Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] The Entertainment page

The Entertainment page isn't getting archived, it's also not getting an automatic today's date header added. And just below the TOC, there's some mangled HTML. Corvus cornix 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See here. Also, I don't think the date header is automatic. A bot does it I believe. --The Dark Side 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Missing date headers updated. The messiest desks were Entertainment, Language, and Miscellaneous. Once again: as long as the bots are hiding, whoever happens to be at the desks around midnight UTC might think of adding the new date headers. ---Sluzzelin 12:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The mangled HTML is still there, though. I'm not sure what that's supposed to be. Corvus cornix 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively?

I removed[1] this question from the H desk. Soapboxing, designed to start a debate rather than seeking references, etc.—eric 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barring the soapy intentions, it wouldn't have hurt to keep just the question. But I suppose the remarks editorializing the question are definitely a concern. V-Man737 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Loomis soapboxes a lot - in general.. The question is back - I suppose that hasn't done any harm. No need to turn this into a crusade.83.100.254.40 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Or even a Jihad. Edison 16:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wiki defines "soapboxing" as: "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view". How was my question "soapboxing"? What exactly was I advocating? The Crusades and society's present attitude toward them is a subject I was curious about, and as such I sought, and indeed received a great deal of NPOV information about a subject I was curious about. End of story. Loomis 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You tend to advocate your own viewpoint - I'm sure everyone does this - I just find it more noticeable when you do it.83.100.158.13 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, stop asking questions on the reference desk to get into arguments. The reference desk is to point users to information, not a chat board. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, "83.100.158.13", please get yourself a user account like the rest of us. Until you do, your comments and edits are irrelevant and illegitimate.
And Hipocrite, I have no idea what you're talking about. My question was neither meant to, nor resulted in any argument whatsoever. Rather, it resulted in a rather enlightening, extremely civil discussion. I believe even one of the final posts actually referred to the whole discussion as "the RefDesk at its best". Loomis 06:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
83.100.158.13's comments are every bit as relevant and legitimate as everyone else's. WP:WHY describes the benefits of having an account, as they generally apply, and everyone can make their own decision whether these beneifts fit in their case or not. What is much less relevant is which option the editor chooses. ---Sluzzelin 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I came back to have a quick look if the censorship thing had improved so maybe I could return to the ref desk. But I see it's even gotten worse. This is exactly what I warned about a few months ago. Once you start allowing people to censor other people it will spriral out of control. It has now gotten so bad that I have to come to the defense of Loomis. This deletion is absurd. I may disagree with a lot of what loomis has to say (including in this post), but that is no reason to gag him. If you don't want to read what he has to say, then don't. His opinions may be unconventional, but if you remove all unconventional pov you end up with an extremely boring world. If you don't like to hear other people's opinions, then lock yourself in a room somewhere without internet, tv, newspapers or tv. Or move to a country with a dictatorship that happens to agree with your pov and where everyone who disagrees is locked up or silenced in some other way. But leave people who like a spicy discussion alone. DirkvdM 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but there's one key thing you're overlooking: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Sorry, take it elsewhere. Friday (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's one key thing you are overlooking - the ref desk is Wikipedia's talk page. The encyclopedia proper should definitely be free of pov, so you take that there. :) DirkvdM 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no page on all of Wikipedia where such soapboxing about our personal opinions is relevant. Friday (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's pov. Should I now remove your comment? DirkvdM 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read through the question and subsequent answers, and