text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 6

Useful Links for CSB editors
Regional notice boards

Dictionary of African Christian Biography of wider interest than might be assumed from its title.

Collaboration
Judging from the votes, it seems that Famine is to be the new 'CSB Collaboration of the Week'. I'm going to change the templates etc. to reflect that. — mark ✎ 16:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we measure Wikipedian's Bias?
Wikipedia says of itself that it has a systemic bias due to the demographics of those who choose to edit it. But has wikipedia's bias ever been measured? Do we actually know the demographic of wikipedians, or are we just assuming they are white middle-class American men? Such an assumption cannot be very scientific, expecially given the poliferation of national calllaboration's, from Chinese to South African (and thats just on en!).

We could try to measure Wikipedian's bias by producing a survey asking questions such as, nationality, languages spoken, income, education, etc. Anybody interested in helping with this idea? WikiProject Wikipedian's survey Seabhcán 14:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am fiercely opposed to asking this sort of question of individuals. We already have numerous pages (mostly linked to by Wikipedians) on which people may volunteer information along these lines if they so choose. Want to publicize those or add more? Great. If you ask me personally about my income, in particular, I will consider that harrassment, and I doubt I'm alone on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Answers would of course be voluntary. Seabhcán 16:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Simple answer: no, you could not reasonably determine the demographic bias. Not that way. It's *possible* to model a proxy for demographics by using the IP logs, but it could get a bit sticky. And it would certainly take a lot of time, effort, not to mention potential privacy issues.
 * If we assume Wikipedia is reflective of the internet, it is reasonable to describe it as biased toward white, male, upper-middle SES, well-educated, north americans; especially in comparison to world populations. This, at least, there has been a lot of research on. - Amgine 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

My personal bias (excuse the pun) is that bias is something that exists in every person—it's basically a function of our being human and being shaped by our own experiences and background. The High Road, IMHO, is to understand what one's own bias is and work from there—identify opinion as opinion and try to work with others to achieve objectivity and completeness is a priority, as it is for projects like Wikipedia. (And yes, I have worked as a journalist and do have a blog.) The way I do this on Wikipedia is to place an honest statement of my background and an attempt at describing my own bias on my user page. I know this will make me an easy target for people that want to discredit me or my contributions based on their perception of "people like me". So be it; it is the price of honesty. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)  —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:50, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I forgot where on wikipedia that I saw this, but there was a page that provided a link to take a personality types test. You know the Jung thing. The posted results said that most of users are INTP, including myself, this also only indicates the personality type of those taking the test. I hope this gives some kind of an idea. Jaberwocky6669 02:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I want to use this opportunity to thank you all for the work you are doing in the CSB project. And what a great article explaining it, very well written. It made me think of my grandparents who died a month ago. If they were born some ten, fifteen years later, they could have been wikipedia readers, maybe. Let's hope that today's and future grannies and grampas will hop on the wagon soon. Honestly, isn't wikipedia editing _the_thing_to_do_ when you are 70+ ? Let's not forget to put these kind of people on the invitation list... :-) -- .~.

Systemic Bias resulting in POV?
Is there any place where collaborated efforts can be done to avoid systemic bias resulting in POV (assuming that there exists such thing).
 * Zain 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this would be an appropriate place to start. Post a message explaining what you want to do, and then, if needed, make a subpage of this one to organize it. Tuf-Kat 00:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well starting it and maintaining it will require a lot of time and I don't believe I would be able to organize it as it should be. So if it is already there I'll be happy to join it. If it is not there, then I am not sure how it will work, because how will some body determine that which party is underdog only because they are outnumbered.
 * Now let me try to put it, in some express able points

 * Some times a thing can be told in a lot of ways and readers can get different perceptions according to the way some information is given. For example see the difference between ‘Killed due to Bombing’ and ‘Resulted in collateral damage’ both are same facts but method of telling has different effects on the user.
 * For this I believe we should have a consistent policy how to mention things. So currently in practice is that majority wins.
 * Which information should come in main page and which should not be given and only links should be provided.
 * A clearer policy should be provided or majority wins here too.
 * Plus many other issues like this where different standards are used in different articles. Some will write ‘killing’ some will write ‘collateral damage’. As all the information here is from different sources, one article declares one source more credible and some other article sees the same source as not credible. Decision on relevancy like how much you think that ‘islamic Millitancy’ should get any mention in islam article or ‘Israeli terrorism’ in ‘jew’ article. Currently there is no policy and majority of the contributors decide.

 * These are the situation where only way to determine is the majority, Because more then one way is technically correct but choosing different way results in different user perception.
 * Authenticity of a source is very difficult to prove on talk, it is matter of opinion mostly. So here too majority wins.

 * In these situations which I mentioned, we should have a method which will make majority a lesser important factor. And merit becomes more effective
 * Zain 01:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Sock puppets as an Example
If you read Sockpuppet it says and I quote
 * "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception , or to create the illusion of broader support for a position."

It indicates that sock puppets unless identified, effect the content of the article 'negatively'. Same should be true if number of editors having affiliation to particular opinion/position is more then other. So as it is mentioned in the WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
 * " The encyclopedia tends to focus  on certain topics while neglecting others"

so we can reasonably assume that 'The encyclopedia tends to support certain positions while neglecting others'
 * "Same should be true if number of editors having affiliation to particular opinion/position is more then other." Absurd. By this standard, how do we favor science over pseudoscience, sane opinion over lone loonies, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Let me give you example on Wikipedia article on wikipedia. I quote
 * "Wikipedia's systemic bias of covering some topics in much greater depth than others is also considered significant, something that even the site's proponents admit
 * So as we have created 'WikiProject Countering systemic bias' believing that popularity among wikipedia's editors alone can't be held as 'significance standard' on a subject. We should have some thing equitant for 'significance of a particular position'. As we believe that the popularity among editors can't be the standard of 'significance of subject' similarly popularity among editors alone can't be the standard of 'significance of position'
 * Zain 20:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main Objective
As we have this project to counter topic focus caused due to 'demographic of its contributors', we should have some thing which counter position support caused due to 'demographic of its contributors'. Zain 12:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be the WP:NPOV policy and, for example, the NPOV tutorial?  — mark ✎ 19:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Although these are helpful but are quite short of what is actually needed, that’s the reason you see all the edit wars and other such things on different articles. You can see from the ‘official comments’ on sock puppets. That they do make an illusion of broader support effecting contents of article ‘negatively’. Same results can be expected from ‘systemic bias’. So we need some measures to avoid ‘systemic bias resulting in POV’ as we are trying to avoid ‘systematic bias result in lesser attention’ in this project.
 * Zain 20:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't entirely understand what you want, but nevermind... Your feelings are here on this page for anyone to read, and take into account when they are willing to propose a policy or project or something.  Do you have any concrete examples of what you would like to do? (or what you would like someone else to do?) Tuf-Kat 22:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * :-( Confusion is understandable let me explain why
 * Actually I initially, to ask Is there any project or sub-project for 'countering systemic bias result in POV' the answer was that, there is no project as such. And was asked what you precisely need. So I started to try to explain so let me try to put in simple words

 * As out numbering causes neglect of an article. outnumbering also causes neglect of a position. Let me try to give you an example (which might not be valid) One is Village_pump_(miscellaneous) which I found by chance. Although I haven't really looked into it for validity but similar valid situations can exist. In such situation 'Systemic Bias' causes POV.
 * Zain 22:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Say no to reusing featured articles; produce new ones
A discussion is going on here about reusing featured articles on the main page. One of the arguments mentioned is that 'most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured'. I think that most editors that are involved in CSB will not agree with this statement. I think that it is in the spirit of CSB to produce as many featured articles as possible and not to rely on the 'canon' of previously featured articles. Maybe people could take a look there and put in some words. — mark ✎ 01:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is "Systemic bias"?
The Systemic bias article is a sub-stub! It's not even a stub! :( Maybe before countering systematic bias, it should be defined better so everyone knows what they're countering?  The stub gives a definition, but surely it's worth an article? --Sketchee 07:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, as it stands, some of this is specific to systemic bias in Wikipedia, which is not appropriate for an article in main space. I'll try to give it some work. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was amused to see that the only country mentioned in the systemic bias article is the United States. --Lee Hunter 14:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added an example from India. --Lee Hunter 14:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Descendent Projects
This has been somewhat suggested above by other users: I think one thing that may be helpful is to start descendent projects stemming from this one. I think it's a large project with a lot of people who want to help but wants to do different things. No one wants to be told what to do or work on. It seems a bit unwikipedian if we all try to focus our efforts in one place at a time too much.

