself as an imbalance in coverage". Melsaran 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a good example of systemic (not "systematic") bias.  As one individual of this name is far better known in the Netherlands, and another is far better known in the United States, it suggests that both editions of Wikipedia would probably benefit from a disambiguation page. Warofdreams talk 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A typical example of systematic bias

message: Hi,
We are discussing reworking some material over at Talk:Mother Teresa and have realised we don't know how she was/is viewed by the India press and people (or indeed the Third World press in general). Anyone here able to contribute from a position of knowledge? We know about her state funeral and government honours in India and have seen  but that is a hostile source and therefore might not properly reflect what Indian reportage on her is really like. (Posting this at both WP:Bias and WP:India--Peter cohen 09:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help wanted re views of Mother Teresa in India 

message: Could someone have a glance at the discussion here? I'm running into arguments which smell of Anglocentric bias: that a translation of book titles should be viewed as suspect because most Wikipedians can't read Russian, and that a book series is not worth including because it's never likely to be translated into English. Gordonofcartoon 13:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: resolved. Gordonofcartoon 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Parodies of Harry Potter]]

message: I wonder what you folks think of "As the number of reviews should be limited, and as languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers, reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question." which has recently been added to WP:ALBUM. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Non-English atm. Kappa 12:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the qualifiers "generally", and "unless the language is especially relevant" added in there, it doesn't seem like a too bad of a policy/guideline to me. Murderbike 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would rather hear opinions from a variety of sources. Why should the only opinions I hear about a Turkish-language album be in English or Turkish? Why never Chinese or Spanish, if it's being discussed in these languages? Kappa 11:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but the rules seem a bit muggy on the issue in regards to sources, so perhaps there's a good enough reason for this guideline. I think the main point is that others have an easier time verifying that what is written is indeed what was said, rather than taking a proported translator's word of it. Certainly common sense should be used, in that if something is particularly popular elsewhere, etc... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English album reviews 

message: Edits to the Jena 6 article made me wonder if there was some sort of wiki standard for defining people's races. Are white/black acceptable compared to caucasian/african american or whatever? Murderbike 03:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  race terms 

message: An RfC has been posted at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii regarding WP:WEIGHT issues. If folks could take a look and throw in their two cents, it'd be great. Murderbike 05:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment