Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xed (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 13 October 2004 (→‎socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Structures

What about creating a template like the COTW template, but that specifically tags an article as being under active development by this wikiproject? -- Solitude 07:06, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea as it also would serve to bring contributors to the project. In fact something similiar got created in response to this this village pump discussion. Currently Template:Importantstub is up for deletion. So I think we ought to save it from deletion and amend so it refers to this wikiproject. Its not quite what you are talking about, but perhaps we need a stub template and work in progress template :ChrisG 07:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Template:Importantstub is still up for discussion and not deleted; I've just added my KEEP vote. I agree with Chris on the above; and maybe any rewording could replace the word "important" so as to give less offence to some of the current "delete" voters? Some circumlocution such as "improving the representativeness and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia". Preferably a little shorter than that. (:-) Robin Patterson 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder whether Categories (rather than subpages) could be used to keep this project more manageable? Easier navigation up and down the tree, maybe? Robin Patterson 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Age related bias

Is this worth adding? I mean there are proportionately less computer-literate old folks. Anyone for knitting?---Xed 22:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Speaking as someone almost certainly among the oldest 20% off Wikipedians, and possibly the oldest 10%, that example of subject matter is pretty condescending. There are legitimate issues here, although my suspicion is that right now we have bigger fish to fry. Still, for the record:
    • Yes, we probably do under-represent issues of specific concern to older people. For example, our article on the Gray Panthers is four paragraphs, and our article on American Association of Retired Persons is a stub; yes, I could imagine adding old age and aging to the list of concerns of this project.
    • The other is trickier and is generational rather than age-related as such. Take a look, for example, at an article like slide guitar. You'd practically think it was invented in the 1960s. Or Jackson Pollock: a near-stub on one of the half dozen most famous American artists of his generation.
-- Jmabel 01:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Recruitment

I still say that the real key to this is recruitment. I have a lot of ideas of how we could work on recruiting more African-Americans into Wikipedia in general and this project in particular, but frankly not a clue about outreach to people from sub-Saharan Africa. But let me say: if we can't get a clear consensus that African-American topics are part of what's at issue, I'm not going to try to convince an African-American Studies undergrad that he or she has to learn all about Tanzania to be useful to this project when his/her own community is less covered than that of science fiction fandom.

Xed, I have no problem with you wanting to focus on the developing world. But unless and until we can get clear consensus that there is also an underrepresentation both in Wikipedia's participant pool and it's topic coverage for women and ethnic minorities in the developed world, I think many of those women and ethnic minorities will — entirely appropriately — view Wikipedia and this project as hostile territory. -- Jmabel 01:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm an ethnic minority, and I don't feel that I should write or think only about topics which are somehow connected to my genetic makeup. If fact, I cringe when people imply I should. Nor do I feel I am limited in subject matter by the shape of my genitals. People are surprisingly flexible. I don't feel I have to be protected from other subjects lest they frighten me. Also, the phrase 'ethnic minority' is not synonymous with just people of African descent who live in the US or UK. Now I've got that off my chest.... I agree that there is under-representation of women and ethnic minorities (though some minorities are probably over-represented), it's just a question of priorities. Recruiting more African-Americans into Wikipedia would be a good move. I hope the design below shows how amenable I am to your ideas.---Xed 02:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


General subjects that suffer from a U.S. or developed country perspective

One thing not really mentioned on the project page, and probably also harder to address, is the number of Wikipedia articles that only talks about the situation in the U.S., sometimes without even mentioning this. Public relations talks almost exclusively on U.S. examples and figures. Media_bias makes an attempt to discuss bias in general, then mainly concerns itself with the U.S. liberal vs. conservative bias discussion. Perspectives from the developing world could be very valuable here, not to mention a discussion on the situation in Russia. Much the same could be said about Freedom of speech.

Other articles manage to draw their examples from several countries, but still limit themselves more or less exclusively to the developed world. For good examples of this, see Lawyer and Breakfast (although the latter actually mentions a Muslim practice in the very last sentence).

Perhaps even more serious a shortcoming, Rape suffers from an extremely Western perspective. It starts by discussing the legal definitions of the U.S. and the UK only. Apart from brief mentions of the social consequences of rape in "societies with strong sexual customs and taboos", and rape as a means of torturing detainees in some countries, the rest of the article deals with the U.S. situation. There is not even a single mention of the practice of rape as a war crime!

Also, Adoption is strikingly Western in its perspective, not even mentioning the effect that widespread adoption from developing countries has had on the economy and social structure of these countries.

I'm not sure what to call this more subtle effect of systemic bias or how to bring it up on the project page. Should it go into a separate list, and if so, what should the title be? Does it need a discussion of its own? Alarm 01:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a major issue, and should be a major part of CSB. Most general subjects suffer from this effect. The US liberal vs conservative schism seems to permeate too many political articles, despite having very little meaning elsewhere. A list could be called "Internally biased articles" or something like that. If we end up going with the template design above then articles like Lawyer etc should really have a mark next to them, like ¡, to show that the bias is internal, with an explanation at the bottom of the table. ----Xed 03:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Foreign" literature and Non-white figures in the U.S., UK, et

I have some problems with the terms used for two of the subject areas listed. In my opinion, "Foreign" literature does itself manifest a bias simply by the perspective implied in the term. I'd suggest "Non-English literature" or something similar, but that might exclude Indian and South African authors that is not adequately covered. Of course "Literature from the developing world" could be used, if we think that literature from Portugal is adequately covered as it is.

