We currently have "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". To avoid silly discussions, I think it would be more complete to have "Genealogical entries. Non-notable family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." We clearly can and do write articles and sections about notable verifiable topics of any type, including genealogical ones such as concerning royal families etc. If no-one sees a problem I will add the term (but not in bold of course)? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think the advice applies to both notable and non-notable people. For example, while most US President's family history is documented, we rarely go into the depth of a genealogical entry as compared to the British royalty. --Masem (t) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically this is a misreading of what I am proposing, but perhaps it is not clear. I am specifically allowing a possibility for notable families, not notable people. Some notable people have notable families, and some do not. Can you see my intention? Am I wrong to say that the current wording could be seen as implying that we can not have articles about any families at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Using your world thus implies that "Notable family histories" thus are 100% okay for a genealogy approach, but that's not always true. That's the part of the wording I'm concerned with. --Masem (t) 15:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I would avoid prescribing a cutoff like "notable" or "not notable", and emphasize that in determining weight, we defer to our sources: "2. Genealogical entries. Details of family histories should be given weight and detail in proportion to that given by quality sources." It's pretty nebulous to ask how much the family tree is illuminating the mind of the reader, but it's not hard to verify, and agree upon, whether good quality sources consider it worth dwelling on or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I can't really follow what you are saying. Could there be a typo (apart from word/world)? What is a "genealogy approach"? Shouldn't we just stick to talking about "genealogy" or "family history"? I see these words as simply referring to content which discusses family relationships between people. Topics matching our core content policies can have their own articles written about them even if they involve family relationships, clearly, so the text here should avoid implying otherwise? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, what I am concerned about is that the current text might be read to imply that a family history/ genealogy, for example a dynastic or baronial history, can only ever be included in WP in cases like the one you describe, where the family is mentioned within the article of a topic which is not about a family itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Context. WP seems to be evolving towards more of the surviving editors working in an increasing bot-like and deletionist way, with fewer people watching, and so it seems worth being careful? I see wording issues here can cause cases where people say consensus-seeking is not needed because policy demands a certain edit. I come here after reflecting on a discussion I have been reading and then participating in on this template talkpage. In that case there are multiple policy confusions, but this page has been cited especially in earlier parts of the discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I read through most of that discussion, and the main objections are not related to this policy, but to V and NOR, which seem reasonable - if the entire family tree hasn't been discussed as a whole in reliable sources, then it is probably bad form to piece-part it from multiple ones and give it undue weight. The change you've suggested to this policy would completely go against the consensus of that discussion. That discussion emphasis that we need to have family genealogies to be published as a whole in reliable sources as to show there is interest in that before including. Hence we would not include "non-notable" ones. --Masem (t) 13:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot more to that ongoing discussion, but for the purposes of this discussion the important point is that you are correct: the tweak I am proposing is not very directly related. It just came to mind while looking at various policy pages. You possibly misunderstand the intention of my proposal, and reading it back myself I find it badly written. I am saying indeed that there are many very notable and easily sourceable families who we have uncontroversial articles about. We shouldn't be implying these are forbidden. Perhaps someone can think of a better wording, but my only reason for proposing to add "non-notable" was to avoid people saying that the sentence applies even to notable families who we can write about like any other notable subject. In other words, the current wording could be read as saying that any information about families can only be in WP as part of articles which are not about families. Does that make sense at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Clarification requested for product pricing (Sales catalogues)
What's best practice/general consensus for including vs excluding pricing information? I've not paid attention to discussions, and tend to remove pricing on sight unless there's clear encyclopedic value to the information (eg It clearly belongs in Pyrimethamine, though I disagree on what information is in that article and its emphasis.)
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Sales begins, An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention.
It continues with, Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.
So we're clearly excluding product reviews as sources and indicating that some level of detail must be given about the pricing in the independent sources. That seems to me to open ourselves for PROMO and RECENTISM. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In that article, it seems appropriate to discuss the actual sales price to the perceived manufactured price since that inflation of the cost is seem as an issue with that. However, past that, the run down of price per country seems unnecessary (such drugs being far cheaper outside the US is common knowledge). Basically, the third-party should not just be about the price but expand more why that price is interesting or of note. --Masem (t) 19:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The table is definitely too much. The MSRP in major regions for the product for the base version of the product is reasonable as this is generally standard for any notable standalone hardware product that has an MSRP. (in the video game area, we try to stick to only US, EU, UK, JP, and AUS as major areas that tech products impact within the broader scope of en.wiki), But not for all variations and all regions that gives. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Inclusion in the lede seems rather grossly undue based upon the sources. Inclusion of any price at all seems questionable given that the rationale is about a relative price. My suggestion would be remove the pricing entirely, but include the material on the relative pricing and why. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not needed in the lead, and the information could be given by dropping the price, and explaining it's more expensive in the US than UK (And give some %age) which is unexpected due to the rationale used there. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
In WikiProject Motorcycling we've found it helpful to think of pricing as only one of several factoids about a product that vary from country to country and market to market, such as trim levels, or colors. The fact that a "new" model comes out with "bold new colors" is non-news that we ignore. The standard is whether sources attribute some significance to a particular price or a particular color or option. So on Suzuki Hayabusa we talk about the copper paint scheme because it attracted notice, but don't list every color scheme of every model year. We don't tabulate every color, and don't tabulate every price. We don't mention what options cost, unless sources say why we should care about a price, and the article will mention adjacent to the price why that price was worth noting. This became a huge thing with electric cars, calculating total cost of ownership, price of charging in each electricity market, etc. It became endlessly long tables of raw data that isn't really encyclopedic because it's contingent on precisely where you live. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
We have many high quality sources that comment on prices of medicines including textbooks like the British National Formulary and US government sites. Prices are important and many, including in the medical field, do not have enough clarity around them. I have had people come to the ER after seeing their family physician a few hours earlier as they were unable to afford what the FP had prescribed and were requesting a less expensive option.
The prices of medicines and transparency around them is key to public health per NGOs such as UNICEF[1] and MSF[2]. These groups are working to improve transparency in this area.
Many within the pharmaceutical industry are trying to decrease transparency around medication prices with lawsuits currently ongoing in the US.[3] We are not censored obviously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Prices in the lead is probably not the best location for most drug articles. MOS:PHARM suggests costs go in the "society and culture" section, however, WP:SS will apply if there is sufficient controversy around pricing. <aside>Admittedly, MOS:PHARM is an essay (albeit one referenced by MOS:MED).</aside> MOS:PHARM also supplies the instruction not to use such a section for adding WP:TRIVIA, and a recommendation that only costs in major English speaking countries are listed. Little pob (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
For many products, prices do not vary considerably from one place to another or from one supplier to another or from one purchaser to another. That is not the case for pharmaceutical drugs. Prices can be dramatically different depending on who is paying, who is insuring, who is selling, where it is selling, and when it is selling. I think drug pricing should only be included if the information is current, can be reliably sourced, and is relevant to a significant portion of the article's readership. I remember seeing a health insurance company's website used to support the cost of a drug (sorry, can't remember which article), but that price would only apply to that insurer's members - that's the kind of situation to avoid. For U.S. costs, I think sticking to wholesale pricing makes the most sense because that's the latest point in the supply chain where there will be meaningful consistency. In addition, I agree with those above that have suggested that pricing info doesn't belong in the lead, but is appropriate for a "Society and culture" section. Deli nk (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
For drug pricing I see no problem including it in general based on the above in the same manner we include the base MSRP for notable (standalone page) products, as long as it keeps the same fixed value, like what the MSRP is for other products. If that's the wholesale price, so be it; ideally it should be something that is set when the drug achieves market arrival (following all approvals) that is as unchanging as possible. But definitely needs to pick a limited number of regions as representative and other factors so that people aren't adding the price from a tiny locale to a growing list. The details go behind NOT here, but I don't see drug pricing, kept to a similar level of constraint as MSRP pricing as discussed above, to be against the principle of NOT here. --Masem (t) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Definitely agree it should only be included if it is reliably sourced (WP:V) and that we should only include prices that will apply to a significant portion of the EN readership. Prices generally vary slowly over time with a drop when generics appear on the market. Agree a health insurance company would not be a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
As a general rule, for pharmaceutical drugs, I think that prices should only be included when (a) there is an unusual difference in the price between countries or (b) the price is unusually high (either absolutely, or due to a sharp price increase). To give some examples, I think we should include price information when it's $1 a month in most countries but $100 in another; when the price is above US $1,000 (some people are on drugs that cost a quarter of a million USD, and they will take that drug for life); or when the price used to be $1 and now it's suddenly $100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Prices vary tremendously. Onasemnogene abeparvovec for example has a price of $US 2.215 million for a dose (though a person only needs one). People are going to want to consistently be able to find this data (similar to how they want to consistently find data on safety when breastfeeding) so not sure about those sorts of cutoffs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't intend those very round numbers to be taken as cutoffs. They're merely illustrations of the kinds of situations that I mean when I say "unusual price difference" and "unusually high" prices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Related to what WhatamIdoing and Doc James's comments, let me play stupid on pharma drugs. Drug gets approval to be sold, so the drug company prepares all the marketing, etc. details on the drug. At what point does the drug company say "We are going to sell this drug at this wholesale price", and is that something that is tracked, or is that not even something made public, and when drug prices are reported, they are based on a summary/average of what consumers see? --Masem (t) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
(This is to compare to the MSRP which is nearly universally attached to the press release or first announcement of the product so we know where it comes from). --Masem (t) 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Masem in Canada there is a government review board that sets maximum allowed price of a medicine upon its release.[4]
In the UK the price is avaliable in the British National Formulary. It is negotiated by the government aswell from what I understand.
Something like that, then would seem to be a fair sourcing standard for this purpose (given the heavy regulation of the drug industry in most countries). Of course, it looks like the US has no equivalent so that might be where have to turn to the initial price offered by the manufacturer once on the wholesale market. --Masem (t) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If pricing is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources, and is a source of interest in and of itself (e.g. price gouging of insulin, or the Shkreli asshattery) then we should include it. We should not include it from manufacturers' or distributors' catalogues, and it should not be included as a matter of course, only when it has been subject of specific commentary in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There may need to be some consideration of how pricing is supported in the product area, and not just the specific product. For example, video game consoles, the big ones, when they are announced, there is clear discussion on the pricing and the competitive nature of it. But other consoles also get released, may not be the same competitive range as the big ones so their pricing may be mentioned in passing but not a focus of discussion. But it would be odd to not include the pricing of those products when the other main consoles get it. At the same time, we hardly ever talk about video game pricing because that is generally accepted in de facto ranges, so only when a game gets unique cost information is that included. Hence, just considering how the sourcing generally treats prices across a range of equivalent products should be taken into account. --Masem (t) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: How much weight is then due in articles where there is no detailed discussion of pricing for that specific product? A footnote in the references? An entry in the infobox? A single sentence? A dedicated section? Mention in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
You keep making such assertions, but fail to back them up. Worse, you're using the assertions as an excuse to ignore the actual details when we have them, giving prominence to mundane information over notability (as in the examples given). --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a little reminder that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow." and "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". Look at any important article on a current event and you'll see that WP:NOTNEWS is not widely accepted. Where we draw the line between encyclopedic and "over-detailed articles that look like a diary" varies wildly and depends on context and how our sources treat it. The real accepted consensus on how much detail we give to unfolding current events, and which sources are acceptable, is best represented by Featured Articles promoted in the last month or two: 2018 World Snooker Championship, Hurricane Rosa (2018),Hurricane Sergio (2018), 2019 Tour Championship or Spider-Man (2018 video game). Look at how man newsblogs are cited. Look at how often commentary, developing, changing facts are included. NOTNEWS would have you think we have this rigid policy against this kind of content, but that's not true. NOTNEWS is a de facto guideline and life would be so much easier for everyone if we lifted out of this policy page and gave it an appropriate home on the guideline pages WP:DETAIL and WP:NEWSEVENT, where it would be much happier.
And before you say it, WP:NOR isn't going anywhere, so original reporting still isn't going to happen, even if NOTNEWS is demoted form a policy to a guideline. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification on NOTEVERYTHING?
I have witnessed some editors routinely using WP:NOTEVERYTHING to justify the deletion of sourced material, with the understanding that WP:NOTEVERYTHING means that not necessarily all pertinent infos need to be in a WP entry (despite other editors considering the info pertinent). From my understanding, NOTEVERYTHING rather is first a reminder to summarize, and then an illustration of common cases that are not good fits for WP, such as lists, compilations, etc. but in no way a justification to delete anything an editor might think to be superfluous when others do not necessarily agree, and foremost when the info can be retained but summarized. Should this section be clarified in the general case as to what it means (and more specifically what it does not justify, eg, deletion of sourced pertinent content)? --Signimu (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarification is not needed in my opinion. I can't say I've ever seen WP:NOTEVERYTHING used improperly. Consensus determines whether information added to articles is superfluous, overly-detailed, trivial, off topic, or beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. That said, editors using NOTEVERYTHING in an argument should be are obliged to explain why - MrX 🖋 11:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleting unacceptable content
Some editors on Wikipedia now attempt to limit discussion on sensitive (or simply annoying) topics by using "admin" censorship, for example:
extendinging topic bans into new areas by "broadly interpreting" previous topic bans
deleting talk page comments
threats of administrative sanctions for disagreement
attempting to determine other editors' nationality
The previous comment on WP:NOTEVERYTHING could also be included in this discussion. Taken together, this kind of editing disruption appears to be a type of censorship that avoids being named as "censorship". The sum total effect, on the other hand, does resemble censorship. Santamoly (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
These are not really issues related to NOTEVERYTHING. They are covered by WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:BAN. Threats of administrative sanctions are covered by WP:ADMIN, and CAT:CONDUCT. No one should be trying to determine another user's nationality per WP:PRIVACY. Some comments on talk pages will be deleted, redacted, or collapsed if they are not related to improving the associated article, or otherwise violate policies or guidelines. - MrX 🖋 11:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of Neustar reads like an advertisement. In fact, it list some of the company's business functions and links back to the company's website rather then internal wiki links. For example, Risk Management links to https://www.home.neustar/risk-solutions rather than a wiki page on the subject.
I think an edit will result in a editing war by one of those companies that protect brands. (I had it happen to me in the past on the Network Solutions page). What wikipedia tag or shortcut do we label the article with to have a senior editor look at it?
RfC to delete Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content from WP:CRYSTAL
PASSED
Amending policy pages is always a difficult process. Whether or not a page should be changed becomes a question of whether doing so is (1) to simply adjust the wording, (2) to substantially change policy, or (3) to try to change practice. Those in support made clear and convincing arguments that this proposal would not substantially change policy. Our WP:BLP still exists and applies as always, and Wikipedia is still not a Crystal ball (it's an encyclopedia). Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Interested parties may be interested in the discussion below. If a new addition is worked out and agreed upon by WP:Consensus, then it can be re-added with no bearing on this closing. (non-admin closure) –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As it easier to judge in context, here is the current text (as of my edit here). Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. --Masem (t) 18:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Survey
Support — as nominator, and because what value it has is redundant, repeating WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NOR, etc. Other than that, it only contradicts the rest of the policy, and sows confusion, per my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. Speculation and rumor has to be approached extremely carefully, especially when it touches on WP:BLP, but it is incorrect to say that we can never cover it (and does not reflect current policy.) There should be policies mandating extreme caution and requiring multiple very high-quality sources, plus in-line citations to make it clear who is saying what; but there are still situations where speculation and rumor become central to the topic, and in such situations we ought to cover them. Listing it in WP:NOT implies we should never cover speculations or rumors, no matter how well-sourced, no matter how broad and WP:SUSTAINED the coverage is, and no matter how central the sources treat them to the topic. This is not desirable and does not accurately reflect how we cover things. I also have some concern about editors dismissing the reporting of a WP:RS as speculation from the position of "I don't see how they could possibly reach that conclusion; it reads as speculation to me." (eg. "experts said that if X happened, Y might result" - is that speculation? Are the experts cited in eg. Impact of Brexit merely speculating? Plenty of people who disagree with things on that page would dismiss it as speculation, but I'd argue that in any case it has to be covered because those predictions are central to how many of the stakeholders involved approach the topic, ie. it actually isn't possible to understand the topic unless you at least know some people believe or argue for these different things, even if some might be speculative.) Generally speaking we presume that a high-quality RS is doing basic fact-checking, so few things would actually qualify as mere speculation unless the source itself overtly frames them as such. Even then, the speculation of experts, posted in a high-quality source and covered in a sustained manner, deserves at least some potential weight. Similarly, if a rumor (for example) leads to the resignation of a high-profile official or some other concrete event, we obviously have to report it, otherwise our coverage of the topic wouldn't make any sense. --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose removal but support reworking We clearly do allow "rumors" but they have to be backed by strong RSes, should absolutely not be BLP rumor-mongering and should be limited to major industry areas/products where there is known to be a lot of attention - eg high tech products, cars, etc. Clarity on these facets would be more appropriate to discuss then outright removal. --Masem (t) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, because we do have a problem with this, but I would be interested to see alternative wording that addresses the perceived problem. Guy (help!) 18:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose In general, it is not desirable to attempt to change policy during an active disagreement, such as seen at Talk:BMW M3. In particular, announcements of routine proposed events (for example, that a car company will issue a new and improved model) belong in magazines, not an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Support - Some people instinctively discount "speculation" because they default to the false archetype of "trite uniformed speculation." But it is basically impossible to function without speculation. It's a basic empathy skill necessary in a world that keeps secrets and tells lies. Suppose Country X tests a new missile days before it meets with a global superpower to discuss sanctions. Even if Country X does not come out and state its reasons for doing so, analysts can use inductive reasoning to conclude that when Country X fires missiles, it is typically done in order to gain leverage at the negotiating table. This is a reasonable claim that should be perfectly acceptable to use on Wikipedia when it is repeated in reliable sources. When we ignore informed speculation, we do so at our own peril. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose specifically due to the ongoing conversation at Talk:BMW M3 and generally because this would open the door to all manner of problems. Continual WP:BLP violations already happen and this would only exacerbate that. MarnetteD|Talk04:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Too many rumors these days printed in RS as they try to keep ahead of the 24 hour news cycle and it would inevitably bite us with a BLP.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
SupportWP:CRYSTAL already says Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, so the line in the subpara #5 specifically for product announcements contradicts that without explanation as to why it's a different guideline for product announcements than for any other future thing. Schazjmd(talk)13:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. Less is more. It already says that above. It would be OK if you added "about product releases" instead of deleting. It looks like that is what the writers intended. If you want add "about anything, including learned speculation in reliable sources about political events and trends, scientific events and trends, cultural events and trends, and anything else" you could do that (altho that'd be a new conversation). Because without a "about product releases" specification, people can use it as a hammer to attack actually useful description of speculation such as speculation in Oral tradition about future events -- after all the entire field of Eschatology is speculation. "Describing this scientific theory, even if we want to, is forbidden by WP:SPECULATION, which says "Speculation[s]... even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Of course that's a rank perversion of the intent, but I mean it is an ALLCAPSPAGE so busy people are likely to be of the mind that there's a policy in place here. And yes, Wikipedians do do stuff like this all the time, to win arguments. Why give them the ammunition? Remove it. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Careful though to report speculation and more generally any statements about the future correctly. It is almost always wrong to say that something "will" happen, except for things like lunar eclipses, the date of Thanksgiving 2030, the date of a presidential inauguration, etc. (even though in theory these could be changed between now and then). A spokesperson may say that it will happen, the press may predict that it will happen, but generally WP should not say "Model X will be released in February" but rather "A BMW executive expects that model X will be released in February". --Macrakis (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Mixed - Rumors and speculation have no place in BLPs and articles about RECENT events. However, discussing rumors and academic speculation in articles on historical figures (if worded appropriately, and attributed) can be encyclopedic. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Support per nom, as long as it is made clear elsewhere that speculation must by strongly supported by WP:RS before inclusion. LK (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Support - It is an unhelpful sentence that attempts to overrule WP:V. I also concur with the reasons given by Dennis Bratland, Mark Schierbecker, and others. The existence of a specific discussion invoking WP:CRYSTAL should have no bearing whatsoever on this RfC.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. Highly notable speculations, even rumors can and must be included per WP:NPOV if supported by multiple RS and consistent with other policies. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is within our notability guidelines, not our guidelines for what text is acceptable within articles. We should not be creating articles based on speculation and rumor alone. We should not be adding speculation or rumor into articles. I'm open to a rethink, though, possibly a better definition, or a link to an essay. Using the car example presented above, "Sources think BMW will release a car in May" should never be included - I think this is different than "BMW will release a car in May, and have announced ABC features" from a reliable secondary source - the latter is not speculation or rumor. SportingFlyerT·C08:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
I'm not sure if deletion is necessary right, but there needs to be a strength of RS sourcing behind rumors and which should absolutely not involve BLP, and the RS sourcing should be top-of-the-line for the area. For example, Wall Street Journal frequently is first to publish industry rumors based on inside sources. That's generally acceptable but it depends a lot on context. But your average rumor-mongering fan sites are absolutely no-nos. --Masem (t) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This section is coherent right up until this oddball sentence tacked on the end. It contradicts the sentence before it. The policy seems to be only addressing the mad rush to make a new stub for every announced or anticipated product. It sensibly suggests merging into the parent topic, like the company, or the previous (and notable) version of the product. But then it has second thoughts, swerves, and backpedals: "No! Even if a reliable source tell us a product is coming, we dare not mention it anywhere on Wikipedia!" What if Elon Musk makes headlines with a stunning, hyperbolic claim about a future product? What if Donald Trump tweets that he's going to accomplish something that is believed to be impossible? To say it has no place in an encyclopedia is not helpful, and clearly not a correct description of the community consensus. If reliable sources give weight to some speculative thing, it has a place, somewhere in Wikipedia, if phrased correctly and well cited.
Perhaps WP:NOT could have a whole new section covering our policy about the future for content withinotherwise notable articles or lists, but for the present, we could have clear policy statement, if we removed this this wart at the end that helps nobody and inspires endless debate. Delete it, and if you have a better idea, propose at your leisure.
With regard to the fact that, as Masem said, "your average rumor-mongering fan sites are absolutely no-nos", what does that have to do with WP:CRYSTAL? Rumor mongering fan sites fail WP:V and WP:RS. We already have clear guidelines and policies telling us not to rely on those. WP:CRYSTAL does not need to repeat that, and doing so here only muddles it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that Dennis is one of the principles involved in the topic just above this concerning the announcement of future vehicles. These 2 topics overlap considerably and it will confuse the issue by starting 2 separate but closely related RFC's at the same time. Stepho talk04:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm posting notices as fast as I can. How come when I start an RfC, it will "confuse the issue", but when you do, it doesn't? Seems like if you can start an RfC in the midst of a dispute, the rest of us can do it too. This RfC is policy change. The other RfC is only at the WikiProject level, which is local consensus, subordinate to both policy and guidelines. If the two have contradictory outcomes, policy overrules local consensus. That other RfC has a very long, not exactly neutral, "question" [sic] statement, and asks at least four different questions in one RfC. It's unlikely to be accepted as a valid RfC, and unlikely to end with a definitive, binding RfC closure.
Please try to keep personal issues out of this and restrict discussion to the actual issues of policy. A general policy RfC takes precedence over a project guidance case. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Some predictions are more appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia than others. To a large extent this depends on the credibility of the persons making the prediction, and whether there is published agreement by experts that the prediction is plausible, and where relevant supported by scientific analysis. Where prediction is speculative the responsible persons should be named in the text and their credentials specified, as well as cited from a reliable source, and stating the type of speculation. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I have many issues with WP:CRYSTAL. Some background:
Following that conversation I updated WP:CRYSTAL to clarify the ban applied to poorly sourced speculation, and that speculation offered by reliable sources was permitted.
I can't immediately find the discussion, but I believe that the blanket ban on speculation was reinstated within a year once the issue was brought up again on this talk page. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This is maddening.
"Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
later
"Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."
Indeed, Mark, that's exactly why we're better off without this sentence. The !votes saying we have to keep it until we agree on something better to replace it with don't give us much to go on as to what they think is better. Moreover, they don't tell us what benefit there is to this sentence. There are several other policies that forbid spreading poorly sourced rumors, so it's not as if the floodgates would suddenly open if we deleted it. It would be far less disruptive if we replaced it with the text you offered, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized...", but everything in that sentence derives from some other policy. "Reliable, expert sources" is what we mean by the WP:RS guidelines. Why does that need to be restated at WP:CRYSTAL? Speculation and rumor are also pushed to the fringes by, sure enough, WP:FRINGE. Avoiding undue bias? Hey, look we have the policy WP:UNDUE.
Masemworries that there "should absolutely not be BLP rumor-mongering" but the WP:BLP policy has that covered? "Major industry areas/products where there is known to be a lot of attention"? In other words, subjects with sufficient WP:WEIGHT do deserve mention? Already covered by another policy.
Saying encyclopedias can't cover announcements that a car model will continue is yet another way of arguing with our sources. If quality sources think it's significant enough to mention, then who are we to judge? Whatever sources are considered reliable for a given topic -- car magazines for cars, pokemon newsblogs for pokemon, major news media for world events, etc -- should be trusted to guide us on what deserves weight.
It matters whether a car model is discontinued or not. It matters if a TV or streaming series is cancelled. At the beginning of Season 4 of The Good Place, it had been widely reported that it would be the final season. This "future speculation" is not trivia, it's vital to anyone who cares about the subject. It's telling you wehther or not the series-produced product or media content is complete or incomplete, successful or -- often -- a failure. We shouldn't have to ague over this. If we trusted our sources, they would tell us whether or not a fact like this matters.
I don't believe there is a viable example of unencyclopedic content that would be deleted under the current version of WP:CRYSTAL but would have to be kept if we deleted this speculation and rumor sentence. Anything that is biased, poorly sourced, treats opinion as fact, or spreads misinformation will be deleted based on other policies. Keeping this misleading sentence would justify deleting entirely GAs like Dyson Sphere, and would require gutting the 'latest developments' sections of several technical and medical science Featured Articles like Alzheimer's disease or Virus. Mark Schierbecker's point is exactly right: this oddball sentence creates a paradox and does not describe the consensus on mentioning predictions, forecasts and future plans. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
BLP actually doesn't cover the idea of rumor-mongering well, hence why it needs to be included here. And NOT is a core policy - one of 4 (V, NOR, and NPOV) that all other policy derive from, so we have to be careful of how changes bubble through the rest. There is no DEADLINE to fix this. --Masem (t) 02:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
When a core policy contradicts ITSELF, that problem would be an extremely urgent priority. I do not believe for a second that this page is anywhere close to being clear enough or important enough to compare to WP:Verifiability. There is a double standard here, btw. You said we need to be careful that changes made on this page do not adversely affect the reliability of this encyclopedia, but evidently no one took such care in the first place when parts of this page were brought into conflict with itself. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Rumors arguably not the same as "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories", so there's no contradiction. --Masem (t) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I found the original insertion of this in April 2013
# Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements: While Wikipedia is up-to-date and includes information about newly revealed productions or works, such as films or video games, as part of large series, franchise or spinoff, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic information about the product can be included, the discussion of such announcements should be merged to a larger topic using redirection to guide readers to the proper location; speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, on the content and direction of the work are not appropriate encyclopedic content. (Emphasis my own)
We have something of a crisis of confidence on Wikipedia: Seemingly iron-clad policies turn out to be the product of some ancient unilateral change (See: the demotion of WP:POG). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
From the evidence I see at WP:FA, the best editors simply ignore this dumb policy. It's the ones who aren't royalty and rockstars who suffer and have to argue out from under this nonsense.
Masem, if the BLP policy fails to address rumor and speculation, the solution is to fix the BLP policy. It's not a reason why it has to be addressed here. That's like saying if the BLP doesn't cover rumors it has to be addressed over on the image use policy. I have to say, though, WP:BLPGOSSIP is crystal clear: "Avoid gossip and feedback loops". Is some kind of pettifogging Wikilawyer is going to get away with saying "I'm only adding rumors, not gossip!" Who is going to read "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" and think that leaves room for speculation? But let's fix WP:BLP rather than keep this goofy caboose stuck to the end of WP:CRYSTAL.
Even if BLP didn't forbid rumor and gossip, how could WP:V and WP:RS possibly allow it? Rumor, gossip, speculation, and fringe theories are very well covered. That dead horse is dead.
"There is no deadline to fix this"? How is that a reason to not fix it? If it's broken, then fix it. If it's wrong, fix it. If you're saying, "give me a few days, and I'll cite examples of bad content that would be allowed if this policy were pruned", then yes, by all means. But only if you really think such examples exist. Otherwise, if this bit of nonsense words isn't adding any value, let's get rid of it.
I like the idea of a separate paragraph addressing article content rather than article creation/deletion. Everything at WP:NOT should keep WP:NNC in mind, rather than leave editors confiscated about whether we're saying "don't create that article" or "don't dare breathe a word of this anywhere". Two very different things. But there's no deadline for adding that, and while we wait, this policy is causing harm. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Both Mark and Dennis, you need to calm down. We don't rush haphazardly to make policy changes (particularly to core policy) until consensus is made - as you opened an RFC, its got to run it course so we have to wait for that to conclude. And rght now, the consensus is towards at minimum changing that line to reflect practice that we do allow rumors in some cases. It's just that as a core policy , we need input before rushing to change it. --Masem (t) 03:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
And to add, as Johnuniq, this RFC appears specifically to be in response to an active dispute on an article talk page, so we need to definitely have more voices here before anything can be changed. --Masem (t) 03:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? "You need to calm down"? What is that a reference to? What "rush" are you referring to? This is an RfC discussing whether or not to make a change. It's the normal process. Who is rushing?
Johnuniq is wrong. That project-level dispute is a prime example of why this is a badly written policy. The whole dispute wouldn't exist if we didn't have such sloppy wording in the crystal ball policy. If this RfC right here has a clear outcome, it will resolve the intractable dispute over at WikiProject Automobiles. The RfC over there is a hopeless muddle; it has four questions. Nobody even knows how to !vote. Why is it so muddled? Because of confusion from on high. A clear message from the policy level to the level of local consensus would help all of us. It would be really wasteful if first the Automobiles project judges that WP:CRYSTAL says we can't mention next year's BMW M3, and then a week later WP:NOT has a RfC on policy with the opposite result. Clarifying policy is the first step. That's why I'm here.