We started the Music subprojectWikiProject Composers just a day ago. That new project page lists a growing "How to help section" so that people can just jump in, pick something that sounds good to them and get to editing. It's all intentionally flexible. With three people we've already gotten a list going on neglected topics and people working on articles. I think it's a bit intimidating as is for someone to jump into CSB and edit an article.

The WikiProject page has a large number of categories for projects, but few projects in most of them. Almost any main category of Wikipedia could be made a Wikiproject effectively. If people think that Africa needs more attention, then they can use an African Wikiproject to focus that attention. The countering system bias project can then just focus as a mother project assisting in alerting people of neglected projects and serve a call to arms when a project isn't made. (ie "The attention is needed to write about War! We need people to start a War Wikiproject to guide the creation of these articles.")  Then this CSB project can serve as guidelines making sure that in other categories.

The possibility is there that people won't want to work on Wikiproject X. This is why the broadest categories would need to be found. Rather than starting a descendent project from here to tackle just Guinea, there is more likely to be people who'd want to work on project Africa. With the people who want to work on Wikiproject Africa already altogether, it would be easier for Wikiproject CSB to ask them if they could please tackle the Guinea article(s). The Geography subpage, IMHO, and actually all the subpages would be better handled as seperate Descendent Wikiprojects with one of it's stated goals when filling out the template. This wikiproject can still link to To-Do lists of subprojects, members can participate in both the subproject and main CSB project. Everyone is free on Wikipedia to edit any page, so if CSB members want to edit descendant projects in that manner it would be just like editing any other page as no one can own projects anyway.

Just my ideas and opinion. Don't mind me! :D--Sketchee 10:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * That is a very good idea. Wikiacc 02:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Labor union" vs. "Trade Union"
See Labor union, List of labor unions, Category:Labor unions. In the rest of the world outside US, these are refered to primarily as "Trade Unions". Also, Trade Unions, is neutral in term of US vs. British English. Anyone feeling like chipping in on the talk pages? --Soman 13:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * List of labor unions was at List of trade unions for years before someone moved it in November, for the "sake of consistency", was the option to move labor union for consistenct considered ? Jooler 11:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "Google Test"
I so-called Google test is often used to claim that one particular usage is more common or correct, but I believe that this is based on the false assumption that articles on the Internet truly reflect International uage. It is my opinion that trying to prove that a particular form of words is more common using this method proves no such thing. I contend that it merely proves that one particular usage is more common on web pages in the United States. I think that there should be a Wikipedia namespace page clearly stating the flaws of the "Google test" Jooler 11:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Good idea! I've noted some on . Maybe somebody can add and/or move to a new page? Elf-friend 00:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An easy task
Here's a suggestion for a simple thing folks can do to further the aims of this project: Work on enhancing the date (September 22, May 1) and year (1922, 1733) pages to broaden their scope and better link to underrepresented people, places, and events. Of course, this alone won't fix Wikipedia's systemic bias - no one change will - but it might help increase the exposure of these articles, and maybe get a few people to think more broadly about Wikipedia's content as a whole... CDC  (talk)  03:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another CSB article on FAC
Lord's Resistance Army has been expanded significantly since it's listing on CSB Open Tasks. It has gone through Peer Review last month and is a Featured Article Candidate right now. Please read the article and support it with your vote if you think it's worth it. The FAC request is here. Thanks! — mark ✎ 12:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a great article. That's why it's Featured now :). Now where was that CSB accomplishments page?  — mark ✎ 02:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of great articles, Nafaanra language is now on FAC. :) Please check it out and support if you think it is worthy. - BanyanTree 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSB Wikiportal
I just read about Wikiportals. Should there be a Countering Systemic Bias wikiportal? Anyone up to the task? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * the effort would probably be better focused on identifying and fixing problemsGeni 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorist organizations" cat up for deletion
I have started a vote for deletion for the Category:Terrorist organizations at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. My reasoning is that placing the category on a page rests entirely on personal judgement and is thus inherently biased. Note that none of the articles in the category are current powers, despite the brutal methods used by almost all armies throughout time. I have removed this category from a number of articles such as Sudan People's Liberation Army and Mau Mau Uprising as, regardless of their various violent acts on civilians, the label just seems to mean "Organizations I think are nasty". Please vote if you see the same problems I do... or object if you disagree with me. -   — BanyanTree 21:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Régime
Howabout noting words like regime as danger-flags for potential systematic bias in the politics paragraph? (This page already has some discussion) Ojw 21:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be something for Wikiproject Countering systematic bias, I guess. See the project details page of countering systemic (not systematic) bias for some reasons why it would not fit here.  — mark ✎ 12:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought something similar, but Wikiproject Countering systematic bias doesn't exist, so might you have a better hint? I've also started a discussion on this at Talk:Regime. Ojw, the discussion you mention has been moved to an archive, and now the archive link is gone, but it is here: Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq/archive. DirkvdM 09:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for reorganization of CSB
After fiddling around with CSB for a while and trying to think through some of the issues that I've experienced, I have a proposal that I think may make some sense. It involves the abandonment of WP:CSBCOTW and a focus on the open tasks list, basically making CSB a two-page project. I'll lay out my case below. This is meant as the starting point for discussion, rather than a decree, so feel free to say if you disagree in whole or in part.

Argument
WikiProject Countering systemic bias is inherently unfocused. An editor who is knowledgeable and interested in one of the neglected areas of Wikipedia, may have no interest in another neglected area.

A Collaboration of the Week requires focus from members. In a normal WikiProject, each member is assumed to be capable of contributing to the weekly collaboration, because they share a common knowledge and interest such as the projects for Sydney or Biology. This is not true for CSB. Every CSB CotW excludes some members, regardless of whether or not they wish to be active in the project. The CotW is thus stagnant both in nominations and edits to nominated articles.

The open tasks list reflects the diversity of CSB members. The CotW does not. The list allows members to see progress made, even if they do not think they can meaningfully contribute to the topic being worked on.

CSB is ill-organized. The main page is messy, hard to follow, and spends a great deal of time repeating content already on the open tasks list. There are numerous subpages for members, new articles, etc that are not integrated with the rest of the pages.

Despite its problems, CSB plays an important role in Wikipedia. Many neglected topics do not have enough editors to form their own WikiProject or notice board. CSB allows these efforts to be pooled and displayed on this page, and informs the rest of Wikipedia of their own biases. CSB should not be abandoned.

Proposal
Abandon the CSB Collaboration of the Week. Make the open tasks the center of collaboration, not in the sense of everyone working on one article but as in everyone working on the broader goal of making sure that neglected topics get some attention.

Change the template to reflect an open tasks focus. (Idea to the right) Anyone may add an article from the open tasks list to the template, or replace one of the older items on the template. The main guideline is to make sure that a balance of articles are represented and that they are occasionally rotated. While the template is meant to replace the one now in use, it could also be placed on the talk pages of articles listed and elsewhere.

Reorganize the CSB main page. Merge the descriptions of neglected areas into the tasks list. Abandon the new articles page. Move the member list back to the main page. The front page should be relatively short, with: intro, "what you can do", announcements section (for related WikiProjects, notice boards and happenings), and member list.

And now I'll get off my soapbox. What do people think? -  Banyan Tree  01:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
You've said a lot of things that needed saying. The CSB pages do read as if they were set up by some long gone former civilisation, and we are left wandering/wondering in the ruins (marvallous as they are). The CSB COTW is the second most successful COTW on WP — righ after the COTW. So, I think there is a general problem with this kind of thing. It's a shame, but Wikipedia isn't always good at collaboration. I've seen a good few articles nominated, and won, COTW that could have been candidates for CSB COTW. All in all, I agree: a reworked open tasks list might provide a better focus for us to work on.

I'd also like to mention template:limitedgeographicscope. When I've used it on a page it has had quite an impact: editors have felt really get to grips with improving the scope of the articles. Perhaps we could think of a few other templates that could mark out the biased articles. Gareth Hughes 01:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, and we should implement it soon. In my view, part of the purpose of the CSB project is to push interested people to research and write outside of their "comfort zone" of topics they already know well - that's how it is for me. As I understand it, this is the intent of the COTW, but I think a modest expansion of the number of emphasized topics would help to draw more people in. Might it also be useful to note in our introductory material that the CSB project welcomes people who don't (yet) have great expertise in one of our focus areas? Some suggested starting points for research might help draw people in. CDC  (talk)  04:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The template proposal is great and will certainly prove to be effective. I fully support it and I say: the sooner the better! As for abandoning the 'new articles' page — that's ok, but let's just make sure that we record the progress somewhere. I like the way it is done now, with the 'Request for review/attention' and 'Satisfactory' subsections in every category on the Open Tasks page. If CSB is getting really big, we might need to implement a subpage system (a bit like the Village Pump), but in general, Open Tasks looks good the way it is now.