don't see a problem either with the question or the nature of the responses; nor does Loomis appear to be debating to me (and I'm not convinced that on-topic debate is such a problem). I think fwiw the question should not have been removed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I have yet to get an explanation from even one person as to how my question was inappropriate. It's been called "soapboxing", or "advocating my own viewpoint". Please, will someone tell me exactly what "viewpoint" it is that I was advocating by asking a question about the Crusades? Are you telling me that I'm advocating a pro-Christian viewpoint? If so, how do you explain my comments here: [2]? The topic was a delicate one, and though I tried my best not to offend Christians, if anything my posts were somewhat critical of Christianity. I still hope I didn't offend anyone. Yet looking at the two discussions together, my viewpoint is obviously neither pro, nor anti-Christian. The two issues were separate ones, and I treated them separately. How much more neutral can one get?
I was indeed unduly harsh in my words above to the anonymous user. Yet the general consensus, with a few exceptions, appears to be that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the question. I was clearly wronged, and understandably I was rather irritated by it, leading to my harsh words. I'm just curious though. Why is it that after I was unjustly censored, while a good half dozen users went out of their way to criticize me for my reaction to having been wronged, not one has even bothered to address the wrong itself, by even ever-so-gently suggesting to "83.100.158.13" something along the lines of: "Deleting another's question along with all the discussion that followed it is a rather severe measure and can be quite insulting to the asker. I would strongly suggest that you excercise better judgment in the future"?
It's been suggested in the past that perhaps I was "personalizing" things by unduly criticizing certain other users. Is it possible that my critics here are doing a bit of "personalizing" of their own by coming down on me and me alone, and completely dismissing any possible wrongdoing by "83.100.158.13"? Oh well. I fully recognize that recently I've become extremely unpopular to a very vocal minority for standing up for my principles, most importantly the priciple that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be dedicated above all else to truth, even if it comes at the expense of decorum. I have no intention of changing my principles. I suppose it's possible that I could be blocked, and if that fate awaits me then so be it. Yet I seriously doubt it'll ever come to that. Loomis 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your question was inappropriate, Loomis, but it had a certain flavor of Let's-unmask-the-hypocrisy-of-political-correctness-and-its-effects-of-denial and it included a lot of premises, not everyone will agree on. So, you're basically inviting people to debate. I like debates. Other editors don't. That's as simple as is. Inviting to debate at the reference desk is seen as inappropriate by parts of the community. Speaking of false premises, why are we beating a dead horse? Seriously, the question was removed, and it got put back. No revert war ensued, no one gut hurt. The End. ---Sluzzelin 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the horse was dead, Sluzzelin, only to get yet another rather stern message today on my talk page by a certain "Friday". Had it just been left alone, I would have moved on as well. Yet apparently, some people choose to keep the issue alive by leaving me stern messages on my talk page. So I offered further explanation, along with a question as to why I'm being blamed for all this when "83.100.158.13", the initiator of this whole mess, apparently gets away scot free. Put yourself in my shoes. Wouldn't you be the least bit pissed off by yet another double-standard? ""83.100.158.13" may have been in the wrong, but that's ok. However Loomis' understandably irritated reaction was much, much worse". I'd really appreciate it if someone other than me were to at the very least explain to "83.100.158.13" that his/her deletion was indeed wrong, and politely request him or her to excercise better judgment in the future. But I'm not holding my breath. So for now, I'll consider the horse dead. The End. Unless of course someone attempts to revive it once more... Loomis 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This issue will remain alive as long as it's considered ok for people to first censor others and then argue about it. I see the call to fight censorship has been removed here as well (I put it back, though). That's taking it one step further. Criticising censorship is even being censored. Now what kind of society do we know such behaviour from? DirkvdM 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed "the call to fight censorship". I've removed it again. It causes the page to be categorised as a member of wikipedians against censorship. Clearly the page is not a member of wikipedians against censorship. If you want to steal the design and put it back without the categorisation, you're welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Ok, that's a good reason and you explained it in the edit summary. I missed that. My mistake. DirkvdM 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sluzzelin, my point was that if you like debates yoou can join in and if you don't you can leave them be. Why should one group be allowed to terrorise the other? Let me revive the idea to tag questions that invite opinion as such (or the other way around), so those who object to it have no more excuse to remove such questions. DirkvdM 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