I'd like to change "non-white" into something that also include other minorities, and I see no good reason to limit the area to the U.S. and the UK. How about "Minority figures in developed countries" or perhaps just "Minority figures?" Alarm 01:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to participate in this project, adding articles about African literature (a topic of particular interest to me). I recently added Bediako Asare and his novel Rebel and am eager to do some more. I hope some other people join me. List of African writers is a good place to start. Many important books are published by Heinemann's African Writers series and are easily available. Danny 02:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great! On the literature front, I believe the term was mine, and I mainly meant "foreign-language" literature, although I doubt that English-language literature outside the U.S. and UK is at all well covered either. Developing world is an issue, but the problem goes way beyond that, unless your definition of "developing world" is awfully broad. For example, I would guess that I've single-handedly written more than half of what we've got on Argentine literature and at least a third of what we've got on Romanian literature, and I can promise that in both cases its barely the tip of the iceberg. While we are rather weak on even English-language literature from the developing world, we're already catching that in one category and don't really gain anything by catching it in two. Anyway, the phrase was mine, but I'm not attached to it, edit at will.

How about "Non-English language literature"? Alarm 03:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sure, whatever. -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Minority" without a qualification of "ethnic minority" is almost vacuous. We are all a minority of some sort (political, sexual, taste in beers, take your pick). No deep problem with what you're saying, as long as it's "ethnic minority" rather than just "minority". Maybe "Ethnic minorities in developed countries"?

Still, I'm not at all convinced that white minorities (which, as an ethnic Jew, I certainly am) are at all under-covered. I don't see Wikipedia as particularly weak on Jewish topics. Or those of most Central European ethnicities, or that of any number of other groups that happen to be well-represented in our participant pool. So call it what you will, but the pattern seems to me that most of the gaping holes vis a vis ethnicity in our coverage of the U.S. and UK correspond to the color line. -- Jmabel 02:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

How about hispanics? Do you agree with Xed's observation above? Anyway, I think "ethnic minority" at least sounds better than "non-white" (though I agree with you on the necessity of "ethnic"). Alarm 03:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Globally, whites are an ethnic minority, as are other groups. The term 'ethnic minority', as it is meant in these discussion, only seems to make sense from a North American and Euro outlook. Under-representation of individual groups within the systemic zone countries would have to be analysed---Xed 03:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Ethnic minority" is always in a context. Whites are not and ethnic minority, because "whites" collectively are not an ethnic group: arguably they are a race, but certainly not an ethnicity. Whiteness is a very tricky concept, and I think it is emphatically a social construct. 100 years ago, Jews in America were generally not considered "white". 150 years ago, the Irish in America were generally not considered "white". As for Hispanics: interesting case. The U.S. census doesn't consider them white, although many consider themselves white. As the number of Hispanics increases, the concept of "white" crosses interestingly with the concept of "Anglo". Consider the following sentence, which I heard quoted from a teacher in New Mexico: "There were only two Anglos in the class and both of them were black." I can honestly say that 40 years ago, almost no one in the U.S. would have included a Black person in the category of "Anglos". Yes, Hispanic-U.S. topics are almost certainly under-covered, probably more so than African-American topics. And Hispanic-American topics are certainly relevant here. (Parenthetically: "Hispanic Americans" is another tricky social construct: what does a typical immigrant from Buenos Aires really have in common with one from Mayaguez, other than a native language?) -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting discussion, and probably the best place to bring up this. Am I the only one who grimaces everytime I see the use of the words "ethnic minority" on these pages? It always carries with it associations of negativity and supression to me. I also find it condescending, its a phrase that seems to isolate certain people and labels them as a minority --cgfoz 12:44, Oct 9, 2004 (GMT)


Issues to be resolved?

  • Voting mechanism. How are items for the voted items chosen - are there limitations for how many from each section (or could ten items be chosen from labor issues?) How is CSB cotw chosen? How are the two items at the end of each country (in carousel) chosen?
  • Page has too much manifesto and stuff describing the project. May be intimidating for new users. Some stuff is replicated in the template. Could be pruned to half the text. More functional, less textual.
  • Template box could be more terse too.
  • The items in the Open Task list could be in a list like this one.
  • How many key topics should we have?
  • Topics to add
  • Topics to remove. We need to prune the topics as we go along not just keep adding.

Voting mechanism

I think COTW should be voted on. But I think the rest of the articles on the todo list should just be cycled through from the list created in open tasks. Its more important to work out how often they should be cycled (weekly?) and who is responsible for the update. Maybe we should vote on who does that; and they should do that until they get voted out if people don't like the way they choose the articles. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer voting on the items to someone single-handedly picking them. But my understanding was actually that all of these items were Collaborations of the Week - I'm not sure we should vote on a single COTW as well. On the other hand, I think 10 new items each week, which is what is currently stated, runs the risk of being a bit too much. At least until we know what improvement rate to expect from listed items. On the other hand participation might benefit from a wide choice. My suggestion would be to choose 5 new articles each week and to let them stay on for two weeks. I'd also say maximum one new item from each section per week (i.e. maximum two at the same time), to ensure a wide enough choice to encourage participation. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to vote on everything then I think the todo list should have one representative from each topic we identify, e.g. one developing world, one western centric, one feminism. I also think it should one person one vote. A person should not be able to vote for more than one topic, this will make selection far easier.:ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should vote on a single COTW, with no one page ever coming up more than once every 8 weeks. For the rest, we can cycle among anything, try to distribute it across the various areas, and favor articles that already have more than one vote to be the COTW. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, now I've actually read what is said on the project page about this ;-) . I understand that it would be rather silly to vote on both COTW and todo list topics. I'd agree with some kind of model that puts the topics with the most COTW votes on the todo list. Regarding the topics connected to carousel countries, I'm actually quite happy if someone with some knowledge of the specific country picks two suitable choices. If two or more people turn out to have conflicting opinions on what is suitable, we could always arrange a vote when that happens. Alarm 22:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There surely are some problems with this method, but for now I'm happy to go with it. Have added explanation in voting section. --- Xed 22:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see some problems with this approach, but that is probably true of any other model as well. I just want to clarify that, by my last comment, I did not really envision a strict, formal rule that the 10 topics with the very highest number of COTW votes should be put on the todo list. I'm happy with the "soft" wording on the project page as it is. I guess we'll have to see what happens and adjust the model as we go along. Alarm 09:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Content on project page