The template Gareth mentions indeed is a good way to call attention to the state of an article and also to attract potential participants. I make note of the fact that it should be placed on Talk pages of articles (back when we started to work with these templates, there was some discussion about this and people told us to place messages for editors on the Talk page). Thank you for your proposal, BanyanTree. Let's go for it! — mark ✎ 09:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing. The 'Related changes' link on the Open Tasks page is pretty useless if people sign their comments there (because then the recent changes of the listed articles are interspersed with User and User talk page changes). What to do about that? Is it best to keep everything anonymous, or should we just take leave of the Related Changes idea? I liked it a lot because you could see CSB at work; but I also like to know which people are working on which things. Maybe we could include a 'Related changes' link on the Template instead, just to get an idea of the activity CSB generates.  — mark ✎ 10:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I like seeing who is working on what more than I appreciate seeing the net change in the listed articles, but I am pretty ambivalent on the whole. I also think the template idea for the open tasks list may be necessary, as it is getting unwieldy as a single page.  People seem pretty positive about the proposed changes above, but I'll hold off implementing it for a bit to let more people comment. -   Banyan Tree  15:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While we are discussing a reorg, could we also address the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks. One of the first things to be done would be to collate the the "Categories" on the main CSB page and the CSBOpenTasks page. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I've implemented the changes. The intro ended up being much more wordy than I had expected and could probably do with some ruthless cutting.  I'm also not sure that people will agree with my tone, examples, etc.  What do people think of the structure, at least of the main page? -   Banyan Tree  01:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CSB sprawl
I didn't realise that CSB was quite such a sprawl until I checked the index. Some are simple redirects, some have talk pages too, but I'm sure these pages can be rationalised:

 * CSB Collaboration of the Week — closing down sale.
 * CSB Collaboration of the Week/History — it is!
 * CSB Collaboration of the Week/Removed — it just might be.
 * WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias — redirect to WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
 * WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/Geography — a blank page!
 * WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/to do — an old, abandoned to-do list.
 * WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks — the main open tasks page.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias — the main page, including members list.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Art and Design — an invitation to go ballet dancing!
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/COTW — redirect to CSB Collaboration of the Week.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography — a good page that I'd never come across before.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/History — a not-so-good page.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Open tasks — a one-line invitation to visit WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Perspective — what's all that about?
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics — a reasonable page.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Project Details — a half-deleted introduction to what it's all about.
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Project details — the introduction to what it's all about in its entirity.

What can be done? Some of these can easily be deleted (by those who can do such things). It would be good to move everything to properly named subpages. Open tasks needs a good tidy up. Perhaps each area of CSB should have its own subpage, but perhaps we should revisit those areas. Gareth Hughes 23:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I found about five pages I had no idea existed in the course of the reorganization. Generally speaking, I strongly feel that WP:CSB is for describing the issue, other projects with which CSB has an affinity, and other advocacy/awareness-building activities.  Meanwhile, you can safely assume that anyone who makes it to WP:CSBOT has already been converted, and more non-actionable information just slows them down.  We want people to be working the problem at that point, not reading more about how bad it is.  That's the reason I just removed two sections from the OT and put in language in the intro that allows the removal of some sections that claim a problem, and then don't offer any concrete ways to work on it.

 * There appears to be enough background to make a large subpage describing the bias in depth. I would propose making WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Project details the foundation of that page and encourage people to merge in the History, Geography and Politics articles, which appear to repeat much of each others' content. All those listed articles should be at WP:CSBOT, not spread out over three extra pages.  The 1/4th boxes are neat and give me an idea for an article talk template, but let's worry about broad structure first.

 * And at the risk of task overload, shouldn't WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks be at WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks, to bring it in line with WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  I was forever getting the capitalization changes between the two wrong when typing out links. -   Banyan Tree  18:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Pwqn has corrected it.  — mark ✎ 20:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Christian Bible"
user:jcbos wanted to delete Christian before Bible in the first sentence of the article New Testament. He calls anyone who revert that deletion a POV-pusher. His single argument is that he claims Christian Bible to be a pleonasm. He is very busy on the Dutch Wikipedia where he managed to organize a stampede against the addition of "Christian" before "Bible" in the first sentence of the article on New Testament. How systemic can bias be and countered? Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Jcbos attempted to remove the word "Christian" before Bible on English Wikipedia well, in a couple of dozen articles, but steady reversions of his edits by at least 6 other editors finally brought him to the Talk: page, where it was shown that "Christian Bible" is actually a disambiguation. He still considers himself to be correct, and that those who reverted him were "POV pushers", "trolls" and "un-wiki", but I think you are right, his belief that the Christian Bible is the real Bible, and that everyone should know what is meant by "Bible", is really an example of systemic bias. Jayjg (talk)  17:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummm... it's impossible for one person to have systemic bias, as such bias is... system-wide and unintentional. If Jcbos tried to effect a change consciously, and was consciously blocked by a number of other editors, then that is an edit war, which is precisely the opposite of a systemic bias.  If Jcbos had a hundred friends he enlisted to enforce his views, that would still be a systematic bias, not a systemic one because it was done consciously.  NPOV and "systemic bias" are defined entirely differently.  However, topics that are systemically biased against are probably more subject to NPOV because of the limited number of contributors.  If a large number of people care enough about an article and its accuracy to get into an edit war, that's a clear sign that it's not CSB material.  It's a bit of a Catch-22.  -   Banyan Tree  17:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions. I understand the actions of Jcbos is something else than systemic or systematic bias. I should not have brought the point here. Sorry to bother you all with that specific edit war. Gebruiker:Dedalus 08:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"systemic" vs. "systematic"
Can someone else please have a look-in on Talk:systemic bias. I've said my piece, but others should weigh in. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have given up on trying to defend this: I just don't care that much. If others want to look in on it, it would probably be a good thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Edit Button
I'm kinda dumb, so I dont know what this means...

 * Even among their general socioeconomic and ethnolinguistic demographic, Wikipedians tend to be more technically inclined. This is due to the simple barrier represented by the "Edit" button, which many readers either do not recognize or refuse to utilize. The inclination is more towards computer science and physics than areas such as agricultural science.

How does the edit button play in all of this?? Jaberwocky6669 02:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * we know that the vast majority of our readers do not edit. The mentioning the edit button is simply an effective way of pointing out the devide between the two groups.Geni 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Open task drive
I think its time we revised the lists of open tasks, many articles that started off as stubs now look like good articles. I'm offering to keep track of suggestions in my sandbox and update the open task page somewhere toward the end of the month. --nixie 04:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