To Loomis: 83.100 didn't remove your question, someone else did. In fact, 83.100 typed: "The question is back - I suppose that hasn't done any harm. No need to turn this into a crusade.". Friday's message on your talk page was polite request, and similar to what I typed a few lines above; I hope you didn't see my post as a stern message. Also, that issue was completely unrelated to the discussion on removing questions from the desks. No one is out to ban you.
To Dirk and Loomis: Guys, you know very well that this debate has been smouldering and flaming for months now, no cool-off period can be short enough, it seems. Significant amounts of the community see and will continue to see threads completely void of referenced information but full of (possibly educated) opinions as undesirable and inappropriate for a reference desk. If every second question were of this type, I would tend to agree. As it is, these questions don't appear that frequently, and, yeah, I think they could and should be left alone.
Here is where you lose me though: It is simply not true that these editors, opposed to "debate-questions", are advocating censorship. There are many reaons they are opposed: because they apply wikipedia's standards of quality and no-original-research to the desks, because they see political debates as disruptive, but it is simply neither productive nor fair to dichotomize this issue any further. There was never any consensus on the remove-ask-questions-later vs discuss-first-then-remove debate either. There are good-faith reasons for immediate removal, and there was at least one case where I agreed with a speedy removal. Days, if not weeks have already been wasted on the divisive scenario of this debate. No one is "terrorizing" anyone. ---Sluzzelin 11:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this as a 'cool off period'. For me it will never cool off until the ref desk is free of censorship again. To clarify once more - to me the ref desk is Wikipedia's talk page. It's where you turn when the encyclopedia proper doesn't cover something. And just as on other talk pages, nothing should be removed, unless there is a really very strong and obvious reason or at least some concensus (on a per case basis). Unless rules on this are very strict, deletions like the one that spawned this discussion will become ever more common. I once considered policing the ref desk myself, deleting everything I disagree with. But then I would have lowered myself to the standards of those other self-proclaimed police officers. So I just decided to leave. Luckily at the ref desk that is possible. In a real life dictatorship that is alas usually not that easy. DirkvdM 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies to "83.100.158.13". Throughout this confusing mess I was under the impression that it was you who deleted my question, when in fact it was another user. As for the whole "debate" debate, this is where I part company with Dirk somewhat. I don't see the RefDesk as a debating page, but rather a place to ask unique questions that cannot be answered by the wiki articles alone. Very often these questions require the canvassing of a variety of different POVs, and, if all runs smoothly, an enlightening discussion ensues, and we're all the better off for it. As it is the RefDesk is very poorly defined. As an illustration, the guidelines originally explained that it was a place for asking questions like "what does lorem ipsum mean?" I tried several times to point out that this is indeed a very poor example of the type of question that should be asked, since the very term has an article all to its own, and as such would be a ridiculous question to ask at the RefDesk. Still, no one seemed to bother to listen. Finally, then, I actually went ahead and posted the question "What does lorem ipsum mean?". Only then did the powers that be "get it", and since then it's been removed.
Rather than wage endless battles over what is and what is not appropriate at the RefDesk, can I suggest that instead we at least try to define what the RefDesk is in the first place? If you ask me, the very term "RefDesk" itself is a terrible misnomer. Loomis 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines takes a stab at doing that. -- SCZenz 13:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language ref. desk