I think its fine in terms of length; its a complicated project to run and needs some detailed explanation. Obviously it could be polished and improved. However, I think the todo list should be above the toc, re: discussion above, because it gives a quick overview of the project. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. People will probably misunderstand what we're doing if we don't explain it well enough. The "manifesto" seems relevant as an analysis of what's wrong and a background for understanding what to look for. If there is a majority for pruning, I'd suggest moving the full text to a subpage where there is room for a deeper analysis. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disagree, but won't veto. Normally, introductions in Wikipedia are short. I'm unaware of any other WikiProject that puts its to-do list above the ToC: can someone show even one precedent for this? -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Template box should be terser

Since the to-do list is an advertisment as it were, it needs to be as interesting and attractive as possible. It doesn't need to be terser, unless it is forcing people to scroll the page. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it has reached "unenbarrassing" as it is and that editing the template box could be done after we've "gone live". Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Once the project is even a month under way, some of the "kickstart" info may go away; the rest will probably then be best put after the articles list.

Open task list should be list rather than table

This is a difficult one; because it is a pain to add articles to tables; and may put some people off. However, I would be happy to continue and see how it goes :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for swapping the tables for numbered lists, although I think there should be separate lists for each area. Taking away the necessity of editing tables just to add an item to one of the lists would probably encourage new users to add their suggestions. Saves space, too. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can go either way between tables and lists. Not numbered, because the numbers will change and that's confusing. Definitely separate lists for each area. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
It looks like Xed (who said he wouldn't be around today) has preempted this discussion and is turning it all into lists. And he's using numbers, the one thing I said I'd object to. Xed, are you doing this just to piss me off? -- Jmabel 20:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Calm down, I didn't see your comment. Whats wrong with numbers? Makes it easy to count the number of articles. It doesn't matter if they change. --- Xed 21:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Number of key topics

I think we should restrict the number of key topics to about ten. This will force us to think hard about what the key issues are. Otherwise we will end up with a list of about 30 sections in a few weeks. The sections that don't make the cut should be listed as a section of its own. :ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Generally concur. Hopefully, if this project reaches a certain size, some of the areas we are now covering become projects of their own. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Topics to add

I don't think this is an issue. I think they should just be added for the moment. I think we should have a section on Western or American centred articles. We should list those articles that assume that when they are talking about the US or Western issues they are talking about the world. These articles should be flagged with some sort of template. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we need to explain what we mean by 'Internally-biased articles'. If noone beats me to it, I'll get back to this later today. Agree with ChrisG on the template idea. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reflected on this and changed my mind, and suggest restrict the number of key topics. However I do feel we should add Western centric articles that are supposed to be generic in content and an Older person section. What we remove, thats more difficult.: ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you prefer the terminology "Western centric articles that are supposed to be generic in content" to "Internally-biased articles"? I suppose both terms refer to the area described above under the headline "General subjects that suffer from a U.S. or developed country perspective". We need a good term here, preferrably self-explanatory. Alarm 17:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the issue is the same even if (as I've occasionally seen) an article is Germany-centric. How about calling the category [[Category:Overly narrow geographic scope]] and having a template, say, Template:Geographic Scope:
This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in the following countries: {Template:Covered}. This topic has wider scope.
Then {{Geographic Scope|Covered = U.S., UK}} would display as
This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in the following countries: U.S., UK. This topic has wider scope.
Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Does it really need to be this specific? There will be practical problems. Sometimes articles are written from a more general Western perspective (such as Adoption). Sometimes examples are taken from quite a few countries, but exclusively, or almost exclusively, developed countries (such as Breakfast). And in cases like Rape, the odd line mentioning non-Western cultures or countries pops up, so although the article is still heavily unbalanced, you can't really say it deals only with matters in the U.S. and the UK. I'd suggest using only one or two more general templates, such as This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in a limited number of countries and perhaps This article needs a more balanced perspective: currently it deals with its topic from a developed world perspective only. Alarm 22:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed --- Xed 22:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me -- Jmabel 23:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone with experience in handling templates help with creating those two? This isn't really my specialist field... Alarm 09:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Topics to remove