If you want to have reasons to lose one's calm, go back to 2017, to the sad debacle of the Tesla Roadster (2020) article. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020). On the one hand, you have editors vehemently arguing that BMW M3cannot even mention a mere 39 words about a totally conventional car coming out next year. Yet three years ago, a whole crowd of editors just as vehemently argued that WP:CRYSTAL totally allows creating a whole separate article about a future car. Three years+ ahead of time. Look at Talk:Tesla Roadster (2020). I had no luck removing mention of Elon Musk's ridiculous promises about the record-setting performance of a car they hadn't even begun to manufacture. I quoted "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" and yet consensus supported drooling all over the untested and untestable claims that the Roadster 2 would be the fastest supercar ever, have the best batteries, and will cook you breakfast in bed. WP:CRYSTAL fails in keeping out speculation and rumor, and fails at allowing encyclopedic announcements of future products.
The policy text I propose deleting is doing no good to anybody. Its existence is distracting editors from relying on better-written policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:V.
Thinking about the Roadster 2 makes me feel less than calm, I'll admit. But accusing other editors of not being calm about this RfC? That's not nice, and has no basis. Nobody is rushing anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Between you and Mark, you seem to want us to rush to make the change asap, and that making your replies seem heated and over the top. There's a way we do things on WP that this doesn't capture. As Johnuniq said, it is not right to try to change policy to "win" an article-space content dispute ( (that's WP:POINT). I would also argue after reading the Telsa AFD and the BMW situation that there is a major cry between an official product announcement, even if the work is far off, and some quotes in a blog (which are not always reliable sources) that require reading between the lines to guess about a new product. In other words, even if we removed the line from NOT, that source would still fail RS and probably wouldn't be included. Hence my concern about making sure rumors are coming from vetted sources. --Masem (t) 04:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Now you're just casting aspersions. WP:POINT refers to applying a rule consistently to win a dispute. If I were to go to one of the many FAs I mentioned, and tried to delete speculative content to rile up a lot of editors against WP:CRYSTAL, that would be pointy. It would be to "enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." I am not doing that. Not even close.
You know what WP:POINT says? It says "If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns." I bet you didn't even bother reqading those words before you came here and started casting aspersions on me. Let's read that again:
"If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns."
I think WP:CRYSTAL is problematic. And where have I come? RIGHT HERE!
What is the definition of an "official product announcement"? You mean how Elon Musk had a big party, with lights and fireworks? That's what made it official? I don't get it. I'll tell you what makes the BMW announcement "official": the words were spoken on record by someone with the authority to say so -- Markus Flasch, head of BMW M division. He's the office-holder who gets to speak on this. His words are official.
You could dispute that carmagazine.co.uk's interview with Flasch doesn't count because you have a problem with carmagazine.co.uk. None of the editors who want to delete mention of the 2020 M3 made any mention of that. They have a history of edits on that article, and they had many opportunities to delete or remove the other citations of carmagazine.co.uk, yet not a peep. We have an older, more established source Car & Driver crediting and citing Car UK for their Flasch interview. So we have other reliable sources who consider the cited source reliable. No reliable sources dispute that Flash gave this interview, or dispute that he said they would release a 2020 M3. You'd think BMW and Flasch himself would be the first to walk this back if it wasn't true. I kind of feel like you're making stuff up here.
Let's say you're right. Let's say that the reason we shouldn't mention the 2020 BMW M3 is that the source fails WP:RS. So then why does " Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." need to be kept? Your argument bolsters what I've been saying: this sentence only causes problems, and whatever good can come of it is redundant. If the announcement of the 2020 car is from unreliable sources, then the whole crystal ball policy is unnecessary and irrelevant. Let's delete it.
I've asked you more than once to cite what you mean by "rush". What have I done that is rushing? If I had boldly edited the policy, and then edit warred over it, that would be rushing. I didn't do that. I came to the talk page and I started a discussion. I started a valid RfC. Where do you get off acting like I'm "rushing" anyting? I'm meticulously following established process and respecting consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
And I've pointed out that the current trend of consensus agrees that statement may need to be removed, but it should not be removed outright without considering better wording to make it clear some speculation and rumor is allowed, and absolutely not allowed in other areas. The responses here, as well as reading through the BMW M3 page, show clear frustration that you can get editors to see your way, which is not how we develop policy.. That's where POINT comes in. Assume good faith. We're trying to help, though the dual RFCs make this situation more difficult than it needed to be, and so we have to work through the process to get to an answer. (Starting a second RFC while the first was ongoing, even by only a few hours, was an action done with too much haste). We will figure out something, but we're working from the generalized case, not for just cars. --Masem (t) 05:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, how about you try assuming good faith, eh? I'm not going to continue addressing your personal attacks here. Please take your personal issues to an appropriate noticeboard. If you have something to say in defense of the text I've proposed deleting, please share it. Otherwise, lay off. The first "dueling RfC" you speak of was a dead letter. It doesn't conform to RfC guidelines, and will not produce an outcome at all. It will only generate more noise. And there is no rule against starting a separate RfC on a related topic. You keep attacking me for something that is in no way a violation of any rule. Stop making shit up. Please? If I violated a policy, cite my actual violation.
All your insular "this is not how we do it" remarks are arrogant WP:OWNership behavior. If you're so confident that this policy must be kept, why can't you simply focus on the merits of the policy instead of this ongoing effort to discredit me personally? I don't want to hear it here any more. This isn't a behavioral noticeboard, and it's not my personal talk page. Enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been no personal attacks (see WP:NPA for what qualifies: your behavior is of concern, but at a trivial level no one can call action on, but no one has mentioned anything about your person) When one comes on a major policy talk page like this with a chip on their shoulder to insist on a change be made in that tone, it is not going to go far and it becomes hard to assume good faith. And no one is OWNing this page, the stuff I've cited is wiki-wide consensus development and dispute resolution process, alongside the fact NOT is a core policy and can't be changed without careful consideration. That's why I have addressed the merits here, that we have to be very careful what removal of that line could apply elsewhere and better to seek a replacement that allows rumors to be used with limited conditions. --Masem (t) 06:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How about you answer the question you ignored: what is an "official" announcement? What is the basis for you claim of reading between the lines? The cited source simply says the head of BMW M said they'd build the car. It says that. Directly. In words. Not between the lines. In the lines. An establishment source, Car & Driver, accepts Car UK as reliable, and is capable of clearly reading the statement from Flasch for what it is. BMW will build this manual transmission, RWD car. No world record setting acceleration. Not an unprecedented electric car. Not a submarine teleporter car. A plain RWD stick shift car. Nothing shocking.
Simple question: how is the words spoken by Flasch not an official announcement? How is it not clear? What is open to interpretation? For contrast, many of these newsblogs have posted breathless speculation about the 500+ horsepower super engine that the 2020 M3 will have. Nobody has proposed mention such nonsense now. Merely the existence of the 2020 model. Please explain why this is not "official" (whatever that is) and why you think it requires "reading between the lines". Nobody at WikiProject Automobiles thinks this is a simple question of reliable sources. If it was, we could just go to WP:RSN and resolve it. This is all about trying to tease out the obscure truth hidden in the goofy words of WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
An interview with a BMW official can definitely be a WP:RS. But let's just make sure to report it correctly. Leaving aside perfectly predictable events like eclipses, any statement about the future is not a fact and should not be described with the future tense. If Flasch said "we will release model X in January", the correct report on this is not "BMW will release model X..." but rather "A BMW executive announced that BMW will release model X...", or "multiple sources predict that BMW will release model X in January"(footnotes) or "the automotive press is predicting that...". An official corporate announcement typically comes out as a press release, not as a statement during an interview. --Macrakis (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Without eyewitness independent sources who personally visited the set, read the script, verified the film is really being made, we only have studio officials and spokespeople 'speculating', spreading 'rumors' like "production has begun on Annihilation II: Rennihilation (working title Aliens: This Time it's War) starring Aaron Eckhart. OK, fine, it's Gerard Butler." It gets reported in movie newsblogs. This policy says we can't mention that, and policy applies everywhere, and it overrules WikiProject Film's WP:NFF guideline. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The language is unequivocal, leaving no wiggle room "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Even from reliable sources. Spider-Man (2018 video game) was promoted to FA less than a month ago. This policy, if we actually followed it, would not allow mention that the chief designer told a mere newsblog, io9, they couldn't confirm plans for sequel. It isn't even "there will be a sequel" or "there won't be a sequel". A company official saying "I won't confirm or deny it" is, in actual practice, encyclopedic. Most of Wikipedia ignores this rule, and when someone cites the strict meaning of the words "even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content", we end up with perverse outcomes. The only thing that really prevents this from becoming a dumpster fire is WP:IAR, which is a serious indictment of the policy.
Given that the bold headline "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" isn't going anywhere, and WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:SPS aren't going anywhere, the "floodgates" to speculation and rumor will remain firmly shut. This is strictly about the fact that well sourced statements about future plans are de facto encyclopedic, and WP:POLICY is supposed to reflect that, not impotently contradict it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources out there that cover the entertainment industry like Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, TheWrap and so on that interview creatives all the time. Also, a refusal to confirm nor deny by a chief designer of a product is neither speculation nor rumor and thus is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The RFC has expired, it seems like there is support for the proposed change, would someone like to add it to the page? Or should I? (Forgot to sign) Toasted Meter (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Izno the RFC has expired, no one has restarted it, and although it has not been formally closed, discussion seems to have ended (15 days since the last contribution), to me there seems to be a OK consensus for a change to the current wording with some disclaimers. And I am implementing that, reading the RFC policy a formal close is not mandatory, so with the RFC having ended I don't think I am preempting the RFC or making a change against consensus. Am I getting this wrong? Toasted Meter (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't even see where the text you just installed is discussed about. I've reverted. This is a policy, and it doesn't change by exhaustion and default. EEng02:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see; I was looking above not below. Well, I see one person supporting and one opposing the proposed text (plus Masem, who proposed it), plus someone commenting such that I can't tell where they stand; that's not what we need for a policy change. Before another RfC I'd suggest you try to summarize where things stand, then ping back all the participants. To be honest I can't tell what's going on. A favorite peeve of mine is RfC started out of the blue with no discussion first among people already interested or easily summoned, so that an eventual RfC can be worded as best possible and not derailed by issues that could have been worked out on a smaller scale. EEng03:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Given there is some possible agreement on a replacement statement, I would like to suggest something along the lines: going from (The current)
Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
to
Speculation and rumor may be appropriate, but must be used with care, should only originate from high-quality reliable sources for that topic's area, and include in-line attributions, never treated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Rumors around living persons should never be included regardless of source quality.
I'd support that. It's definitely a big improvement. If there isn't consensus to eliminate the problem entirely, this rewrite would help address many of the contradictions and disputes over interpretation. The big piece that's missing, the greatest source of conflict, is the big question: does this apply to article creation/deletion, or article content? We'd save everyone a lot of drama if we said plainly which of those two things every policy applies to. Some times it's one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Why leave editors guessing. Just say it.
Also, I'd suggest clarifying what "speculation" and "rumor" means here. When a company announces a future product, that's not speculation. That's a promise, or a claim, not speculation and not rumor. What is a campaign promise, like Mexico will pay for the wall? Not speculation, not rumor. What? When astrophysicists speak of the Dyson Sphere or Kardashev scale, is that the same as some know-it-all speculating that the Dow will hit 30,000 in 6 months? Futures studies is a respectable science, one would think, though we still must adhere to WP:WikiVoice, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. The phrase "speculation and rumor" is kind of crude and a poor fit to cover all the types of future content we need to think about.
And I oppose the proposed revision. As you yourself have pointed out, there are many things that are not speculation and rumor by definition and thus would not be blocked by the current version.
If you care enough about a subject, get to a research university library with decent database access (Nexis Uni, EBSCO, SpringerLink, ProQuest, Gale Infotrac, etc.) and get a citation to a reliable source. There is no shortage of reliable sources on notable subjects if one looks hard enough. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If we got rid of this sentence, or revised it, what bad content would then be allowed? If it isn't well-soured, then it can be removed on the grounds of the verifiability policy. And there are numerous examples where speculation and rumor are appropriate encyclopedic content, usually in the context of discussing the existence of the speculation and rumor, and what influence the spread of a dubious claim had. The key is to never frame it in Wikipedia's voice. Baldly saying "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" is simply wrong and nonsensical and it contradicts the top of the section where it says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
We have to do something about this problematic wart at the end of the paragraph, because it can't mean what it plainly means. Either delete it or rewrite it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that WP always follows, it never leads. That has been a bedrock principle of WP from the very beginning. That's the entire point of WP:NOR and WP:NOT.
That means we only summarize what has been reliably reported elsewhere as having occurred. For example, if a highly respected reliable source (such as a newspaper of record) reports on date D that their anonymous well-placed source tells them company X has already begun work on product Y with feature Z, then under WP:NOT, it is okay to summarize that fact in an article on product Y. But it is inappropriate for WP to report on speculation and rumor published by writers who clearly have no actual inside leads (i.e., people who are risking breach of their NDAs) as to whether product Y will have feature Z and are simply fantasizing about what product Y might be when it is released. If you want to publish that kind of garbage (as indicated by your silly comment "wrong and nonsensical"), then that's what personal blogs are for. Not Wikipedia. If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, I suggest reading some basic textbooks on ethics as practiced in journalism or academia. Otherwise, if we open the barn door to speculation and rumor, then Wikipedia will lose what little credibility it has left (as well as any remaining intellectual editors like myself) and then no one will take it seriously.
Coolcaesar is correct. The suggestion that speculation about what might happen should be added to articles is misguided. Also, U1Quattro is correct at the wikiproject with "Or we can simply wait until the damn car is announced so that edit wars don't happen in the first place". Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articl-upvoting has nothing to do with democracy
Allowing users to "upvote" articles can yield information about appreciation, vs contention.... and has nothing to do with the consensus mechanism. Increasing engagement can only be beneficial for a volunteer-run and donation funded organization. In discussions about allowing upvoting for articles, the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is oft quoted, but is clearly out of context and irrelevant. 206.252.203.42 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We already have a system to rate articles based – see Wikipedia:Content assessment. The methods listed at WP:LOVE offer personal expressions of thanks, instead of mundane and almost meaningless "upvotes". Using upvotes to express contention is unspecific, yielding little information about what needs to be improved; instead, direct communication through talk pages or fixing the problem yourself is the best solution. Constructive criticism is encouraged and helps new users become integrated in the project, but a mass of cold votes only drives them away through anger or disappointment. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Masem's proposed version of WP:CRYSTAL
It seems like Masem's version addressed some of the problems participants in the RfC raised, but it was not widely discussed. Would interested editors like to give some feedback on it?
Current
Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
Proposed
Speculation and rumor may be appropriate, but must be used with care, should only originate from high-quality reliable sources for that topic's area, and include in-line in-text attributions, never treated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Rumors around living persons should never be included regardless of source quality. In-line changed to in-text early in this discussion, as this is certainly (?) what was meant. EEng05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This differentiates between speculation and rumor without providing a criteria to distinguish between the two. Both are unverified statements. Is the difference that we know the source of the statement? No that can't be it since it says we must know the point of origin. Praemonitus (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - This is too specific for a policy. My main concerns are the words "for that topic's area", which is far too limiting. The last sentence is both vague and far-reaching, and unrelated to predicting future events. It would be suited for WP:BLP, but without a clear definition of "rumor", it would cause more problems than it will solve. I have seen many discussion where well-sourced information about a BLP is called "rumors" simply because it's negative and attributed to an anonymous source. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
To me, that means we should have a guideline page to outline what is speculation and rumor, and where it is and isn't appropriate via means of examples rather than direct distinction, in addition to touching up the wording here to at least point to that. Even right now, as is "speculation and rumor" can be implied to mean a lot of possible things, even to forward announcements of what a person/entities plans to do in their own words. --Masem (t) 02:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Support - BTW, I thought of a more familiar analogous situation the other day that illustrates the absurdity of a blanket ban on speculation. The Wikimedia Knowledge Engine, if I recall correctly, was subject to a great deal of speculation in 2015, when WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov stepped down over internal documents that did not jibe with what was publicly announced. It presents an extremely slanted narrative to write an article about that debacle, or any other controversial unannounced project, by relying only on official accounts. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Huh. I mean, the current version is fine - is there a problem with somehow needing to include speculation and rumour? Guy (help!) 23:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
What the original thread seemed to stem from is the current version not allowing the statement of a CEO of a car company in a publicly-made remark to state they were working on some new yet-announced model for the next year, which apparently was being taken as "speculation". But as it was discussed, it was recognized that we do usually include rumor and speculation on non-BLP articles when backed by strong sourcing appropriate for the topic (eg WSJ for many business topics). The wording no longer follows practice, but there are still lines to be drawn (BLP specifically) to make sure this isn't abused to contain random forum-posted rumors or the like. --Masem (t) 01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
see change belowSupport because this strange, redundant bit of policy has caused confusion ever since it was added years ago. I wanted to delete the sentence because the lead paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL already says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." If we can't delete it, then expanding it so that it doesn't appear to contradict the text above is necessary. The bit about "for that topic's area" can be deleted or kept; it's only a redundant restatement of what a reliable source is, explained at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and again at WP:NEWSORG. Not that we need to address rumor anyway, since the WP:V and WP:RS rules have that well covered. If we're going to beat dead horses here, might as well. I wish we could remember that if Donald Trump says "I will testify" or "I will never testify" or "I will transform into a beautiful butterfly", the fact that he said it is a verifiable fact, and we don't need the crystal ball policy for that. Or any other statement about the future. It's immaterial whether the prediction comes true or not, or is likely to come true or not. We've only told the reader it was said. It's immaterial whether the statement is about the past or the future, is true or false, likely or unlikely. Bill Clinton's statement about the past, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" would be handled exactly the same as Trump's statement about his future. Are they important enough to the topic that we care what they have to say? Can we verify they said it? That's why the whole crystal ball policy only muddles questions that would be easier to answer if we didn't even have it. But I guess we really do want redundancy, and so at least let's not contradict ourselves.
I'm changing in-line --> in-text in the proposed text right now, subject to the approval of the various esteemed editors assembled here. EEng05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose now that now the RfC to delete the line was successful. My support was on the assumption that a clarification was an improvement, if we couldn't get rid of it. If we end up putting something back, then I'd revert to supporting the revised version, not keeping the original. Hope that makes sense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Support I think this works really well when multiple reliable sources start to push for a specific rumor, it becomes a notable topic on its own in some ways. If you think about it, Y2K was a big rumor in itself. NOt a perfect example, but I hope I get the message across.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Tentative support, I am OK with the speculation aspect, experts speculate and put their names and reputations behind it. Rumor is a rather different matter, and may require different handling. However, rumor happens, and sometimes the rumor itself is worthy of discussion by experts, journalists, official outlets and other generally reliable sources. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose based solely on the final sentence (the rest is fine.) Yes, I know the last sentence seems like an obvious application of WP:BLP but raises serious questions - I do feel that even when it comes to WP:BLPs, there are some situations where rumors and speculations have to be mentioned (and, currently, we do have a lot of rumors and speculations about living sources, even if not on their articles.) For example, would we have to delete O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Other_theories? Would we have to completely omit any mention, anywhere, that anyone thinks Simpson is guilty? (After all, it's all speculation, isn't it? If not - why not?) Would this require that we completely delete all mention of living people from the QAnon article? Would we be unable to mention that George Soros is the target of numerous conspiracy theories? Those are "speculation and rumor" to me, but they are sourced well enough to be important to mention (in Soros' case, his article even says that that's part of his notability.) What about speculation that someone is considering a run for political office, when that speculation is clearly based on their own words or actions? Many current or past candidates hav a section describing speculation that they were considering a run up until the point where they actually ran, say. Rumors and speculation about living people have to be handled with extreme caution and only included when the coverage is so overwhelming that there is no question that they are a major part of the subject's notability - but it's sometimes necessary that we cover them, and omitting them entirely, in all cases, regardless of sourcing goes beyond WP:BLP and into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. Maybe the world would be a better place if things like QAnon or the George Soros conspiracy theories weren't notable enough for us to cover, but they are, and I don't feel we can leave them out. Having a section on WP:BLP (or even a subpage) might be a good idea, but barring it entirely here seems like a bridge too far - there are way too many things that reasonable editors would describe as "rumors and speculation" which we do have to cover, even about BLPs. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Obviously there is BLP speculation and rumor we would not post - celebrity gossip is well within that (though covered elsewhere). I want to say it is more about future speculation and rumor (keeping to the theme of crystal ball); speculation from RSes related to a major BLPCRIME that are trying to outline motives for the suspected criminal are generally going to be discussed, but we would not of course say of someone that, for example, is known to own a lot of guns to say they are likely going on some killing spree later. This again may be where a guideline to outline what exactly are the bounds of speculation and rumor may be helpful as that's more indepth than WP:NOT allows for. --Masem (t) 14:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
What's so special about dubious content about the future compared to dubious content about the past? Speculation and rumor about whether the moon landings were faked, or whether Atlantis existed, or whatever it is QAnon is getting up to, all hinge on due weight, BLP, verifiablity, and the rest of our bread-and-butter, core policies. Speculation and rumor about the past can be just as problematic and even damaging as speculation about the future, like a defamatory claim about something a living person did in the past. Dyson sphere can be speculation about future technology, or about whether aliens built them a billion years ago. Some things about the future are highly predictable, given enough of the right kind of evidence, while many things about the past are utterly unknowable, even by the best sources. The things that really matters are relevance, verifiablity, depth of coverage and context, not past/present/future, not fictional/real/predicted/forecast. We're too hung up on irrelevant questions.
Again, if we insist on having this confusing policy, we should first work to make sure it doesn't contradict itself, at the very least, and the rest of our core policies. I have to say, it's a lot of work, isn't it? Why do it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Support with a minor edit. Propose: "Speculation and rumor may sometimes be appropriate, but must be used with care." --LK (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Support as a pretty good reflection of actual practice. Clearly there are situations where what we would define as "speculation and rumour" are appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and it's too much of a blanket position in the wrong direction to state that it is never acceptable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose speculation and rumor are not fact. It may be a fact that something has significant speculation and/or rumor... but is that speculation and/or rumor notable and worthy of inclusion? That's the question. If there is a reliable source that something is rumored and it is germane to the article, it can be included. If there's not any reliable sourcing, it should not be included. Any detailed and discussion can be handled on that article's talk page on a case-by-case basis.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The situation is that while OR may allow for sourced rumors, CRYSTAL has been used to block it because of the apparently 100% restriction on any speculation or rumors regardless of source quality. While does not reflect practice. --Masem (t) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Support as a good reflection of actual practice per User:Ivanvector. See any "Cancellation and future" sections of TV show articles, where it's often actors or producers generating speculation and rumors (plus the press commenting on it), and WP does and should be able to cover it. – sgeurekat•c15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Support in principle per sgeureka. A blanket ban is neither required nor practiced and policy should reflect accepted practice. Concerns of too much reliance on rumors can be handled with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I would suggest changing and include in-text attributions, never treated as fact in Wikipedia's voice to include in-text attributions and the accompanying text should clearly identify the nature of these claims. The complete BLP-exception seems to strict. While we should be very careful when it comes to BLPs, there are instances imaginable (and already practiced!) in which speculation is encyclopedic, such as the circumstances of a person's disappearance who has not been declared dead (e.g. many of the pages in Category:2010s missing person cases). As such, I'd suggest changing Rumors around living persons should never be included regardless of source quality. to Rumors around living persons should not be included regardless of source quality unless the inclusion is necessary to achieve a comprehensive overview of the subject. Regards SoWhy16:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That last sentence should be more sensitive to how WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE are framed, among other sections, taking into account WP:BLPRS of course. It might be better simply to reference BLP instead of trying to fall over BLP by taking a one-sentence summary view of a full-other policy page that has a few other sections which may be relevant. --Izno (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't see any reason to ban rumours from high-quality sources except if the rumours were about living people. I was going to oppose but I saw the last line which says "Rumors around living persons should never be included regardless of source quality."--SharabSalam (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is a contextual notability guideline that discusses when articles should be created, but I think this RfC confuses this with what text is acceptable in article space. We should not be basing entire articles off only speculation or rumor. New product announcements are fine as long as they're reliably covered by secondary press and are more than just the announcement. Speculation and rumor may be okay, in an article that is otherwise notable, in specific instances, but not as the basis for a new article. I think we use WP:CRYSTAL too much for in-article text, and I think this is the problem we're trying to solve, but until this is differentiated between full articles and text within otherwise notable articles, I cannot come close to supporting this. SportingFlyerT·C08:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I know it's used in practice for article space, I slummed over to one of the BMW articles. I think speculation needs a better definition. It's speculation to say a phone will have certain unannounced features, but it's not speculation to say the phone has been announced. It's speculation to say a country might bid on the Olympics, but it's not speculation to say the country has put together a team to look into bidding for the Olympics. There's a nuance there, I'm not quite certain how to define it yet. SportingFlyerT·C11:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Strongly support the proposal. I think it should be clear that rumors about BLP are very inappropriate and therefore should not be included in Wikipedia even if they are sourced from reliable sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify relation with GNG
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.
Could someone help me understand what that is referring to? What's an example of one of the organizations Wikipedia is not a member of?
I suspect it's referring to things like secret societies or various religious organizations that have a tradition of secrecy and might demand Wikipedia not document information that they'd prefer be kept secret. The para is just saying we're not bound by any organization's code of silence. Schazjmd(talk)19:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Various fraternal organizations, college fraternities, Masonic lodges, etc., that have rituals and rules that their members are supposed to keep secret. Deor (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both! I think it'd be helpful to add something like "for example, secret societies". However I'm a little uncomfortable editing an official policy without some input first. Thoughts? Even bolder, a new header like Wikipedia does not protect secrets, but that's probably telling people not to stuff beans up their nose. Jacob Ford (talk)
I'd advise against any kind of specific examples, as that would run the risk of giving the impression that we're only talking about shadowy organisations and cults and their rituals. In reality, the most high-profile example of an organisation complaining about our refusal to comply with their tradition of secrecy has long been assorted psychiatric societies whining about our daring to reproduce the Rorschach test. ‑ Iridescent19:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
They've given up trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube now, but for a while they waged a full-scale smear campaign against us in the media over it. Expand the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" box on Talk:Rorschach test. ‑ Iridescent19:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Separately from concerns above, I would want to make sure that we only report such "secret" rules as reported by third-party sources. We do not want a WP Editor to obtain a copy of such a work (primary source) and spell those out in WP; such secret rules should be stuff reported by third-parties that we summarize. --Masem (t) 19:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not totally straightforward. In at least one case (OT3 Scientology), the Wikipedia article is itself recognised by academic authorities as being the one of the most thorough academic studies of the topic, as the Scientologists' reputation for litigiousness means few others have been willing to go public in combining all the snippets which exist in reliable sources; there's a brief discussion of it at Xenu#Commentary. ‑ Iridescent20:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
What I basically want to avoid happening is someone getting, say, the core books of Scientology and summarizing them here on WP, as that would be original research and excess weight on the primary source. It would be best if the information fully came from third-parties, but I can see the validity of the case if the information started with the third-party, and at limited times the primary source used to clarify. --Masem (t) 06:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Even then, I wouldn't consider the use of scriptures to illustrate the beliefs of a religion to be an inappropriate use of primary sources; to me, it's functionally equivalent to citing a novel when summarizing the plot of the novel, something Wikipedia does routinely. The usual arguments against primary sourcing in this context are something of a red herring; the issue with relying on primary sourcing for trade secrets and secret dogma is that, if something genuinely isn't covered in third-party sources, can it ever be said to be "notable" by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term? ‑ Iridescent08:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
But, to that point, especially when we are talking a secret society that is generally considered with caution by the outside (Scientology is a good example here), it is not WP's place to expose their secrets (despite the fact we care little due to the statement) if no one else has talked about them - eg RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. If a specific point about the secret society's tenet has been made by third-party, quoting the primary source is fine to support that, but we as WP editors cannot make that distinction ourselves without engaging in OR. Your comparison to a novel's summary is a bit different, in that most times we assume the novel is the primary source for itself which clearly meets WP:V - in that generally the work is available to the average reader to verify. If we quote the novel, we do include the novel per MOS:QUOTE requirements. By nature of this discussion, the documents of a secret society can be immediately assumed to not meet WP:V's requirements of accessibility, which is why third-party coverage is important to have to better support WP:V. --Masem (t) 15:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
the documents of a secret society can be immediately assumed to not meet WP:V's requirements of accessibility – Well, WP:V says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access, so I guess the question is, does becoming an nth-degree Mason, or enduring Scientology's hazing rituals, counts as "difficult or costly"? EEng18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
To me, yes, it is. As opposed to the cost and time to, say, fly to where the only copy of a book is available but otherwise to the public, there's something about having to accept membership in such a society that is far different. --Masem (t) 19:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not restricted to video games, same would apply to board games, tabletop roleplaying games, etc. Just that video games are the usual target for editors that want to include gameguide-type material. --Masem (t) 06:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not limited to just video games. There's a significant amount of tabletop RPG cruft on the site at the moment that qualifies. Perhaps the wording could be changed for clarity. SportingFlyerT·C08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo True. Let's say theoretically US's laws change and become more like, say chinas, and wants only positive statements to be made about something like MK ultra. (This is vaguely similar to how china wants the Tiananmen Square protests to be handled i believe.) Wikipedia would then be forced to change the article on MK ultra to suit the law then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disoff (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
We do comply with US laws that involve non-protected free speech, such as child porn. When it comes to protected free speech that would normally be fine in the US, we still have policies and guidelines that discourage behavior related to those but this is generally not about censoring but maintaining the community (for example no personal attacks against other editors). --Masem (t) 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Related to this, please see this section of the discussion about NOTPRICES. There have been a couple of questions about whether WP:NOTPRICES fully represents the community's current views. NOTPRICES currently says:
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent sourceand a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.
