User:Sifaka/sandbox

I think your definition of notability and word as used in Wikipedia jargon are different. From WP:Notability, "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Also from the sub-article on organizations, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." In effect, this means that it doesn't matter how notable the people are who are in the organization, the organization by itself must be satisfy notability requirements. Practically, the effect of the rule is that in order to demonstrate notability, reliable, independent secondary sources about the subject must be found. Find those, and this article should pass the deletion.

Reliable, independent secondary sources are important. For one, they prove the subject exists and is what it claims to be. People make stuff up, going so far as to create fake webpages, blog entries, etc. to give the illusion that something exists. Without reliable, independent secondary sources, how is anyone going to know if this organization is in fact real? Another purpose of the notability rule is to keep Wikipedia from filling up with articles about every person's cat or school club. You are going to need to prove that "outsiders," i.e. people or organizations, preferably notable themselves, who are not part of this organization have cared enough about it to write something about it: that way they serve as reliable, independent, secondary sources. It may just be that the organization currently hasn't attracted enough attention so the sources don't exist yet. When the organization has attracted some attention and there are reliable, independent, secondary sources to prove it, recreate the article and cite them. Until then it will be deleted. Sifaka ^talk 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of the n-NPOV tag is to get editors to attempt to rebalance the article. The n-NPOV tag is not a warning to the general readers that you can post because you don't like some of the content in an article.

Levine2112, I believe use common sense is useful here. There was a similar situation in Noah's Ark Zoo Farm where there was contention over whether or not it violated original research policy to say that that the views promulgated at Noah's ark zoo farm were contrary to the scientific consensus without a source that specifically mentions Noah's ark zoo farm's views are contrary to scientific consensus. The consensus was that a source specifically mentioning Noah's ark zoo farm wasn't required because it is an obvious logical jump. Robert Young advocates live blood analysis which is considered a dubious science by the mainstream.

At the same time, it is important not to overextend the scope of the references; it would be inappropriate to say all of the theories Young promulgates are dubious if only some of them are based off LBA when using a reference that only mentions LBA related theories. Adding appropriate qualifiers fixes this problem. "Some of Robert Young's theories are based off of live blood analysis and are thus not accepted by mainstream scientists because live blood analysis is considered dubious science by the mainstream." Ignoring the horrible sentence construction, the important part is that what is called unaccepted by mainstream science is limited to the theories which are based off of live blood analysis.

In articles where the discussion is hot, these clarifications are vital to prevent articles from becoming lengthy catalogues of debate and rebuttals where deluges of information obfuscate the big picture and ironically prevent the article from being informative.

Editing is not a War of Attrition Essay draft brainstorm

A wiki-war of attrition is a pattern of long term abuse w

It begins when one editor repeatedly attempts to make a particular edit which a larger group of editors object to.

When this occurs, the editors use the talk page to discuss, negotiate, and attempt to reach a consensus.

editor may find that consensus seems to be against him/her, a constructive editor accepts that.

inability to accept that they will not get their way or that consensus may be against them. Will not accept compromise. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

make the same or similar edits repeatedly against a consensus of multiple other editors.

to wear a larger group of editors down like a war of attrition

ignores several other editors

Negotiations breakdown

It's tendentious editing but proving a point is secondary to having it your way.
It's an abuse of silent consensus: Since lack of response is usually taken to mean consensus, editors feel obliged to respond. When the topic recurs repeatedly it becomes frustrating and time consuming to keep rehashing one's views over and over.
Makes it unpleasant for other editors.

It's a long term abuse kind of disruptive behavior which wears down other editors like a war of attrition.

TLDR, make it hard to figure out what is actively being debated by whom, are distracting especially when one is trying to seek input from other editors, and are intimidating to non-regular editors.

Let it drop

Repetition is a key characteristic of a wiki war of attrition.

Characteristic signs:

Editor repeatedly states that their concerns or claims have not been fully addressed, often when several other editors claim otherwise
Editor repeatedly attempting the same or similar edits although they have a history of being reverted
Editor often asserts that consensus has not been reached, especially when multiple other editors claim it has.
Will resurrect discussion by other editors has for the most part ceased.
Posts lengthy arguments that are often TLDR
Other editors get sick of repeating themselves over and over
lack of cooperation with other editor's requests
Claims that other editors do not seek compromise or attempt to mediate with them
Other editors feel that there time is being wasted
Makes accusations of other editors like page ownership
Often assumes bad faith.

Manifests as edit wars, and Tendentious editing