I suggest we should merge Asia with Developing world as a topic. If we have Asia, then we will need the other continents as well which will spread us too thin. Its the type of country not their location which caused the systemic bias. I also feel we should remove humanities as I think it is covered reasonably well.:ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say we remove Humanities and move the single entry there, Modernist women writers, into Women and feminism. People have suggested that humanities in general on the Wikipedia seems to be improving rapidly, so Humanities-related subjects that fit under other categories should probably be a priority for us. Alarm 17:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with both. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove "Subjects which would normally be longer in other encyclopaedias". There is the following page Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics and clearly work is ongoing. We don't want to duplicate work. Also I don't think its systemic bias, those gaps will clearly be filled by the goal to be more comprehensive than Britannica and Encarta :ChrisG 20:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics and the entries there are just as western centric as Wikipedia as a whole, perhaps even more so. - SimonP 21:09, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Articles within that list my have a western bias. But we have a systemic bias towards covering the content of other encyclopedias. :ChrisG 12:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Should the list in the background section (under the headline Systemic bias) be changed to reflect the merges made in the Open Tasks section? I think that would be logical. Alarm 09:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, done. Xed 09:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Benin Civil War

Can I ask to which event in Benin's history this term is referring? Is it Benin's part in Nigeria's Civil War? Because as far as I can make out (from NI's World Guide 2004 and from googling) there is no single event called the "Benin Civil War"? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My mistake I think. Maybe I was thinking of Guinea-Bissau--Xed 22:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Xed in charge of this project or not?

I've struck myself from the list of participants until the Xed stops acting like he owns this WikiProject.

What are people's views about whether this is collaborative, of if we are really still just helping with User:Xed's CROSSBOW?

BCorr|Брайен 21:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just spent one and a half hours implementing mine and others suggestions. Is that what you mean?--Xed 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you want my view: I get the impression that this project is collaborative, judging from the important contributions of, among others, Xed, ChrisG, Jmabel and Alarm (in no particular order). After reading something more on CROSSBOW and the history of WP:Bias, I get the impression that Jmabel and ChrisG (and maybe I am forgetting someone - forgive me, I am a new Wikipedian and I shouldn't get into issues like this) could also designate themselves as responsible for 'design, direction', like Xed does on the participant listing. In my humble opinion however, such designations are of little use for the project, since the project would benefit the most from being truly collaborative in all respects.
But let me stress once again that I just want to participate and don't want to get involved in thorny issues like this. - Strangeloop (talk) 23:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, I share BCorr's concern. I feel that Xed has been repeatedly preempting consensus. I am thinking of pulling out of trying to do any process-oriented work on this and just maybe suggest articles and keep it on my watchlist to see what other articles people suggest. BCorr, I hope you also will continue to do at least that. -- Jmabel 23:21, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nope, amending that, I'm not just thinking of it. Xed has now preempted the timetable I set up to make sure we had consensus before going live. Having made all of the edits that he wanted to make, he apparently sees no need to wait for others and see if anyone might have a reaction to any of this, or if anyone else might have an issue within the timeframe I proposed, which no one (including Xed) had explicitly objected to. This is not my idea of collaboration. I still think this project is, in principle, a great idea, but I work on Wikipedia because I enjoy it. It is obvious that there is no way I will enjoy collaborating closely with Xed. I don't doubt his good intentions, just his ability to work cooperatively. -- Jmabel 23:26, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
The edits I made were not just ones I wanted to make, but ones suggested by others - including yourself. Additionally, you said wanted to go live above, and also that you thought the project was ready. Since you thought I was holding you back from going live, I thought that I might as well do it. --Xed 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I said, Xed, I'm not questioning your good intentions, I just find you impossible to work with. -- Jmabel 23:44, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to. The project is nearly done. If it has been designed correctly then it will run smoothly, and we won't have to even talk to each other --Xed 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear. I don't know if there is something I can do here, but I do want to try. I strongly urge everyone to try to keep working together on this. I really value Jmabel's input on this process and were it not for his contributions I would probably not be here myself. There will be new process issues along the way and I do hope to see Jmabel and BCorr contributing to the discussion.
Yes, I raised the exact same questions as BCorr when Xed came back to put "project instigator. design, direction" next to his name in the list of participants and bluntly declared that "The direction taken is fundamentally wrong" to participants working hard on what we all thought was a collaborative effort. But I must say that since then we've actually been able to resolve most of the original disagreements and my impression was, until some 12 hours ago, that this had successfully turned into a team effort. I feel that this had much to do with Xed actually changing his tone and taking to a more diplomatic approach, and I actually think he deserves some credit for this change for the better.
That said, I absolutely understand the irritation arising from him "jumping the gun" and substantially changing the project page without waiting for broader agreement on the talk page. However, it does seem to me that from his point of wiew he was just implementing suggested improvements that noone had objected to (not having noted Jmabel's opposition to numbered lists). I think that he just felt a certain urgency, arising from the suggestion to "go live" with something he didn't think was polished enough. It would certainly have been much better if he had first said something like "Is it OK if I implement these suggested changes now? With them, I think we're ready to go live." and waited for people to respond. Xed, even though you might be a person who wants things to happen fast, for the sake of this great project, could you please try to communicate what you intend to do and wait for broader consensus before making substantial changes to the project page? And Bcorr and Jmabel, could you please clarify if there is any specific change of Xed's that you object to?
I consider this a great project that, given time, could have substantial impact on the Wikipedia. But in order for that to happen, I think we need to have more dedicated people aboard, not less. And in order for us to get this running smoothly, we need to communicate more, not less. Alarm 10:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm wholly with Strangeloop, Alarm and oddly enough Xed on this one. Its about the work, not the workers, no-one owns this project, it is a cooperative endeavour. I really appreciate the work Jmabel has made for the project; but I have come to appreciate Xed's endeavours as well. To be honest it amused me that Xed put project instigator etc. on the participant list; because he didn't realize that actually lessened the respect he would have automatically earnt from the major contributions he had made; I see from the project page he seems to have learnt his lesson and shown he does have a sense of humour! (re: calling himself a scold who sits on the sidelines) I can see how Jmabel feels Xed actions were designed to annoy him given their past history; but I have to say that Xed hasn't done anything out of order, since coming up with the issue lists as far as I can see. Generally I'm in favour of people being bold with their editing, when its seems there is an emerging consensus and he has been; but perhaps that approach should not be adopted when you have had an ongoing issues with another person. I realize Xed feels he has apologised on Jmabels talk page; but Jmabel clearly hasn't accepted them has heartfelt yet. As a final thought look at the work we have accomplished so far; differences of opinion and conflict are inevitable part of the process of working on Wikipedia, but we share much the same goals.  : ChrisG 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When I mentioned the idea of this project on the Village Pump, several people told me to shut up and just get on with it. Now I'm being too productive.. This productivity is partly because Jmabel, and others, wanted the project to go live, so I felt I just had to get on with implementing everyones ideas right away. Despite this, Jmabel says "Having made all of the edits that he wanted to make..". He hasn't specified what edits he disapproves of. He also believes that my putting in a numbered list was done to upset him. Jmabel has made some great contributions to the project, and I would be happy if he were to return. I would rather work on the project than argue about minutiae --Xed 14:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two notes