Questions have included whether "mainstream media sources" is meant to exclude scholarly sources, and whether this applies to all subjects (in the instant case, whether it applies to the wholesale prices of pharmaceutical drugs, because price affects accessibility, and accessibility affects health). I'm leaving this note mostly to say that there were enough questions that it might be time for a review, to see whether any changes are warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Did we ever come close to carve outs to NOTCENSORED?
Nonsense. The crappy edits are being objected to because they are crappy, not because of censorship. If reliable sources ever conclude that one group really is more intelligent than another, articles will say so. The problem is that measuring intelligence is not as simple as the 1970s crowd hoped because separating nature/nurture ain't easy, as reliable sources have shown. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I get that you want to censor a neutral summarization of what academics have said. Fine. What I'm asking is how close have we ever gotten to really censoring stuff. I bet there was an RfC or something that made some head way and we almost made a rule to censor stuff. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is only a general aim, it's not a hard and fast rule. We don't typically post very graphic or pornographic images on the main page, for example. — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You would have to go through the sources and figure out what is reliable to then say that Johnuniq is correct, and I am incorrect. I think this has already been done with editors taking diputes to WP:RS and Johnuniq's position was found to be incorrect. If Johnuniq, Cullen328, and I want to start taking possible RS's to WP:RS one at a time and see who is falsley accusing who of what; sounds good to me. Also, to trump mate you, anything in that article that doesn't meet RS I will remove right now. And I will revert anyone who adds it back! Peregrine Fisher (talk)
I mean for my part -- and I'm very far from the only one -- not censoring a publication which is widely used used by schoolchildren is a bad idea. NOTCENSORED is like the American 2nd Amendment: it was put in a long time by people who are no longer with us, it's a bad rule, It's usually invoked by people who are up to no good, but because it's near impossible to get the required supermajority for repeal we're stuck with it forever.
But, you know, we are not rulebound. The dead hand of long-vanished editors does not constrain us. WP:IAR does. So *for my part* I don't care about your stupid rule: I don't want any racist shit in the Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an Enlightenment entity, so yeah I'll support censoring it. OK? You can scream as much as you want about how terrible I am, I'm not changing my opinion. I'll express it this way tho: like WP:MEDRES, you need extraordinarly good sources, well beyond normal "considered reliable" sources, for any material that claims that racist crap isn't nonsense. Sue me. Herostratus (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Herostratus, Wikipedia is as uncensored as fuck. That doesn't mean we are duty bound to include everything just because we can - we understand that just because you can do something and you may do it legally, that does not mean you should do it. We're pretty good at that, in fact (in a way some sister project absolutely are not). Guy (help!) 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
We're not saying that editors cannot describe a bit to who they are, but just because you are an editor doesn't make you notable or any more special than any other person in the world. Just as BLP articles require notability to have standalone, to have detailed aspects about you as an editor requires that similar type of notability; otherwise, your user page simply needs to remain at a limited biographical level. --Masem (t) 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR
This needs to be modified or deleted. By an unshakeable series of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Wikipedia is a directory of high schools, Olympic athletes, census designated places, highways and no doubt others. Guy (help!) 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The policy is much misunderstood as I commonly see it being used as a pretext to delete any kind of list. To understand the policy, one has to read its text, not just the shortcut. In this case, it says
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
So, articles about high schools, athletes, and the like are quite a different matter. That's a notability issue. The directory policy indicates that we wouldn't record details of school calendars; Olympic ticket prices; highway maintenance schedules; and other ongoing operational details.
Andrew Davidson, nothing to do with lists. This is about articles whose sole source is an item in a list that establishes they meet an arbitrary criterion (e.g. competed in a modern Olympics). That's a directory entry. Guy (help!) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Being an Olympic athlete is not an "arbitrary criterion". To be sure, let's be clear what the word "arbitrary" means. According to the OED, it's "Derived from mere opinion or preference; not based on the nature of things; hence, capricious, uncertain, varying." Being an Olympic athlete doesn't seem to be any of those things. Instead, it seems to be an independent, objective and stable way of selecting top-tier athletes for inclusion here. What would be better? If space was a consideration, we might perhaps limit it to medal-winners but this same page, WP:NOTPAPER, tells us that we we don't need to worry about that. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, it is the very definition of arbitrary. You choose one event and say that anybody who was in that event is notable, regardless of whether there are any reliable independent sources about the person at all. Guy (help!) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's the definition of notable, "Worthy or deserving of attention, esp. on account of excellence, value, or importance; significant in size or amount; noteworthy, remarkable, striking, signal, eminent." Olympic athletes are notable on account of their excellence. To impose some other requirement would be arbitrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a 2006 AFD attempt. I bet you would get a different result now because I agree that an article like that with what are seemingly arbitrary selection of features. I will point out for, for example, we have similar comparison on a page like Eighth generation of video game consoles but the reason is because the industry has grouped those systems and has made those comparisons on the hardware for us, so we have guidance there. --Masem (t) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't abut lists, though. It's about standalone articles based solely on things like results tables. "X is an Elbonian pole vaulter who competed in the 2012 Olympics" and the only source being results tables (in some cases only one results table). Guy (help!) 10:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It still comes back to notability, though, which is a separate guideline. I think you're getting hung up on the fact that they also appear in some list/directory, when there's a simpler argument for it remaining a redlink. Mostly NOTDIR is about article content being filled with cruft. -- Colin°Talk11:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Bibliographies
WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY redirects to the "Wikipedia is not a directory" section of this page, but there is in fact no discussion of bibliographies there or anywhere else. I think there should be. First of all because of the ambiguity of the word "bibliography" (whether it means a list of publications by the article's subject; or a list of publications about the article's subject). And secondly, in either case, to make clear that, while we discourage disproportionately long bibliographies, especially when there's little digested text to accompany them, bibliographies of reasonable length are strongly encouraged. An encyclopedia article should serve two purposes: (i) to provide a succinct summary of knowledge on a given subject; and (ii) to provide guidance to a reader who wants to know more. I have too often seen WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY used as an excuse for unnecessary and unconstructive pruning – for example, deleting all bibliographical entries that aren't directly cited in references (even though they may be major studies of a topic); or, from a personal list of works, deleting all articles as opposed to books. GrindtXX (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This idea probably falls under the last point about "simple listings" there, though its not explicitly called out (we talk "list of creative works"). That said, the advice is not as simple as suggested. We'd likely include all books a person has been known to written but not all published magazine articles, especially if these number in the dozens or so. Just like with a notable academic with hundreds of papers we're only going to highlight a fraction of them. --Masem (t) 17:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Does CRYSTAL ban the word "will"?
Is merely using the future tense forbidden speculation and rumor? An editor has removed every instance of the word "will" from 2020 Summer Olympics and other articles, making the text clunkier with excess use of "would", "are scheduled to", "is planned to", etc, citing WP:CRYSTAL. While nothing in life is certain, our readers are smart enough to know how to interpret the simple future tense, even in this time of postponement and uncertainty – the beauty of a wiki is that if what was thought to happen no longer will, we can change it! Most of the changes are routine descriptors that remain well sourced and will apply to the Olympics in 2021 just as they did to them in 2020. Reywas92Talk17:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't but editors should be cautioned to only use "will" in events that have the most certain-ist chance of happen even with the possibility of being disrupted and use softer language otherwise. For example, the 2020 US election will occur in November 2020 (with a very slim outside chance something might affect that that) whereas the next Bond film is scheduled to release on Nov. 12 (not will release on Nov. 12, as that date is still very flexible and not essential to the workings of humanity). --Masem (t) 17:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
NOT#NEWS and COVID - just something to keep in mind
I am not in any way advocating any change of anything right now, as there's too much moving too fast, but I would like editors that are concerned in the NOT#NEWS areas just to note how our coverage of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has developed. I am thinking when the actual serious situation is mostly done and over with, that there's some patterns I've seen that reflect things that don't mesh well with an encyclopedia per NOT#NEWS, but that I dare not want to disrupt at the present time, nor may be something you want to disrupt during an ongoing even but something to reflect on after the event is over.
eg: again, not at all calling for any change now, but an article that has been built up as news sources hit like Chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 can be reworked with 20/20 hindsight in a better fashion. I'm not sure exactly what changes here, or at any other P&G page would be, its just here's a case of where I think NOT#NEWS sometimes may need a backseat to the immediate purpose of documentation and then coming back to build out the more encyclopedic approach. --Masem (t) 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed this before. This is an on-going problem with all major events, and minor events too actually. There are lots of editors that feel that everything mentioned by a major news source is automatically notable. It is hard to see events in the bigger historical context when you are right in the middle of it. Obviously an encyclopedia from our time is going to far outweigh current events over other historical events. And as soon as an article has references from reliable sources, it will be hard to cull it. Good luck with that... -- P 1 9 9✉20:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Extend WP:SOAPBOX to all parts of Wikipedia, including signature
From my experience, Wikipedia articles should focus on the scholarly conclusion, and not go into the scholarly arguments behind it. For example, there are more than one opinion regarding when to place a certain Paraoh in the Egyptian chronology, then we should simply mention both, but not start enumerating all their arguments and what the other opinion would reply to them etc.
Probably not, as WP:NOTSOURCE is not about what not to write on Wikipedia.
I agree that the name of this policy is confusing, but it doesn't mean "What Wikipedia is not", it means "What Wikipedia is not [meant] for". Debresser (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a reaction aggregator?
Wanted to get some feedback about this. I do focus on a lot of art and media topics, which means most of those articles have a healthy section for reviews and reactions. But in this internet driven age, nearly any public happening will get people pounding their keyboards. You obviously need reliable sources and their reactions to write any article, but I'm asking if we're writing the article because people reacted to it, or because of some higher standard?
We aren't writing about peoples' reactions. A game, a movie, a famous person, we are writing about those things, with journalistic reactions being a part of understanding it. If anything, we're interested to see if there's an impact beyond what journalists say about it, because we're not the "rotten tomatos" of every happening that journalists react to.
Granted, there are exceptional controversies that themselves become notable. But in those cases, don't we have a higher standard than "this upset journalists"? Isn't the standard that something actually happened -- someone gets arrested, fired, killed -- and more than just "this guy said something that shocked people, and now here's a WP:COATRACK of people being shocked"? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This conversation is inspired a bit by this one. But it's not the first time I've seen someone find lots of journalistic reactions to a random event, to justify an article that really should be a few sentences in an existing article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.
Following this internal link to the relevant Section 3, we are instructed that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles."
This is confusing because editors often rely on WP:NOTNEWS to determine the acceptability of content within articles, as distinct from standalone articles themselves.
The archives for this talk page are replete with discussions of notability as it relates to NOTNEWS, but there has been no focus (that I can find) on the singular uselessness of the wikilink in question. I urge consensus to either delink "notability" or redirect it to guidance that applies specifically to content within articles. NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
A possible suggestion: Adding "Not credits databases" under Not Directory
While we do want for creative entities - actors, musicians, writers, production studios, etc. - to have their -ologies of all the creative works they have produced or have a role in (that we can verify), we want to avoid the flip side that given the creative work, to list out every person/entity involved. If we limit this idea to film for the time being, we don't want to replicate the function of IMDB. Listing the key cast and highest level of crew is reasonable, but we don't need to list every credited actor in a film, and we are definitely not going to touch every crew member in a work (even if just limiting it to the filming production). This would apply to nearly all other creative works as well as similar projects (architectural designs, car designs, software programs, etc.) when specific individuals can be identified.
Exactly to what degree that these are limited to would be left to appropriate Wikiproject and local-level consensus but on a project-wide basis, it would make sense that we simply just avoid full credit lists whenever possible for a work. Obviously, if the credit list can be run down with only a few names, that's fine; it's the difference between naming a dozen or so individuals out of a cast and crew of hundreds rather than naming all hundreds. --Masem (t) 16:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd support, but possibly broader wording would be even better. Something like: "Except for list articles, Wikipedia articles are not just listings of credits, works, statistics, results etc." But I think we're thinking about different things. You are probably thinking about overly long listings with too-trivial inclusions. I'm think about articles which have little or no text because they have no GNG-type sources. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we're talking different things, not outright pure lists. Case in point are like on notable film articles, some editors want to list out every cast individual that the primary source lists (meeting WP:V) but this can create huge cast lists with bunches of minor characters. So for example, as an example of what's good, the cast list on Star Wars (film) is appropriately handled in terms of highlighting the principal roles and covering other notable actors. Whereas if you turned to IMDB, [8] we've only touched maybe 25% of who may have been involved in just the cast? We don't want to be like the later. We want to respect the leads in those that create works but keep to an encyclopedic level of coverage of those leads. --Masem (t) 18:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree with this. It might be worth working out the finer details of the language. I find it usually helps when policies follow best practices.It helps when you can point to other discussions, wikiprojects, or guidelines that have applied a workable standard to a lot of articles. More broadly, I feel fairly confident that third party sources have a way of keeping editors from doing too much of a data dump on any subject. (A complete changelog for a piece of software, a complete cast list for a film, a complete calendar for a tour...) I think a lot of editors understand that Wikipedia should strive to summarize all verifiable *knowledge*, not all data. NOTDATADUMP. But we stop just short of saying that, and maybe that's trying to address too much at once. Either way, I agree it would be good to have a workable standard about how much detail we go into with regards to credits / staff / personnel. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"indiscriminate"?
The article reads: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.". But the word "indiscriminate" is a bit misleading. Why not "random"? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't include information indiscriminately. This not only means just selecting information at random to include, but also means that sometimes there's too much information to include and including it all would be indiscriminate. For example, it would be impractical to include the name of every person that had graduated from Harvard even though this can be sourced, as that would be indiscriminate, but we can narrow that to a List of Harvard University people that we deem to be notable to make that a discriminate list that fits WP's purpose. --Masem (t) 22:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Concur with above. The rule is self-explanatory if you actually understand the full meanings of those words (at both the levels of denotation and connotation). Random implies something much more disorganized. For example, word salad is random. (Google will direct you to lots of examples.) Indeed, one can easily write an algorithm to create word salad by linking a dictionary to a random number generator. But such edits are usually clear vandalism (or are clearly being inserted by someone in the throes of severe mental illness and/or stroke and/or traumatic brain injury) and can be reverted on sight for that reason.
Indiscriminate is the better word because this rule is normally applied in a more specific situation: when people want to add information to an article that may actually be very well written, when read as a self-contained passage, but when read in context is clearly a tangent that wanders too far from the primary topic of the article. This is to keep articles from growing out of control and turning into an unreadable mess. The point is that if people want to put information on Wikipedia that doesn't really fit very well into any existing article, then they need to determine if that information is notable enough in and of itself to survive the notability guidelines to stand as a new article on its own. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Masem and Coolcaesar: You are absolutely right, and your explanations were very clear and logical, just brilliant. Now I truly understand the difference between the two words. Thank you so much :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I have always thought "indiscriminate collection of information" is too vague. (The way I see it, it's not a comprehensive database of primary information with no outside context -- devlogs, statistics, song lyrics. Rather, we cover notable datapoints that have gained coverage in secondary sources.) But "random" is a step in the wrong direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, does CRYSTAL apply to content within articles or is it a statement to attempt to prevent creation of articles about indiscriminate (or random) content? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Does the WP:CRYSTAL guideline apply just to entire articles? Or does it also apply to individual claims within any article? e.g. claims that a musician will issue a new album in a few months' time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how a link back from anything proves what a guideline is about. Maybe we ought to just wait from an answer from someone who hasn't also asked the question? That's how questions generally work, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
CRYSTAL applies at all levels, not just the article, but at what point we consider information around a given topic area to be CRYSTAL should be something Wikiprojects should discuss and promote. I would think that if there's RS sourcing (more than a Twitter announcement) that a musician will have an album out in a few months , that's fair game to discuss about that in the musican's page. Whereas a musician who is still active but has no known projects in works, we don't talk about "his next potential album". --Masem (t) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The project is OK with the a SPS in this situation, but I've usually seen CRYSTAL applied in AfD situations, so always assumed it was article-related. The, "all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" wording seemed to support that suspicion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
CRYSTAL is definitely more strongly applied at a created article, but we're probably more tolerant of speculation to a degree if its in context of a notable, non-speculative article. For example, it would be far too early to create an article on the 2023 Major League Baseball All-Star Game because it is so far out, but in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, it would not be inappropriate now to talk about cities that are vying to host it, because its within context. But that's partially due to being a regular event. --Masem (t) 04:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Shocked and horrified that the pivotal hat removal detail has been conveniently swept aside, as if it were a mere trifle in the sinuous flexing of the court room's muscular examination into the poor stonemason's precipitous and dreadfully disquieting evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Suitable hat-note for "Gold as an investment"?
I'm a bit uneasy about the article Gold as an investment. Mainly it talks about historic trends but it still seems to me that we should have some kind of health warning at the top of the article. Gold has come in an out of fashion and people have lost a lot of money speculating. Do we have any responsibility to caution readers? (WP:CRYSTAL is written for editors, not general readers). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This is true and for good reason. When I think about it, it would be a slippery slope. Proposal (ish) withdrawn (but worth leaving in the archive because I suspect it will come up again). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE
I would like clarification on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The four items under "Wikipedia articles should not be:". Are these four just a few of the possible examples of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information or are these four the only examples of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps this is something that should be clarified in the text.
I think I'm being clear on the question without too much explanation, please let me know if I should elaborate. Thank you for your feedback. // Timothy :: talk19:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of the "Encyclopedic content" section (under which WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a subsection) ends with the sentence "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive". That seems pretty clear. Deor (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason this policy distinguishes between video games and other games?
Responding to this reversion. My experience is mostly in the video games space, where the Wikiproject has long removed extensive gameguide details, or summarized any important points into prose. Is there a reason we wouldn't do that for, say, board games? The practice is that we cover the games themselves, and only expand on a particular move or item if it becomes the subject of extensive real-world impact. Jontesta (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a million things which is its not a guide to. The question is which of those get mentioned here. My guess is that that it is those where it was a problem. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If it is not a problem anymore and isn't a problem for any other kinds of games, maybe it should be removed as a bullet. ;) --Izno (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm only guessing at the history but "was a problem" could be "would still be a problem if this wasn't written". North8000 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This one is a good policy and it should be applied consistently. Someone should try this clarification again, assuming there's no reasonable objection. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be consist for board/physical games as well as video games. Detailed/extensive coverage of rules and strategies for any type of game are inappropriate unless there's clear sourced discussion behind support for that - for example, I am sure we can have articles discussing numerous chess strategies, the concepts (but not how-to) of solving sudoku puzzles, and the like. Just because a game is popular doesn't necessarily mean we go into deep strategy or gameplay rules for it, though we should still give a high-enough overview to help distiguish the game from others. --Masem (t) 01:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The burden of notability for gameplay features of a video are too strict, relative to other forms of recreation like sports, which have lengthy (dare I say "cruft" filled) articles about their "gameplay" (i.e. The Start and Restart of Play (association football)). I believe the section on video games should no longer suggest a focus on video games away from gameplay, namely that the text saying "An article about a video game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game" should be removed." Videos are, at their core, a game, and their main purpose (with the exception of more modern cinematic games) are primarily their gameplay mechanics. Now that gaming has reached the mainstream in terms of media coverage, such as BBC Sport covering League of Legends gameplay terminology in conjunction with their broadcasting of competitions,[1] I believe that Wikipedia should move towards the same direction and remove bans on video game gameplay descriptions on principal, but to allow them somewhat more leniently on grounds that the information can WP:VERIFIED in reliable sources. --Prisencolin (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
GAMEGUIDE does not disallow detailed coverage of rules or gameplay of video games if give by secondary sources like BBC. What we want to avoid is excess reliance on primary sources (the game itself and strategy guides and the like) to describe gameplay. But we should be aware that video games do not yet have the staying power of traditional sports like football (Association or Gridiron) or old tabletop games like Chess where there are volumes of article on rules, and most cases we can't even yet be as detailed as these. --Masem (t) 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can you give a specific example of the type of thing you think should be acceptable that isn’t now? It’s hard to make a judgement on where the new line would be drawn under your proposal. Sergecross73msg me19:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article Gameplay of Warcraft exists, unless it's deleted sometime soon I'd say that'd a good example. Physically published strategy guides are no longer popular because better information about constantly updated games is better suited for the internet. The bottom line is it's just a double standard, and every time a topic related to video game gameplay is brought up there are immediately a trove of WP:GAMEGUIDE vague wave AFD votes or unilateral reversions.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn’t a helpful example, as you didn’t link to an article, or explain why it needs a separate article. Still not following your point here... Sergecross73msg me23:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
When we say Wikipedia is not a game guide, it's because you won't find any video game articles that create a database of all/most of the items in a single game, or articles that are entirely about primary material. There's no "ban" on gameplay descriptions. Most video game articles include a section about their gameplay, as part of giving an encyclopedic summary of the game, in context. That includes League_of_Legends#Gameplay, which seems to already cover most of what that BBC article covers. So in practice it seems like there's no disagreement here. And if Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines describes best practice, then it seems like we're very accurate right now. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
To follow up on Shooterwalker's point, if you look at Fandom sites on recent video games like Horizon Zero Dawn or Detroit Become Human, they contain a ridiculous amount of detail on individual characters that is clearly derived from the games themselves (primary sources), but the overwhelming majority of those characters are not notable enough to justify having articles about them on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems there's a consensus that we cover games in a summary style, without turning into a game guide with lists of weapons and items and levels and so on. A survey of actual game articles shows it to be a pretty consistent practice, too. So the policy seems to be accurate, effective, and proportional. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The idea that we can't, shouldn't or don't cover notable aspects of gameplay is clearly false, as pointed out above. The entry in question is a dead letter and so should be removed. The real issue is the extent of the coverage where we aim for a summary rather than exhaustive walkthroughs, cheats, solutions and so forth. This is generally true of all types of topic but the devil is in the detail. It's usually a matter of editorial discretion whether there's too much detail or not. One complication is that FA level articles are expected to be complete too and this naturally creates a contradiction and tension. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
So to get this moving, the current language is this : Video game guides. An article about a video game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game; however, avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See also WP:VGSCOPE. which for the record used to be part of the VG wikiproject' MOS , and was apparently brought here without refinement. That's why its so video game specific.
I would recommend something like this instead: Game guides. Rules and gameplay concepts in articles about sports, puzzles, tabletop games and video games should briefly summarize these elements in absence of in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. These summaries should be written to support the remaining context about the sport or game, such as its history or its legacy and influence. Even with secondary sourcing, highly-detailed or exhaustive rulesets or lists of gameplay components should be avoided, though references and appropriate external links to sources with additional information can be included. Avoid the inclusion of game strategy or walkthroughs unless this is part of significant discussion from the secondary sources. That keeps all the same concepts but applied to all "games". --Masem (t) 18:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I could support this. My feeling is that sports might be a bridge too far. Game guides really do just deal with video games, board games, and table top games, and the common ideas there are point values, levels, enemies, bonus items, etc... I think keeping it to just games keeps more clear, more descriptive of current practice, and less contentious. Sports can be addressed with a later discussion, if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason not to include sports, as all the same factors are there and that things like esports blur the lines, but there's a reason the emphasis on secondary sources: you want to summary the rules of association football, you have a century's worth of material to look through. We just should not have a point-by-point rules of association football. Eg (being done right) Laws of the Game (association football) is one of those we can go into some detail with (not only as rules of playing the game but as an historical record about the game) and its reasonable to hit its highlights (the main chapters) but we never at any point say, (for example) "Under Law 4 "Equipment", Section 1 Safety 'A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous.'". On the other hand, while we probably can have List of gridiron football rules it should be better sourced to secondary sources (since there's 50+ years of those too), and probably can be wordsmith to look less like a rule book and more like broad strokes about the game to treat it encyclopedicly. --Masem (t) 20:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOT comes back to secondary sources / too much detail for many things, for example lyrics databases and devlogs. But we decided those things are just different enough to be more specific. I see how we could pin two or more rabbits with "cover rules in a summary style", or even "cover primary details in a summary style". But there's risks in being too broad. I'd say games share less in common with sports than they do with, say, movies and books. But we still have NOTPLOT and NOTGAMEGUIDE, because some obtuse person is gonna say "well, the dagger of blorinka isn't a plot summary, it's the most powerful item in the game". It becomes harder to apply these practices consistently if we're talking about "components", instead of the specificity of items, weapons, enemies, etc... And it's a fairly plain description of our best practices, because it's been such a consistent part of the Video Games Wikiproject, as you noted. I'm not opposed to something that addresses sports if that's where consensus is taking us, but I think it's wiser to address that separately and at a later time. It's just safer to be incremental, and remove the "video" part, and be done with it. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks to be near unanimous that it's the best practice to cover this within context of the games themselves, with a few exceptional items or moves or levels gaining coverage in reliable secondary sources with real world-context. It's been how we've covered game articles for well over a decade now. Unless someone has any important counter-examples, the written policy should reflect that practice. Jontesta (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
I would like to make two non-substantive changes to this section — to the anchor and policy shortcut.
First, I propose we eliminate "STATS" from the anchor:
|ALSONOT|ENC|IINFO|INDISCRIMINATE|INFO|LYRICS|PLOT|STATS|NOTES|TRIVIA
Second, I propose we eliminate WP:NOTSTATS from the policy shortcut:
|WP:IINFO|WP:INDISCRIMINATE|WP:NOTCHANGELOG|WP:NOTLYRICS|WP:NOTSTATS| WP:NOTSTATSBOOK|WP:PLOT|WP:NOTPLOT|WP:RAWDATA|WP:WHIM|WP:RELEASENOTES
The reasoning behind these two proposed changes is that the text of the guidance does not actually prohibit or discourage statistics. Instead, the guidance discourages raw data or lengthy unexplained statistics. I've encountered a few well-meaning but uninformed editors over the years who delete statistics from articles, citing WP:NOTSTATS, because they take that phrase literally. A misleading shortcut does more harm than good. The WP:RAWDATA shortcut sufficiently covers the same thing but in a more accurate way, so we're not losing anything useful. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree, not because of the logic, but because NOT#STATS is too commons used by regulars who do know the intent. Editors that are only reading the intent by a shortcut are causing the issue, and that should not be a reason to change the shortcut but to better inform editors. --Masem (t) 22:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Concur with User:Cullen328. The policy is clear. If an editor is unable to interpret and apply that simple language properly, the solution is to admonish them, and if they continue to misinterpret the policy, then that issue needs to be raised on the administrators' noticeboard for appropriate adjustment of their editing privileges. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: the policy as written is pretty clear. I'm sure someone might misinterpret, but assume good faith until they keep doing it after being corrected. Shortcuts will always leave something out because they are short. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. If they're misusing the shortcut, point it out to them. If they've been approached that the interpretation is incorrect and refuse to accept it, that's a problem with the editor, not the shortcut. Hog FarmBacon13:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I won't push this too hard, to veer away from edit warring. But wanted to raise this for other editors to consider, as changes that may or may not make a difference.
Removed "weapons":
Old: "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts,"
New: "avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items"
Inverted what's "appropriate":
Old: "specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate"
New: "A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry"
I'm concerned that editors will read this as softening the standard, and lead to a re-creation of articles like this, this, this, or this. You only have to open up an article in fandom to see the kind of thing that just starts to endlessly clutter Video game articles (like this or this.
Of course my concern might be imagined, as our standards are a lot better than they were 10-15 years ago, and editors may intuitively know what game guide material looks like. If nothing else, I wanted to document the policy change in case this type of content becomes a problem again. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
From a previous discussion on this page, I think we should expand this to be less VG specific and include other games (tabletop/card), and, ideally sports as well. But this also needs to nod to where cases that when there is RS/secondary coverage of rules or facets of the game/sport (as there would be in detail for chess, poker, and most professional sports like football (Both types), cricket, etc.) that details of these rules are generally fair. But sports is a trickier area and may need to be dealt with separately but we 100% can tack on traditional games here.
I would personnel write it something like An article about a tabletop game or a video game, in absence of sources covering the topic in detail, should briefly the rules and gameplay involved. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons) from D&D or the BFG9000 from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, character classes, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs, strategy guides, and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:VGSCOPE. --Masem (t) 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
"Weapons" are an item or concept in all cases, so I did not think that removal controversial (and moreover are specific to a certain flavor of games) and in other words was fluff for the sentence. Not much more to say there.
Regarding the other change, I did indeed flip the order, and that was all, so I do not see how this could be construed as weakening the !rule. Other readers will probably be interested in the un-cut version of each sentence:
Old: Walk-throughs or detailed coverage ... are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
New: A concise summary of gameplay details ... is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not.
I did this because I think positive statements of what to do are more useful for writing rules (and this is generally held for specification-writing for a multitude of reasons). It already comes after another "don't have cruft" rule. I think this framing does a better job letting people know that we do endorse content that is reliably sourced and can be shown to have some significance (real-world impact, usually). Lastly, I think it's easier to read than the earlier alternative.
I realize now that the "..." there might have been moved inappropriately, but that was because the old sentence began A concise summary in which the referent was unclear. A concise summary of what?