The main (active) page currently has three weeks of Q&A activity, not one week. AnonMoos 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box to explain the non-archiving going on

RefDeskBot has been offline since January 21 and is not expected to come back online for a few days. Until that time all questions will have to be manually archived and all date headers will have to be added at 00:00 (UTC) everyday. Forgive the unusually long pages as they have yet to be archived. Any questions can be posed at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk.


What do you think? Can I add it to the Reference desks? --The Dark Side 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should. It would explain why the pages are unusually long. BenC7 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the bot, and what's the prognosis for its return? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot is run by User:Martinp23. From his user page:
Until BT get a new phone line up for me, I will be extremely inactive, and will probably be unable to handle any requests or reply to messages. Sorry about this - all caused by heavy winds earlier in the year. Please be patient if I don't get back to you! I hope to be fully active by Feb 15th, though this is very tentative.
As you can see, it is now past the 15th and there has been no sign of activity from User:Martinp23 since the 7th. --The Dark Side 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. —s

I think it can be taken off now? Even if someone is archiving the pages manually... BenC7 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience everyone. I still don't have the internet at home, where the bot lives, and my internet access is in any case severely limited. I'm being given a different estimate by BT every day (most of them promising that it'll be fixed tomorrow - but tomorrow never comes :( ). As soon as I can, I'll get the bot back online - will it need to go through the manual archives and make the index pages, or is this being done manually? Please reply on my talk page - Martinp23 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling removed

I removed the following question as trolling: [3]. Under the heading arun's ques about english,

what is the opposite of 'sin' and 'cunt-lapper'?

Just posting a note here for transparency's sake. The editor was on a dynamic IP, so I did not leave him a message. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed practically the same question as well about 2 days ago.83.100.158.13 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration is live!!!

Please sign up and dig in!! Thanks. --Justanother 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Reference Desk
Article Collaboration
This question inspired an article
to be created or enhanced:
Name of new article
Please consider contributing
I have created a template to add to questions that have inspired the creation or significant improvement of articles. This should encourage, I hope, the dissemination of more information from the ref desk into the encyclopaedia proper. Before it goes into wide use, I'm asking for comments of regular contributors here (obviously, if you can improve it, be my guest.) Rockpocket 10:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That template is way too big. Maybe think userbox size? --Tagishsimon (talk)
I have shrunk it further. Rockpocket 17:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I recommend making it wider and shallower. It's still spanning two questions on this page. (To the extent I would recommend putting it on the RD pages at all. Not sure I would...) --Tagishsimon (talk)
The other feedback I have received recommended making it thinner and deeper. You can't please everyone, unfortunately. As a matter of interest, on what basis are you concerned about placing it on the RD pages? It seems to be that is can only encourage contributions to the encyclopaedia, which is surely something we should be striving to increase. I think there is a lot of great encyclopaedic material that is generated here then 'lost' in the archives. Rockpocket 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed comment from Humanities Desk

Hmmm. Surprised to find myself doing this, but I removed this "::: George Bush's natural ability to hear the "voice of God" is highly relevant to his ability to "change the world". 211.28.131.148 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)" comment from the Humanities Desk. In my opinion, it was off topic and verging on trolling, if the original question (from the same poster) wasn't itself trolling. If I've done wrong, please revert. --Dweller 14:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you were wrong to remove it but I'm not going to track down the diff --frothT 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed latest anti-semitic trolling

here. When Barringa decides to start using the reference desk to ask questions, he's welcome back. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated it. It didn't look too bad to me. But I could be wrong. The question is poor, but not offensive (to me, anyway). The answers seem to deal with the question well. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I saw it as "hi, Jews like money, amirite?" But whatever. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the question doesn't make the slightest bit of sense - what is he trying to ask? Could apply Hanlon's razor here, or not depending on what you think. I don't think it's trolling - but I would like to be able to understand what 'barringa' is trying to ask.87.102.7.220 14:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead of turning a POV into a statement, he's reworking it and turning it into a reverse question about whether he's correct. "I think Jews like money, isn't that right guys?" Barringa has been making these "clever" attempts to be cute and disguise his trolling. It's nice to see the editors not falling for it, but I would recommend that anyone reverts anything of his having to do with Jews. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The user was blocked indefinitely. Just wanted to say that I think all those editors who responded coolly to his questions, handled it well. If we keep the approach like this, we can even deflate the let's-play-racist trolls while educating the innocent reader. And the trolls will be back. ---Sluzzelin 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh thank Money. ;) -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mockup of desk split