In my brainstorming a couple ideas at Meta on the potential United States Wikimedia Chapter, I proposed an outreach program to encourage contribution from minority languages. I made an example with some thoughts at this page, devoted to Cherokee. The same idea could be useful for this project, if someone wants to.

Also, I know a bit about African music and am wondering how the articles in the "country carousel" were chosen, because music of Burkina Faso is likely a bad choice. In contrast to most African countries, Burkina Faso has never had much of a recording industry; popular music is almost all imported. The article should be focusing on the folk music of the numerous ethnic groups in the country, and substantially expanding it will require using ethnomusicological journals that only a specialist is likely to be able to access and understand... A well-meaning contributor really couldn't help out there without a solid, specific knowledge base and access to obscure resources. Music of Benin would be a much better choice if you want a "music of" article in the carousel, since I'm sure it would be easier to research. Tuf-Kat 01:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Burkino Faso music choice was just put there as an example, since the project has just started. You can nominate and vote on Music of Benin, or anything alse, at the bottom of the page--Xed 08:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expanding the to-do list here

It seems that most of the articles that have been put forward, with a few exceptions, are done with some form of COTW in mind. It'd be nice to have a longer list of many articles that need doing in sparse areas (as several of the national notice boards have done) to then choose from. That way, we might end up getting a lot more done. Ambi 10:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do these national notice board cope with page size? My fear is that the page becomes too heavy if all sections keep long lists. Maybe subpages for each section, with only some 10 top-priority tasks advertised on the main page, could be a working solution? Alarm 11:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Simply have a "complete to-do list" subpage, supplementing the main one, which actually sits on the main page. The page size issues would also be helped by moving the COTW discussions to a seperate page, per everywhere else that does this. Ambi 11:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It looks to me that the talk page is going to fill up very fast as well. Should we adopt the village pump method of making it a virtual page. We could split the talk page up into project policy, topics and articles, COTW, Templates etc. :ChrisG 12:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just think it needn't have to do so. Move the stuff that shouldn't be here, like to-do lists and COTW-related stuff to subpages. That's half the problem - having all that stuff here is just creating unnecessary page lag, not to mention being confusing. Then archive lots. And suggest that people get on with working on these articles rather than arguing over who's in charge. Ambi 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with some of Alarm and Ambis suggestions, and would advocate 10 items for each section -with the breadth of the the items chosen covering the whole spectrum (for instance, the ethnic minority section doesn't have much on Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian etc issues) . And a link to 1 subpage which has a large list of subjects from all the sections. Xed 14:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean just on the main to-do list. What I'm suggesting is have a complete list on a subpage, with even subpages of that if necessary. That's what we've done for the Aussie notice board, and it ensures there's always something to work on. When there's potentially hundreds of articles to choose from, it also results in a lot more action. Ambi 11:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page size reduction vote

Please vote yay or nay below on this proposal. ---Xed 18:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Each section in Open Tasks (apart from the country carousel) should contain 10 items representing a broad cross section of the sections potential articles. Furthermore, there should be a separate page (with links to it in the Open task section) that contains all of the CSB articles which have been identified

nay - moving it completely to a linked page would make sense, but dual maintenance will be a headache and will be particularly confusing for any marginally involved people who want to make suggestions. -- Jmabel 21:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The 10 items would simply illustrate the idea behind the section. Only the the items on the separate page would change.--Xed 21:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requesting review