What this sentence is lacking now and was lacking earlier are two things: that we can show importance by providing reliable sources that indicate its importance, and a reference to our more detailed guide when writing about fictional topics (at least as a see also). The former is briefly mentioned in the sentence before but overall the section could use that front and center. The latter is missing entirely, which I will add now. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I respect you both as editors and I feel like I might be reacting as a sort of PTSD from a different era of Wikipedia. ;) I'm willing to consent to the version as it is now, even if I'd prefer a little more clarity. It might come down to the placement of the bracketed section about specific point values / achievements / levels -- a level of specific raw data that should be discouraged. I wanted to raise the discussion if only to make us all mindful of it, should we see a rise in edit warring over sprawling lists of game objects. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The stripped down version might be a big step in the right direction. There is still something lost, but what's gained is the clarity that we're not trying to create entire tables and databases of game concepts. I would go ahead with your version, if change the second sentence to -- A summary of these topics is appropriate where secondary sources discuss their significance to the game or the industry. The reason I say that is because there are tons of secondary sources that are basically gameguides themselves. And I find that's very consistent with practice, at least at the Video Game WikiProject. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This stuff doesn't belong in WP:NOT, which should be about general, broad-brush concepts rather than attempts to micro-manage particular topics. It seems obvious that an article about chess should list the different types of pieces and their moves; that an article about poker should list the suits and hands; and that an article about Go should list the size and shape of the board. The particular problem with computer games is that they can be large and sprawling as, like Wikipedia, they are not paper. The problem is then of stopping articles turning into listicles of every detail. That mainly arises because it's much easier for writers to add entries to a list than to write coherent, summary-level prose. It doesn't help that people like Masem have encouraged the proliferation of lists such as List of Pokemon. How is that not exactly what you are now trying to prohibit? You can't have it both ways. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I was amused to see that today's FA is Master Chief (Halo) – a game character whose essential feature seems to be a complete lack of personality – a "faceless avatar". I'd be more interested in a list of his weapons but all we seem to have is the M6D Pistol. It's not that Halo's weapons aren't notable – see The Gamer – for example. I suppose it's just your opinion dressed up as policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This is why I think if this is broaden to include both games and sports, that the explicit rules and gameplay and strategy of these are generally not things we document w/o backing of secondary sources (which would exist for age-old games like chess, poker, soccer/football, cricket, etc.), it would be more appropriate here. This used to be just part of WT:VG's wikiproject advice but it was pulled into WP:NOT by larger consensus and I think if we think of the larger picture and work the language better it can still be applicable to the project as a whole. --Masem (t) 15:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Best practices lead to guidelines and style guides, and guidelines applied consistently become policy. That was the path for the Game Guide policy. It's been the best practice among video game editors for well over a decade, was documented and applied very consistently across thousands of articles, and has since been applied to other types of game articles. Not only because it's a guideline or a policy, but because there is an actual editorial consensus to apply it where it truly makes for a better encyclopedia.
Sure, editors have different and dissenting opinions but most of those end up becoming essays, not policies. Even for veteran editors, we have to remember that before we try to write/rewrite/remove a policy. We should see how editors actually treat content in the article/talk space before documenting it in the WP space. Usually you can find tons of "diffs" to support what it is that you're trying to document. Sometimes you can skip passed an opinion-based essay to tweaking a guideline. But trying to make an end-run from personal opinion to policy changes is will be a tremendous waste of everyone's energy, let alone a bad idea if it succeeds. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Excessive shortcuts
Why do some sections have more than ten shortcuts listed? I can't see how this could possibly be helpful. – Teratix₵08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Many of these shortcuts appear mostly duplicative. For example, we don't need eight ways to say Crystal Ball: WP:BALL, WP:CBALL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTBALL, WP:NCRYSTAL. Surely one or two would be enough? There are several others like that have three or more variations of the same word or phrase. CUA 27 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
We had maybe 4-5 years ago trimmed down the shortcuts. We should only keep the obvious ones listed (though obviously, the extra redirects that point here don't have to be deleted). Basically, if a section has 5 points, there should be maybe 6-7 shortcuts at most: one-two for the section, and one for each point in it. --Masem (t) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I can go ahead and start some pruning of near-duplicate shortcuts. I'll go incrementally, only one section at a time (starting with Crystal Ball), and will explain what I'm doing in the comment field. If anybody objects to any pruning I'm doing, feel free to revert, and we can discuss on the talk page. CUA 27 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've cut a number - same same. Redirects might be cheap, but editor cognitive load is expensive. FWIW, I'd like to see One True Regular Shortcut even if it's not necessarily quite the most used in order to nudge common use for the coming decades. So for this page where things are refutations (is that the best word?), every shortcut would be a NOTx; so NOTCRYSTAL would be preferable to CRYSTAL, and BURO would be omitted despite being about less common than NOTBURO. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~05:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that an optimal number of shortcuts might be something like one or two overall shortcut per section, plus one shortcut for each of the separate points within that section. I also having a preference for dropping the NOT — e.g., prefer CRYSTAL over NOTCRYSTAL. CUA 27 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we want the shortcuts that stay to read "WP:NOTCRYSTAL" so that when editors use them in talk pages the context should make sense. Obviously, all other shortcuts removed should still work. --Masem (t) 20:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments: There is a difference in WP:NOTADVERTISMENT (Advertising, marketing or public relations) and Self-promotion (WP:PROMO) so it should be added back. Otr500 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
When we can only speculate
What should the editor do when there is no firm way to answer, and speculation is the only option? Say nothing? Go with the most likely? Launch into an edit war? Subscribe to me (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, that's almost always the right answer. I can't imagine anything so urgent that we'd need to add it *right now* to a band article.Hobit (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" should be split into two sections
Executive summary
"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" covers two very different things, and the recent-events rule contradicts itself and is very unclear, and it doesn't say what people think it says, and that's a problem because then we have to argue about that. It should be split in two, the existing one left mostly as it is, and a new one to specifically and only handle recent events.
The problem
So the thing is, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is kind of a mishmash and it covers a lot of ground and parts are unclear and it sometimes contradicts itself.
The thrust of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is that we don't do a lot of things that newspapers do: we don't publish original reporting ("source:I saw the explosion myself"), we don't publish today's sports scores, we don't have a gossip column, even notable people don't get all their latest activities noted, and so forth.
Bur one thing we do do here sometimes, that newspapers also do, is publish material on recent events. A lot of editors think we shouldn't, unless it's a really big deal. (And that's reasonable.) There isn't really a policy that addresses that, so people use WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to point to "Wikipedia is not a newspaper".
After all, WP:NOTNEWSsounds like it would point to a policy that would say "we don't publish news; we seldom publish material on events that just happened", and so people use it that way, a lot. But it doesn't say that, it only addresses that peripherally and kind of talks out of both sides of its mouth. Thus you have people pointing to a policy that doesn't say what most people assumes it does. That's mediocre and frustrating. Drive you nuts. Let's solve.
Ideas for a solution
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should continue to point to "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", which should keep most of its current material, pointing out that we don't do a lot of things that newspapers and news reporters do: sourcing to your own eyes, current league standings, current hot gossip, etc.
WP:NOTNEWS should point to a new section -- titled something like "Wikipedia is not On The Spot News" (or, depending on what people want, "Wikipedia is not discouraged from publishing on recent events") or something to that effect -- that more clearly and strongly talks about recent events. Here's the current section addressing this as it now stands in "Wikipedia is not a newspaper":
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.
What is this even saying? How about disentangling the stuff about sports and celebrities and Wikipedia not being written in news style and leaving that to the old "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" (and taking out the ref to moribund Wikinews), That leaves this as a core starting point for "Wikipedia is not On The Spot News":
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
That's the core. That's what 90%+ of people are pointing to when they invoke NOTNEWS.
The problem is even this is unclear and kind of contradictory. Seem to me that it's saying this:
Most recent events do not qualify for inclusion, even if they are "newsworthy" enough to meet the WP:GNG.
On the other hand, while breaking news should not be especially valorized (emphasized), it also shouldn't be treated worse (differently) than other information. For instance, a small battle that occurred yesterday should be treated the same as a small battle that occurred in 1706. Don't say "Article on recent battle is borderline notable at best, but its happening now and people want to read about it, so let's make an exception to GNG and Keep", but neither say "No more or less important then that 1706 battle, but the 1706 one is part of History which is an academic subject so it's appropriate to have an article, and this recent battle isn't, so it's not -- meets GNG, but Delete anyway."
On the other other hand, Wikipedia valorizes (considers) the enduring notability of events, so maybe recent events should be treated differently -- deprecated because no enduring notability is yet established (obviously), and we'd have to guess if it will be, and guessing is not excellent and will be wrong on both ends a lot.
So I think what we want to decide is:
Do we want to deprecate (not forbid, but usually not include) material on recent events even if they meet the GNG, or
Do we want to treat recent events the same as old events -- basically, usually include them if they meet the GNG.
Your opinion matters some, but you know how rules are (supposed to be) made, so what we really need is some indication of current practice. Rules are supposed to codify current practice. Very many people don't like articles on recent events unless huge, but on the other lots of articles about recent events exist, so I just don't know. Maybe some of you do.
But if current practice is about even, then we have to decide on one or the other, maybe, because that'd mean current practice is "depends on who happens to be !voting" and that's way suboptimal. (We could also, if this is the case, simply delete all guidance on how recent events should be treated.)
(We seldom if ever include events that don't meet the GNG, so there's no need to talk about those, WP:NOTABILITY handles that. I'm assuming that any article being measured here meets the GNG, and that's why I used it it.)
(As an aside, I hate rigid rules, but I also hate words like "recent" which solves nothing and leaves people to quibble over that. So you could have "Usually, articles about events should only be created one year [or whatever] after the event has ended, and sources created less than one week [or whatever] after the end of an event should not be counted for assessing GNG adherence (although they can be used in the article"). Nevermind about that right now tho I guess.)
Anyway -- can't be both! So what is practice/your opinion? Treat new and old the same, or deprecate new events? Weigh in, comrades. (Of course if wanted to make this change many discussions and at least one [[WP:CENT] RfC would be needed, this is just a preliminary laying out of the problem, don't worry about anything changing yet.) Herostratus (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I will also add that the GNG includes the fact that we look for "enduring coverage" which means by default, the GNG does not cover recent events automatically - NEVENT spells this out in more detail. There are clearly some events that clearly will pass NEVENT within hours of them happening, but the bulk need several days of waiting to see how news coverage happens before we know if they are really enduring topics --Masem (t) 20:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:NEVENT is a guideline, and I think the other similar pages (RECENT or whatever) are guidelines. WP:GNG is also a guideline (although it's kind of treated as policy, really). This page is a policy and that's a huge, huge difference.
OK. So, very many people don't want there to be (many) articles on recent events. As noted above, the GNG wants "enduring coverage" which can't exist for recent events, I guess. So let's say that here, in the policy, is what I'm saying. Because the current section is mess. Policies should not be a mess. And very many editors point to WP:NOTNEWS to make this point. Maybe those editors should point to the GNG or NEVENT. But they don't, and they're not going to start, and there's nothing anybody can do about that. So let's fix what people point to. And "well but NOTNEWS doesn't say that" gets into what NOTNEWS does or doesn't say and that's sterile waste. The section requires fixing in some way. (By the way, I personally think that we should have lots of articles on recent events. I'm more interested in policies not being a dogs breakfast though.)
Or it'd be OK if we kept NOTNEWSPAPER as one policy and just changed to paragraph in question to something like
This policy doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about how recent events should be handled, there are various guidelines addressing that. This policy is only about the other ways we are not a newspaper, namely that we don't publish sports scores or staff-written news reports or gossip or day-to-day doings of celebrities or weather reports and so on, and we also can't be used to line birdcages or wrap fish and chips.
Notability, in general, will always remain a guideline-level status because it is not the only way we judge appropriateness for a standalone article, and there are reasons we have articles that go behind notability. For events, we do want to remain flexible: there are events that we can judge within minutes of them occurring as being significant, such as earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater in populated places, and there's no reason to wait for enduring coverage, only because we know these events will bring that. We want editors to be wary of creating articles on events that have just happened where it is unclear if it will be an enduring event, but because of notability, we can't make NEVENT a policy-level statement, only guidance to look towards. And to that end, that is part of not being a newspaper - we're not here to cover breaking news that has yet to show any encyclopedic longevity, but we can keep existing encyclopedic topics up to date with current events, keeping in mind that we should not be writing to the minutia of day-to-day aspects but broader strokes (another part of not being a newspaper). --Masem (t) 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that notability should be a guideline-level thing. So then why do we have a policy on it, at least regarding notability treatment of recent events. And not only a policy, but one which contradicts itself in the course of a short paragraph, and which thereby causes actual real-world confusion. How is that OK. Herostratus (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing contradictory. We're covering both standalone articles, and then up-to-date coverage in existing articles. Both facets are important, and I've seen how this is causing real-world confusion. --Masem (t) 01:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you mean to write you've not seen how this is causing real-world confusion? I have, on occasion. My reading of the rule is that, guidelines aside, and parts of the rule which rule out gossip and sports news aside, the most clear instruction in the rule are to treat recent events exactly like events in 1842. That'd trump any guideline. That's not current practice, and yea that's a problem inherently and sometimes in practice. I mean if one of my people came to me with a user aid written like that, she'd be sent back to try again. But OK you don't think the rule is a dog's breakfast, got it and we can agree to disagree, let's see if anyone has thoughts. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm not seeing that issue, unless you are talking about editors creating articles for recent events far too soon, to which I would say that the language covers this by the "enduring coverage", something we can readily apply to an event in 1842 but not to an event that happened yesterday. And this also applies to adding content to existing articles as well. --Masem (t) 03:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Mostly facetious suggestion, out of BLP frustration
It was, there was a cleanup to remove excessive shortcuts earlier this year, but they didn't get moved into anchors [9]. --Masem (t) 14:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Better name for WP:ANARCHY
Perhaps a better name would be fitting? WP:CHAOS? Anarchy can and is used as a synonym for chaos but I feel a better word could be used. Thoughts? I am just being overly critical and this doesn't need to change? Yes but I still feel the need to discuss. Vallee01 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Mnmh, Chaos and Anarchy doesn't mean the same thing; I think here we are talking about an Anarchic... uh, system, if that's the right word?, rather than just pure chaos of people running around at random. There are various ways to think about an Anarchic system, but since Anarchism is really fringe, not much studied or understood (including by me!), or at all popular, you're going to get "no one's in charge and there are no formal laws" as an important perception by people coming across the the term "anarchy". Rightly or wrongly, that's what this term mean to people in this context, and I think people understand it as such.
But we don't have an Anarchist-type system or want one (not that we actually could, not being a country). We've got mods, and they can (so to speak) give you "sentences" of various lengths or even a "death sentence". And above them we've got the ArbCom. We've got a few formal constitutional "laws" such as RS, NPOV, and couple others that you must obey. We've got the Foundation and they have a formal hierarchy with a CEO and officers etc., and they have some control over us at the margins.
And most of us like it that way. We don't have (or want) a system where "no one's in charge and there are no formal laws". Yeah I get that actual Anarchism is complex and there's whole deep books about it an then there's Syndicalism and whatnot. But I mean the definition and history of say "censorship" or "democracy" is too, but but this is short pithy page and people get what we mean.Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have seen some editors reverting talk page comments with "WP:NOTFORUM" as the edit summary. Assuming that the comments really are attempts to use Wikipedia as a forum, does this conflict with WP:TPOC which says "If a discussion goes off topic editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates"? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Depends, in my opinion. If the initial comment is off-topic for Wikipedia to begin with, it'd have no value in being kept (its existence is still recorded in the talk page's history), and serves as clutter especially if old discussions get archived. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I only remove comments that are NOTFORUM if they are the first of a new section (or clearly misplaced) and clearly not about improving the topic at hand (eg on the video game articles I work on, I strip out comments like "This game is the best ever!"). When NOTFORUM-like comments start to develop from a natural progression in an existing discussion, then that's probably where it's better to cap off with archiving as suggested above, since the line between the NOTFORUM comment and actual useful may be hard to set, and you are likely just cautioning editors "hey, take this elsewhere please". --Masem (t) 19:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
discussion relating to not a directory/not a webhost
There is a discussion at Talk:Colab concerning the inclusion of extensive list of members. Articles having extensive listing of names based on primary sources and dependent sources. There are many articles about organizations, art galleries and where such is common and I believe this discussion would help establish a balance between encyclopedic vs web hosting/social media. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NNP
I created a new WP:NNP redirect that is shorter yet more specific that WP:NOTNEWS, which both point to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. NOTNEWS is confusing and often misused to imply that things that are in the news are not suitable for inclusion by default, which is in direct conflict with what the guideline actually says: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage" and "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." So the fact that something was in the news does not imply that it should or should not be included. The problem is that NEWS is used as an abbreviation for NEWSPAPER, which leads editors to jump to incorrect conclusions, both when they use this shortcut and when they see it used. I think the NOTNEWS shortcut should be depreciated in favor of NNP to avoid confusion, because that will force editors to actually click on the link to see what it says, and then they may remember that it refers to newspaper like content, not content that was in the news. But I realize consensus on that change may be slow to develop.
I saw in the edit history that several shortcuts were removed recently and considered that before including a new one. I think it is useful to have NNP up in the shortcut box to introduce its use while we discuss it here on the talk page. So I am going to revert the removal and direct editors here in the edit summary. Dhaluza (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NNP is neither clear nor catchy. I reckon the entry should be deprecated altogether as it is clearly not followed. We have a section on the mainpage, WP:ITN, which is devoted to highlighting things in the news. And even if items are not included there, you can be sure that editors are updating articles in realtime as the news is reported. For example, the big celebrity news story for the last week has been the British royal family following the Oprah interview. When I checked, I found that articles about the various members of the family dominated the top-read articles. Checking again, yesterday's top 10 is:
Death of Sarah Everard (584 revisions since 2021-03-10 (+9 minutes), 92 editors, 43 watchers, 207,316 pageviews)
About the only entry there that is encyclopedic rather than newsy is Bible. Dunblane happened 25 years ago but is in the news because of anniversary commemorations. Claiming that Wikipedia doesn't follow and cover the news is blatantly false and so we should not pretend that it's policy. The real policy is that we don't do original reportage and that is amply covered by WP:OR.
We had a rather recent (2-3 years) RFC on whether we should expand or reduce NOT#NEWS, with the result that there should be no change either way. We can cover new information that appears in the news that should be added to existing articles (such as Murray Walker, a recent death, who is then covered in the Deaths article); but what we should be cautioned against is creating new articles on every new event, or trying to include every new piece of information reported by the news that may be relevant to the topic. That all still falls under NOT#NEWS, and all of what you see is 100% within policy without touching NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 00:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS serves a very valid purpose, as it combines several clear community norms under one umbrella. I don't reckon it needs to be changed. I also think there's a misunderstanding here. WP:NOTNEWS does not prohibit us from reporting on current events. WP:NOTNEWS also gets used on a daily basis in deletion discussions as an indicator of whether events have received only routine coverage when determining notability (see: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.) Put more easily, it correctly discourages people from creating articles on recent news. In terms of creating the new shortcut, not only are we deprecating most shortcuts, but this shortcut isn't obvious at all. SportingFlyerT·C23:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to no one in particular, I am not seeking to change consensus on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I agree that editors who want to cover breaking news as news should contribute to Wikinews. But many readers come to Wikipedia to lookup current topics in the news to help them understand those topics in a greater context (including myself). So a bias for or against subjects in news coverage does not serve those readers well, and therefore does not benefit the project either. We don't want frivolous, sensationalistic, or other non-substantive coverage to dominate articles, but we also don't want outdated, missing, or incomplete coverage of topics of interest to readers. I think it's important to consider the first impression Wikipedia makes on new users, because you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.
Again, WP:NOTNEWS as a shortcut is confusing and often misused to imply that things that are in the news are not suitable for inclusion by default, which is in direct conflict with what the guideline actually says: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage" and "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I believe this is correct--there should be no bias for or against including content in the news (obviously caution is required per WP:RS, and extra caution is required for breaking news coverage).
The basic problem with NOTNEWS is that "news" it is used as an abbreviation for "newspaper," which is not normal usage. "News" generally applies to overall media coverage, not newspaper style writing, which is what this guideline section is talking about.
So I think WP:NOTNEWS should be depreciated in favor of something that is not confusing, ambiguous or even misleading. So I think we need to get a better shortcut. WP:NN links to the Notability guideline, presumably as shorthand for "not-notable." We could use WP:!NP. Maybe there are better ideas that I am missing.
For one thing, we try to avoid alphabet-soup labels, so introducing a potential confusing abbreviation or initialism that is already close to at least two other policies (Notabiity and New Page Patrol) would not be smart.
But NOT#NEWS needs to be read more than "WP is not just a newspaper"; WP is just simply not a news outlet. There are some facts about not being a newspaper (print style) that we have to be aware of, but also as not being a general news outlet, we have to alert to being able to be current on existing topics but careful on new topics.
We expect editors when new and seeing these shortruns to read and understand them. If editors are jumping to conclusions that "NOT#NEWS" means we can't include breaking news that is otherwise factual details we'd included (such as the results of the Grammys that happened tonight), they're making big assumptions and failing do take steps we expect them to learn as editors. This wouldn't be resolved using any different shortcut. --Masem (t) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, I think the NOTNEWS shortcut as commonly misread is the problem, not the "Wikipedia is not a Newspaper" guideline section as written. If using a shorter shortcut is not a good solution, depreciating the NOTNEWS version in favor of NOTNEWSPAPER would be the other alternative. It sounds like you would be in favor of depreciating NOTNEWSPAPER in favor of NOTNEWSOUTLET, which may actually be more generally applicable since most editors probably don't read actual dead tree newsprint. But that would take some movement of the guideline. I'm just trying to work with what we have now. Dhaluza (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
But it's just about not being a news outlet, which describes the format/approach we take of news, but about how we incorporate news in broad terms, NOT#NEWS is short and remains the best simple shortcut. Again, if people are just reading the shortcut and not the language behind it, that's not a problem with the shortcut, but with editors. --Masem (t) 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually it says, "news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" so we should treat news like any other content--there are no special rules for news, so it should not be singled out. The problem with the shortcut is it is often used to argue that news should be treated differently. Dhaluza (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's read WP:NOTNEWS again: "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Now look at the main page's In the News where the current issue is whether to lead with a picture of Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish or Novak Djokovic. This is routine celebrity/sports news – exactly the same sort of stuff you'd find in People magazine or the tabloids. This supposed policy is a farce. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Sure, People magazine will likely cover the Grammys but will probably have more focus on the "red carpet" part rather than the awards themselves, and that's the more routine part that we ignore. Or more in general w/ relationship to music
Well, WP:NOTNEWS does serve a purpose. The purpose is for people to say "I don't think that we should cover recent events, or at any rate be real conservative in doing so." Citing a rule looks more impressive than just stating that as an opinion, and is more succinct too.
It is true that the body of the rule says no such thing. It says "breaking news should not be emphasized", that is, we shouldn't be like "Keep, doesn't meet WP:GNG but it's current and so people want to read about it so let's make an exception."
But that's OK. It's certainly far from the only rule where people mostly just read the title. A lot of people don't think we should much have articles on very recent events (not unreasonable), and WP:NOTNEWS is a service to them. These people are never going to let you delete or deprecate the shortcut WP:NEWS, so don't worry about it. It's not going to happen.
So the funny thing is...
We don't have a rule against articles on recent events.
But a lot of people think we should.
And so they point to WP:NOTNEWSas if it was a rule against having articles on recent events.
And so in actual practice the shortcut WP:NOTNEWS (not the text of what it points to, but just the name of the shortcut itself) is generally accepted as demonstrating a rule against having articles on recent events.
And a lot of people accept this. They believe that there is such a rule.
And after all rules are supposed to just codify practice. And since it's practice to believe that WP:NOTNEWS is -- or anyway points to -- such a rule, it does. It does. WP:NOTNEWS (again, not the text of what it points to, but just the name of the shortcut itself) is a valid rule.
Huh.
Ideally, we'd codify this in a different rule -- WP:NOTRECENTEVENTS or something. But the days of making major new rules is probably over, so we have to go with what we have.
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (the actual text) has little real function, no. It's almost entirely disposable. The main thing it prescribes is doing our own reporting -- if the Merchandise Mart blows up, don't start an article Explosion of the Merchandise Mart and source it to "I saw it myself, just now". But we're not going to do that anyway. We're not going to include today's sports scores anyway, or have an article listing each day's activity by Justin Beiber, or obituaries of private citizens. Or for that matter publish comics or horoscopes or be used to wrap fish. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is mostly just excess verbiage, but it's not hurting anybody and it's not going to change. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Under NOT#NEWS, the second bullet is exactly the statement that WP cautions against articles on recent events. This is more expanded in the notability guideline WP:NEVENT but just limited to NOT#NEWS, it does say, not exatly as you speak, that articles on breaking news are not recommended unless we know their enduring coverage will be assured. So yes, NOT#NEWS does effectively say this. --Masem (t) 13:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, but doesn't say "assured". It says "considered". Those are different words. Also what you wish the rule said and what it actually says are different things. In fact the rule contradicts itself, and also is vague and weasally -- like many of our rules, which after all are written by committees. Let's see what it really says...
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
"Breaking news should not be treated differently from other information." I mean, I'm not sure how the rule could be clearer that breaking news should not be, you know, treated differently from other information? Specifically, we should not go out out of way to emphasize it because it is breaking news. Well I think most of us agree on that so that's not an issue.
most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
Well of course most newsworthy events don't qualify for inclusion. Who thinks that? Look at the newsowrthy events front page of your newspaper: most newsworthy events are like "Seven car pileup on I-270"; "Mayor announces new Director of Public Information"; "Nonprofits that work with homeless want a better seat at the table with the next mayor of Boston"; "Sommerville School District removes 'thin blue line' from high school baseball caps"; "Prospect Pivots: Red Sox slugger Cotatie seizes first opportunity to make second impression" and so on.
It's fine to prescribe articles about these events, and should be done. But nobody makes articles like that and if they did they would be swatted down regardless of any rule. It's OK to have that rule, but it's not a problem and not what we're talking about here.
including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate... news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics
It's sometimes appropriate, and presumably sometimes not. It sometimes can be, and presumably sometimes can't. What is "sometimes"? What is "can be"? I dunno -- doesn't say. It's up to the individual editor what they think. But I mean "Article clearly meets the GNG" could certainly be considered to be within the "sometime" and "can be" umbrella to include, since the GNG is the generally accepted guideline for determining if an article should exist. Granted, just a guideline, but an important one and generally accepted for most articles.
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events
Well yes of course. We consider a lot of things, and should. We consider whether an article meets the GNG or an SNG, whether it's so poor it'd be better to burn it down and start over, whether its inherently a BLP violation, whether it's basically plagiarism, whether it's a commercial promotion. I don't think "but this is ephemary" would be met by "well be shouldn't and don't consider that". So, it's fine to state it, but it's not contentious and not what we're talking about here.
What we really want here is WP:NOTEPHEMERAL. Most everyone would agree with that. Most everyone agrees that "Seven car pileup on I-270" is ephemeral and shouldn't have an article.
Of course we have to guess what is likely to be ephemeral. Thirty years ago, George Bush had a case of acute gastroenteritis, fainted, and puked on the Japanese Prime Minister. They had a news conference the next day it was brushed aside, not a diplomatic problem.
Ephemeral? George H. W. Bush vomiting incident... 30 years later it gets 350 views a day. You want to deny those 350 people access to that info? Jimmy Carter rabbit incident... half a century ago, 388 views a day. Tractorcade, 25 daily views. There are a lot of articles about train crashes 100 years and stuff that get very few views. But those aren't current news and so they aren't covered here.
So anyway, to boil down the rule, it is "Here's a rule. It is vague and in places self-contradictory, so can be interpreted in a number of ways, and so it's not really very useful. Use your best judgement and best guesstimate of what is going to be ephemeral when forming your opinion about coverage of recent events."
Yeah a person can say "No, it can't be interpeted in a number of ways. It can only be interpreted the way I do, period." You do get that sometimes. It doesn't usually convince very many people. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are going to write a WP article, day one of a breaking news event, it is absolutely a skill of art to know if that is going to have the enduring coverage in the future. We have too many editors that don't have this skill and as a result , we actually do have a lot of cruft articles on local accidents and crimes that were created within the day or two of the event but had no major coverage since. For most editors, if you don't know if an event is going to be notable or not, the best thing is to wait - or write it up at Wikinews which is exactly set up to be a wiki-sourced newspaper, from which we can promote to articles if the event is notable.
There are enough editors with the experience to know when an event is going to become enduring within hours of it happening, such as the Jan 6 Capitol riots, or when a passenger plane crashes. But these editors are few and far between, most new editors don't have that wisdom, and that's what we're trying to caution to. --Masem (t) 16:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
"The best thing to is wait" is an opinion. It's a reasonable opinion, but it's not one that I share. I'm for striking while the iron is hot because people come here looking for well-summarized NPOV into on major recent events -- they just do is all, and they're not likely to stop, and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not for (in effect) telling these people to go pound sand. Even for an article that has long-term value, the most value its ever going to have -- the highest daily pageview rate -- is sometimes the first few days or weeks. Why throw away that value. Again: my opinion, your opinion. There's no rule that says "the best thing to do is wait [or: not wait]"
Buuuuut... if an article its cruft (that's not a very well-defined or NPOV word, so let's say ephemera)... then this rule militates against that, does it not? It does say "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". That should be sufficient to quash and articles on local accidents and crimes. Is that not working?
If as you say we actually do have a lot of emphemera articles on local accidents and crimes that were created within the day or two of the event but had no major coverage since, and they're not being deleted -- well, this rule is not doing its job. But that's a different problem. altogether.
If we have a lot of emphemera articles created on local accidents and crimes that were created within the day or two of the event but had no major coverage since and those are deleted per this rule when discovered well that's fine. The rule is working as intended, so no problem there.
It's probably new editors making these articles, but new editors also make articles that are BLP violations or advertising or copyvio or that don't meet the GNG. That's why AfD is so busy. If there's a way to prevent these articles -- and also articles about ephemera -- from being created in the first place, that'd be great and save time. We could have stricter article-creation rules but that's not likely to happen. All I can think of is adding a criteria to WP:CSD, "incontrovertibly ephemera". That'd be OK as long it was used correctly... for articles that would be deleted by 13-0 if taken to AfD and like that... but it'd be a tricky and risky criteria, since its kind of substituting the guesstimate of two people for that of a whole AfD group. I suppose for a deletionist that'd be a feature tho. It's something you might maybe be able to get thru... maybe it'd be worth an effort.
I mean basically nobody has a problem with deleting articles about two people shot in a robbery. What people do have a problem with is articles like Trump orb being deleted (which it was). This is self-evidently not ephemera (as a matter of fact since the article was written I see major articles entirely about the entity in The Atlantic (2019) and Business Insider (2020) and the Wall Street Journal (2020) and mentions in other recent articles in notable publications. I think it's pretty clear that this is something that researchers and other people are going to want to look at 20 and probably 100 years from now.