School notability
I am concerned that the trend towards applying a "notability" requirement for schools will create a situation where we have articles for most old and/or elite schools, but no coverage at all of schools in the middle and lower range of achievement. A case in point is the Clover Park Votes for deletion. My preferred solution would be to include schools articles based on the quality of the article, not just the school. Perhaps wikipedians interesting in countering systemic bias have other suggestions? Kappa 00:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a tendency in that direction, but let's face it: more elite schools than non-elite are unique in ways that would matter to people who've never attended them. Quite a few non-elite schools merit articles either because of events that have happened there or because they have managed notable academic accomplishment in trying circumstances. But most schools don't deserve an encyclopedia article of their own. It's perfectly reasonable to write about the average school in the article about a community or school district of which it is part: there simply isn't enough to say to merit an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the way the VfDs are going, if anything there is a bias toward keeping all school articles even the substubs. I'm not entirely conviced that this is the concensus of Wikipedia editors in general, it seems more like a concerted effort by a set of editors. I don't know that anyone from this Wikiproject is going to want to devote time to writing about their local highschool, or fixing school stubs when things entirely more significant and encyclopedic are missing or stubs. --nixie 06:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone wrote about an average high school in a country that has no school articles at all, I think that would be incredibly significant and useful. Look at Category:Schools in China. If stubs and substubs are the issue, judging by article quality should resolve this. Kappa 10:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see an adaquate article on Niamey, Asmara or Libreville than one on any high school.--nixie 10:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm
I was under some naive impression that the related tasks would have something to do with articles that have "bias" problems, which to me indicates how articles are manifested and slanted, rather than the mere ommission of topics. "Systemic bias" is particularly limited to ommission perhaps, but this would be better called "cultural oversight." In otherwords there seems to be some oversight in the apparent scope for what constitutes "systemic bias." The notion that an 'inherently biased demographic' can or should take upon itself the task of filling in gaps, could equally be viewed as the enforcement and spreading of bias, rather than the correction of it. -SV|t 14:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) -SV|t 13:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Bias problems other than omission can be brought up here, but it's usually harder to show that those are "systemic". Usually those more reflect who has been working on an individual article, which is not a systemic issue. The systemic issue that was at the root of this was that the demographics of Wikipedia had led to outright neglect of certain areas that were clearly as important as much of what was being written (either omission of entire topics or in cases like linguistics articles that considered only Indo-European languages). The thing with omissions is that they are invisible, the "dog that doesn't bark in the night". There are other mechanisms already for POV disputes; I'd be open to seeing a few more of them brought up here, but a little fearful that they might start to overwhelm the main focus on which this project has had at least moderate success. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * The goal of this Wikiproject really isn't fixing POV issues, however if you go through the list of open tasks there is long list of acticles that are biased due to the authors nationality, take a look at unemployment for example and you'd think it only existed in the United States. Its really spurious to suggest that by filling in glaring omissions that this project is creating bias--nixie 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree this project has a confusing name, "systemic underrepresentation" would be my choice. However, I would think an Anglophone POV article on something important in China or Africa is a lot better than nothing at all, as long as the facts are verifiable. Kappa 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Northern hemisphere bias
There's no mention of northern hemisphere bias. Mentioning it is needed so that people become aware of it. For example, in addition to the other definitions, I would define an average English-language Wikipedian as living in the northern hemisphere. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 04:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Most English speakers live in the northern hemisphere (not sure of the numbers), so this would not be unexpected. There are obvious subdivisions among the majority group that may be slightly unproportional compared to each other.  I have no idea of the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if you compared, for example, New Zealand to Ireland or South Africa to Canada that the numbers of articles are off from what you'd derive looking only at population.  CSB can only handle a finite number of tasks, and trying raise the coverage of, say, Argentina relative to England seems more fruitful than trying to make sure that Perth and Atlanta get comparatively equitable treatment, as one could be fairly sure that both are better covered than Lagos.  That's my take on it. -   BanyanTree 05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The northern hemisphere has Canada (32m), the USA (296m) and UK (60m) whereas the southern hemisphere has Australia (20m), New Zealand (4m) and South Africa (48m). There are many other countries as well with native English speakers (look for the pink bits on old maps), but a great majority of native English speakers live in the northern hemisphere.
 * The systemic bias often manifests itself as a worldview that apparently assumes the equator is as far south as you can go. For example, the Southern Oscillation was so named because the tropics were considered the "deep" south. Other manifestations of this systemic bias includes a failure to consider the southern hemisphere in seasonal references, assuming that an expression like "summer solstice" is unambiguous, and being careless with other hemisphere-specific references.
 * Your idea for equal treatment is sound but I can come up with better examples. I would expect individuals in the cities concerned to provide good copy for their own city no matter where that city lies. One place that better demonstrates systemic bias is the depth of coverage of constellations in the northern sky and southern sky. Every northern hemisphere constellation has at least some detailed coverage, and many include extensive references on deep sky objects. The southern sky has far less coverage. Compare the detail for the northern constellation Triangulum and the southern constellation Grus. (I'm currently working my way through the constellations and filling in some missing bits myself). --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 12:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Measuring Wikipedia community expectations of encyclopedicness
See En validation topics - particularly Mathias Schindler's suggestion to measure "Encyclopedic general interest". This would give an actual numerical measurement of what the community thinks is needed in an encyclopedia. (It also solves the last hole in my 1.0 plan.) - David Gerard 20:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * People, this is an important topic. Go put in some words there if you feel like it. I think the main problem of measuring "Encyclopedic general interest" by voting is that our user base is not our audience. — mark ✎ 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Post-colonialism in literature
From the Wikiproject requested page Post-colonialism in literature, I have created a redirect to Postcolonial literature in line with the similar page-naming scheme for Postmodernism in literature (to Postmodern literature). I'll expand Postcolonial literature when time allows.

Ziggurat 02:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

limitedgeographicscope on Tfd
The limitedgeographicscope template mentioned on the project page is up for deletion at. Kappa 10:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I added my vote for Keep, the score is running at 20 for Keep and 4 for Delete. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Damian Ohanyido Okoli
Does anybody have ideas for verifying this article? It's up for deletion and the consensus seems to be "delete if not verified", which seems reasonable, and Google isn't a lot of help. If this guy exists a lot of the information in the article should be verifiable and he probably passes any reasonable notability test, but this is the encyclopedia of the Google generation.

 * Damian Ohanyido Okoli

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

==

opinion: mention of Native langs in Languages in the United States
hi, i would be interested to know if anyone has an opinion concerning this: Talk:Languages in the United States. i know that i have a definite opinion about this, so maybe someone else can help me in viewing the situation with good eyes. am i supposed to put this request somewhere else? thank you. peace. — ishwar  (SPEAK)  01:13, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Statistics for non-anglophone countries
In this articles it is claimed that "While areas in which education in English is widespread, such as The Netherlands, Hong Kong and India, have decent coverage when compared with many other nations, they remain under-represented compared to those countries that speak English natively."

However, the Dutch encyclopedia has only around 3000 articles per population. I would be more interested to see how Sweden measures up, with the Swedish encyclopedia having almost three times as many articles per population. Are there any hard facts available? If not, where does the claim about The Netherlands, Hong Kong and India originate?

Filur 08:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the statement is referring to coverage within the english wikipedia, and not all of the different wikipedias. A comparison of the number of articles in a native language wikipedia per population, and the number of articles on that country in the english wikipedia are quite unrelated in my opinion. I don't know about the specifics of the above claim, but anecdotallly would suggest there is some truth, at least as far as the Netherlands and Hong Kong go, as well as various other European countries. Peregrine981 13:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is anecdotal. Though the initial post made me wonder if the ratio of articles under a country category to national population would be a useful, but very rough, measure of coverage.  So articles in the category Category:United States,and its subcategories, divided by US population, versus the similar figures for other countries.  Does anyone know of an easy way to count all the members of a category tree? -   BanyanTree 14:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I realize that the statement refers to the English Wikipedia. However, the Swedes and Dutch are both proficient at English, so if the Swedes put up three times as many articles in their native Wikipedia, one must at least suspect that they also write more articles per capita in the English one. (I do not like when anecdotal statements. In fact, I think it would be best if every statement in the Wikipedia could eventually be referenced, on a seperate page if needed for readability.) Filur 13:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * One consideration: I'm Dutch and I've done loads of editing in the English Wikipedia and virtually none in the Dutch Wikipedia. It may very well be that, like me, there will be many more Dutch editors who reckon that the English Wikipedia reaches a much wider audience and therefore more worth the effort. It is also by far the biggest Wikipedia, possibly in part because others think like this. So I sort of regard it as a basis that, when 'complete' (...) can be translated into other languages (via Esperanto perhaps) after the articles in other languages have been incorporated into it. But that's for a distant future. DirkvdM 10:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
MBK Center

MBK Center (เอ็มบีเค เซ็นเตอร์), previously known as  Mahbunkhrong Center (มาบุญครอง เซ็นเตอร์,, ), is a large shopping mall in Bangkok, Thailand. At eight storeys, the center contains around 2,000 shops, restaurants and service outlets.

In 2009, MBK Center management reported daily visitor numbers of more than 100,000, half of whom were young Thai people and a third foreign visitors.

History
MBK Center was the largest shopping mall in Asia when it opened on 7 February, 1985. It is on land leased from the adjacent Chulalongkorn University. This lease was renewed in 2013. MBK was named after the parents of the developer Sirichai Bulakul, Mah and Boonkrong, whose statues are found on the ground floor. On the seventh floor, it used to be MBK Hall (now the location of SF Cinema 8 Cinemas) a concert hall for popular Thai and foreign singers in the 1980s and 1990s.

Anchor

 * Don Don Donki
 * Tops
 * Supersports Factory Outlet
 * 7-Eleven
 * Kudsan Bakery & Coffee
 * SF Cinema 8 Cinemas (Zigma CineStadium & Cinecafe 1 Cinema)
 * Food Legends By MBK
 * Pathumwan Princess Hotel
 * Thanachart Bank (Head Office)
 * Animate (Japan Manga Alliance)

Location
MBK Center is in Pathum Wan District, on the southwest corner of the intersection of Rama I Road and Phaya Thai Road. It is close to Siam Square, which can be reached from the second floor via a covered pedestrian bridge over Phaya Thai Road, and Siam Center and Siam Paragon, which are across Rama I Road from Siam Square. The mall is next to National Stadium.