Can I also suggest a Requesting review section where articles that have been improved can be listed for the rest of us to look at? Filiocht 10:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about if we divide each topic in open tasks into sections:
  • Requested article
  • Request for expansion
  • Request for attention
  • Request for review
  • Good articles (i.e those we work on and get to a good standard)
This would make it easier to decide what to work, see that status of each article, and to see progress :ChrisG 13:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, with this part. Ambi 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Me too. Filiocht 13:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. Alarm 14:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, although I'm worried the page is already too long. Xed 14:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It needn't be, if we just cut it back to the articles that need doing and cut out the "join us" and "recruit people" blather. Ambi 11:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can certainly cut "join us", but I believe the key to the success of this project will be recruiting people outside the usual pool of Wikipedians. Quite simply, if a group consisting mostly of white men starts writing about Africa, women, African-Americans, etc. Wikipedia won't be a lot better off for it. Some articles will be written, but the systemic bias will remain essentially the same. None of this needs to be on the to-do list, but all of it belongs on the project page.
Right now, as you know, I've pulled back my level of participation in this, so I guess you don't particularly have to listen to me, but I really believe that over the course of time recruitment to Wikipedia is more important than having the current crew work on articles. -- Jmabel 19:06, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Of course recruitment is important. We know if this is to work we need to recruit people. But we don't need a reminder of that taking up space on the to-do list. Ambi 22:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also agree with the different categories. But is this a suggestion for the Open Tasks pane only? The list of problematic articles is already growing pretty big; I think we need a similar division there if we want to keep track of what we are achieving. - Strangeloop (talk) 22:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope items on to-do list template

I thought these subjects need a note next to them, otherwise people would just think the article needs expanding. I've changed the template accordingly. A better solution is probably possible.--Xed 14:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

This section's name has already been changed once today, for the better (substituting "limited" for "overly narrow"). However, in my opinion, having "geographic" in the title might lead readers to believe that the only problem with these articles are that they don't mention enough countries. As I've explained in the case of Adoption, the problem I'm having with it is not at all the lack of information on practices in specific countries, but rather just the general perspective, which is limited to a developed world viewpoint. Adding information about lawyers in twenty different African countries might not be the best way to deal with Lawyer either (although surprising and very refreshing...)

I do know that this is reasonably well explained by the text under the headline. It's just that if the headline points you in a certain direction you might miss that. My best suggestion for the moment is to call the section just "Limited scope" or maybe "Limited scope and/or perspective", and to change the reference in other parts of the text accordingly. Alarm 15:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title "Limited scope/perspective", given the systemic bias, may lead people to think that, for instance, Adoption does not have enough on either US liberal or US conservative views of adoption — so I think some mention of geography might be needed. I agree the current title is not quite right though. --Xed 16:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You've got a point there. Do you think that "Limited geographic scope and/or cultural perspective" covers it? (Although, in principle, I'd like something shorter.) Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing while we're on the subject. Under "6.6 Topics to add" above, we seemed to reach consensus on creating two templates, one for limited geographic scope and one for limited cultural perspective. Ideally, they should in some way refer to the CSB page, which might be an excellent way to attract attention to this project and the need for it. Considering the controversy around the Important Stub template mentioned above, I'd like to ask those of you who've been around the Wikipedia longer than I if it would be OK to create those templates and start slapping them on articles en masse, or if we should initiate some kind of discussion about this, e.g. on Village Pump. Also, since I have no experience in creating and handling templates, if someone else could assist with this task, I'd really appreciate it! Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've created the template {{Limitedgeographicscope}} . What do people think? Can you think of a better wording?
Do we need more specific templates? Is it worth seperating out in American, Anglo-American, Developed world limitation of scope. Are there any more significant ones? It would be easy enough to create three or more templates and it would mean the category system wouldn't get overloaded. I could easily see that using these templates would lead to thousands of articles being rightly tagged.We have to be careful about this or any templates will be used as part of the NPOV debates from partizans. I think we are fine with geographical or cultural scope; but we must avoid any suggestion of political or religious bias. A question is there a difference between geographical and cultural scope?
To amend the template click [1] and edit as normal. To create another template just copy that template content to another template page, e.g. [2] and paste, then amend the wording as normala and save.
We also need to consider the category system. I've created the category Wikiproject Countering systemic bias as the top category with limited geographic scope below. Any change in number of templates implies a number of sub categories.
We should announce it on village pump once we are happy with the wording and have decided on the number of templates, before we use it in a widespread way. :ChrisG 21:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Have you noticed that this one is already listed on the Templates for deletion page? I don't know what to say there, since I don't know how that process works, but it seems to me that they are moving a little too fast. - Strangeloop (talk) 23:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The limited geographic scope template has accidently ended up on votes for deletion. One comment they made was that it was a bit too wordy. So any suggestions for reducing it to two lines would be appreciated. There are also a few other issues that that need to be decided. See below and give answers

Template issues

One general template or a few more specific ones for geographic/cultural bias

Currently the limited geographical scope template is very general. However do we want to split it up into more specific templates?

  • Americo-centric
  • Anglo-american centric
  • Developed world centric

This subdivision would provide more information and would mean we would have three categories of articles rather than just one, which might be useful if as I expect we tag lots of articles.

I don't really see the value of further division into geographic subcategories, but if anyone can explain the benefits I surely won't veto. There will be quite a number of borderline cases (e.g. most of the article talks about the U.S. only, but someone has added a single sentence on the situation in Poland).
On the other hand, I would say it is often possible to distinguish two slightly different types of internal bias: 1. The article talks about a general term and pretends to deal with it from a general perspective, without giving any geographical references at all, but it is obvious that it is written from a Western cultural perspective (e.g. Adoption). 2. The article deals with the situation in specific countries, but examples are limited to a few countries, normally in the developing world (e.g. Freedom of speech). (There will be some cases where both 1. and 2. applies, i.e. where there is a general definitition written from a Western perspective, followed by examples from the U.S. and the UK only.) I propose the following two template texts, based on this distinction:
1. This article needs attention: it currently deals with its topic mainly from a developed world perspective. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.
2. This article needs attention: the examples currently provided represent a limited number of countries in the developed world only. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.
The proposed texts have the benefit that they are both slightly shorter than the original template text. I've added "See the talk page for further explanation" since my opinion is that we should strongly encourage anyone adding the template to an article to further explain the reasons for doing so on the article's talk page, to prevent misunderstandings. Such talk page comments could also refer to our project page for further information. This would have the added benefit of being an excellent way to advertise the CSB project. Alarm 13:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wording

One comment in Votes for deletion is that it is a bit wordy. Any suggestions for reducing it to two lines?