Why was the article about this highly notable event deleted? Well I'm pretty sure that real reason is mainly is that a lot of people don't care to read articles like that, particularly about Donald Trump doing this or that (it is wearying), and don't think that other people should be allowed to either. That's fine I guess (not really, but it is what it is), because ultimately we're a community-based and not rule-based entity (except for a few core constitutional rules). The problem is "I personally don't care for the article" doesn't win over a lot of people, and importantly isn't going to win over the AfD closer. So, naturally, people are like "Delete per important rule -- it's a policy actually -- WP:NOTNEWS", and that is an impressive-looking argument. Some people are like "Well yeah we have to follow policy, so I concur".
As I said, absolutely the only part of the rule that says not to have articles like that is the name of the shortcut, NOTNEWS. But its fine; it's a de facto one-word rule, and it's not going to change. I don't think its a good rule, but a lot of people do, so fine. It's a good cudgel for deletionists. They lucked out with the shortcut name, but oh well. If anyone doesn't expect political moves here, as everywhere else, you're living in la-la land. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A part of the fix to this as well as wp:NPOV is either less reliance on amount of media coverage as a gauge of everything. If a President farted loudly during a press conference that is going to get a lot more media coverage and lookups later than if they gave a lengthy speech outlining their foreign policy plan for the next 4 years. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO things are working pretty well regarding the topic of this thread, including with the shortcut. As with most things, it relies on the fuzzy Wikipedia process to make it work. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "listings of books and other publications" is too broad to be prohibited by WP:NOT (and somewhat contradicted by the final sentence of the section, "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."). While I believe that we shouldn't host lists of the type "all editions of all works of Charles Dickens, including page numbers in the original serialisations", we should definitely have a Charles Dickens bibliography. There's a WikiProject Bibliographies that has a lot of relevant information. Interestingly, we used to have a shortcut WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, but it was deleted last year. —Kusma (t·c) 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, making a dubious point at an AfD, creating a discussion (which I was not aware of), and then using the edit summary to imply that I should have been aware of a discussion to which I was not pinged on a page which I don't watch... Anyway, the important bit, as I state, is "WITHOUT CONTEXT INFORMATION". Legitimate bibliographies and works put in context (as already said: "lists of creative works in a wider context") are of course acceptable; that was never the subject of this. The point of my edit was clarifying that the "indiscriminate collection of information" includes books and other publications when they lack this context (or when they're clearly used in a nearly promotional fashion on BLPs of dubious notability). I mean, "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." are also not permitted, but then wo do have proper listings of explained or subject-relevant statistics (such as statistics in sports infoboxes; whether for American, (originally) British, or worldwide sports). Inclusion in the listing does not imply that such things are entirely unacceptable everywhere; it's just meant to avoid wikilawyering about such things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
There was just a recent AfD which shows bibliographies are acceptable to include on the site. I don't really know what "without context information" means - perhaps "without contextual information?" - but I also don't see the need for this change. SportingFlyerT·C16:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not and never was about bibliography articles. This was supposed to be for stuff like this and other "sales catalogue"-like listings (and well of course "selected publications" which are clearly not "selected" and for which there is no secondary sources...). The deflection from that to WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY is a straw man and entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
As RandomCanadian has explained, the original edit was not meant to "steer at" all bibliographies any more than the existing text steers at all "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions." The problem, perhaps, is pointed out by SportingFlyer: the introductory "without context information" is less than clear. I've taken a stab at making it more meaningful. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what the aim was: I look at the result, which was an increase of confusion between "lists of books" (not OK, while apparently by definition a type of list without context information) and "bibliographies" (OK, while listing creative works). To all extents and purposes "bibliographies" are "lists of books". So, if intended as clarification, it was counterproductive: it made the guidance less intelligible.
The clarification attempted by Butwhatdoiknow, and reverted by me, was even more counterproductive, while using a vague "notability" qualifier, which apparently did not refer to Wikipedia's specific use of that qualifier in WP:NOTABILITY type of guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me to a discussion where I am active. The "without context information" wording appears unproblematic and perfectly understandable to me. Even when other wordings may exist, I agree with SportingFlyer's "I ... don't see the need for this change". --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Could we possibly flip this around: stating that while lists of books and other works by creative people or companies (like film production houses or video game developers) are acceptable, the general lists of these types are discouraged, so that the change would be reasonable? --Masem (t) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Except that this page is called "What Wikipedia is not", so the basic approach of the entire page is describing things that are no net asset to Wikipedia. If you want a listing of what is "acceptable", followed by what is "discouraged" (without being unacceptable) this is rather something for WP:What Wikipedia is, or another more appropriate guidance page formulated in "positive" wording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm saying that if you phrase it "While (specific subset of X) is acceptable, we do not accept X." is still a "negative" statement appropriate for NOT but doesn't hide the fact we do accept certain cases. The confusion by waiting until the end to explain this may be why this edit is of concern. --Masem (t) 17:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
1. "unhelpful" Compare WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental."
2. "see discussion at ... talk" Prior to my edit, the only discussion relevant to my change at talk was SportingFlyer's comment that they couldn't figure out the meaning of the text I changed.
3. "'notability' is a very vague concept in Wikipedia, unless when referring to WP:N, which seems not to be the case here" That is exactly the case here. What else would the text be referring to?
I will restore my edit with a link to WP:N to resolve any confusion regarding what "notability" means when used in a guideline. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The same editor has now re-reverted with an edit summary with two new objections:
4. "change of policy without consensus"
The reverting editor explained "a bold edit that does not reflect consensus should not be made to a policy page." By definition, a bold edit does not reflect consensus until after it is made and not reverted. This objection makes no sense.
5. "this part of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy applies to embedded lists as well as to stand-alone lists; Wikipedia's WP:N guidance only applies to stand-alone pages (not content of pages)thus misleading in that it made it appear as if the policy doesn't apply to embedded lists"
I don't know how misleading it is inasmuch as anyone who reads WP:N carefully enough to know it does not apply to content probably has read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not carefully enough to know it applies to both embedded and stand-alone lists. But, having now read those two articles carefully enough, I must concede that WP:N Is technically improper. Below I will propose alternative language. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
An alternative solution to SportingFlyer's "I don't really know what 'without context information' means" problem:
Where you say "context information", don't you just mean "context", as in "Listings of information without context showing encyclopedic merit"? ("Simple" is also vague to the point of being useless.) --Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The current version of the sentence is "Simple listings without context information." To keep things simple I left that verbiage intact. I have no objection to also making the changes you suggest. But, to keep from diverting from my proposal, I ask that you suggest them separately. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
See first banner on the policy page, it contains, just as the few dozen other policy pages, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. [...] Changes made to it should reflect consensus." So, don't change this policy page unless your edit reflects consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Bold edits, by definition, are made without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. If you agree with that proposition then this seems to be where your statement leads:
(1) Bold editing is permitted on policy pages.
(2) Policy pages can't be edited without first establishing a consensus.
(3) Only bold edits that aren't bold edits (that is, only edits that are made after first obtaining consensus on the talk page) are allowed on policy pages.
(4) Bold editing is not permitted on policy pages.
BRD is allowed on policy pages if you think you have a valid reason to change, but realize that describes exactly one cycle of editing and reversion - after that is the required discussion. To edit war beyond that on policy pages is not acceptable. --Masem (t) 19:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd strongly advise against editing patterns that may be perceived as WP:GAMING on policy pages. If you have a strong conviction that an edit you want to make to the page has implicit consensus, or has a consensus for which confirmation would be no more than a formality, please go ahead an proceed. If, on the other hand, the kind of edits you're making to policy pages would by many editors on sight be perceived as having limited odds to ever garnering consensus, then proposing on the talk page might be a better approach. If your intuition on what would likely have implicit policy-level consensus is wrong a few times too often, that may be perceived as GAMING, or disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point or whatever other type of behavior that is generally rejected. Indeed, such behavior would likely hardly raise an eyebrow on a WP:ESSAY page, but for policy pages there would likely be a less lenient approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So you agree with Masem's description (above) of BRD as applied to policy pages? (I am not asking you to change your mind, I am asking you to help me understand your position.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Recently, someone changed the quote in the plot subsection of the Seinfeld episode The Non-Fat Yogurt from "is so fucking good" to "is so f**king good", which I reverted, because Wikipedia is not censored. However, after thinking about it, the show itself censors the word "fucking" in the quote (a non-censored version of the episode is not available anywhere), so is including it uncensored accurate? This such a unique situation and I could go either way. I started a talk page discussion on the episode almost two weeks ago, but there's not a whole lot of activity on the page, so it might be awhile before there is one. Jauerbackdude?/dude.14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not familiar with the episode, but assuming that that would be network television for Seinfeld, and FCC fines and all that, that the show would have bleeped the explicative, so yes, per NOTCENSORED, we should mask it ourselves. We don't bowdlerize when the show uses explicatives, and we maintain that bowdlerization if the show bleeps itself in its primary form. (This would go for how it was primarily broadcast - I know you can probably find shows, such as the US version of Hells Kitchen, which have uncensored cuts on various streaming services, where all the "fucks" are left in place, but when that was first run on Fox, it was bleeps-a-plenty) --Masem (t) 15:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Is "***" the best choice? That's what you would normally see on closed captioning. CC on the air is usually added later by a service but CC on a DVD is usually added by the studio. Would "is so [bleep]ing good" be better? Assuming of course that they didn't bleep out the "ing". Given how popular the show is, maybe someone reading this has it on DVD. - if so could you please check?
I went to a clip of the episode (as well as why its important), and I would say it is best to quote it as "is so f[bleep]ing good", since this is a audio bleep rather than a printed one, and that it is clear that its mean as an "f-word" swear that comes up later in the episode. I agree a footnote to explain it is censored is appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I should also note that it isn't clear the actors say "fucking" in the episode in question. The implication may be that they do because of the bleep, but they may have actually said "freaking" "flipping", etc. or any of a number of other words; all the viewer knows is that the word begins with an "f" and ends with an "ing" and is left to infer the rest themselves. Given that the censorship appears in the source, it should also be similarly rendered (in print form) in Wikipedia; I have no idea on what style to use to do that, but given that the viewer of the episode never actually hears "fucking", that option is distinctly the wrong one. --Jayron3215:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
At least, if it is in audio, I would argue we should use [bleep] to imply there was an audio bleep, to contrast a printed bowdlerization where we'd use whatever the RS used (which most often is just "***" but could be other forms) --Masem (t) 16:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It should be as in the original, whether that is "fucking", "bleeping", "f-bleep-king" or "effstarstarking", or "[bleep]ing (subtitled as 'f**king')". We shouldn't uncensor censored material without a source. (Oddly enough, our uncensored "lick me in the arse" links to a censored version, but I've just at least added one uncensored source). —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 15:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
And actually, more pertinent to this discussion perhaps, the article I linked said "Er kann mich im Arsche lecken", sourced to something saying "Er kann mich — — —" but the original is "Er kann mich im Arsch lecken", without the extra "e" and a syllable shorter. So we should never assume what the censored words are if we don't have a source. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
And that's been disputed. Clearly a minor point, but as a matter of principle wordings of policies should not be altered by back and forth warring in edit summaries, and WP:BRD applies particularly strongly for policy pages. So I'm inviting the editors to come here and make their case. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
As written it is wrong. It implies that advocacy is allowed on all talk pages, including article talk pages, when it is not. I suggest changing it to:
If you can't advocate on article talk pages then what are they for. "I advocate for the notion that we should do X because reason Y" or (if you want to word the same thing differently) "I think we should do X..." or "It would be a good idea if we did X..." or whatever, you consider these illegitimate? (And beside the argument on the merits, there's aint-broke-don't-fix, no call to roil the text.) Herostratus (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The wording of the text that it is a footnote to is:
"Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."
That makes it very clear what kind of advocacy is being talked about, and obviously excludes "I think we should do X...". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Article talk pages are still valid locations to speak "I think we should do X..." as long as X is narrowly about improvement of that specific article. That's extremely common use of talk pages, so I don't see why that's being omitted. --Masem (t) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the language is unnecessarily confusing and obfuscatory in the way it is organized. I would suggest scrapping the whole thing and saying something like "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles, discussions which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." The way it is written it is hard to track the intent of the sentence, and we should make that the forefront of the clarification: We don't want people to use any space in Wikipedia for anything except making Wikipedia better. --Jayron3212:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
That would be an improvement, but what about essays such as WP:CANCER and WP:YWAB which are purposely combative, but combative in the interest of making Wikipedia better? Excluding those sort of essays (and Jimbo's comments that they are based upon?) would be a major policy shift. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Those are entirely about the mission of Wikipedia. Perfectly fine. What we don't want is people doing things like bitching about some political leader on their article talk page, or stuff like that. --Jayron3213:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Slight copyedit though: "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles. Discussions that are not - particularly those which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or otherwise unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia - should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'm fine with any and all modifications and improvements on my proposal, up to and including complete rejection of it. I'm not particularly attached to it. It's just an idea, and not one I am saying is any better than any other idea. Just an idea to be considered and improved as needed. --Jayron3213:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader fixed the problem, which is the language "discussions which are unduly promotional, combative, social, OR unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia". As worded, it would prohibit WP:YWAB, which is purposely combative while being related to the mission of Wikipedia. The use of "or" instead of "and" changes the meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the biggest valid exemption to this rule is WP:Reference desk, but I think that can be justified per WP:IAR. I would also support moving this text out of the refnote and into the body itself, as I think it's a key corollary. I appreciate both the current and this wording don't describe the status quo entirely, as we tend to turn a blind eye to political bashing in user talk etc. Though, I've never seen such FORUM-y conversations result in anything productive, sometimes devolving into personal attacks, circlejerks, or bad feelings between editors. I don't imagine strict enforcement will (or should) result, but it's worth noting this. I also appreciate some take a different view as to the degree of divisive socialising necessary to build an encyclopaedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the reference desk is already mentioned in WP:NOTFORUM as If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. I wonder if the wording somewhat duplicates that section though, and if so might it be smarter to link back to that somehow? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The Reference Desk already serves the Mission of Wikipedia (broadly) by helping readers connect with Wikipedia content (insofar as the answers to their questions can be referenced to existing Wikipedia content) or in connecting them with reliable sources outside of Wikipedia that could be used to improve Wikipedia content where it is lacking. That explicitly sounds like discussion which is directly related to Wikipedia's mission. --Jayron3214:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I have a minor gripe with the wording of a lot of this page, because it doesn't really acknowledge the extra degree of freedom we afford users on their user and user talk pages. But with respect to this particular issue (WP is not a soapbox), my gripe doesn't apply, because I don't believe that the leniency we show to banter and chit-chat on user talk pages should apply to non-WP-related advocacy. As for the comparison of the current wording and the proposals here, I prefer Jayron's submission (or rather, ProcrastinatingReader's edit of it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
For a user talk page, is the "unduly [...] social" wording of Jayron's suggestion not still a bit... harsh? Obviously the primary purpose of a user talk page shouldn't be to socialize and chit-chat, but that does still happen a fair amount (not to name names), and there are probably editor retention and collaboration reasons why we would want to accept some amount of socializing when it's not degrading the quality of the encyclopedia. The WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK wording, [t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration, feels to me a little less restrictive. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, remember that this wording being discussed is specifically for WP:NOTSOAPBOX, not for :WP:NOTSOCIAL. With respect to soapboxing, I don't think the wording is too harsh at all. With regards to socializing, yes, this language would be a bit too harsh for my tastes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I support "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles. Discussions that are not - particularly those which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or otherwise unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia - should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If someone wants to say that no editor can argue opinions on talk and essay pages, fine. Then say that: facts only, no opinions. Good luck explaining how that is supposed to work. Here we all are, right now, advocating our opinions. It appears indispensable.
But to say "Talk pages, user space pages and essays are venues where opinions can be argued" while pointedly using passive voice to refrain from saying "where you can advocate your opinions" is too coy by half. If it's not the editor's opinions they are arguing, then whose? Yes, if says "provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive." Obviously. But if an argument is being argued, someone is arguing it. Who? You. The editor. The Wikipedian who has opinions and wishes to persuade others so as to achieve consensus. We do indeed argue our own opinions, not some opinions received from on high by the Great Giver of Opinions. Or immaculately conceived opinions spontaneously born of nothing. No.
Passive voice is often appropriate but we need to ask ourselves why we are using passive voice to avoid mentioning agency. If it's because we're afraid to say out lout who is doing the thing, we need to reconsider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The reason I tried changing the text is because, as Guy points out, as written, "it implies that advocacy is allowed on all talk pages, including article talk pages". While of course, that is an obvious no, since "advocacy" of any kind on article talk pages is not allowed, hence why I tried to remove that particular word from the equation. I'd support either Guy's proposal to just drop the "article talk page" bit, or Jayron's rewording. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The word "advocate" has too broad a usage/definition, and can mean several varied things besides "to argue for your perspectve". That word shouldn't be used if only due to lack of clarity. I'm pretty much neutral about the rest. - jc3702:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Just leave it. It's probably been there forever and has never been invoked, or ignored if it was. And I mean if you go out of your way to remove mention of a permission, it's a fair indication that you don't think that that permission applies anymore, so that specifically removing "talk pages" and leaving just
User space pages and essays are venues where opinions can be argued, provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.
Is just another way of saying
Unlike user space pages and essays, opinions can not be argued on article talk page, even if they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.
So then now that you've said what article take pages are not for, you should say what remains, which is what they are for, which is.... what? "Article talk pages are for unexceptionable and anodyne statements about the article, such as 'Wow this guy was really amazing' or 'I enjoyed reading this article' or 'Gee I hope this article gets improved someday, altho I'm not allowed to say how' and so on" Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm still confused how anyone could think we can't argue or advocate for opinions on article talk pages too. Provided they are directly related to improving the article. Saying "This article would be better if we do X" is advocacy for an opinion that is directly related to the article.
It's true most of this is WP:BEANS. Even then, I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with seeing opinions or advocacy anywhere in the non-article namespaces. That's why they exist. The non-article namespaces are where we do advocacy and opinion, to persuade other editors. If nobody is allowed advocacy and opinion, how is consensus supposed to happen? What is the basis for this worry that somebody will think they're allowed to sell car insurance on Wikipedia because of some tortured reading that ignores the repeated ad nauseam caveats that it has to be directly related to improving the encyclopedia? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I say we simplify it down to the "lowest common denominator" level and just say:
If you're not talking about Wikipedia or a Wikipedia article, you'd damn well better be in User talk space, and even if you are, if an admin tells you to knock it off, you'd damn well better knock it off.
I mean, there's something to be said for writing things in a way that even the slowest-on-the-uptake person could quickly and easily understand.
By the way, this is not a serious suggestion. I'm just pointing out that that there's no amount of specificity that can't be misinterpreted, whereas a vague, but simple statement is -perhaps counterintuitively- generally quite clear and difficult to misinterpret. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. This hypothetical editor who is that sloppy with their reading wouldn't have read this far to begin with. Anyone who is on this policy page, and who is all the way down in the footnotes, is either someone who can be trusted to be faithful to the spirt of the text, or is reading in bad faith with malevolent intent, and will twist the meaning regardless of how we say it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This relates to deleted text, reflecting reporting on an issue by the NY Post, the NY Daily News, and the Patch, among others, with the "news" responded to in an article written by the subject of the news -- but the deleting editor says "Not news" and simply deletes it. Thanks you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:84A1:5440:17B4:EFDA (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
NYPost is not a reliable source (see WP:RS/P). The piece from NY Daily News is an opinion piece and not news, and the other sources all also appear as opinion pieces. As this is just pieces that appear to be critical of a person that promotes safe driving for having traffic tickets, but otherwise not yet affecting their career, inclusion at this time violates both WP:BLP as well as NOT#NEWS - we should wait to see if anything more significant comes from that. --Masem (t) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
If this content was cited to the New York Times and CNN and the BBC and Reuters too, there wouldn't be a problem. There's nothing in the NOTNEWS policy that says we can't mention a public figure's traffic records over the last decade, and nothing that says you can't cite a newspaper. It's not celebrity gossip, it's information that is directly relevant to a politician's public policy. The problem in this case is entirely that the sources are limited to a couple of highly unreliable tabloids. That makes it a verifiablity issue, and especially a WP:BLP issue. The lack of diverse sources makes it an Undue weight issue. But NOTNEWS? Irrelevant.
Deleting anything and giving WP:NOTNEWS as a reason almost always starts a nebulous, time wasting debate. It's one of the reasons it's such a bad fit for a policy page; it belongs as an MOS guideline, at best. Any case where you can truly justify deleting something due to NOTNEWS, you will certainly have a much more robust policy to cite, and you sandbag your argument if you throw NOTNEWS in there. Stick to veriifablity, NPOV, NOR, and BLP. They won't steer you wrong like this clunky and awkward news thing always does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. Thanks. That was my thought about the notnews charge. As used, it seemed one could simply delete anything one did not like, claiming notnews.
NOT#NEWS does apply - in conjunction with other policies like BLP - that we don't rush to add simple allegations against a person that do not have long-term or enduring affects on them. We can be current and keep articles up to date, but we have to make sure that we're including encyclopedic relevant information, and if all that's present are opinion pieces or non-RS pieces that haven't gained attention elsewhere, we don't include that. --Masem (t) 20:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The very first words of the policy are "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." We very much do include breaking news and current events -- as long as they're not "first hand reports", which is really about self-published sources and primary sources, not news media per se or current events per se. Those rules apply to any topic, not merely news or current events. It's an example of how NOTNEWS redundantly states other policies, but does so in a way that is utterly confusing and unhelpful, instigating off-topic debates.
When you say "we should not rush", you're making the straw man I referenced. Nobody argued that this should be included because of time constraints or deadlines. So by insisting on saying NOTNEWS relevant, you're insisting other editors have to engage with a loaded question, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The actual issues that need discussion -- unreliable sources and articles about living people -- have to wait while everyone debates the red herring that NOTNEWS introduces.
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so not every bit of news about a topic is encyclopedia-worthy. Sometimes we know immediately that new information from the news is immediately applicable, sometimes we can immediately discern it is not, and often it is information that is unclear whether it will be important or not. Criticism towards individuals or groups that fundamentally is not tied to immediate legal or criminal activity is one of those areas where it is not clear if this really is, and that's exactly where the caution (particularly for BLP) we should wait until we have a better idea of significance of that criticism. For example for Lander here, if this bit of criticism (that he got a lot of traffic tickets despite platforming on safe driving) ends up affecting his political career, then it makes sense to include. But if this is just a bit of one-off criticism and never comes up again, its not appropriate for us to include. That's exactly the caution I'm saying. --Masem (t) 20:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Nobody argued that "every bit of news about a topic is encyclopedia-worthy". See how the need to invoke straw man arguments plagues NOTNEWS? If this exact same story was coming from a broad cross-section of respectable sources, none of these other issues would matter. The problem is entirely one of reliable sources: two tabloids, the wretched NY Daily News and wretcheder NY Post (or vice versa?) and one first-person essay on a semi-respectable newsblog.
There is no Wikipedia policy that says we may not discuss allegations of hypocrisy or sleaziness or just seeming sketchy. No policy says we can only mention it if it's directly tied to criminal activity. We can write at great length at completely baseless allegations that even if true are not illegal, immoral or uncouth in any way. I refer you to Obama tan suit controversy. Or almost anything in the daily machinations of the Trump administration; nobody waited for a criminal indictment before asking if what they were up to was problematic in some way. We don't have to wait for proof their political career has been affected. All we need is enough reliable sources saying it matters, even if it doesn't matter. Because deciding that it doesn't matter is playing God and trusting reliable sources is how we ensure aren't the ones playing God.
The key is whether the sources are good. The stupid tan suit controversy mattered enough to have a Wikipedia article because good sources told us it mattered. Life is full of apparently meaningless trivia that gets elevated simply because the people who tell us it matters are people worthy of respect. Not because there's any universally objective measure of what matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that says we may not discuss allegations of hypocrisy or sleaziness or just seeming sketchy. Actually, that's BLP specifically. We are far far better than the media to avoid mudskimming. There are somewhat different allowances for public figures but there's still a level of treatment that we do not dip into that newspapers regularly handle.
In a case like Obama tan suit controversy, it is clear that there was a legacy as most of that sourcing on that is from its 5-year anniversary (and in fact, it was created in 2019 and not in 2014 when it happened, apparently when it was clear it was still a well-remembered incident). In the case of Trump, and in fact, many political figures nowadays, we actually do have problems that people want to include every bit of analysis and incident without waiting to see what will be important 10 or 20 years down the road, what really matters to an encyclopedia. This is likely because there is a systemic bias feedback loop between the liberal nature of both news sources and the majority of WP editors where it seems very easy to include material critical of those on the right and appears correct, but its just overloading these articles with opinion and analysis and less about developing an encyclopedia. This is a long-standing problem, and NOT#NEWS is meant to keep this in check combined with BLP, NPOV, and other aspects like RECENTISM.
This doesn't meant that articles must always be written this way. We absolutely are supposed to be trying to judge what is going to be non-trivial years from now, and avoid documenting every detail to the minute, and this is a skill of art. But it might take time to see is key, and so depending on the topic, it may be appropriate to document everything with plans to scale back, while other topics may be better to wait and then write only when the big picture can be seen. In the former case look at any of our COVID-19 by country articles - they are nearly proseline day-by-day summaries. That's fine now since its hard to try to shape the big picture, but I'd expect as COVID becomes less a concern we can carve away material to summarize better. But as most of the material is non-contentious, this is reasonable. On the other hand, with a BLP, it would be fully inappropriate to document an ongoing controversy with them to the same level of detail and chip away later once we know that, as that's against what BLP says. Instead, it's better to stay vague, if anything needs to be said at all (but documentation of key links can be made on talk pages) and add when it becomes clear it is relevant. --Masem (t) 21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You keep talking of editors who want to "include every bit of analysis and incident without waiting". Nobody said that. I can repeat that it's a straw man, but I can see it makes no impression on you. You're right that this non-existent editor who made the non-existent argument that we have a deadline and also (didn't really) say that we have to include everything in the news is wrong. You have thoroughly thrashed the non-existent argument of this editor who doesn't exist. I guess imaginary congratulations are due. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a strawman. Even in the case here for Lander, even if, say, the NYTimes, USA Today, and a fair number of assured RS all reported the same story (in that it was simply observed this paragon of traffic safety had a large number of tickets himself), we'd likely not include it in the long run if nothing came of that that affected his career down the road. We'd certainly not include it if 2-3 years after it broke, there was absolutely no sign of any impact on his career. The fact that this is from weaker RSes in this case makes the argument to keep it out until it has a more significant impact even stronger. It is not just a NOT#NEWS issue but a BLP, NPOV and several other P&G factors, that we are simply not here to repeat the same mud thrown around the media, unless that is impossible to ignore and part of the importance to that person or topic. --Masem (t) 21:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTDIR needs removal or qualification. Wikipedia now is a directory of census designated places, of schools (at least high schools and above), of athletes who have competed in the Olympics, of academics who have achieved a certain status, and more. In dozens of SNGs, the original assumption that these are the criteria that indicate the subject probably passes GNG, have morphed into an absolute belief that if the subject passes these criteria, then they qualify, regardless of the existence of sources about them. Many articles on people, buildings etc. have no sources outside of directories, but are maintained in the interests of "completeness"> It seems clear to me that there is no longer a consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that these SNGs are all still presumption of notability, and at some point sourcing has to be provided. (The only category that doesn't would be census-designated places as there is agreement that one function of WP is to serve as a gazetteer). That articles are kept on a first pass at AFD because they meet the initial SNGs is reasonable when first challenged, but they have to improve to show they meet the expectations of WP:V and WP:N (third-party sourcing and secondary, independent sourcing with significant coverage). Repeat trips to AFD (assuming the nominator has worked per WP:BEFORE that sourcing simply doesn't appear to exist) puts the onus on editors trying to keep the article to demonstrate sources do exist or otherwise deletion is appropriate. If those editors do the hard work that ends up showing that all articles of a given class are actually kept in WP, that doesn't invalidate NOT#DIR, as I would think it is extremely rare that we have that many complete "directories" for any such topics outside of core academic areas. --Masem (t) 22:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to delete redundant sentence
The following sentence appears at the end of wp:NOTDIRECTORY:
Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.
I propose we delete this sentence for two reasons: First, it's meaning is unclear. What is a wider context? Second, it's redundant. The first sentence of the paragraph in which it appears already allows lists in "context," prohibiting only:
The archived discussion took place before we added "showing encyclopedic merit" to the first sentence. Is there any reason to think that a bibliography of an author's work wouldn't now be protected by that phrase? If there does remain a concern, what do you think about replacing the fuzzy last sentence with an example explicitly showing a bibliography as an acceptable list? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Masem:(1) Does the modified first sentence (see immediately above) resolve your concern. And, if not, (2) what do you think about changing the current vague last sentence to an explicit statement that bibliographies do not run afoul of this rule? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The "Simple listings" text was added on 09:58, 14 September 2015 after discussion in this WP:VPPOL archive. The intent seems to be to rule out spam lists while allowing encyclopedic lists. I guess that a "wider context" is saying that a list is ok if there is a context (wider than the list) where the list makes sense. The "creative works" is not redundant and a tiny bit of repetition is not harmful. I don't see a need to omit the sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, how about adding this sentence after "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." -
Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.
The shortcut WP:NOTADVERTISING is used twice in the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline article, and probably in other guidelines, talk page discussions and edit summaries, and links to the appropriate section in this article. It's a great shortcut that gets to the point fast. I'd like to suggest it be added to the shortcut list. 5Q5|✉16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
We have had to cut down how many visible/advertised shortcuts are used on this page because they become spammy, but this does not restrict the use of any usable anchors (like WP:NOTADVERTISING) to be included as relevant. Given that we do include WP:PROMO/WP:PROMOTION we probably don't need this, though one of those two are duplicative, and we could replace one of the visible ones with NOTADVERTISING. --Masem (t) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Two editors insist on it. (As well as on things such as, as recently as today, deleting the image of the subject of the article - and deleting article talk page comments that are not theirs - I think fresh eyes in that discussion would be very helpful). I understand people may dislike a subject, but wonder whether that is the best approach here. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DCF0:CBEA:C4A4:EFA1 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
NOT the Army
I realize that it'd be an impossible job to add a new section here, but if it wasn't, I think we should have WP:NOTARMY which basically would say "Wikipedia is not the Army, where everything not mandatory is prohibited". Because some editors think it is I guess, considering the insistence that following a maze of orders, rules, regulations, and procedures is preferable to getting some useful thing done.