Transportation

 * BTS Skytrain - National Stadium BTS Station; also within walking distance of Siam station.
 * Khlong Saen Saep - Hua Chang pier is within walking distance.

Department store

 * The Don Don Donki discount store is at the north end of MBK Center.

Hotel

 * The Pathumwan Princess Hotel is at the south end of MBK Center.

Sport activity
MBK Fight Night

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: MBK Center


text:
Expansivity

Expansivity may refer to:

 * Expansive homeomorphism
 * Expansive Poetry
 * Expansive clay
 * Expansive Catasetum
 * Expansive drill bit
 * Expansive Heart

title: Expansivity


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JanW

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7 --Doc (?) 12:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

JanW
As Jan Willems; non-notable vanity page from an amateur musician The Land 10:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete for reasons stated. Copy of a user page.
 * I agree
 * Delete. Lupo 11:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JanW


text:
Madhava (Vishnu)

Madhava (माधव, ) is one of the primary epithets of Vishnu and Krishna. The word Mādhava in Sanskrit is a vṛddhi derivation of the word Madhu (मधु), which means honey. It is a title of Krishna, referring to his lineage as 'he who appeared the Madhu dynasty'. In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna addresses Krishna as Madhava (meaning "lord of fortune"; not to confused with a secondary name, Madhusudana, which means "slayer of the demon Madhu").

According to Adi Shankara's commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranama and the Narada Pancharatra, Madhava means the consort (dhava) of the mother (ma), referring to Lakshmi, the goddess called the 'mother of the universe'. Alternatively, it means the 'one who is fit to be known through Madhu-vidya', or can mean the 'one who is the lord of ma, or knowledge.

Literature
In the Skanda Purana, Shiva mentions Madhava as an epithet of Vishnu, described as the one who holds the conch, discus and mace.

In the Garuda Purana, the hymn to Vishnu composed by Markandeya includes the verse, "I crave the mercy of Madhava and of Janardana, what shall Death do unto me?"

In the Harivamsa Purana, during the episode of Krishna's elopement with Princess Rukmini, the epithet is mentioned during his battle against Rukmi: "Although Rukshmi was very careful the highly powerful and valiant Madhava cut off the standard of his car and the head of his charioteer from his body."

title: Madhava (Vishnu)


text: Category:Schools in Sudan

title: Category:Schools in Sudan


text:
Talk:Kinematics

"motion under gravity"
Removed the section on motion under gravity; it was poorly written, did not fit in with the rest of the article, and wrong. It seemed to say that Gallileo said that objects of different masses fall at different rates, which is clearly incorrect. 129.78.64.101 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

+++ The material is copy-written by a textbook manufacture, nearly word for word. This article needs to be deleted and rewritten with out infringing on the published works+++++. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.111.140 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundry comments
This article contains lots of nonstandard notation. This is potentially confusing. More standard notation can be found in numerous physics texts including:

Halliday&Resnick, Johnson&Cutnell, Serway

This page contains several statements at the end about angular "position" and angular velocity that are non-general; that is, they only apply to a two dimensional or planar problem. MarcusMaximus 09:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the section Algebraic equations to the Fundamental Equations heading. Give me your thoughts - I like that notation a bit better, it's more common, and a bit easier to understand. It may not reconcile with the vector notation used, but it is algebra. --Democritus the Minor 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice that the change in the algebraic equations for linear kinematics are not notated consistently with the angular portion. I prefer describing linear kinematics using vi and vf instead of v and u because there is no obvious relationship between v and u in the equations, while the relationship between the velocities is vital in understanding the equations.  Additionally, if initial and final angular displacements are used in describing angular kinematics, it seems reasonable to be consistent and use initial and final linear displacement to describe linear kinematics instead of using Δ.  I believe it may be sufficient to simply notate the linear equations in both ways, which is what I have done.Tgilro01 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course its confusing, its Physics! Anonymous 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Physics is a beautiful subject which is not confusing in the least. Now as for this article it seems to be a crash course in kinematics and for that it is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.190 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "First to Fourth Derivatives of Position" graphic. It was an image with four equations: f(x) = position, f′(x) = velocity, f′′(x) = acceleration, f′′′(x) = jerk, and f′′′′(x) = jounce. The term jerk is referenced in the text but not in the section containing the graphic. The term jounce is not referenced (though it is linked). The notation of the graphic was unexplained -- What is x? What is f(x)? What does the "prime" notation mean? r, dr/dt, d^2r/dt^2, etc would be more appropriate. Wouldn't these be better represented by a table? Is an article on kinematics even the appropriate place for this? --M0nstr42 (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

History and Explaination
While a purely mathematical treatment is nice, we should consider some plain language description of what each term does. We also need the history of kinematics, it's major developers, and the problems they were interested in solving.

Dhskep September 24, 2006 21:22 UTC

 * On Wikisource, you can now find The Kinematics of Machinery (1876) by Franz Reuleaux. The book is history in itself, but its Introduction also gives an overview of what happened from 1600 to 1876. I've linked all the persons mentioned to Wikipedia, and even wrote an article about José María Lanz who didn't have one. I guess Monge, Hachette and Lanz should be mentioned as pioneers here. --LA2 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Better late than never! Like Dhskep I have also written the same about history in the talk page of the equations of motion. I have skimmed through the book but didn't find any history about equations of motion. Everywhere in wikipedia, most articles of mathematics lack history.

 * Mathematics professionals seem to overlook the practical issues regarding brevity. At a time when publishing was expensive the writers and teachers needed to keep their work as brief as possible. Now with digitisation the primary hindrances have been overcome. Fed on a diet of barley some forget the taste of a multi-layered chocolate pastry overflowing with cream and icing :-) ;-) . I don't need to quote Pages 2-3, art. 0.1 Possible uses of history..., I. Grattan-Guinness, titled, From the Calculus to Set Theory, Princeton University Press.
 * Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Relativistic kinematics?
Can anyone direct me to an article on relativistic kinematics (if one exists)? If there's no such article yet, it should probably be created either separately or as a subsection of kinematics. HEL 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific notation confusion
I have long understood in Physics and Maths that difference (e.g. the difference between two speeds) is notated with a Greek 'Delta' Δ symbol.

In this article, it seems the notation is 'd' for difference. Whilst this makes sense, to people who have learnt it with the delta it is confusing.

Is this simply an Australian notation? Can we look into this some how? - Eps0n 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you see d being used for the difference? Δ is used for difference in the section "Algebraic equations."  Elsewhere d is used only for the differential, as far as I can see.  HEL 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have only found d to be used for the differential, which is its standard usage and is not the same as the difference described by delta. See []

notation
Why is u used to represent initial velocity? Is this standard notation? Jhausauer 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

v0 or vi are the standard methods of representing initial velocity.

The above comment is true however it must be added that u was formerly used for denoting initial velocity. The same applies the acceleration which can be denoted by either [i]f[/i] or by [i]a[/i] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.190 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The levels are not clearly defined and the terminology is questionable
This article seems a collage of statements taken from different chapters of a physics book, and assembled whithout a logical order, and without specifying clearly where they belong in. There are various levels of kinematics, and either they should be treated separately, starting from the simplest, or the simpler levels should be defined as special cases or the most complex level.

Level 1: Point (or point mass, or particle) motion In this context it is not correct, in my opinion, to use the expression "translational kinematics"; the word "translational" is used only for rigid body motion.
 * Sublevels:

 * Linear kinematics in 1-D
 * Linear kinematics in 2-D and 3-D
 * Angular kinematics in 2-D and 3-D (for instance, in 3-D, the angular position of a particle rotating about a point cannot be described by a simple angle; you need a unit vector or an angular position vector...)