Systemic bias important article template

Template:Importantstub Do we need a template to say this article is important because it represents systemic bias within Wikipedia. Some variation on the {{importantstub}} template. i.e to the right.

This particularly template is controversial; because it says something is important without saying why; but can we think of a more acceptable wording that adds our concern that it is a poor article because of systemic bias within Wikipedia?

Would it be acceptable to refer to the CSB project and just say we've chosen to target it, instead of expressing the value judgement that it is important? Hence, something like:
This is an article targeted by the WikiProject Countering systemic bias as in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. If you know anything about X, please consider editing the article.
With this wording, it will also be possible to apply the template to non-stubs. Alarm 13:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The wording seems OK. Would this potentially go on all articles where there is bias (95% of Wikipedia)? Or just on the weeks chosen articles? Also, in regard to the Limited Geographic template above, would it not be better to have an template for each of the sections in systemic bias (Developing, female, agriculture, limited geographic etc), all having a standard 'systemic bias' template design? That might make it easier to understand. --- Xed 15:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by standard design - text content or style attributes (color etc.)? Regarding the latter, I agree, but that seems more or less to be the case already. As for the former, I have no problem amending the "in need of expansion" template with categories, e.g. "This is an article dealing with the developing world, targeted ... etc. However, I think the "limited scope" category is of quite a different art, calling for a different text (and referring to the corresponding talk page for further explanation) in both the "developed world perspective" and the "limited number of countries" case. Does this make sense to anybody else? Alarm 20:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The text you proposed ('This is an article targeted by the CSB...') looks fine to me. It is put nicely and avoids the chance of being misused. And I agree with you on the fact that the (important) limited scope category is something different entirely. However, I don't know about reusing the old importantstub template. And I think there's something in what Xed is saying too. Maybe there should be a set of systemic bias templates: one template for articles that simply need expansion, another template for articles with limited scope, etcetera. In that case, I wouldn't build upon the old importantstub but create a brand-new consistent set of systemic bias templates (of which your still adequate wording would form a part). - Strangeloop (talk) 20:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Humble Man's Advice

It is wonderful that the community is doing something about this problem, and believe me, this is a big problem. I myself attempted to define the Rubinomics article but I believe the outcome of the article was disappointing and I got disenfranchised, but the solution of the problem is not adding more views that are varied. The solution is not to add or recruit more contributors who are from different backgrounds. Not even to read more brick and mortar works. These may all help but it is not the solution to the problem, for the problem is a fundamental characteristic of the community. You see, the community (in my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong) is mostly composed of enthusiasts (tech maybe?). This is a big problem. Your goal is to build a collection of all human knowledge - encyclopedia. But in order to collect this knowledge, you need to have the best and the wisest in all possible fields that humanity has to offer from all over the world. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not just a Star Wars factbook, its a contribution to the world for generations to come. There are great men and women out there who have decades of hardwork and wisdom who are willing to share their wisdom. You should pursue them and ask them to join and share. They have proven their greatness in their given fields even before the Internet existed, so in my opinion, they should be part of the article writing process. Talk to them. Listen to them. Learn from them. Attend their classes if you are fortunate to be their student, even though they have flaws. (I'm sure you guys have watched 'A Beautiful Mind')Better yet, let them write themselves and then go into an intellectual discourse with them. Many of them will enjoy talking and debating about what they know for curious minds contribute as much as the pioneer if all are together discoursing like Socrates' garden school. And this applies in everything not only Philosophy. Don't let them become writers exclusively for the big publishing companies. Just recently, a great mind by the name of Jacques Derrida died. He is one of the greatest minds of his field in the last century. He began the Deconstructionalist school of criticism. He is gone now, but has he ever contributed to the noble cause of building the greatest collection of human knowledge? I doubt. Even in his own work? Great minds like him are disappearing one by one and they are the best prospective contributers in the many fields like the Humanities, the Social Sciences, the Natural Sciences, etc. that the world has to offer. It will be a complete waste if they do not contribute to the wikis themselves. Their hard untainted work will be gone forever after their books (or their unpublished dissertations) turn to dust and this digital medium remains composed of reinterpretations of another man's great ideas and views. What is left will not necessarily represent the ideas or views of the pioneer. How could one be objective if one does not recognize that there is validity in the different sides of the coin? It is not fair and just to not involve them in the writing process after they pursue post-graduate studies and a lifetime of research. We have it easy for they will just feed you their conclusions filled with their sweat, blood, and dead brain cells but you will just throw it away preferring your interpretation of an objective assessment of their work. Terrible. Credibility goes to someone who didn't work as hard. Thats the reason why the many good writers are those who read alot. Let them take part, if not....Shame....