Another thing about the Army is, there are rules against everything, but they're not necessarily enforced all of the time. But if the Lieutenant doesn't like you today, suddenly you've broken twelve rules and its off to KP (or whatever they do now) for you.
Yeah, something along those lines may be helpful to add as well; don't think we need a new shortcut but I agree the concept of what you say isn't really intoned by what we have, and we probably need to be clear that NOTBURO extends this far. --Masem (t) 20:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
not the news
Hi guys, I'm a bit confused about what's going on at Chatsworth House. Here in the UK it's a very famous stately home that has existed for 450+ years. Like most places, it was closed during the several lockdowns that we've had, and it's now open again, following the end of the most recent lockdown. For some reason, the fact that it's now open again has been added to the lead.
Given Chatsworth House's long history, I don't think that the fact that it's opened again following the end of the most recent lockdown that we've had is important enough to mention in the article, let alone in the lead.
Doesn't that information, along with things like the opening hours etc., belong in the museum's website rather than in an encyclopedia article? I'm confused. If somebody could please explain, that'd be appreciated. I don't want to revert again because I wouldn't want to engage in an edit war. Thank you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about that topic, but if you have a content dispute like this, it's best to first try to find a solution on the article's talk page (Talk:Chatsworth House) and discuss with the involved editors. If they don't reply, you can also post a message on their user talk page. But indeed it's good that you don't want to start an edit war and asked first! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the matter, but it doesn't have anything to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which is mainly to prescribe against doing our own reporting ("Chatsworth House is now open"<ref>I just went there myself</ref>, that sort of thing. Other than that, we're supposed to refrain from printing sports scores, celebrity gossip, horoscopes, local police blotter stuff, and other things that newspapers do. Other than that, it just talks about making whole articles about recent events (TL;DR: do what you think best).
I don't think there's a rule about what you're talking about. Just hash it out on the talk page I guess. It kind of depends on whether you think people 20 years from or 100 will care. For Lesnoye Sanatorium, I put in "A forest fire, one of the many 2010 Russian wildfires of that hot dry summer, destroyed large swaths of the surrounding forest. The sanatorium was saved, but was closed from July 30, 2010 to December 10, 2010." It's not critical info but its part of the story I guess, so I don't have a problem with stuff like that on principle. Herostratus (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Our guideline WP:NOTTRAVEL states we're not a travel guide - that line gets close to that. I'd personally remove it per WP:BRD and then if someone reinstates it, take it to the talk page (unless there's already a conflict about it, in which case the talk page is the good place to start.) SportingFlyerT·C22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Think about from the point of view of a reader in 2030. Is it significant enough for that future reader to be interested? Interesting enough for it to be in the lead? Conversely, would a temporary closure from 50 years ago be interesting enough to put in the article? Stepho talk00:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
What you're asking is the lines of WP:RECENTISM, and are the right questions to ask and what should be discussed at the talk page. I fully agree, as a lede aspects its unnecessary, unless for some reason the COVID closure drastically affected the future of the business of the site. --Masem (t) 00:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
A forthcoming "rebranding" of some media outlets
I would appreciate input from editors more familiar with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". At CKWX (and other places), an editor has added "In June 2021, Rogers announced that it would rebrand CKWX and its other all-news radio stations under the CityNews brand beginning that fall". WP:CRYSTAL mentions "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable", and I fail to see the notability of this company's "rebranding" four months in the future, or how knowing this would in any way benefit Wikipedia's readers. Just add the rebranded name once it happens. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I think its rather fair to include mention of this as long as its coming from a third-party source. Consider that in four months, these pages will likely be renamed to reflect the renaming, so the sources now will be useful to explain why the rebranding took place, so adding those now will save time then. --Masem (t) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"In June 2021, Rogers announced that it would rebrand" is an event in the past (the announcement, not the rebranding), so that's not crystal gazing. We commonly include info on events that are likely to happen barring some sort of disaster or whatever... presidential elections and so forth. The question would be if the info is trivial or ephemeral. If say 20 or 100 years from now it'd be appropriate for the article to say "In late 2021, what had been CKWK was renamed to the current name of Grand Guiginol Media". I guess so, so might as well get started now. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly-- context is everything. While it would be speculation to say what might happen in the future, saying what a reliable source said in the past about the future is not. In this case, Rogers is a reliable primary source about it's future plans (as long as it is properly attributed), especially if they have been covered in a reliable secondary source that is vouching for the primary source. If it turns out that Rogers was not being truthful or changes its mind, the statement was still an accurate version of the information available. Dhaluza (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
As User:Herostratus mentions above, this is not an issue of crystal ball, because the announcement has already happened. But this is an issue with WP:NOTNEWS. Announcements by themselves are trivial, fleeting news items, becoming outdated/irrelevant as soon as the announced event happened. It is the event itself that is notable, not the announcement of an event. Hence, articles should only mention the event, not an announcement of the event. -- P 1 9 9✉13:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
It the case of the article above, if there is consensus to include the announcement, then leave it. But in the fall once the rebranding has taken place, that sentence is no longer relevant and can be removed or replaced with a sentence that the rebranding has done. Regards, -- P 1 9 9✉13:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
NOT a library or repository of source texts
For some time, I've thought there's a missing NOT, namely, "Wikipedia is not a library, archive, or repository of source texts". We have WikiSource for that. I not infrequently run across articles with complete copies of laws, treaties, etc. or long excerpts of them (in English, or in translation). (Perhaps this is due to the fact that I often do translations from French or other languages, and either the rules at our sister Wikipedias are different, or their editors just ignore them and include full text or long excerpts anyway, which when someone translates it into an English article ends up being an entire law or other primary source in an English Wikipedia article.)
However these long sources end up here, it seems to me that entire sources or extensive quotation don't belong in Wikipedia, they belong in WikiSource. They may be excerpted here appropriately, along with an in-line or boxed {{wikisource}} link if available. As a new "NOT", I would probably locate it between WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Possibly it could be an additional bullet at WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, where it's somewhat similar to point 1 ("Summary-only descriptions of works") although that bullet mentions only "creative works", and I don't see laws, regulations, treaties, constitutions, decrees, charters, and so on as "creative" in that sense. Also, bullet 1 doesn't currently mention "WikiSource", although the next bullet (Lyrics databases) does.
The Help:Introduction section at WikiSource has some relevant remarks on the symbiotic relationship between WikiSource and Wikipedia, in the top section, #About Wikisource.
Wellll... we already have a lot of NOTS, so I dunno. Can you give a couple examples? I haven't seen this much... I'm not sure it's a big problem, exactly, if someone does this... I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that maybe editors could tag these for transwiki'ing to WikiSource... or just cutting them down to a summary on the basis of wanting to present the gist of the subject not the entire text... I'm not sure it happens enough to require another NOT. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Time to change Wikipedias old horrible rules.
Ait so i have written several expansions to articles over the years, with sources i might add, and they have then just been reverted by someone who decides that it is too much detail or unnecessary information. Here is an example. This is very toxic behavior and scares away enthusiasts from writing on english Wikipedia. Besides scaring off new Writers and being toxic, it also promotes subpar articles with simplified information.
What is and isn't too much detail or unnecessary information is extremely subjective. It would be hard to define it in a rule. It might be better to try to get consensus with more editors on the relevant WikiProject discussion pages. -- P 1 9 9✉02:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
"What is and isn't too much detail or unnecessary information is extremely subjective." I have made that argument before to no avail. And what do you refer to with "the relevant WikiProject discussion pages" P119?--Blockhaj (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The existing rules are pretty good. Too much detail will swamp the reader. Also, those details need to come from other sources. Currently we copy a few points from books, websites, etc and also add a summary. But if we use entire books for sources then we will be sued for copyright infringement - and we will deserve it. Having said that, your changes didn't seem excessive to me. I didn't see any discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest you start a discussion and see what he actually objects to. I've seen many of bilcat's edits on other aviation pages and he seems a decent guy. A discussion may find a compromise that you are both happy with. Stepho talk05:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, when editors come across a large number of changes to an article in a short time, they react viscerally and revert. Should they do this? No. They should take the time to analyze the changes and only revert any truly objectionable changes. But, the world is not perfect. One possible solution: make your edits one at a time, waiting a few days between edits to give the community time to analyze each one separately. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Blockhaj: although I agree that the revert wasn't entirely justified in that case, calling it "vandalism" and "toxic behaviour" is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. You made an edit, another person disagreed. Vandalism is deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose (which didn't happen in this case), and you should assume good faith until the opposite is obvious. That's not only just for civility's sake; it also makes it far more likely the other person is willing to listen to what you have to say. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
God i hate Wikipedia atm. I wrote a long answer to the discussion and when i posted it it dissappeared. Anyway long story short, thanks for the responses.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
In the crystal-ball section, please replace the reference to Tropical Storm Alex (2028) with a reference to Tropical Storm Arthur (2026). It's not virtually certain that there will be a Tropical Storm Alex in 2028, because it's plausible that a Hurricane Alex could happen next year and be retired. However, "Arthur" won't be used again until 2026, so it can't be retired before than and is virtually certain to happen. 174.206.38.27 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I restored use of Module:Biglist. The point of the "systematic pattern of names" part of WP:CRYSTAL is that even an event which is certain to occur soon (next year), and which will be notable, is not suitable for an article now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the section covers a number of different topics. Rather than remove shortcuts, I've placed a few closer to their specific subject matter. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was just switching around the names of the article and the texts, and there was an edit conflict. I should have been more specific, and what you said is true. I have no other reason why why I want this to be changed. The Janitor (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
"And finally..." section errors
Semi-ironic that I am submitting this as a person new to Wikipedia, but I wanted to request an edit to the first few sentences of this section because of its incoherent rant about "Wikipedia not being anything on a list of bad ideas". Just as an example, this should be edited to say that Wikipedia is not "a list of bad ideas" rather than being on a list of bad ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonable Doubt24 (talk • contribs) 02:01, September 10, 2021 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland I’m afraid I have to disagree. I realise the first sentence of this section has remained unchanged for many years, but no matter how many times I try to read it, I still cannot make any sense of it. I’m sure that slightly clearer wording would be beneficial here. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Nick. I find that sentence hard to parse too. It's logically contorted somehow. Maybe change to something like: "There may be any number of other things that Wikipedia is not, because they are bad ideas." Fut.Perf.☼08:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It's the same structure as the entire page: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not a publisher of original thought, not X, not Y, not z. And Wikipedia is not any of <set of things>. What is <set of things>? It is "a long list of terrible ideas".
Saying Wikipedia is not a list of terrible ideas is merely saying Wikipedia is made up of articles, lists, and many other pages, rather than the entire encyclopedia being only a single list page, on which are terrible ideas. It is a true statement that it is not such a list page, but its a banal, irrelevant true statement.
Saying "Wikipedia is not on a list of terrible ideas" is a matter of opinion. Maybe Wikipedia is a bad idea, and belongs on the same list as such terrible ideas as 4pm meetings on Friday, crunch time, peanut butter soda pop, and the Electoral College. Opinions on whether Wikipedia is a bad idea can differ, and that's not the subject here.
That's not technically false, but all it's saying is "Wikipedia is not a chicken. Wikipedia is the Whig Party. Wikipedia is not fremdschämen. And not other things." "Other things" is literally the most vague, indefinite term we could use. Is it even worth saying something so trite? We want to say Wikipedia is not <set of things> meaning a set of things that are bad, undesirable. Like a lists of terrible ideas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you that, read in isolation, my proposed sentence does not accomplish our goal. However, in context, the sentence is immediately followed (and modified) by "We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have." I suggest that those two sentences do achieve the goal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC) @Dennis Bratland: I look forward to your response. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, at least according to the Financial Times[10], Wikipedia is a crystal ball after all and does it much better than hedge fund managers. SpinningSpark08:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We need a clarification to this policy. Editors, intentionally or otherwise, repeatedly represent this policy as meaning that we shouldn't include a recent event that has been reported in a reliable newspaper. The policy clearly refers to original or routine reporting. We need a caveat here that indicates that disputes over whether information covered in a reliable source that happens to be a newspaper should make reference to WP:DUE, not WP:NOTNEWS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Please read the second part of Wikipedia is not a newspaper, specifically that we look to include information related to enduring coverage. Just because something is widely reported in the news, that may not be information that is part of enduring coverage of a topic and thus not appropriate to include. So NOTNEWS fully does cover that , alongside RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 16:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Masem The issue you are pointing out, as Aquillion correctly noted, is WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM (the latter of which is a subset of WP:DUE). The way you are seemingly misdescribing WP:NOTNEWS is exactly what I'm referring to here. People hear the first line, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper," and think "Whelp, that means we can't include what's in a newspaper because then we're emulating a newspaper." Wrong!!!
NotNews has four categories: 1) original reporting, 2) naming of otherwise non-notable individuals, 3) celebrity tabloid information, and 4) routine reporting. None of these categories addresses breaking news (WP:BREAKING is the applicable policy there) or whether or not something has received so-called "enduring coverage" (WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE.
In fact, the disclaimer I am suggesting should be directly targeted at comments like the above (not to single you out, but this illustrates the frustrating misunderstanding I think surrounds this policy) to clarify how NOTNEWS should and should not be cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You have completely misdescribed #2 as while it touches on notability, the crucial factor is that we simply aren't just doing news reports, but look to do enduring coverage. #2 is very much about breaking news reports that we generally do not include unless we know that that likely will have enduring coverage to a topic. Atop that, there's also the recentism factor - that while something may appear to be enduring, that maybe there's also long-term aspects to consider and wait out like opinions and analysis, and DUE factors, to see what actually are majority opinions and viewpoints. --Masem (t) 18:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Masem, WP:BREAKING is a separate policy about due weight. #2 of WP:NOTNEWS refers to routine reporting, and specifically cites traffic reports, celebrity sightings, and other clearly non-eventful events. Yet I have seen WP:NOTNEWS claimed as a reason to exclude: 1) details around death of a nationally known celebrity; 2) controversies embroiling a politician; 3) negative press stories. Almost always, these claims misrepresent what NOTNEWS is about, when these editors are instead (like you are above) making arguments grounded in WP:DUE, WP:BREAKING, or WP:RECENTISM. The examples in #2 of NOTNEWS clearly demonstrate the differences here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Here is the text of NOTNEWS#2, I will highlight the key words: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project. All three aspects you have issue with are exactly the type of thing that falls into that bolded aspect, if they have just broken in the news cycle, particularly if related to a BLP/BDP. If we find they have relevance to enduring coverage, then inclusion would make sense. And yes, there is overlap with UNDUE and RECENTISM here, but NOTNEWS is quite appropriate to claim issue in this area as well. Remember, look at the intent and context of a policy, not the exact wording of it. Just because the examples in NOTNEWS#2 do not cover those situations doesn't mean it doesn't apply. You have to take in the whole of what the intent of NOTNEWS is about. --Masem (t) 20:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The 'not news' section has been a source of controversy and confusion for years. Look at the perennial debates that fill the archives of this talk page: editors have been re-fighting the same NOTNEWS battles since the day it was written. It's a bad policy that doesn't help anybody, and it should be deleted. Everything of any value attributed to NOTNEWS can be achieved with any number of other policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CANTFIX, etc. There are too many cases where someone deleted something they shouldn't have, misusing NOTNEWS as an excuse. There are no examples of routine coverage of sports or celebrities that are excluded soley on the basis of NOTNEWS: if they don't violate WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, they're fine. NOTNEWS is redundant. Nothing is being justifiably excluded that doesn't also violate one of the other core policies. Deleting NOTNEWS would not open any floodgates of crap content. It would just force us to cite sound reasons that don't instigate lame, repetitive debates.
If we can't get rid of it entirely, it should be demoted from policy to a guideline or an essay, so that it's clear that it is merely a derivation of other policies, not a policy in of itself.
The only thing of use it does is if someone hypothetically argued that we should rush to include dubious facts by giving a weak source more credibility than we normally would because we have to keep up with current events, we could cite NOTNEWS as a reason why we don't have to do that. But that's a hypothetical strawman that we don't need to have a policy to deal with, per WP:BEANS, and because the essay There is no deadline is sufficient to explain why.
No other content policy covers the aspects of NOTNEWS related to that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. None of the policies stated block the coverage of routine events such as individual non-championship sport games which are widely covered in RSes but considered routine reporting. (UNDUE only covers viewpoints, not facts as it is under NPOV). There's a lot of editors that do not really write encyclopedically well, and we end up with tons of articles that are in proseline format that are clear violations of NOTNEWS but because these editors wanted to document every fact that happened to a topic on a daily basis. That's not how you write an encyclopedia article. --Masem (t) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes it does: The the Due and undue weight section of the NPOV policy page has a sub-section WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Boom! Bob's yr uncle.
You can't cite any specific examples of bad content that would be allowed if NOTNEWS was deleted. NOTNEWS is a corollary derived from other policies, but it's a badly written corollary that fails to accurately expound on the policies it's derived from. As a corollary it should only be a guideline, at best, and even then if it didn't exist we'd get the same results, without all the talk page disputes over what the hell it is trying to say.
Also, a proseline might not be how you write an encyclopedia article, but it's how you write an encyclopedia timeline, or list. Proselines aren't inherently against policy; they're simply crudely written and need MOS improvements to be good quality. They are excellent raw material to be improved upon, eventually becoming good encyclopedic content, per editing policy. And events in a proseline that are insignificant can be deleted per WP:PROPORTION, with no need to rely on NOTNEWS to justify it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
That still doesn't cover routine coverage, which for example, would include pretty much every major sporting event, every day on the stock market, etc. news that is covered by multiple sources every single day. No other policy covers the aspect of avoiding routine coverage and avoiding the level of day-to-day detail that newspapers and news programs go into because that falls specifically into what WP is not. It fits exactly in here, and it has only become an issue because of the increased amount of news out there that we need more editors to learn to filter of what's actually appropriate and enduring for inclusion on WP. Yes, there are some overlaps with other policies and guidelines, like BLP (the case I know this was raised from was including initial finders related to a BLP death that strongly suggest a specific mode of death but which hasn't been verified by a coroner - both NOTNEWS and BLP cover this but from different angles), but this type of overlap is common for many of WP's policies in the first place. --Masem (t) 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Becuase that is not a function of an encyclopedia. It would also increase the systematic bias towards Western-regional and English-speaking-based topics over other ones. Further, we have a sister project for those that want to do more news-based coverage, Wikinews. --Masem (t) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"We are not a newspaper" is a meaningless slogan that is bandied about on talk pages, often by partisan editors, to say that coverage events that is likely to be contained in newspapers is insignificant, usually as an effort to censor pages.
I agree NOTNEWS makes sense as applied to routine reporting. It would never be appropriate, for example, to include blotter information in a page, weather, or celebrity sightings. I would not advocate for basic, routine coverage to become a regular part of Wiki pages.
However, whether something has enduring significance and is suitable for inclusion is far more complex matter and should always be addressed with reference to policies meant to capture that complexity. WP:NOTNEWS is an empty refrain, again, whose lack of clarity is exploited by agenda-driven editors seeking to tamp down controversies at political or other pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. 'Because that is not a function of an encyclopedia'? Talk about begging the question. Just another bombastic way of repeating the slogan without explaining anything. If nobody can say why this policy is needed, all the more reason to get rid of it. Systemic bias is the purview of NPOV, UNDUE, PROPORTION. We don't need NOTNEWS for that. The sister project thing is just... seriously? Wikipedia does not exclude things because another project is doing it. Nobody deletes quotes from articles because Wikiquote exists, or forbids explaining what a word means because Wiktionary exists. And anyway, Wikinews doesn't even attempt to include day to day events, routine coverage, sports results, weather forecasts, any of that. So even if what Wikinews does or doesn't do was relevant, it doesn't do routine.
The only solid, clear rationale against routine newspaper content is that it is not significant enough in the context of a typical Wikipedia article. It's too trivial, too minor. Which is just another way of saying it's out of proportion, and we have a clear policy on that: WP:PROPORTION. That leaves no essential role for NOTNEWS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh but there is, it serves a political purpose and does so well. Not so much the body of the policy (most people don't read polices closely, and fewer still openmindedly), but the shortcut WP:NOTNEWS.
So, there are a lot of editors who don't think we should have articles on recent events, except fairly rarely. Maybe they're right, or more likely there's no "right" or "wrong" about that and it's matter of opinion.
But there's no rule against that. There's nothing written down. And if you go to WP:AFD and say "Delete, it's a recent event and my considered opinion is that we should cover those only rarely", you will of course get shouted down and possibly insulted: "Well who cares about your opinion. Show me a rule that somebody wrote down sometime or go home". That's silly, but that's how AfD pretty much works.
So what to do? No rule to cite! Ah but there is a rule called WP:NOTNEWSPAPER -- and it's a policy. It has little to say about covering recent events and what it does say amounts to "do what you think best". BUT WAIT. It has another shortcut: WP:NOTNEWS. (The "NEWS" here is just shorthand for "NEWSPAPER", but never mind that; we've got our weapon).
So, "Delete, it's news and must be deleted per policy WP:NOTNEWS"... well now we're cooking. Here you are citing a policy! You're a serious person! Other editors are going to be like "Delete per above, we have to follow policy".
It's possible that this isn't a bad thing overall. I don't know and neither do you. Better would be have a policy WP:NOT_EPHEMERA which address the issue of ephemera in general with room to stretch out and give examples and explore some subtleties. But you could never get that passed -- you can't get anything significant passed. But a lot of editors do feel that we shouldn't cover recent events. They're not nothing, their voices are legit. So we have this kludgey situation. But then a lot of the Wikipedia is held together with duct tape.
Anyway, these discussions are useful and fun but just don't expect to get anything changed. By a fluke of history we have a shortcut called WP:NOTNEWS, and we always will, and its used to indicate that we have a policy against coverage of recent events even tho we actually don't, and it always will be. Forget it, Jake. It's Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"...is exploited by agenda-driven editors seeking to tamp down controversies at political or other pages." (from Wikieditor19920 above) -- a huge problem on WP is the rush to try to include every controversial aspect that comes up about a topic before time gives us the better knowledge and experience to know how to write it - whether that's within a few days or months from the event in question. Tons of issues at AN/ANI/ARBCOM are related to editors rushing in to try to capture controversies as they happen based on news reports instead of waiting to see how more academic sources document them. That's one reason why we don't want WP to emulate a newspaper. Editors need to have more clarity about writing towards the 10-year view rather than the moment, which is where we differ from a newspaper; we are not try to report but summarize topics.
Another factor is that is back to the systematic bias that I addressed already, that already weighs in favor of Western and English-based topics. It also weights against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media, as well as historical topics where there is no more coverage coming. That is, NOTNEWS also serves to try to help make sure that we're treating all topics with the same idea of enduring notability and level of coverage, and while newer topics still get the benefit of having more sources available to work from, we don't want to change the approach of how we are trying to summarize them for the purposes of an encyclopedia compared to older topics. That means that we do include up to the minute news but only when that is the type of information that would be relevant if we had only started writing about the topic 10-20-50 years down the road.
(And I will point out there was a relatively recent RFC on NOTNEWS about 3-4 years ago that had no consensus to either strength or weaken its position within WP). --Masem (t) 13:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
1) WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we include whatever reliable sources say about a subject, even if it's controversial or negative. This is the heart of encyclopedic neutrality. Much more noxious to the encyclopedia than the editors who "rush to include controversial information" are the editors who selectively attempt to keep such information out based on personal biases, politics, and agendas.
2) WP:NOTNEWS as articulated here falsely gives the impression that high-quality newspapers are a problematic source. With most internationally known papers, such as NYT, WP, LA Times, WSJ, a full-page article should typically be sufficient to satisfy DUE and warrants inclusion. The vague notion that "academic sources" are even remotely an adequate substitute just doesn't jive with reality. A politician could be embroiled in a scandal, but scholars will not rush to start publishing journal articles about it. The major newspapers will, and those can be used as sources for short, factual additions.
3) Another factor is that is back to the systematic bias that I addressed already, that already weighs in favor of Western and English-based topics.
I view this is as a weak point as it relates to newspapers for two reasons. First, use of any English-language sources will result in some measure of this "bias." Second, this can be counteracted by using sources that are more cosmopolitan (NYT, etc.).
4) It also weights against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media, as well as historical topics where there is no more coverage coming. Again, this is just how the world works. Academic sources introduce their own bias.
5) There are always valid concerns about due weight, but as I said earlier, WP:NOTNEWS is the wrong policy to address them. NOTNEWS should be narrowly targeted at routine reporting. Not, routine as in "Well, the New York Times is always criticizing (my preferred congressional candidate), so therefore this newest controversy is routine!" This nonsense is regularly espoused by experienced editors who know better but, like i noted, exploit the lack of clarity in this policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Masem, everything you say is reasonable. The problem is, everything you say is your personal opinion. Maybe your beliefs are great, maybe not. A lot of people agree with them. A lot of people don't. I mostly don't, for instance. Because for one thing the Wikipedia is not an academic publication. It just isn't. Maybe it should be. But it isn't. It covers a really wide range of info. That's fine in my opinion. Others may disagree. But there is no consensus that either of us is right. That is why there's no formal rule about the issue, and "do as you all think best" is the operative guidance it looks like.
re "It also weighs against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media"... good Lord, so what??? Why would anyone think that's bad? Academics don't consult encyclopedias. High school students and random civilians do. "we are not trying to report but summarize topics"... these are not related; nobody is advocating 50,000-word articles about any subject; of course we summarize. By the same token, of course we report topics. We should! In my personal opinion (and others). Within reason of course, which is a matter for case-by-case discussion just as is notability or whether a source is reliable etc.
"as well [weighing against] historical topics where there is no more coverage coming". What? We don't achieve balance by denying or erasing information that we do have, you know. That would be odd.
Hey, but it is fine to argue at an AfD "I just think we should be stricter about covering recent events like this, so Delete". Reasonable opinion! It's just that its annoying if you say WP:NOTNEWS has any bearing on the question. It would kind of like me being like "Well, we have the policy WP:CENSORED. As you can tell simply by reading the link title, we are a censored publication" or whatever." Maybe I'd do it myself if I could get away with it. But it'd be annoying and make people claw the draperies, is all, and with good reason. And that's why we're here and will be again next year I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
(This to Wikieditor) "WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we include whatever reliable sources say about a subject, even if it's controversial or negative." That is absolutely not true. PUBLICFIGURE says that - in contrast to someone that is a private individual - we are less likely to surpress information that may be negative reported in RSes about a public figure. On point #2, I've never seen the notion that because of NOTNEWS, that newspaper articles should be dismissed for quality sourcing -- save for MEDRS and NCORP aspects (for good reasons). No wording of NOTNEWS even suggests this, and unless you can point to where this is happening regularly, this is an unfounded concern.
You're missing the point about #3 - even using more "cosmopolitan sources" like the NYT, an excessive coverage of news favors Western and English-based sources. Enduring topics happen in Asia, Africa, and South America in addition to North America, Europe, and Australia, and we fully allow foreign language sources, but usually we get those filtered from sources looking at events at the longer term such as academic sources. Same with #4 - simply consider the number of sources available to talk about something like Watergate (at the time it happened) compared to the Jan 6 Capitol attacks. We only have as much as we have on Watergate now in comparable size (across several articles) to the Jan 6 attacks due to numerous volumes written since then, not from what was published in the days and weeks of the event. That's the issue that we should be trying to consider how to summarize present topics with the same eye that we have covered topics from the past - NOTNEWS helps on that aspect to focus editors on enduring parts of a topic rather than the day-to-day.
(To Herostaratus) The point I'm making is that if we did not encourage editors to think about writing for the long-term view of a topic and what is enduring parts of that topic, rather than writing as if we're a newspaper covering the day to day, we will be creating articles on present topics that stand out in clear inbalance to those from historic periods, and belie how must encyclopedia (those that came before us and what we started as) are written. Case in point: look at how excessively detailed to the day that our cover of COVID-19 is for any given country or region. Now, I can agree that as a temporary state of capturing events while the pandemic was happening, that's a reasonable stopgap, but X years from now, when COVID is eradicated and a thing of the past, that level of detail - a result of ignoring NOTNEWS - is simply not appropriate. I would expect in time that editors will come back to apply the principles of NOTNEWS to write those timelines better as narrative summaries (maybe with broad timelines of key critical events like institutions of country-wide lockdowns). But this still comes down that we need to drive editors away from writing articles like this is a newspaper or even just a day by day timeline, and to think about writing this as educational content - the goal of the WMF. We're not here to provide news, we're here to summarize it, and that's the importance of having this as a content policy. --Masem (t) 04:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The shortcut WP:NOTNEWS may well be the most abused link in Wikipedia discussions. The simple fact is that Wikipedia contains numerous excellent and informative articles about every major significant news event in the last 20-1/2 years because the four restrictions listed do not in any way, shape or form prevent the creation of such articles. It is rare when a serious attempt at writing an article includes original "on the scene" reporting by Wikipedia editors, or extensive tabloid gossip, or discussion of utterly routine events, or "who's who" type coverage. Wikipedia editors are writing articles about major historic events, and are collating and curating evolving accounts by reliable sources over time, and the Wikipedia articles that emerge from this process are exceptionally valuable. The ongoing urge by a handful of editors to cite "NOTNEWS" to attempt to impede the creation of such articles is severely misplaced and is the result of a complete misinterpretation of policies and guidelines. It is tedious. As for Wikinews, that is a failed project that should be put out of its misery. It highlights articles like "United States Indo-Pacific Commander meets with Philippine senior officials for 70th anniversary of Mutual Defense Treaty" as if that drivel represents screaming headlines worldwide. Anyone who recommends that site should be forced to spend one full hour reading its recent coverage so that they can appreciate just how bad it is. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 is exactly correct, and this is the exactly point I've been making here. I'm glad others see it too.