Level 2: Rigid body motion Here, and only here, you define the concepts of translation and rotation (see rigid body).
 * Sublevels:

Paolo.dL 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Linear kinematics in 2-D and 3-D, which describes translation (it is the same as above, but first you need to select a point fixed on the body)
 * Angular kinematics in 2-D and 3-D, which describes the rotation (and this is a complex part, with several different conventions, explained in rotation (geometry))

Position vector: r or s?
Please do not use the symbol s for a position vector but only the symbol r. s is used in mathmatics and physics for 's = the distance along some curve C in space as measured from some fixed point' (cited from Standard Mathematical Tables). And 'ds = the vector element of a curve (=t ds)'(same source) It is extremely confusing to use s for a position vector. In it's whole this is a confusing text, mixing different elements together with not so clear relationships with each other.78.21.233.253 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (I am Huibc in the Dutch Wikipedia)

Broken Links
It appears that links 1.3.1 to 1.3.4 are broken, that is, they don't move you to their corresponding subsections when clicked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwedes (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Symbols and their meanings
Most of the symbols here are quite ccomplex. In my first year at university studying Mech. Eng. this was even more complicated as you had to learn what each symbol stood for. Instead of writing down the equations can we have a table to the side telling us what each symbol means and how it is pronounced? NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

dynamics and cinematics
cinematics: "describes the motion of objects without consideration of the causes leading to the motion."

dynamics: "customarily refers to the time evolution of physical processes."

in the first one the authors leave out that the motion of objects appears over time. also a problem is that it´s arbitrary what a cause is, because one can see the "cause" as a part of the system and this system has been caused by some other causes. one could also zoom in and say that the moving object can be divided into a caus and an effect. fact is that one has to blend out the affected object and blends out the cause while watching the affected object. it´s just a game of zooming in and out and arbitrarily either blending out the surroundings or the details as if they would disappear.

91.51.204.80 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Kinematics"
Have changed the initial sections today. The exposition wasn't smooth. There was no mention of the idea of rest and motion stemming out from the fundamental frame dependence of position vectors. Come to think of it, there was no mention of reference frames at all. Have added that. Will get to the sections after "Integral relations" soon. The rest of it needs much standardization. "Linear Motion" shouldn't be the primary heading. It should be "Particle Kinematics" and "Linear Motion" Should appear as a sub-category in Particle Kinematics. Further, the average quantities were introduced after the instantaneous ones. Scanty remarks were made for the limiting definition of velocity or acceleration. Soumengoswami10 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)soumengoswami10

can't begin an article with a quote

 * can't begin an article with a quote. no can do. where should it be moved? – Peacock.Lane 10:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to Kinematics
This article focusses on particle kinematics which is essentially the differential geometry of a curves. I would like to stream-line this presentation of particle kinematics somewhat, and then expand it to the kinematics of rigid bodies. Things get more interesting when we consider the kinematics of articulated systems such as in robot kinematics. I will try to make that connection. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After revising the lead and adding section on rigid transformations, I am now examining the section on particle kinematics. This section seems to be repeating basic results of vector calculus.  I am not sure I can salvage much of it.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I concluded that I could not fix the section on particle kinematics without deleting large portions, which did not seem inappropriate. So instead, I have appended a section on the position, velocity and acceleration of points in a moving rigid body. It is a rather detailed derivation that seems to balance the elementary nature of the section on particle kinematics. Maybe this will work. Prof McCarthy (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Particle kinematics needs work
I think the section on particle kinematics appears to be general discussion of elementary physics. It discusses reference frames, the definition of the derivative, integration of ballistic trajectories, relative position vectors, and more. I will leave it alone, because I just cannot quite figure it out. Instead, I propose to work on the section on kinematic constraints, which is important and neglected. Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me just add that the first sentence "Particle kinematics is the study of the kinematics of a single particle." captures the redundancy that is present in much of this section. Having said this, it is not correct that there is nothing that is useful.  It is just difficult to sort it out.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate systems
I think the section Kinematics can be revised so the formulas for a moving particle are easier to understand. I will work on this on my user page and drop it in for evaluation. Prof McCarthy (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Point object in circular motion
This section seems to be a duplicate of the position, velocity and acceleration in cylindrical coordinates. I will add it as a special case. Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Commented out sections
I have commented out a few sections because they were non-standard, duplicative or irrelevant. I think this helps the remaining material flow much better. Prof McCarthy (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Watt's steam engine
I have to say that Paolo.dl's edits to this article are welcome. Unfortunately, he puts his long explanations into the edit description, which is interesting reading but makes it difficult to respond. He deleted the picture of the steam engine even though almost every feature illustrates an aspect of the study of kinematics. I believe he is well-meaning and would like to see something more mathematical in appearance, but prefers a blank page until someone else finds something to his liking. This means that he does not see (i) the straight line movement in the expansion cylinder guided by Watt's straight-line linkage, (ii) the four-bar linkage formed by the walking beam input crank and its coupler that drives the output crank rotating the main drive pulley, and (iii) the fly-ball governor which is rotating slider crank that provides feedback control of the power source. These are all fundamental kinematic elements assembled into arguably one of the most important technological developments in history, the Boulton-Watt steam engine. It is probably fair to say that the ability to generate mechanical forces and movement with a steam engine also drove the study of mechanics, in general, and kinematics, in particular. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Please, do not try to guess what I can see or not see in the picture of the steam engine (especially if you assume that I can't see). I greatly appreciate most of your edits, so I value your opinion, but I removed the picture because I believe that the kinematics of an engine is not an appropriate example in the introduction of an article about kinematics. Moreover, that picture was not even about the kinematics of an engine, but showed only its structure (the motion of the engine is not described at all; no kinematic quantity is mentioned or represented). The picture belongs in the introductions of articles such as steam engine or mechanical system.

 * In physics textbooks, kinematics is first described for the motion of a point, then for rigid bodies, and sometimes also for multi-body systems. The motion of a mechanical system, therefore, represents one of the most complex possible examples of motion. Astronomy, mechanical engineering, biomechanics, are all sciences in which kinematics is applied to study celestial bodies, mechanical systems, multi-link biological systems. But first of all, we need to explain how (linear) kinematics describes the motion of a point. We need to assume that the reader knows nothing about kinematics. What would you say if a biomechanist inserted in the introduction a picture about the kinematics of a twisting somersault? For a biomechanist, that would be much more attractive than the steam engine. And what about rotation, revolution, precession and nutation of Earth? These are fascinating examples, however they are complex, and our readers are neither advanced students, nor mechanical engineers, nor biomechanists. They need much simpler examples. I know that this may be boring for expert editors like you (according to Hawking, Albert Einstein was offered positions in many Universities, but he chose a "research position with the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin because it freed him from teaching duties"), but our main purpose is not having fun. We are here to be of service for our readers, and most of them are beginners.

 * Last but not least, the kinematics of mechanical systems is not described in this article (and this is consistent with most introductory physics texbooks, which focus mainly on the kinematics of particles and rigid bodies). According to WP:MOS, the introduction of an article should only summarize the article's main topics. The picture about the steam engine is not appropriate for any of the sections of the article, and therefore not appropriate for its introduction.

 * Paolo.dL (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree with most of our colleague's statements. I hope I was clear in the discussion above that the steam engine is an excellent portrayal of kinematics. I can also say that I would very much appreciate a picture about the kinematics of a twisting somersault, and one about the rotation, revolution, precession and nutation of the earth. But, I see that even these are considered too complex for our readers and not helpful for beginners. Again, I disagree. Finally, among the very first problems in physics are the kinematics of particles moving along a straight line and moving on a circle. In my opinion, even beginners would recognize that the components of a steam engine contain many particles that are moving along straight lines and on various circles. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * "Needless to say, I disagree"? Are you assuming that everybody should agree with you? Discussions imply the need to interact. On Wikipedia, consensus is needed to take decisions. I will expand on just one of the points you ignored in your reply: the article is not about objects which move. Showing an object which can move (or even an animation of a moving object) is not enough to illustrate kinematics. The picture should at least show a trajectory, possibly an "arrow" representing a kinematic quantity. In other words, something that "describes" the motion.
 * Since you totally rejected my points, I suggest to wait for contributions by other editors to this discussion. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have established that there is no consensus regarding your criteria for acceptable figures for this article. Therefore, please replace it until you can find another editor who agrees with you. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Your reply appears so naively biased to me that I feel empahtetic, rather than offended. You should either have written: "I have established that there is no consensus regarding your criteria" (which would have revealed more openly your bias) or "we have established that there is no consensus between us regarding this topic" (which is true). I remember what I felt whenever somebody reverted some edits of mine without my approval, in articles that I highly contributed to improve, sometimes even without offering adeguate edit summaries. So, I understand your passion, but still you need to abide to the policies on Wikipedia: no editor can impose his own criteria, not even one who completely wrote an ecellent article from scratch.
 * In this case, accoding to good sense, politeness, respect for each other and Wikipedia policies, we need to wait for contributions by other editors, and in the meantime we need to accept the situation as it was before our edits (not just before my edits). This means that the introduction should stay without a figure, because the figure I removed was added by you on the 29th of December with this edit. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wheel
This figure has an arrow and comes from a book called Kinematics of Machinery. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Yet another figure showing a machine. Nothing in it helps the reader to understand what kinematic is (there is a vector Q which is not described, whose meaning is quite difficult to understand even for me; it may possibly be meant to describe an angular kinematic quantity such as angular velocity or angular acceleration, but its direction is not consistent with the right hand rule, and its position in the picture is quite unusual for a such a vector). Please do not insert new figures in the introduction of the article. Please patiently wait for the opinion of other editors in this talk page. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Four-bar linkage
Well, it seems I am in the position of trying to find a figure that satisfies the personal tastes of our colleague Paolo.dL. As far as I can tell he does not want illustrations of the moving parts of a complex machine like the Boulton and Watt steam engine, nor does he want the simplest example of rotating disk which he considers to be a machine. He does want arrows and some mathematical display of movement. I am fairly certain, therefore, that he will not accept the four-bar linkage illustration, though it is the focus of most courses on Kinematics. I am at a loss. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * [NOTE: I removed the new section title "Paolo.dL and figures" that Prof McCarthy just inserted, and substituted it with a new sub-section title: "Four-bar linkage". A new section title would be highly misleading, as the discussion topic did not change at all (see Refactoring talk pages for guidelines). Moreover, there cannot be a discussion about "Paolo.dL and figures". We need to focus on the article, not on the opinion of a single editor (see also WP:NPA). This is a discussion about figures in the introduction, not about me, McCarty, or me versus McCarthy. Contributors to this discussion will give their opinion freely on this topic, and not only about the comments of a single editor. I also changed the section title from "Paolo dL's edits" to "Picture for the introduction" (the picture was inserted by McCarthy and removed by me, but we should discuss and have been discussing about the picture, not about who inserted or removed it). This will hopefully attract the attention of other contributors. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)]