And if you are a skeptic, I will try to make my advice clear. Look for the best in people in their field no matter what their background and ask them to contribute, at least interview. And if they do not know how to use the Internet, teach them! There are so many great historians, economists, doctors, mathematicians, sociologists, psychologists, natural scientists (all branches), philosophers, etc. out there who want to contribute to the world for free before they are dead. Even university professors will be ok. SO let them join! Your noble cause will only grow in greatness if you do this. THEN you can discourse and edit mercilessly for you know that you are sharing ideas with the expert, who will also try see it your way as well. Knowledge is truly shared and the world will move forward.....
23:16, 10 Oct 2004 203.76.241.215


Good stuff, Humble Man. But what this subproject is about does not preclude anyone from approaching more experts to encourage them to contribute. (I've been doing that for the Wikipedia Maori while writing articles for it.) We can each do as much or as little as we choose along each path or just one. Robin Patterson 01:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Female oriented" or "Womens studies"

I prefer "Female oriented", since "Womens studies" sounds dry and academic, and doesn't sound like it encompasses professions with high proportion of women --- Xed 15:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And as a male who is interested in working in the area (I have created lots of articles on women writers in the past), I would argue strongly against 'Female orientated' as being almost segregationist, a bit like 'Women's magazines' or something. These articles are about women, not for them! Filiocht 15:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

'Women's magazines' and 'Women's studies' - both sound segregationist. 'Female orientated' has a broader meaning, one which includes 'Woman's studies'. Like you imply, 'Woman's studies' sounds like it's just about Women writers --- Xed 16:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Women's studies" seems to suggest only academic subjects. I find "Female oriented" to be aesthetically just awful (sorry!) and not any clearer. How about "Women and feminism"? If "feminism" is too divisive or otherwise undesirable, then just "Women"? "Women's issues" (or "Women and women's issues", too repetitive?) could work, don't know if it has the same problem as above ("for women" vs. "about women"). We do have a "Labor issues", but also simply "Ethnic minorities". —Bsktcase 21:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think dividing it up helps to keep it simple. The page is already far too complicated. --- Xed 22:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doneness

I've added a bunch to Smith College, and other wonderful people have filled in Spelman College and Bennett College. They originally got listed here because they were either missing or so stubby as to be embarrassments to wikipedia, which they definitely aren't any more. I guess my thinking is, if women's (and historically black) colleges are written at a level comparable to existing co-ed (etc.) colleges in wikipedia, then even if there's more to say about them, they're no longer examples of "systemic bias". I think these three have reached that point.

This was discussed back in the Archived talk page, but no consensus was reached.

I would seriously suggest that we consider removing these three from our list so we can focus attention on more needy candidates. We don't necessarily need to remove every article that grows beyond a stub—I'm sure some articles will merit our ongoing attention—but I don't think these three college entries necessarily need to be monitored and maintained at such a high level. Opinions? —Bsktcase 22:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I think we need a mechanism for this sort of things; otherwise we won't be able to keep track of improvements and achievements due to WP:Bias. Filiocht proposed a 'Requesting review' category, along with some others (see above). I think his is a good idea. Is that what you mean and what we need? - Strangeloop (talk) 22:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I'm quite amazed at how far those articles reached. Review is definitely the next stage. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I added an article to requesting review in the women bit (whatever we call it) yesterday and suggest that the same be done with these. Filiocht 07:33, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the three (moved, rather than copied) to the Review section. This seems like a good first step. Thanks for the responses! —Bsktcase 15:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now this is interesting

While scouring old Wikipedia project pages, I found this little gem: Wikipedia:Topics_where_Wikipedia_is_weak, which predates this project by three months. Do you think there's anything we can incorporate into here? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism

This is what administrator Jayjg believes this project is all about. Anyone agree? --- Xed 17:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me talk with him. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Re: your comment on his talk page - I certainly don't agree with him, I was just wondering if anybody did. --- Xed 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg was referring to the way you are pitching the systemic bias problem to others, and not to this project, which he greatly supports. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's not at all what I believe this project is all about. While I strongly support the project itself, I also understand its history, and Xed's motivation for promoting it. It grew out of Xed's attacks on Jimbo and his attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks. Viewing the development of this project in context reveals much about Xed's motivations. Xed, of course, disagrees with my characteriztion of his motives, as is Xed's right. Xed also deliberately mischaracterizes my statements as being about the project itself, rather than about Xed's motivations, which is not Xed's right, but which is unsurprising knowing Xed. Jayjg 19:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're talking shit as usual. It grew out of my realisation that there's more on Babylon 5 than Congo Civil War - but that would be anti-American to you! Where did I minimize the importance the importance of the 9/11 attacks? What does Jimbo have to do with Babylon 5? You are full of bizarre conspiracies --- Xed 19:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget, Xed, that I was there when you attacked Jimbo in more than one way (including a rather amusing Request for abitration), then attempted to insert Congo Civil War information into the 9/11 article against the will of all other editors, and then (after a 1 week ban for trolling) came up with your Systemic Bias project. That said, I commend the project itself, and recommend you spend your time working on it, rather than various other destructive activities such as inserting irrelevant and poorly substantiated trivia into the John Kerry page. Jayjg 19:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How can you commend a project which you believe was formed as a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" (which you have provided no evidence for)? Show me where in the Systemic Bias project I have tried to make it into a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks". --- Xed 20:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The project is a good one regardless of your motivations for proposing it. As for the rest, see previous comment. By the way, a week or two ago didn't you say you were leaving Wikipedia? Jayjg 20:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again. "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Show me the evidence. Xed 20:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)