Masem other editors have pointed out the misuse of NOTNEWS as well. And you are correct that no wording of WP:NOTNEWS prohibits use of high-quality newspapers, yet it is used to emphasize that false point. Again, others have observed this as well. You are free to investigate yourself; I wouldn't have arbitrarily decided to make these points if I hadn't seen NOTNEWS abused so frequently.
This whole notion of "Western bias" emerging from the use of news sources is so abstract it's almost irrelevant, and another example of WP:NOTNEWS being a policy that tries to bite off more than it can too. Any English-language source can introduce "Western bias."
While claiming that WP:NOTNEWS does not denigrate high-quality news sources, you are still continually repeating points that would seem to dismiss high-quality news sources.
We're not here to provide news, we're here to summarize it, and that's the importance of having this as a content policy. This refrain is exactly the problem. "Providing news," as in original reporting, is already covered by WP:OR. Citing an newspaper article, for example from the NYT, about a political candidate, and including a short factual addition into an article is indeed summarizing. Almost every aspect of WP:NOTNEWS is already better addressed by another policy.
I really think the solution here is to include a specific disclaimer that NOTNEWS is not meant to address discussions over weight or recentism, if we retain it as a policy at all. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
NOTNEWS does not prevent the creations of articles on newsworthy events nor should we change that, but we tend to have a problem that editors jump the gun in creating articles on breaking news without having sufficient knowledge that comes with time if these are really notable events, or magnifying the important of minor events that better fit in context of larger articles (overall, we tend to have a problem with editors wanting to create new articles on content rather than find better homes in larger comprehensive topics, but that's a separate matter) What might quality as a news story across multiple papers may end up being simply a sentence summary in a larger topic when all is said and done, while other events are immediately apparent that they are going to be notable. And that's where we need more awareness not to rush off to create articles but give it a day or a week to see if it really is notable, or if breaking news is really enduring to including - concepts that only NOTNEWS covers via policy.
The claim that NOTNEWS is used to exclude newspaper sources including high quality ones, but there's no evidence that I see of this. That seems rather unfounded. I can see that NOTNEWS is being used to included breaking information from high quality newspaper sources, but that's not speaking to the RSness of the newspaper sources to begin with. Further, adding a bit of information from every news article published in a RS to a topic, when that topic appears in the news on a near daily basis, is not summarizing, but acting as a news report. Encyclopedic articles are simply not that detailed because we write to the long-term picture, not short term, a point only covered by NOTNEWS.
The bias aspect is simply the fact that if you include the volume of information available from reliable sources, topics that are favored by English-speaking, Western related newspaper/media sources (which heavily focus on politics, sports, and celebrities/entertainment from the Western culture) are clearly in abundance compared to more academic and educational topics, as well as topics from other non-Western cultures. As per WP:BIAS that doesn't mean we don't write about these Western topics nor ignore the sources that support them, but its why we try to avoid acting like a newspaper and avoid editing articles that look like running news stories, because that will give excessive weight to these topics in their overall coverage compared to the other topic areas. We're still going to have far more information on these topics (eg politics of the US compared to the politics of Ethopia) simply due to the volume of sources, but NOTNEWS helps to try to normalize the treatment by avoiding the excessive coverage that can come from routine and news-style reporting from newspapers, and instead focus editors to consider broader summarizes that can include newspaper coverage. That's one way we work against the external systematic biases out there.
The key point is that we want people writing about, say, an event that happened last week, to think about how a reader 20 or 50 years from now will read that from an encyclopedia point of view, and make sure we are staying consist to the same degree with how we are writing about topics from the same 20 to 50 years in our past. And these are factors only covered by NOTNEWS and not any other policy. --Masem (t) 19:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors have pointed out that WP:NOTNEWS is an abused policy. Why do you keep summarily rejecting this proposition, despite multiple editors independently reaching the same conclusion? It is very frustrating when someone responds to concerns with WP:IDHT. Let me provide a few examples, again, of where WP:NOTNEWS is misused. You claim that WP:NOTNEWS is the only policy that covers such instances, but earlier you claimed that NOTNEWS simply overlaps with these policies. Which is it?
A) A politician makes a comment, speech, or statement that provokes a backlash after it is perceived as racist/homophobic/anti-semitic. It receives coverage from high-quality, national papers who report on the statement and public reaction. Multiple editors cite WP:NOTNEWS as a reason not to include any mention of it, on the basis that it would be "regurgitating the news" to do so.
B) A famous actor dies of a drug overdose. Multiple national newspapers report on the nature of their death and that it is being investigated as such. Editors cite WP:NOTNEWS because it is too "newsy" and claim it cannot be included.
C) A prominent government official is accused of sexual assault. The accuser is not yet publicly named, but calls for the official to resign grow and the official issues a public denial. The biggest paper in the state reports on the allegations and describes it as a scandal. Editors argue against inclusion, claiming WP:NOTNEWS.
In each of these issues, WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, or WP:NPOV almost require inclusion, with the possible exception of B) as far as NPOV. Of course, there could be arguments against inclusion, but those would better be made along the lines of WP:BREAKING, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. The reason it is better for editors to cite these latter three policies is because it facilitates a more robust discussion. WP:NOTNEWS implies that we should not use news sources, something you claim it doesn't while also arguing that we shouldn't use news sources as often as we do (indicating the precise problem we're dealing with here). NOTNEWS seems to cut off conversation by simply dismissing news coverage as automatically not noteworthy, when a deeper analysis is required. That is the problem with this policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
In each of those 3 cases, you are looking at the event in the days right after it happened. What if, for some reason, you came across that topic 5 years after those events happened, saw that they weren't documented, and proceeded to consider if they were worth adding?
In Case A - if that speech and the criticism had only a day or two in the news and then never came up again and never affected the person's career otherwise, adding it would clearly be UNDUE. But if that directly impacted the career, or continued to linger on the person's career for several months or ongoing, then yes, we'd clearly want to document that once we knew that was the case. That's where NOTNEWS comes in on the short term - we are looking for what is enduring factors about coverage of a topic, not the topic du jour that may disappear the next day. There is so much news coverage due to 24/7 cable and web that these news outlets can overestimate the apparent importance of a trivial matter, whereas we are looking at how that matter in the long-term time scale.
I will come back to Case B, though if it is known that a person died of a drug overdose by coronor's reports, there's no reason not to include that. NOTNEWS has no say of not including that as soon as it is reported. That's the part about NOTNEWS saying that we can be current and in alignment with BLP/BDP.
Case C: BLP (alongside PUBLICFIGURE) dominates here: accusations of sexual misconduct that do not yet have legal review are serious and we should avoid giving credence to. But as with Case A if there is a clear career-impacting aspect to it, then we should start to document that. This is an area that we should defer to time to make sure if the accusations are found to have merit or not, and then determine if they are worth documenting and to what weight to give it. A good case example was the accusations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson which in the short term caused temporarily holds on his current shows while the network investigated. They found nothing actionable in the accusations and life went on. That's covered all in 2 short paragraphs on the bio page. Obviously for a case like Weinstein where they were ultimately found guilty, of course we're going to have tons more, but that's all a predicated factor on waiting out for the news to actually resolve by both BLP and NOTNEWS.
You are still mistaken that DUE/PUBLICFIGURE/NPOV as a whole suggest requiring the inclusion of any of these cases - they only suggest together that its not appropriate to worry about privacy issues related to public people and possibly negative information, in contrast to figures that aren't publicly known where we need to be far more cautious. No policy states that just because some information is published that we have to include it, and in fact its policy that we don't aim to include all published information about a topic as our goal is to summarize that. NOTNEWS is there to set that part of that summary should be considering smoothing out a topic over time and not worrying about its day-to-day happenings in most cases.
And you keep claiming NOTNEWS is being abused but you're not providing evidence of that. You're just pointing to hypotheticals. It doesn't help without actual examples to back that to know what is going on.
That brings me back to Case B, as I know that's specifically based on the immediate concerns after the death of Michael K. Williams (as I saw the discussion you were involved with related to this at WP:BLP/N#Michael K. Williams). As a reminder: when it was reported he died, the news reports said they found his body in his home and that the death was being investigated as a drug overdose. Now, maybe you had a slip of writing in your Case B above (and as best I can tell presently), but his death has yet to be ruled a drug overdose, so we definitely cannot start from that position from neither a NOTNEWS or BLP basis, even though that's the leading presumption by investigators as well as the press. But whether in the short term (the few weeks it would take to deduce it) we should include whether his death was a drug overdose or not prior to the official cause is a mixed bag, and one that I don't think NOTNEWS nor BLP fully prevents due to PUBLICFIGURE but does urge caution. One the cause of death is known, NOTNEWS is no longer in the picture (it says to report it), and so that's just urging caution in the short term. That's why it's important to know what context you think NOTNEWS is being abused or misused. I have seen isolated cases of it, but this is not one of those; holding off that information is reasonably appropriate knowing that actual fact is expected real soon. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to take an extraordinarily exclusionary view of material in Wikipedia--one not reflected in practice. It is also not for editors to second-guess a substantial amount of reliable source coverage, as you seem to suggest WP:DUE makes reference to coverage in reliable sources, not the subjective opinions of editors as to the import of an event. A few other problems:
"Privacy" is a red herring when we are dealing with material covered in mainstream sources. It's out the window. That is not the combined purpose of NPOV/PUBLICFIGURE/DUE.
None of my analogies are meant to be specific to a real Wiki dispute.
You reference "legal credence" regarding sexual assault accusations in C). What? This is a made-up, non-existent standard. The relevant standard is WP:DUE, which is not, as you suggest, based on editor opinions; it is based, objectively, on treatment and coverage in reliable sources.
There is a fundamental problem here. Each time I point out an inconsistency or vague aspect of a policy, the answer is more vagueness and more inconsistencies. We really need to keep these to the fundamental points.
1) What is the purpose of NOTNEWS?
2) Is it being used consistent with that purpose?
3) Is it redundant or superfluous with other policy (do we need it?)
4) Are revisions necessary to make the policy clearer?
If we can pin the discussion to these four points, I think we'd be more able to make progress. However, I really think you need to review DUE, PUBLICFIGURE, and NPOV if you disagree with me on A-C. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Privacy is still a huge matter even if something is widely reported in numerous reliable sources. That is an essence of BLP. We purposely put ourselves better than the typical media in respecting how we cover living people. We are not out here to attack livings persons, which nearly all 3 of your cases puts us in that position, without having more context if this is a significant factor in the person's live. That's the big factor here: day-to-day events are not what we want editors to focus on in articles - we want editors to consider how events balance across the entirety of a topic, and a minor flareup of coverage that ends up going nowhere is something we should not be including, per our goal as an encyclopedia, which is a reason NOTNEWS exists. We don't want editors writing articles as newspaper coverage, but as academic, encyclopedic summaries, and that's just not a factor covered simply in any single other policy. (Some policies touch on this subject like DUE and BLP but they do not fully replicate this aspect; also, DUE applies only to inclusion of different opinions, not to factual information, that's why its on the NPOV page). A thing to keep in mind around all policies and guidelines are that they are not meant as rules to be enforced to the rule, but to be handled in the spirit of how they are written, so its important to understand why NOTNEWS exists and where it currently stands within the communicate (again, pointing to the recent RFC that says its current level of enforcement - neither weaker nor stronger - has consensus).
Further, if you're assert NOTNEWS is a problem but then can't point to why it is a problem with a real example, its really hard to judge what has to be changed. The only thing I can judge on is based on your editing history which points to the issue with Williams' article as the only place that you have been very active where you think NOTNEWS is being misused - except as I've stated, its being used correctly and consistent alongside BLP. You're arguing a hypothetical problem that you otherwise don't have any other evidence for, which makes it really hard to see what might be wrong. Just claiming it is redundant without showing where these problems came up in past discussions isn't helpful to the discussion. That's the only reason I've brought up Williams was to try to have a hard case with some evidence to work from. --Masem (t) 02:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not an "attack" to include information that might be perceived as negative, as long as it is reliably sourced. Again, some vague notion of privacy is simply a non-factor if it is reported in the national news.
Again, you say make the sweeping, tautological statement "day-to-day events are not news." Who is arguing against this? What are "day to day" events though? Routine events are already covered by NOTNEWS. What about the scenarios in A-C? None of those are "day to day" events."
Perhaps the "spirit" of policies should be what guide, but the problem is no one has a singular idea of what those are, and almost none of what you conveyed about NOTNEWS is reflected in its wording. Plus, the precise wording of a policy is what editors rely on.
I don't want to use real-world cases and risk introducing those arguments into this discussion. I think the hypotheticals I've offered should be enough (indeed, those immediately seemed to prompt disagreement?). Other editors have pointed out problems with NOTNEWS, other than me.
In sum: NOTNEWS should not be a faux supplement to DUE, NPOV, and the like. We should clarify the section coving "routine" news, and ensure that NOTNEWS specifically notes that it is not meant to deprecate reliable news sources, and that editors looking to determine weight should instead look to the wording of DUE/NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
"Again, some vague notion of privacy is simply a non-factor if it is reported in the national news" is wrong. This is actually a key principle of BLP (see under "Presumption in favor of privacy" there). Just because information about a person is blabbed about every major news outlet doesn't mean it is appropriate for WP to include if it doesn't meet our BLP principles, becuase we put more value on privacy than the media does. If over time it turns out that is important and privacy matters no longer can be justified, then inclusion may be appropriate. That's a situation that applies to each the scenarios above and that all is based on enduring coverage, which is now back to why NOTNEWS exists - we aren't looking for the day-to-day, but the trends of coverage over time. This is more than just routine news, this is understanding that a blip of non-routine news that may be across all channels for a day or two but dies down the next day is likely not worthy of inclusion in WP in the long run. No other policy gets to this point - BLP makes it a point for BLPs like for BLP1E, but NOTNEWS applies across all topics. Again, NPOV/DUE are about opinions, not fact so they don't come into play related to factual information. --Masem (t) 06:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Brief replies about BLP
we put more value on privacy than the media does. You have to stop equating WP with journalism. One is not more respectful or less respectful than the others. The difference is that this organization doesn't send people out on the field to do fact-finding and interviews. We rely on reliable sources, news sources, to do that work. That's it. Is that more respect for privacy? Not really. It's that we serve fundamentally different purposes.
That said, "privacy" means something very specific. It means we don't publish non-public information. It means we don't spread titillating information not contained in highly reliable sources. It means we don't identify non-notable individuals by name if we don't have to. It absolutely, 100% does not mean we don't include information about someone's personal life if it has broken into the public sphere by way of reliable sources and reporting, including newspapers.WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Why are you insisting otherwise?
Again, back to "importance." WP:DUE measures weight in reliable sources. It explicitly disavows relying on individual editor's assessments of weight or importance. You are still repeating an interpretation of DUE and WEIGHT that is just not correct. NPOV/DUE are not about opinions, they are about all information entering into a BLP.
To the main point
NOTNEWS is problematic because of rule #2, which refers to "routine" coverage. "Routine" has a specific meaning. It means pre-arranged, pre-scheduled coverage of something. A sporting event, a celebrity appearance or sighting, a crime blotter. Routine reporting is light on details and covers basic summaries of events that are so frequent and insignificant that further depth is not warranted. Routine does not mean recurring. In other words, if the New York Times covers scandals regarding a particular public individual over several months, just because it seems recurring does not mean routine.
Second, NOTNEWS needs to clarify that it is not a sweeping depreciation of news sources; only certain, highly specific categories. High quality newspapers are a central source in Wikipedia, as other editors here have pointed out. Dismissing them with a sweeping hand is simply not appropriate. NOTNEWS as written really doesn't do anything except serve to create confusion and internal inconsistencies, and the fixes above can help alleviate that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I am absolutely distancing WP from journalism - we work at a higher academic level, as we are a tertiary work, and while we expect sources from newspapers to be part of what makes up reliable sources, we are also enabled to be appropriately selective in choosing those sources to write in a summary-style, encyclopedic nature about a topic, not about the day-to-day coverage that a topic gets. And that particularly comes down to BLP where news sources cover BLP in excruciating detail that is far beyond what an encyclopedia's purpose is. It is why we put privacy of BLP far more weight than simply large amount of coverage, because sometimes, news sources in the rush to get to print get it wrong (even the NYTimes falters at points). We prefer to make sure that the stories are vetted over a length of time, the details confirmed, and all that. That's being respectful of privacy that's not a function of current news media today because they can simply issue redactions; we can't. NPOV is point of view - the entire policy including DUE is about how to cover different opinions that a topic may recieve based on weight of coverage of those opinion, and not at all related to factual content about a topic of which most of what's been discussed here would fall into.
Recurring news coverage is routine in today's 24/7 media. The word that you are looking for, and that is already established in NOTNEWS, is enduring; if a scandal continues to recieve ongoing coverage due to new information and events that change the nature of how the scandal is covered for months, that's pretty much a textbook definition of enduring and likely very apt to include. What we don't want are the things that flare up for a few days and then get no further mention at all. NOTNEWS is meant to smooth out how a topic is covered in time to ignore short term bumps in favor of long term trends as to properly summarize at the encyclopedic level. That may mean it will take a bit of time to distinguish between what is the start of a long-term trend from a short-term bump before inclusion, but there is also no deadline to get it right.
And there's nowhere that NOTNEWS says that one cannot use newspapers for sources, and the claims that NOTNEWS is being used to sweep away newspapers as RSes hasn't been backed up with evidence. WP:RS is very clear newspapers are reliable sources. So unless there is evidence that NOTNEWS is being misused to require a change, that second point seems a unnecessary concern. --Masem (t) 13:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:ITN is doing a remarkably good job of following WP:NOTNEWS by running exactly the same blurbs every day for weeks at a time. For example, this week, it's been leading with Abdelaziz Bouteflika every day. Who he? Some seem to think that he's the new Mandela but our readers aren't buying it. They are all reading the stories which are actually in the news – earthquake, elections, Emmys, etc and we even have an erupting volcano! And what everyone really wants to read about is the sad end of Gabby Petito. But those stories are all in the news and so ITN won't touch them. Bravo. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I haven't followed the entire discussion, but I believe a link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects (WP:PROPORTION) somewhere under NOTNEWS would help users navigate between relevant policies. I disagree that WP:PROPORTION means there is no essential role for NOTNEWS, any more than WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V obviate WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, or WP:CRYSTAL respectively. They complement one another (what to do vs. what not to do), with the ultimate goal of maintaining neutrality and balance. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy
I've seen Wales' e-mail in WP:NOTDEM. I always have been inspired by this principle. Are there sources or philosophies on concensus/majority rule/argumentation and why democracy is not an appropriate way to persue truth? Kameejl(Talk)08:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Context
@Deor and Kire1975:this] is still a bit of an Easter Egg. The guideline is about context in general, not context just in the lead. Using this link (without clarifying its context!) could lead editors to believe that the things described as unacceptable are only unacceptable in the lead and could be okay in the article body. SpinningSpark17:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: I was just trying (in response to Kire1975's tag) to make the link go where the person who added it almost certainly intended it to go. If linking to somewhere else would be better, anyone is welcome to change the link. I'm not even sure what "events must be put into encyclopedic context" is supposed to mean here, exactly. Do you think WP:PCR would be a better target? Deor (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I realise you were only trying to respond to the {{clarify}} tag, but I think there is still a problem there. Either we should somehow make clear that the link refers only to the lead, but this guideline requires context to be considered for the whole article, or just remove the link as inappropriate (or else restore the clarify tag on the basis that we're not sure what on earth it is supposed to mean). PCR is addressing what should be included to give context, not what should not be included because it has no encyclopaedic context, so not really appropriate either. SpinningSpark17:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The sentence was added by User:Dhaluza in in this edit. It was a restoration of part of a reverted edit by the same user, where it is clearer why he linked specifically to material relating to the lead. Since Dhaluza hasn't edited here in a few months, we're not likely to get an explanation from him. Personally, I think the whole sentence about tone and context could be deleted without much loss; for one thing, it makes the "For example" that begins the next sentence read as somewhat of a non sequitur. Deor (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree, take it out. It's confusing, partially irrelevant, and since it has been reverted once hardly seems to have consensus. SpinningSpark23:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Strange logic to force censorship
What policy says Wikipedia is not censored. If persistent efforts to censor are not less frustrating then one comes across strange logic which is forcing censorship.
This edit summary of 'this edit dif', by the User:Vice regent, expert in WP rules discovers "..as per talk, there is no consensus to increase this section further..". Frankly I am not expert to have all Wikipedia rules on my finger tips, but my primary common sense is bemused and strongly doubting, this novel strange way to force censorship. The article under consideration is Islam in Finland See also talk page.
Simple question, is there any consensus not to increase content in any section despite having reliable source? ''no such consensus exists''
First of all asking any such consensus itself amounts to censorship. More over such consensus does not exist. Does just raising a discussion for not to increase content allows one to claim that ' We raised discussion so no more increase in content until a consensus is reached to increase the content!'
If such a license is to be given, most users can block all the unwanted content expansion on Wikipedia by just raising discussions on talk pages and claim wait don't increase content until consensus is reached. Are you getting what I am saying?
Now that I am not expert in citing Wikipedia rules on my finger tips like many of you others, please do help in making the appropriate sense prevail. Thanks.
Is this even English? What I think it's asking is: can anything be blocked just by objection. The answer is no. In case of a dispute about content, WP:DR has ways to resolve that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bookku:WP:NOTCENSORED refers to the fact that Wikipedia may contain material on topics that some users find offensive, such as material that is critical of certain religious or ethnic groups, or material that some find morally objectionable (such as discussions of sexual practices). We do not remove such material just because some users object to it. What you have described is not censorship, it is consensus-building in an effort to ensure that content conform to other Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Bookku, it's simple. Editors should not reject contents or sources because of the point of view expressed in them. Wikipedia must be neutral, but sources do not have to be neutral. What is important is that the content is relevant to the subject, WP:weight (relative to the subject) respected and the content presented in a neutral manner (if controversial it must be attributed) and all points of view that respect these rules included in a balanced manner. Also, the sources must be reliable (relative to the subject). This was a summary of relevant rules So, clearly censorship has no place in these rules. However, what is against the rule is to accuse another editor of doing censorship, especially when using the wrong venue. Here is not the place to do that. My understanding is that VR was only referring to WP:weight and questioned what sources can be considered representative of the subject in the evaluation of the weight. That's very important to maintain the quality and the right focus of every Wikipedia article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Yes you have put in brief & right way, my question in this discussion is limited to,
@Bookku: No. The mere objection of one editor to the content addition of another editor is not the end of the story, it is just the beginning of a process. Editors disagree on content all the time, and there are a slew of processes at Wikipedia to resolve such disputes. But if you are going to cry "censorship" every time someone disagrees with one of your edits, rather than trying to discuss the issue calmly, you're going to find yourself very frustrated. In the specific case that brought you here, the process to consider is WP:BRD: you made a Bold edit that was then Reverted; your next step is to Discuss the edit to try to reach consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
'can anything be blocked just by objection?'
Here raised question is simply limited (Not more, not less). If the answer is clearly 'no' to above proposition then please help the other users in getting that much aspect (/point). Thanks
No, we are not going to help the other user get the point. First of all, this is not the place to get policy policed, but more importantly, it is you who are not getting the point, not the other use. You have already been clearly told how to proceed in a disputed edit (WP:BRD) so continuing to demand action is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. SpinningSpark17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Thanks for your guidance. I am not the user who added the deleted content. I was concerned part of the edit summary leading to effective kind of censorship.
I could reach to an essay page Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" from link on one of users discussing above and that essay seems to be more appropriate so here after I shall work as per suggestions in that essay.
Frankly, I think this is an ongoing issue with certain users. If I say "this material is UNDUE, here are reliable sources that show it is UNDUE," they will accuse me of censorship. I think accusations of censorship should be dropped and arguments about WP:DUE weight need to be responded with counter-arguments that address WP:WEIGHT concerns.VRtalk18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I support that. If a user clearly refers to WP:weight, it's inappropriate to speak of censorship. Also, Wikipedia does not censor, but it does not go in the opposite direction either. In Wikipedia, we use WP:weight relative to the subject, because otherwise its articles will become platforms for all kinds of valid or invalid campaigns of information and lose their focus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bookku: Yes, you asked a question, to which the simple, one-word answer is "no." But that is not an unqualified "no," and as users attempted to explain the qualifications of that answer, you apparently didn't like the qualifications. Sorry. You are free to disengage from this discussion, but as you move forward, and other users continue to disagree with your edits (as is inevitable for all Wikipedia editors), you must learn from this discussion that such disagreement is not censorship, and you don't get to ignore other editors simply because you feel they are censoring you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
So pl. let us move on to article talk page for rest of the discussion if any.
I have already discussed at article talk page how expectation of allotting fix percentage of content leads to content censorship. Any editor comes across any relevant content with reliable sources can add. Stalling such additions by fixing percentages and that to in one sided manner without consensus becomes matter of concern. Now if one does not have consensus for it and still behaving as if consensus exists and blocking addition of sourced information fails to generate adequate confidence.
Whether sourced information meets other criteria or not is another question, which can be discussed at the article talk page or other appropriate forums. When I have not questioned other points in this forum then one need not be unnecessarily defensive on other points at this forum.
With a statement I found central policy under stress, I sought clarification and feedback to the limited aspect concerning to this policy page. The rest of discussions can very well take place at article talk page or respective other forums. Did you people read Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" this essay seems to be balanced enough if I have agreed to that then is there really any scope for Moving the goalposts and Whataboutery and Wikisplaining?
Thanks you now agree to "..Yes, you asked a question, to which the simple, one-word answer is "no.".." and I already stated, for me discussion at this place is over as of now. So pl. let us move on to article talk page for rest of the discussion if any.
@Bookku: The discussion at Talk:Islam in Finland, as well as the related discussion at WP:NPOV/N, was somewhat fruitless, as the differing opinions about how to assess undue weight were not being usefully resolved. Your opinion is that any information that has a reliable source is valid content, and some other editors agreed. My position was that the mere presence of reliable sources does not mean the information should be included because the inclusion gives undue weight to material that is not as widely covered in the available sources, and some other editors agreed with me. That is a disagreement. That is not censorship. I chose to disengage from that discussion because I did not feel that you and the others in the "keep it all" faction were willing to bend on the issue. Clearly, I was correct, because here you are again, still not bending on the issue. So, once again, I will disengage. You and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, and it is not worth the frustration to keep trying to convince you. Enjoy your time at Wikipedia; you and I will not be interacting again. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"..The discussion at Talk:Islam in Finland, as well as the related discussion at WP:NPOV/N, was somewhat fruitless, as the differing opinions about how to assess undue weight were not being usefully resolved. .."
a) That means consensus is still far away, and you will need to discuss at relevant topics ant relevant forum only, and you do not have any other options but to have patience. (Pl. read again.)
b) Fixing specific percentages on article content and not allowing addition of relevant and sourced info (pl read every word again) would need Wikipedia wide consensus and that would be long term project. One can not expect any such consensus in matter of days/ weeks/ months or even years because it does not seem to be practical and logical proposition. If you feel you can achieve consensus in matter of days for such proposition put up proposal for Wikipedia wide RfC and prove the consensus.
This is a policy forum of limited topics, This is not right forum to keep repeating your points of what is due and what is not due. Article talk page is there and you will need to wait until more people join in the discussion over period of time, pl do have patience un til then. Until then you can not stall sourced and relevant information being added that would amount to censorship, and those points need to be discussed in detail at article talk page not here. Pl be patient and move on for discussions at article talk page and wait for more people to join in due course of time.
Propose new section (under Community) - Wikipedia is not the Thought Police
I believe that the following is already Wikipedia policy, but that it would be helpful to have it spelt out.
No-one is required to subscribe to any ideology in order to edit Wikipedia. Editors are required to obey the rules; what they think about the subjects they are editing is irrelevant to Wikipedia. No-one should be interrogated about their beliefs. No-one should be told that if they think incorrectly, they should not be editing Wikipedia.
I had a pronoun blocked out in one of my posts at a discussion at Elliot Page, months ago. Maybe that was/is a rule being applied, but my goodness the talkpage??? GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
There is WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE, an essay, but adding this to policy seems difficult, not least because there are widely accepted essays that contradict some degree of what you've just written, as-written or as-applied. I personally would support the inclusion of the text mentioned, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that the part of this that is consonant with consensus is already at least latently part of WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG - that is, we should not be insulting each other (or others communities who may or may not be present) and should be concentrating on behaviour/actions rather than beliefs. If I had been given wiki-rights each time I was vociferously accused of editing on behalf of POV beliefs that I do not actually hold, I would be an admin by now.