 * About this new figure that McCarthy proposes, it is very similar to the previous ones. Also, it seems he confuses kinematics with kinematics of machines. His sentence "the four-bar linkage illustration [...] is the focus of most courses on Kinematics" reveals his bias, although I am sure he perfectly knows that kinematics is a branch of physics, not a branch of mechanical engineering. Kinematics was first used by Galileo and Newton to describe the motion of projectiles, sliding objects, balls rolling along inclined planes, penduli, and celestial bodies. As far as I know, most physicists do not describe the motion of machines when they explain kinematics in undergraduate courses.
 * McCarthy has been totally ignoring most of my comments, and this unfortunately prevents a constructive discussion between us. Possibly, he thinks exactly the same thing about me. This is why I insist that we need the opinion of other editors, and keep asking him to be patient. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ball rolling or block sliding along inclined plane
As, I wrote above, kinematics was first used to describe the motion of projectiles, sliding objects, balls rolling along inclined planes, penduli, and celestial bodies. A description of Galileo's experiments with sliding blocks or rolling balls, for instance, is perfect to introduce the concept of kinematics. For instance, see this intuitively appealing interactive animation, where space, time, and time-variant values of velocity and acceleration are shown. (Remember to press the start button; if you can't see the animation, probably you need to install Java runtime environment). By the way, a sliding plane is considered to be a simple machine, but the focus here is on the kinematics of the block (which is not a machine). Paolo.dL (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reformatting Talk Pages
I believe it is inappropriate to reformat talk pages, particular entries by other editors. This removes the historical nature of an evolving conversation. By taking this action Paolo.dL has reached beyond his assumption of final authority regarding my choice of figure, to domination of my responses to his actions. This behavior should be banned on Wikipedia. The fact that nothing will happen should put to rest the myth that there is another editor who will regulate his actions. Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Refactoring talk pages is allowed in Wikipedia. Especially if it is mild and respectfully performed as in this case. I only changed two section titles, which referred directly and inappropriately to me rather than to the real topic of the discussion, and added two other subsection titles. All the new titles ("Picture for the introduction", "Watt's steam engine", "Wheel", and "Four-bar linkage") showed no point of view and objectively described the contents of the following text, respecting the "historical nature" of the discussion. See also my note above, where I explained everything. This kind of mild refactoring can significantly improve the readability of the page, and this, according to WP:Refactor, is appropriate and in some cases desirable. See also the last comment by Johnuniq on the talk page of WP:Refactor, about "Changing section titles". Johnuniq wrote: "I did one such change recently because the article talk page section heading was addressed to a specific editor, and it is usually best to avoid unnecessary confrontation". Paolo.dL (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read through
 * Assess
 * Add notes for any further work needed

Revisions
I am sorry for the long chain of revisions. I just wanted to adjust the order of topics so that it proceeded from particle kinematics to planar rigid body kinematics and then to spatial rigid body kinematics, but the notation and concepts needed sorting out much more than I expected. Prof McCarthy (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Symbol s not introduced
In the section "Velocity and speed" the symbol 's' (distance travelled) is used a few times, but it has never been introduced/defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leen Droogendijk (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I will make this correction. Thank you Prof McCarthy (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to section on the rotation of a rigid body
I am sorry that I have made a long list of revisions without explanation. I thought I could do this easily and quickly, but it did not go as smoothly as I had hoped. I have provided the matrix calculations that define angular velocity and angular acceleration for a rotating body. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Invalid division by a vector in "Particle trajectories under constant acceleration"
The substitution should take into account $$ \mathbf{A}t $$ instead of only $$ t $$:

$$ \mathbf{A}t = \mathbf{V}-\mathbf{V}_0 $$

$$\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{P}_0 = \left(\frac{\mathbf{V} + \mathbf{V}_0}{2}\right) t$$

$$ \left(\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{P}_0\right) \circ \mathbf{A} = \left(\frac{\mathbf{V} + \mathbf{V}_0}{2}\right) \circ \mathbf{A} t $$

$$ (\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{P}_0) \circ \mathbf{A}  = \left( \mathbf{V} - \mathbf{V}_0 \right) \circ \left(\frac{\mathbf{V} + \mathbf{V}_0}{2}\right)  \, $$

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooser (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kinematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601020244/http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/ to http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying section on "Kinematics of a particle trajectory in a non-rotating frame of reference" to Wikiversity
I am copying this section over to a course on robotic mechanics on Wikiversity. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Robotic_Mechanics_and_Modeling/Kinematics Admazzeo (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Relative Acceleration problems
This section is unfocussed, lacks formal vector algebra to match earlier sections, and poorly explained equation derivation for constant acceleration (can be shown from time dependent acceleration in few steps).

V(t) integration assumes constant acceleration without mention.

'translation' not 'displacement'

At 1st citation needed: Strike [c. n.]. Replace phrase with "By definition of the dot product" before equation. There is no need to cite a fundamental vector algebra definition.

Strike "In the case of acceleration..." Replace with "For the case of linear motion, the difference of positions vector, velocity vectors, and acceleration vectors will be colinear. All angles between vectors will be 0° or 180° giving 1 or -1 for the cosine of these angles respectively.  The vectors can be written as their scalar magnitudes:

v^2 = v0^2 + 2•a•(x - x0) = v0^2 + 2•a•∆x

Strike following sentence. Define scalar variables after next equation, "where v = |V|, a = |A|, and ∆x = |P| - |P0| = x - x0."

'Curvelinear', not 'curvaceous.'

Remainder of section from "We also know that..." repeats the earlier derivation, is circuitous, and poorly annotated. If there is no WP page that diagrams the time differentials of position, velocity, and acceleration and explains their relations anywhere else, it could be useful here. The velocity integration graphical representation and derivation is awkward and unnecessarily weedy. The graph is lacking significant annotations and those that are there are unhelpful. (If I had to, I would have used the area of a trapezoid formula instead of calculating areas of a rectangle and triangle and then adding them together.) The text here uses a lot of unintelligible and incorrect terminology. The graph caption is a good example. Figure 2 is out of place here having undefined terms and parameters involving non-inertial reference frames yet to be addressed. EvolutionOfTruth (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PHY 381 History of Modern Physics
— Assignment last updated by Janyahmercedes (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

All Rights Reserved® +TheKIN3TEKInitiative.
2406:5A00:1007:6300:C99D:127E:6997:5E98 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kinematics


text:
SS Thames

The steamship, SS Thames, was built in 1827 by Fletcher's in Limehouse, London, and belonged to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. She was commanded by Captain James Grey and wrecked on the Western Rocks, Isles of Scilly early on the morning of 4 January 1841 on her way from Dublin to London.

Wreck
According to The Times (1841), the weather was "exceedingly boisterous, with showers of hail and snow." She "shipped a heavy sea, which extinguished her fires." Then, mistaking St Agnes Lighthouse for Longships Lighthouse, they ran onto Jacky's Rock, between Rosevear and Crebawethan, at around 5 am.