Threw together a little mockup of what we'll do with that Archives link when we get a new desk... in case anyone's curious: User:Froth/notes/mockup. I'd move it there now to give it the prominence it deserves as a meta-desk but there's nothing to replace the old cell with yet --frothT 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Where's the discussion about the creation of a new desl? --Dweller 11:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember that either - but it looks ok - I'm still pushing for a Wikipedia:Reference_desk/The_World - geology, geography, etc by the way.87.102.13.148 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no new desk; but there's bound to be eventually and it'll displace the archives --frothT 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Anybody willing to take a second look at this, which eventually turned into this? 61.25.248.86 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep ;) Be on the lookout for something new... --frothT 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a POV desk to handle all of those controversial questions. --The Dark Side 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology Reference Desk

I wanted to ask a question about Psychology, but there´s no Reference Desk to do that. I think including Psychology in the Humanities Desk will not be that effective on solving the problem. I think the Psychology Reference Desk would be a great, much used Reference Desk. A.Z. 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the exact question, I think you could probably fit it in either the Science or the Humanities desk, otherwise there is always the Miscellaneous desk. Right now there's a bot problem, and it's horrible with the unarchived rolls of pages at the desks. Hoping we will have shorter pages again sometime, however, I'm not sure splitting up into more desks is necessary at this moment. Another concern I have with the idea of a psychology desk is precisely that - that it's labeled psychology. I'm afraid people might see it as Lucy's psychiatric help "five cents please" booth and will be asking for advice rather than questions about psychology. ---Sluzzelin 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The Science Reference Desk is nice, I like it but it is more about things like chemistry and physics. I don´t see psychology in there. Same thing with the Humanities desk. There could be a sign saying "Don´t ask for advice on your relationship!" I think the benefits would be much greater than the possible problems which could appear. Many people want to learn things about psychology, even when the real cause of this interest is some relationship problem or some family problem.A.Z. 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying anything anymore. I think I´m going to the Help Desk now to ask how can I create a new Reference Desk. A.Z. 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Most psychology question should go to the science reference desk, if they ask about things which might be found in a psychology textbook: theories of personality, the science of mental life, memory, theories of childhood mental development, operant conditioning, learning, motivation. Question which seek counseling, therapy, or crisis intervention are inappropriate and the questioner must be referred to an appropriate resource. There should not be a separate "Psychology" desk just as there is no "Astronomy" desk and no "Archeology" desk. Edison 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Edison; psychology is mostly going to be a subset of the science desk, though a few questions may end up at humanities or even misc. Subdividing the desks too far carries a risk that a) nobody will see the questions, or b) nobody will correctly place their questions. The recent split of 'entertainment' to its own desk came about because those questions were making up a big chunk of traffic on some of the other desks, and it made sense to house all those questions in one spot. What percentage of questions from the other desks would belong under the psychology banner, if such a desk were created? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There are almost no psychology questions now. But I think that´s in part because it doesn´t say "psychology" anywhere. Maybe when you add the word "psychology" as a subset of the Science Reference Desk the amount of psychology questions will increase. A.Z. 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

If I wasn't forced to take a break I probably wouldn't be editing the reference desk for much longer anyway, because much longer is what the desks' pages have become. It's getting ridiculous; I can now brew my coffee during the time it takes for my computer to load. Neither I nor my computer are capable of manual archival and transclusion or whatever (see, I don't even know what I'm talking about). I know there are some really puter-savvy editors contributing here. Yes, I'm a lazy person, but I really would have done it myself if I was capable, and I did try to help a bit by adding date headers to all the desks these past days. Someone, please, have mercy and do what needs to be done. Thank you so much in advance. ---Sluzzelin 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Too lazy :( My new style is like a kb smaller than the old one, so give your support and maybe you'll be able to use quick brew --frothT 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Super Steve Summit rolled up his sleeves and has been archiving tremendous chunks for the past hour! ---Sluzzelin 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
All praise summut! *bow* --frothT 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
*blush* Thanks for noticing.
Anybody know if there are subst-able templates for creating the linking and transclusion headers at the top of the daily archive pages? I could hack them out with some sed scripts or something, but if there are premade templates that'd be easier. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. This? --frothT 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table listing the seven refdesks

