One thing that annoys me about some Wikipedia articles is the tendency
for editors to argue over the nationality of a person in the biography
article about them. The classic example is Copernicus, which has some
justification in that there is sourced discussion of the history of an
actual dispute
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Actually, Descartes may have been a bad example. The change was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Descartesdiff=nextoldid=407801169
Seems
I dread to think how many megabytes of discussion are spent on discussing
nationalities.
So why are you discussing it?
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:56:46 +0100
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Nationality in the lead of articles
To: English Wikipedia
I dread to think how many megabytes of discussion are spent on
discussing
nationalities.
So why are you discussing it?
Meta discussions about problems sometimes result in progress.
For example, I've been looking at another article, Astrology, where half
a dozen astrology advocates have
Yeah, what about the whole issue of albanians, according to the rules mother
theresa was not albanian, but by birth ottoman empire or yugoslavian
something. There are many more examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Albanians
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:19 PM, FencesWindows
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
WikiProject Rational Skepticism High-importance) Really?
Astrology is one of the oldest and, amazingly enough, still most
popular foes of skepticism. If they don't consider it
'High-importance' then what *is*?
--
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
So, instead of working on the article, and adding something about
astrology, there has been a sterile POV conflict. Meanwhile the article
is piss poor with one of the POV warriors, now he's gotten rid of the
opposition, re-writing it and making it even