Of the sixty-five passengers and crew, there were only four survivors: a "young lady passenger" named Morris, two female attendants and a seaman. A boat crew from St Agnes set off as soon as the wreck was discovered by locals and rescued the three women. A fourth woman who survived the initial sinking refused to leave with rescuers because she could not find her child. Local pilots were unable to offer any further assistance because it was low tide and the pilot boats were aground. By 11 am, Thames was lost to the sea.

The only other survivor was the seaman who had made his way to Rosevear on a piece of driftwood. He survived on the exposed island for 24 hours before being discovered by boatmen. A porter cask had found its way to the rock from the wreck. The seaman took a drink before emptying it to use as an overnight shelter.

Ten bodies were found, including that of the woman who refused to leave her child. The casualties were buried on the island of St Mary's.

The figurehead from the ship was salvaged and is now on display at Tresco Abbey Gardens.

title: SS Thames


text:
User:Lsorin

Hello to everybody reaching this page.

I had to write down this things, below because I know that my account will be blocked immediately, when I will start editing again the article Coandă-1910. Why? Because is wrongly written and contains the biased view of a xenophobic group of "star" editors of Wikipedia, supported by one single so called aviation historian, which made some very unprofessional assessments on Coandă-1910.

Basically the problem is about the introduction of the article. Henri Coandă's airplane from 1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world. This statement is supported by the majority of the sources present today in specialized media. In the past, the fact above was contested by Gibbs-Smith and more recently his former NAMS office colleague, the freelancer writer Frank H. Winter with some unprofessional, glittered with lies and important missing information, articles and assessments on the Coandă-1910. Many of this problems were already presented in the talk page of Coandă-1910 and I will try to get them all together on this page ( before my account gets blocked again ).

About the sources
The problems with the current form of this article are not of technical nature. And regarding that I don't think there was not a single technical expert on Coanda-1910 of jet engines in general involved in any of the Coanda-1910 related discussion. This is why the sources must be correctly used as per WP:IRS. The problem I present here is regarding the usage of two doubtful sources to impose a particular point of view which in this particular case, brings a very serious consequence of denigrating the memory of a reputed scientist calling him bluntly a liar. The doubtfulness of those two sources was already demonstrated in the discussions: first the very controversial aviation historian Gibbs-Smith with his full of technical mistakes and missing relevant sources, assessment on Coanda-1910 based mostly on evidence of absence.
 * Gibbs-Smith writes regarding Coanda-1910 and the sequent airplane build in 1911 that it had not retractable landing gear, tank in the wings or any form of wing-slots. This is showed that Gibbs-Smith missed a lot of material against his very strong statements making the whole assessment doubtful. This assessments were never review or used in any academic material after the publication. The exception was Winter article from 1980, which did not give any final position on the Coanda-1910, and used Gibbs-Smith as such.

Why Wikipedia does not work
Until the "problems" with all Coanda 1910 related articles personally I though that Wikipedia works and I was a simple enthusiast of this project, like the majority of you (I suppose). Now I realized why people like Larry Sanger co-founder of Wikipedia left the project: despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. This is exactly what is demonstrated by the current content of this article: a lack of respect for expertise and history demonstrated by the "owners" of this article: User:Andy Dingley and User:Binksternet. Initially I did not even know about existence of the very extensive set of rules ( some of them very dubious ) present in Wikipedia for the help of the "Gods" of this project, the admins. The very interesting fact about this rules is that they are used by admins whenever they what to support their actions, but as well they are very happy, together with some editors, to ignore them if they are not supporting their bias! As example of such attitudes please check the history of actions related Coanda-1910.

Rules ignored by admins and editors
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * Neutral Point Of View - This is one of the main rules to be followed by the Five Pillars editors of Wikipedia and still this is exactly the rule broken in several ways by the current version of the article: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. - please now read the introduction of the current version of the article. Coanda-1910 which is presented by the mainstream as the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world is not even preset in the introduction! What one can find is the non-proportionately and biased version supported by dubious sources, like Gibbs-Smith and Winter which are not even considered by the academic and technical mainstream. According to such rule like Due and undue weight the rebuttals shall be presented in the introduction of the article with the correct prominence, not the whole introduction to be written according to Winter or Gibbs-Smith. This view is presented by Jimbo Wales are well in one of his early comments. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community: This is another rule broken in the current introduction as it does not even present the mainstream that Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.
 * o If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * o If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * o If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The mainstream is supported by the most authoritative and reputable sources existing for such historical subjects: several academies, museums, encyclopedias and foremost historians. Still this is completely ignored in the current introduction of the article.
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources from the WP:VERIFY ''Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
 * o surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * o reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * o claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I refer here to Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter assessments which are dubious as high-quality sources as it was already demonstrated ( e.g. Gibbs-Smith said twice that the second version of Coanda's plane was not having the tank in the wing against a lot of sources supporting Coanda's claims, Frank H. Winter missing a lot of relevant sources and and using non-technical terms like "true jet" in all his references to Coanda-1910 ) As well on regarding the same sources in the WP:IRS can somebody demonstrate that Winter's and Gibbs stuff comply with this rule? ''Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.'' All the academic, textbooks and scholarly works of other aviation historians with access to much more data than Gibbs-Smith and Winter is just ignored or minimized in importance by the editors. The correct introduction form supported by the mainstream: first jet-propelled aircraft was voted out in a pool which is used permanently to support the bias of the owners of the article.
 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion
 * Controversial articles Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy. This is ignored again in the leading text of the article, as Gibbs-Smith and Winter represent the dubious minority side of the controversy, but still, that is what a first time reader of the article will understand.
 * WP:IRS - |Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. Especially in case of Winter's article they promote only one point of view not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. As an another example the presence of Winter's article at in the External links section of the article alone, against the WP:ELPOV, which must avoiding the undue weight.

Rules followed and imposed
Edit Warning: This "rule" was used by the admins to block my account for the last two times. I did extensively asked which is the exact description used for the blocking, as was never told clearly the reason, so that I can avoid it. As well as asked how can I get out of the Edit Warning, and the answer was discussion, as it is presented in the 'nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. But what is happening if the discussion is avoided by the other editors in several rounds ( check my talk to see how many times I did ask simple questions like what is the mainstream? ) In my last blocking, I did not even had the time to react for a normal discussion. I was just blocked for two weeks and explained that I was in edit warning.

A bit of history of the article editing
Until August 2010 the article was more or less stable. After the xenophobic attack of the User:Romaniantruths with the clear scope of defamation of Henri Coanda, User:Binksternet and his wikipedia buddy User:Andy Dingley, became the sole owners of Coanda-1910, controlling fully any attempt to remove their bias. Together they have attacked and accused several editors personally for any kind of improvements on the article. Andy especially did not contribute with any new information on the article after the attack, his only role being to control the present bias. Basically now they are the winners of the edit war and do not participate in any kind of discussions.

In a nutshell

 * Five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft
 *
 * academic
 * several encyclopedia and history books
 * primary sources like the leaflets, magazines,books news from around 1910,1911, witnesses, Coanda's patents
 * articles and TV interviews
 * his endorsing as honorable member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or Romanian academy
 * special medal give by the city of Paris of his work on jet propulsion starting from 1910
 * several museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA presenting unique artifacts related the first jet aircraft)

Sources according to WP:IRS (please change it in case that something is misplaced)

 * Secondary Souces
 * Academic
 * - [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990]
 * - [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1991]
 * -Romanian Academy
 * -Royal Aeronautical Society

 * Scholarship
 * Monographs
 * Books
 * Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.
 * Stine, G. Harry, 1983 The Hopeful Future.
 * V.Firoiu, 2002 Din nou acasa
 * Gibbs-Smith, C. 1970 Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II.

(According to the rule generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars Gibbs-Smith can be considered as it was endorsed by Antoniu but caution as it is considered to contain speculations on evidence of absence and using incorrect sources.)
 * News organizations
 * Magazines
 * Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010, several "Cer Senin" magazines
 * Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
 * G. Harry Stine, 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
 * Gérard Harmann, 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
 * Frank H. Winter, 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined

As per WP:IRS if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.
 * Primary Sources
 * 1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
 * 2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
 * 3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
 * 4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
 * 5) patents

Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft.
 * Tertiary sources

title: User:Lsorin


text:
Talk:Pacifier

Dummy vs pacifier
Dummy vs pacifier. This article suggests that dummy is a slang term and pacifier is the correct term. Dummy is the common term outside of America, it isn’t a slang term. Americans call it a pacifier and most of the rest of the world calls it a dummy 103.234.250.1 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 * @103.234.250.1 a fair observation 2404:4408:7328:FA00:46A9:C5C8:84FE:FE3A (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pacifier


text: User talk:195.194.74.182

title: User talk:195.194.74.182