The Wikipedia:Reference desk page lists the seven current reference desks and a link to the archives in a 2*4 table (through the template Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header) in this arrangement:

Computing Science Maths Misc
Humanties Language Entertainment Archives

The individual reference desk pages have the same eight links on their top in a 2*4 table (from the tamplate Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer), but in a different arrangement:

Science Maths Computing Humanties
Language Entertainment Misc Archives

I find it confusing that the two arragements are different. I'd like the on the main page changed to the second arrangement. Please tell me if you think that shouldn't be done. Thanks. – b_jonas 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Change it if you'd like but dont screw anything up. I suspect it's moot anyway since (hopefully) my template will be replacing both of those tables soon --frothT 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't change it. --Parker007 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not? It's irrelevant now anyway though --frothT 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humanities Archive

Does anyone know what has happened to the archived questions from 1 February to 12 February? I was going to go over some of those I missed, but can find no trace! Clio the Muse 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_February links to each day. The problem is that the red link on the archives page is labeled Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/February_2007 (word order thingy). Sorry I can't change it myself right now. Something weird is going on with my computer, and the edit box was blank when I tried to correct the link. ---84.75.111.138 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (user:Sluzzelin)
Thanks for that information, Sluzzelin! Clio the Muse 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to the right location. --Parker007 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the questions on the reference desk [if that makes sense]

I've noticed a trend on the reference desk, in recent weeks. There appears to be, in my view, a very prevalent interest in the Jews and their history. Does anybody have any theories as to why Judaism is a popular topic?

Well, there was recently a spate of questions by a user whom -- using my weasel words here -- some observers might consider to be a troll. Beyond that, Jews have played a role in the history of the world, and especially of the Western world, out of all proportion to their numbers. This makes their history an interesting and sometimes controversial topic. --TotoBaggins 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Barringa has been attempting lately to make the anti-semitic claim that Jews' God is somehow money. Or something. We were dealing with his trolling until someone got fed up and blocked him. He's coming back as an IP but thankfully we can revert on sight now. -Wooty Woot? contribs
But Troll don't care, and he's still there
With the bone he boned from its owner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.75.111.138 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Care to go on two more words? :) I always thought that line was a little ridiculous --frothT 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's just a blip - though I don't see why you shouldn't ask this question on the misc. desk. I'd like to know too.87.102.9.154 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the user who posed this particular question did, in fact, raise a Jewish related subject not so long ago on the Humanities Desk; so maybe he is in a better position to address the matter himself? Clio the Muse 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because such a large number of the frequent posters on the rd are Jewish. And religion is a hot topic these days. 70.108.199.130 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement that Judaism, Jews, as well as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict all get way more attention than they warrant, not only on the RefDesk, but in pretty much all other other media. To illustrate, what would you estimate to be the percentage of people who are aware of the fact that for the past 25 years, the unfortunate island-nation of Sri Lanka has been engaged in a bloody civil war, which to-date has claimed some 65,000 lives? How many would even be able to identify Sri Lanka as a country? Tragically, I wouldn't be surprised if upon hearing the term Tamil Tigers, a majority of the population of the English Speaking World would assume you're speaking of a football team. Something is seriously wrong here.Loomis 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian interwiki

Why no russian interwiki ([[ru:Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро]]) here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urod (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Good point. The Reference Desk's main page is protected. So an administrator will have to add the interwiki link. ---84.75.111.138 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Sluzz)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia_talk%7EReference_desk_Archive_25_82e5.html"