On the other hand, people who think that misgendering others in public postings is a "thought crime" and people who enforce site-wide consensus on GENDERID and CIVILity are thought police may not understand the distinction between thoughts and actions as well as they think they do. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm particularly bothered by the fact that the poster thinks that this would apply to the linked discussion, which has nothing to do with what the editor in question believes but with the way they expressed that belief; I think that that makes it clear that this would be deployed to defend editors who display WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTFORUM, and other WP:NOTHERE problems. Breathless political hyperbole like "thought police" aside, nobody can actually read anyone's mind - if an editor is getting in trouble for their beliefs, it is generally because they insisted on belaboring those beliefs in contexts unrelated to editorial decisions. And doing that is, at best, a distraction from the purpose of making an encyclopedia, while easily dipping into violations of the policies I outlined above. As I said in that discussion you can believe what you believe, but the ideal is supposed to be that we leave our ideology at the door - it obviously isn't perfectly attainable, as anyone who looks at any politically-charged topic area knows, but editors who flagrantly and repeatedly prove themselves incapable of at least attempting to do so and who constantly hammer their ideological beliefs at every turn should be asked to edit in other areas. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Terrible in many ways: editors are not "required" to obey "the rules" (whatever they are), but it's all a lot more diffuse than that with guidelines, policies, and legal requirements in play. And there are some belief systems that if people openly subscribe to (on or off-wiki), then they are going to get blocked and banned (e.g. WP:CHILDPRO). Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Using "thought police" itself in this context is extremely ideologically-loaded (it is a common rallying cry for ideologues and talking heads in American politics.) Beyond that, WP:CIVIL is policy; as several of the comments on the discussion you linked (including your own, and including your belief that this would be relevant to that), editors would argue that being required to be civil is thought-policing them. The way you want to apply it to that discussion flatly contradicts WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP (the latter, note, does apply to talk conversations) - editors can believe whatever they believe, but they are not allowed to use talk pages to advocate or advance those views, and an editor who repeatedly insists on belaboring controversial or offensive beliefs in contexts unrelated to editorial decision-making should face sanctions. You can believe whatever you believe, but (especially when it comes to beliefs whose expressions may be uncivil), you have to be able to refrain from advocating those beliefs or expressing them in an insulting manner in order to participate on talk pages. Wikipedia's purpose is to create an encyclopedia via collaborative editing, which requires that we treat each other civilly; we're not a debate society, so bludgeoning other people with your views and then shouting thought-police when you are told you're behaving uncivilly or engaging in WP:NOTFORUM / WP:SOAP behavior is WP:NOTHERE behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about which venue is appropriate but this should get additional emphasis somewhere. While ~20% of the time the orthodoxy included under "Thought Police" aligns with widely (~90%) accepted norms, the other 80% of the time it refers to orthodoxies which just follow the plurality of media/public discourse of the moment. We should make sure that discourse in Wikipedia is not dominated by the "rulebook" of the latter. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the form presented is right, but I do think there's a bit too much weight given on essays like WP:NONAZIS as well. I could care less if an editor is a far-right extremist that believes that 5G caused COVID, as long as that editor doesn't at all push any of that in their editing, and keeps in mind WP:COI around such topics. Even in a situation where, say we're talking COVID vaccines, and the editor comes into the conversation saying "I am anti-vax, and I found these sources that are likely reliable that explain some of the anti-vax viewpoints that we may want to include after discussion", that's fine, and the editor should not be punished for that. The line is crossed when they start trying to demand inclusion (the usual tactic that happens) or similar behavior. I'd further point out that as an open wiki, we have noted that editors may run into other editors with diametrically opposite views, but editors should not take offense at those views as long as they are not personally directed at another editor. Eg: there was an MFD on a userbox related to the editor's belief (the one using the box) that marriage is only between a man and a woman, which was deleted because some editors on the LGBT side felt that was attacking them and didn't reflect the fact that WP does generally side on the view that gay marriage is a right. That's a bit of too much thought policing there since the box's language wasn't directed at any editor or group of editors. That's the type of problems that the current environment is creating. --Masem (t) 21:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I took part in the userbox discussion-in-question & was quite ashamed that the userbox ended up being deleted, let alone barred from usage. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me to be superfluous, and illogical - people can only be sure what someone's thoughts are if they express them, in which case they have ceased to be thoughts. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Not possible - This is a non-starter as Wikipedia does indeed have some "thought policing" (i.e., refusing to allow certain points of view to be expressed on its platforms). Most directly, WP:PEDOPHILIA makes clear that any self-identification or advocacy for pedophilia is worthy of immediate and indefinite ban. we also do not allow self-identification or advocacy for Nazis and genocide. I assume the same would go for necrophilia, bestiality, and other taboos. So the proposed language is not factual. EvergreenFir(talk)22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Please read my detailed response below. I am not talking about people expressing their beliefs. I am talking about editors’ right not to express their beliefs. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
My point still stands. For #3, it does indeed matter if an editor is pro-genocide and editing on Holocaust. For #4, editors who display a pattern of editing with a POV against autistic people should be questioned about that and either told to work on editing with less POV, editing in another topic, or leaving Wikipedia. Though, frankly, we don't need to question the editor if their behavior meets clear and convincing standards. For #5, we absolutely will and should tell Nazis and pedophiles they "think incorrectly" and to fuck off. EvergreenFir(talk)22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand your reasoning. You are talking about editing. I am saying people have a right to keep their thoughts to themselves, and should be judged on their editing. How can you justify preventing people from editing Wikipedia based on their thoughts, rather than their editing? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC) You have no right to interrogate me about my beliefs, and if you do so I shall refuse to answer.Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Because fuck Nazis and pedophiles? And no, not just editing. They "think incorrectly" and should fuck right off. I don't care if Tyciol wants to come back and edit only on stamp collecting because "his ideology is irrelevant to his editing". Yeet him into the void.
I think you're trying to create some sort of 5th Amendment and "no religious test for office" to state that it's inappropriate to grill an editor on their personal beliefs. Okay, that's rather the norm already. If someone wants to drag you to ANI for a cban, the burden is on that user to convince the community one is needed. And the accused has the right to not self-incriminate. That's standard procedure here already. Newimpartial deserves a WP:TROUT, but I think the question arose not because of thought policing but because of a pattern of behavior by Maneesh. If Maneesh's (or anyone's) ideologies prevent or impair their ability to edit within the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines, then their ideology is indeed the issue as it is causing disruptive behavior. There is a right to question someone of their motives/beleifs if their behavior is disruptive. You're trying to pull a horse with a cart when you bring up Maneesh and Newimpartial because the behavior came first.
Fundamentally the problem lies in trying to separate intent from behavior. My ontological view is that thought and behavior are entwined and it is impossible for anyone to be "impartial". Thus, this gets down to corpus delecti. I don't think it unfair for an editor to question (directly or indirectly) another editors motive (mens rea) iff their behavior (actus reus) indicate bias or error. If you act wrongly without ill intent, then you should be informed of the error/offense so you can correct it in the future. This is why we have tiered warnings. No one is going to get dragged to AE or ANI for a simple mistake. But if you ignore the information about your error our of negligence or willful disregard, and repeatedly make that error/offense, then you are blocked to stop that disruption. EvergreenFir(talk)23:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
to EvergreenFir:I find your comments incoherent, and so it is difficult to reply to them.
Because fuck Nazis and paedophiles. What’s that supposed to mean?
I don’t know what you mean when you say I’m trying to create some 5th Amendment. I’m British, for a start. But the right not to incriminate yourself cannot be relevant on Wikipedia, because all the evidence about any wikioffence you may have committed is already available. It is only if you think that Wikipedia has a right to prosecute thoughtcrimes that there could be such self-incrimination.
You say that it’s the norm already that it's inappropriate to grill an editor on their personal beliefs But you have just denied this, and claimed a right to interrogate editors on their beliefs. You do *not* have this right.
To your first question, that was in response to you ending question "How can you justify preventing people from editing Wikipedia based on their thoughts, rather than their editing?" before the edit conflict.
To your second statement, I linked 5th Amendment for the very reason that you might not know it. But, as clear in the following words, it's (in part) the right to not self-incriminate.
To your third point, I think the are certain circumstances where direct questioning of a person's stances is appropriate. And bold texting that I don't have that right doesn't change that. I can ask. What I can't do is compel an answer under duress (e.g., threaten a block if there's no answer). I do not think it is appropriate in most circumstances. And espousing or affirming an ideology is never a prerequisite for editing (as in the "no religious test for office"). EvergreenFir(talk)07:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: But what does Because fuck Nazis and paedophilesmean? I can understand a general sentiment ‘Fuck Nazis and paedophiles’, though it has no place in this discussion. But you have added ‘Because’ and posted it as if it is a response to a point I have made. I don’t understand.
I had heard of the 5th amendment as a right not to self-incriminate. But I still don’t understand what you mean when you say that you think I am trying to create one on Wikipedia.
You do not have a right to interrogate anyone on Wikipedia, and your continued claim that you do does not make it so.
Something else worth pointing out, which your comment reminded me of, is that under current practice (per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLP) we don't treat all indications of possible WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV-pushing equally. If there is even the slightest indication that someone intends on pushing a fringe theory, they will - or should - generally face a WP:NOTHERE block very quickly; whereas if someone's opinions are stridently "democracy is good, actually" or "vaccines are generally effective", the threshold is looser. I would be opposed to changing this practice - in key areas like that, we have to set our thresholds to include consideration of the risk of harm, whether to the project, to individuals we write about, or to people who rely on Wikipedia. All WP:TEND editing is inappropriate (even the "democracy is good" sort of POV editing is something we should strive to avoid), but some of it has much more serious potential for harm and therefore has to be confronted more aggressively. The problem that that poses for a suggestion like this is that people with WP:FRINGE views are usually unwilling to recognize that their views are fringe and are therefore going to claim that they are facing the "thought police" when they get a much more rapid boot for trying to make articles say that vaccines cause autism or that politician XYZ is a pedophile than someone would get for non-neutral editing from a more mainstream perspective. (And the area that is most likely to be affected by this isn't the GENSEX one that led to this, but Race and Intelligence, as anyone familiar with it is aware.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
B) For those who think that they disagree with my proposed wording, let’s go through it statement by statement:
1) No-one is required to subscribe to any ideology in order to edit Wikipedia.
What ideology are editors required to subscribe to? And how is this justified?
2) Editors are required to obey the rules
No?
3) what they think about the subjects they are editing is irrelevant to Wikipedia.
How are editors’ thoughts the business of Wikipedia? Surely only editors’ editing is the business of Wikipedia.
4) No-one should be interrogated about their beliefs.
What justifies interrogating editors about their beliefs?
5) No-one should be told that if they think incorrectly, they should not be editing Wikipedia.
How can you justify preventing people from editing Wikipedia based on their thoughts, rather than their editing?
i) I was originally thinking of saying ‘Wikipedia is not the Inquisition’, but I thought that might look religiously biased against the Catholic church. Do you have a suggestion for a neutral title for the section?
ii) At the AE discussion, you said This is especially true with beliefs that are frequently considered divisive or exclusionary - even if you disagree, even if you think your beliefs are just common-sense, our ability to maintain a civil editing environment and a diverse userbase depends on editors being willing to keep it in their pants with beliefs like those, so to speak.
I agree entirely with your statement (except of course, that I keep things in my handbag rather than my knickers). So I don’t know what we are arguing about.
iii ) I get the feeling you’re accusing me of something, but I can’t work out exactly what the accusation is.
"No-one is required to subscribe to any ideology in order to edit Wikipedia."
Depends on what you mean, Wikipedia is a group encyclopedia project based on enlightenment and free knowledge ideals, so yes you need to subscribe to the ideal of producing a free encyclopedia with others.
"Editors are required to obey the rules"
No they are not. But they are required to submit their thoughts and ideas in writing to others for others' critique, objection, and dismissal, and to others' judgement of whether the editor is improving the project.
"what they think about the subjects they are editing is irrelevant to Wikipedia. No-one should be told that if they think incorrectly, they should not be editing Wikipedia."
If they are sharing their irrelevant thoughts and beliefs, then they are treating Wikipedia as a forum, and should not, and might be blocked or banned for it. If on the other hand, they are sharing their thoughts and beliefs evident by what they write (which is the only way they can do so), than they must think their thoughts and beliefs are relevant, and must be opening their thoughts and beliefs to inquiry, critique, objection, dismissal and judgement by others.
reply to Alanscottwalker: 1) I think I know what you mean, but I don’t think that you actually need to subscribe to the ideal of producing a free encyclopaedia with others in order to edit Wikipedia. That’s a bit explicit and elevated for someone just correcting a typo. But the point is – no-one ever asked me to subscribe to such an ideal when I started editing. If I had been required to subscribe to any ideology, I would not have started editing. (Yes, I know some people may think that would have been a good thing.) What I mean here is a rebuttal to the idea that you have to subscribe to what Larry Sanger might describe as ‘left wing extremism’ in order to edit Wikipedia.
2) IAR is a rule. (Yes, I like paradoxes.) Are you suggesting that your wording But they are required to submit their thoughts and ideas in writing to others for others critique, objection, and dismissal, and to others judgement of whether the editor is improving the project. should be added to my proposed wording?
3) Once again, I am not talking about sharing thoughts and beliefs – I am talking about the right not to share thoughts and beliefs – the right to keep them to yourself. My proposal is the other side of WP:NOTFORUM – no-one should be forced to use Wikipedia as a forum.
Sweet6970, the reason behind the question I asked, which you linked to, is that the editor in question had just tried to explain away a previous comment - which seemed to be dismissing gender identity as being no different from a delusion - as not meaning what it seemed to me, on the surface to mean. There is a style of civil POV pushing, which this instance relates to, where editors skate along the edge of ridiculing something while leaving some ambiguity so they can pretend they meant something else. So in this particular instance - which seemed to express dissatisfaction with the settled state of knowledge of a topic and basic respect for the people concerned - I asked the editor whether they accepted the scientific consensus and the principle of respect. If the editor had not made, or had expressed the intention to stop making, comments that violate Wikipedia norms in that way, the question of the intention behind these comments would never have come up for me. Instead, however, the editor continued to skate along. or over, that line throughout the AE discussion.
TL; DR: if editors observe Wikipedia norms, their intentions don't matter, but if they rely on a "but that's not what I meant!" defense, it matters what they actually mean. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: You say I asked the editor whether they accepted the scientific consensus and the principle of respect. No, what you asked was Do you accept, in line with the recent, reliable sources on the topic, that a person's gender identity may differ from their sex assigned at birth (e.g., male gender identity in a case of female sex assignment), that these instances do not generally indicate any pathology (in themselves), and that it is appropriate to treat people in typical social situations according to their gender identity? Asking someone whether they accept the scientific consensus is a question about their beliefs, not a question about their editing intentions. Sweet6970 (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The question you just quoted shows that I did actually ask about the scientific consensus (in two parts) and the principle of respect. So I don't know why you said No just there. And I didn't say that I didn't ask about the editor's beliefs - as explained above, I asked them what I did to evaluate an issue with their editing, namely, whether what seemed like an insulting, dismissive comment based on a FRINGE POV was actually what it seemed, since the editor has claimed otherwise. But the later comparison between gender identity and accepting Zorp as their lord and savior rather confirmed my original understanding of their edits. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The "Zorp" thing is kinda snarky, yes, but the whole gender ideology thing does have a good deal of resemblance to religion, in that people are expected to chant the accepted dogma ("Trans Women Are Women!!!") instead of thinking for themselves (Blasphemy!). I can see how this breeds resentment in "unbelievers" and leads some of them to lash out in rude ways. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
See, the thing is, I don't really care if you or any editor doesn't believe trans women are women, or if they state this on WP talk as their POV. But if they use this POV as a justification to misgender other editors "'cause mah beliefz" that is a CIVIL and TPG violation, and unlike many other civil violations, I have actually seen people indef-blocked for that one. And not because of "thought crime"; it is an action, and has consequences.
Also, I don't care if you personally feel that what you call the whole gender ideology thing is like a religion. But as with people who feel that climate change orthodoxy (look at that word!) is like a religion, expressing that view on Talk pages is not going to do anything but cause disruption. And if you were to insist that gender ideology actually exists, without any reliable sources establishing that as anything other than a FRINGE POV, then other editors are expected to treat your perspective like any other FRINGE POV.
I'm sure this situation, in fact, breeds resentment in "unbelievers" and leads some of them to lash out in rude ways - editors who don't accept mainstream views on climate change (though not so much recently), on covid (recently) and on race and intelligence (always) lash out all the time. But I don't think the solution to this is for the rest of us to have more sympathy for those whose sincere beliefs are not backed up by consensus reality as documented in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Let's test the very topic of this 'thought police' proposal. IMHO, there's only two genders (male & female), with a few intersex situations which usually later get corrected, medically. I don't edit these views into articles, but they're my views. I'm not a Nazi, but IMHO an editor should be allowed to announce that he/she is & also be allowed to show the Nazi flag on his/her userpage. But, I don't go around pushing editors to add or delete such beliefs or flags into or from their userpages. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
to GoodDay: I’m sorry, but you’ve misunderstood my proposal. I am talking about the right not to announce that you are/are not a Nazi. Sweet6970 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious @GoodDay: about your thoughts on the Paradox of tolerance. If an editor is allowed to show they are a Nazi, is there any behaviour that you consider beyond the pale? Though that may be a discussion better held at one of our talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:DISC does warn editors they may encounter views that are offensive to them, and in terms of moderation, we should not be taking action against that. We absolutely will take action when those views are used to directly attack editors (individual or as a group), as that is absolutely not allowed, but we should not be trying to prosecute editors just because they assert a belief or stance that another editor takes as offensive. --Masem (t) 01:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sweet6970: I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and if I am understanding it then there seems to be a base assumption that isn't true in practice. What you're proposing is based on, by my reading, the assumption that an editor's thoughts and actions are two separate concepts. While this may be true for many, the mere existence of nearly 300 WP:AE archives and the concept of WP:ACDS proves that for some, thoughts and actions are intractable. In cases where an editor's thoughts and actions are intractable, this can be considered disruptive editing when that combination can lead to any number of behavioural issues. To a third party editor, who maybe shares some of the same thoughts but doesn't act upon because they can separate thought from action them this can seem like thought policing, however it is not. This is I believe why @EvergreenFir: talked exclusively about actions, as they are for some intractable with thoughts, whereas from your perspective Sweet6970 actions and thoughts are always separate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I’m sorry, Sideswipe9th, but I don’t think we understand each other on this. In an individual’s life, their thoughts will be closely intertwined with their actions. But on Wikipedia, they are easily separated. Your actions are your edits. It is only your edits which should be judged, since only your edits affect Wikipedia. No-one on Wikipedia has the right to interrogate you about your thoughts. Sweet6970 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I think we do understand each other @Sweet6970:, as your explanation was exactly what I said. While you and I may be able to separate our thoughts and actions, both in life and on Wikipedia, that is not true for all editors. If all editors were able to separate behaviour from action on site, then WP:AE and WP:ACDS would largely be not needed. For some editors it is a willing choice to be disruptive; eg vandals and trolls. For others it is because their beliefs are so strongly held they engage in WP:ADVOCACY and try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
For some editors however thoughts and actions are the same thing, and for some editors that becomes disruptive. To editors who share the same thoughts, but don't act upon them it can seem like a disruptive editor is being "thought policed". However it is their inability to separate thought from action and the disruptive nature of their actions that lead to them being policed and sanctioned. Why they are unable to separate thought from action doesn't matter, and neither does why they hold those beliefs. It is the actions they take because of those beliefs that are disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th said it well. Sweet6970, you said "But on Wikipedia, they are easily separated." but Sideswipe9th is right that it's not easy (or the intention to) for some editors. Like critical thinking, it's a developed skill to set aside personal views enough to adhere to policy and (even harder) reflect RS appropriately. It took me a while to do it. But I'll uphold BLP as rigorously for Kyle Rittenhouse as George Floyd, regardless of my political positions. Nearly 8 years ago Iryna Harpy gave me this WikiLove that I still think about and cherish. In short, the Western idealism of rationality is just that - an ideal to strive toward. EvergreenFir(talk)07:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: If an editor is being sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, then this is as a result of their actions. This does not give anyone the right to interrogate them about their beliefs, which is what I am concerned about. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sweet6970: I understand that, I really do. But the point remains that for some editors, their actions are their beliefs. And preforming an investigation into their actions is akin to interrogating their beliefs. When an editor cannot separate thought from action, inquiries into their thoughts become part and parcel of inquiries into their actions. As an autistic person, I would love it if the world were more absolutist, more black and white and less shades of grey. For myself it would make understanding people's actions and why they do those actions much simpler. Unfortunately people are complex, and the world is shades of grey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: I can see that some editors might feel that enquiring into their behaviour is, in effect, questioning their beliefs. But that does not mean that interrogating someone about their beliefs is the same as questioning their behaviour.
@Sweet6970: it's not just the editor who is being disruptive that can perceive an inquiry into behaviour as an inquiry into their beliefs. If another editor shares the beliefs of a disruptive editor, but doesn't act on them, it can still seem to the observing editor like the editor who was being disruptive is facing an investigation because of their beliefs. Things aren't always as clear cut as we'd like them to be.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. I'll note that WP:NPA#WHATIS already forbids pointing to an editor's political beliefs as a means of discrediting them. Certainly, asking them about those beliefs is at best WP:FORUM behavior, and more likely is meant to be used as ammo, so it isn't acceptable behavior. Perhaps that should be clarified somewhere? (And if it's just wanting to chitchat, no, Wikipedia is not for that; go to Twitter or Reddit or whatever to discuss politics.)What Wikipedia really needs is to enforce WP:NOTADVOCACY equally across the political spectrum. Right now, editors who tendentiously push apolitical or centrist ideas, or ideas favored by conservatives, find themselves removed from the site before long, or else forced to moderate their behavior; meanwhile editors who tendentiously push "progressive" POVs are defended at every turn, even by many admins, and almost never face sanctions unless their behavior is shockingly egregious. And before anyone channels 2006 Colbert to say that "reality has a liberal bias", I make this statement as a center-left liberal and already accounting for the reliability of the sources being used. Many "liberal" views have also moved dramatically to the left in recent years, accelerating in reaction to Trump (conservatives have also moved to the right by more in many matters, but I'm not talking about them here since Wikipedia already stops that POV pushing).Gender self-identification - the view that self-declaration alone defines if you are male or female - definitely falls under that category. For a broader societal view, here's some public opinion polls for perusal: [13][14] Nowadays, though, much "progressive" rhetoric will label any critique of pure self-ID, in any context, as TERF, as right-wing, or as far-right. This is even though many trans people do not agree that such an approach is necessary - compare the fact that many black people do not agree that abolishing the police is necessary for anti-racism. This lopsided permissiveness of tendentiousness creates the problems in the topics of sex and gender. Crossroads-talk-06:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Just want to say I largely agree with you, Crossroads, and have seen your efforts on this. You push, but in a constructive way. And I agree there's a tendency to thoughtlessly label and stigmatize those not joining the moral campaign of the day. I think the difficulty with GENSEX is finding the balance between eliminating the myriad trolls, POINT, and TEND editors from those like who just aren't on board or don't know. The Trans Rights movement is in full swing so it's not surprising that it is the topic with the must persistent backlash which, in turn, makes many fellow editors "shoot first, ask second". And, FWIW, the WP:DEADNAME brigade on Elliot Page, The Wakowskis, etc. drive me bananas too. EvergreenFir(talk)07:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: much "progressive" rhetoric will label any critique of pure self-ID, in any context, as TERF, as right-wing, or as far-right. This is even though many trans people do not agree that such an approach is necessary - this may be true, but precisely as one of the nonbinary people who do not agree that such an approach is necessary, I find that I am regularly subject to knee-jerk ASPERSIONS from editors like yourself and SMcCandlish who make assumptions about my beliefs and interpret my edits through some hermeneutics of suspicion, as though I were promoting a POV that is not mine to begin with. I understand that this is part of the polarized environment you describe, but it is simply not the case that all of the hyperbole comes from what you call "progressive" perspectives; my experience is that people who feel that they are "holding on to the centre" are even more likely to make these kinds of arguments based on caricature. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that an underlying issue is that Wikipedia has a broad and global audience and that many people who believe their views to be uncontroversial and moderate may end up finding them more extreme than they expected when exposed to a larger audience (with GENSEX issues this is especially true because of the difference between UK / US audiences and between rural, urban, and "professional" environments in all those places.) More generally, the political spectrum, such as it is, differs sharply between countries. While obviously real world political divides show up in Wikipedia, I don't think it's appropriate to intentionally try to divide editors and views into "liberal" / "left" / "right" / "conservative" / "center" ourselves, and I generally think that trying to do so or approaching editing as a whole from that context leads to WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct while exacerbating WP:TEND editing on all sides; everyone has their own perspectives, but it is not useful to try and edit from the perspective of "I define myself as a respectable centrist and this person as a radical zealot", not in the least because most of the time the other person will feel the same way with the roles swapped. Editing collaboratively requires routing around those sorts of fundamental differences in how we perceive ourselves and the world, which is difficult if that underlying difference is constantly pushed to the fore, and nearly impossible when it leads to the sort of hostile parsing you describe. That said, I also think that what we might call the American scholarly / professional mainstream way of discussing race, gender, identity, and similar issues has attained its mainstream status because it is valuable for maintaining large and diverse collaborative environments; and we use it here (very very loosely, but as a rough standard for what is acceptable on talk when someone violates it repeatedly and flagrantly) because we have the same requirements. Editors being removed for that aren't being removed for their political beliefs, but because they're unable to edit collaboratively. --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's another one for yas. I'm a republican, but I don't try to introduce republicanism into monarchy articles. I'm also an atheist, but I don't try to introduce atheism into religious articles. We can announce our positions, just don't attempt to adopt them on the project. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: just raised this at the AE case that is referenced at the start of this discussion, and it seems relevant to this discussion as well. So I'd like to draw folks' attention to it. There is now a Universal Code of Conduct that applies across all Wikimedia sites. In addition the Enwiki specific comments on it are also relevant. Some of this does run counter to the proposed addition, especially in cases where an editor's beliefs and actions are intractable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
to Sideswipe9th:I have just had a look at the Ucoc. I don’t see anything which gives a right to interrogate editors about their beliefs. Please direct me to the relevant part. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
2.1 Mutual respect. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible. If an editor does not do that, because it goes against their beliefs and they act upon those beliefs, then any action taken against that editor can inherently be seen as an interrogation about their beliefs.
3.1 Harassment. This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment. Same reasoning as 2.1, though for harassment it becomes more of an active choice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: Thank you for your reply. But the paras you have quoted say nothing about any right to interrogate editors about their beliefs. In fact, para 3.1 would be interpreted by me as forbidding interrogating editors about their beliefs, because this could be intimidating, particularly if the inquisition is conducted by an admin. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is all daft, and is importing a legalistic, over-dramatic view of the world into Wikipedia. Editors don't have "rights" granted by Wikipedia, and there are no "interrogations" or "inquisitions" possible. I propose closing this as a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Thanks for raising this, Sideswipe9th. You've made the point better than I think I managed at AE. I don't agree that "Wikipedia is not the Thought Police". Aside from the obviously derogatory label (not comparable with the other "is not"s like "a dictionary, a democracy, a directory") and coatrack nature of the discussion, it's just not factual. Others have quite clearly shown these are not the views of the Wikipedia community, with WP:NONAZIS taken as common practice, and it's fundamentally against the WMF UCoC too per the above.
Some editors here like GoodDay may wish this wasn't how we operated, and they are free to continue to advocate for change, but the current status quo is not well described by "No-one is required to subscribe to any ideology in order to edit Wikipedia". In fact we do require ideologies such as "anti-Nazi". You need a much more global consensus than you would get at this talk page for such a fundamental change to community practice. — Bilorv (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out. An editor should have better things to do, then go crying to WP:AN, WP:ANI or wherever, because they didn't like something they seen or read on another editors' userpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
But it is rarely limited to userpages; generally speaking when it reaches the point where a user has been dragged to WP:AN / WP:ANI / WP:AE, it is because they continuously and insistently insult another user on talk pages. This ties back into WP:CIVIL - you can have your beliefs, but you're not allowed to assert them abrasively, because doing so goes against our goal of maintaining a collaborative editing environment; and with sufficiently extreme beliefs, asserting them repeatedly on talk pages is going to be abrasive, even if you refuse to recognize that. Failing to enforce policies like the mutual respect one outlined above will drive away good editors (and worse, as with most CIVIL failings, it incentivizes malicious actors to be as abrasive as possible, because if we don't enforce minimum decency standards, one way to "win" disputes on Wikipedia is to drive away everyone who disagrees with you by being abrasive and insulting.) An editor cannot simply say "well based on my beliefs that person is scum / faking their gender / not really a man or woman / whatever" to avoid those standards. If it's just on your user page, unless it is so flagrantly insulting and strident that it's enough to make people think you're WP:NOTHERE, the most likely outcome in even the most extreme cases is that you be asked to take it down (which, I think, is fine; users have the right to state stuff on their userpage, but Wikipedia is not a social networking site, so if it starts to become a distraction from editing an encyclopedia then it should go.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've read through this. I understand User:EvergreenFir's perspective and agree with it. Thoughts and deeds are inseparable, immpartiality is at times, but obviously not always, something to strive for but I think only artificial intelligence can achieve it.Doug Wellertalk10:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts and deeds being separate is the essence of civilization. As far as AI being impartial? Harvard Business Review, among others, points out problems with that thought: [15]. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
AI Possibly not being impartial doesn’t surprise me. I presume by civilisation you mean civilised society but that may be a goal to aim for but impossible one to always achieve for humans. Doug Wellertalk06:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Impossible to always achieve, perhaps, but if every time someone thought about hurting someone else they did so, we would have less of a civilization than most social primates, arguably less. Point is, restraint works, usually, which is why it is a civilized expectation always. I can think of any number of times I have argued for something on Wikipedia because the principle was more important than my personal preference. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The normal mechanism of what gets commonly called thought police is to say that the post is offensive to someone. I recall seeing what could be a simple real world example at a noticeboard a few weeks or months ago. A person was brought there because on their user page they said that they believe that a marriage should be between one man and one woman. Which is of course a question when the government shall bestow this status, with opinions and laws varying around the world. They were brought to the noticeboard for having "homophobic" material on their user page. What would this be considered? North8000 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@North8000: I'd consider it non-actionable and frivolous at best. The reporter would deserve a TROUT. This is assuming that the reported event was not part of a larger context... but even then it's not actionable. EvergreenFir(talk)20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: No. A statement of religious views doesn't violate UCOC. The statement does not, in itself, target a specific user to violate §2.1. For §3.1, the statement does not insult a specific person and does not use any egregiously offensive language that would constitute hostile environment. Compare that to "queers can't be married under God's eye" or something more offensive.
More generally, I think it's important to point out that §2.1 is about communication and language with other users. It does not address worldview statements. My userboxes about BLM, non-binary identity, and feminism (statements of my views and self-identification) does not mean I will refuse to engage in respectful communication with fellow editors who may be on the political right-wing. Likewise, those userboxes are not harassing (in §3.1) other users in anyway. Harassment can be interpersonal or creation of a hostile environment. Interpersonal harassment requires a pattern of unwanted communication that creates negative affect or is some sort of quid pro quo. Hostile environment, in a legal sense, needs to be pervasive and substantial enough to disrupt the ability to work/participate for people of the target category (e.g., LGBTQ people). EvergreenFir(talk)20:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. That's strange to me, as where I live that behaviour would generally be considered actionable in a workspace environment. Posting a homophobic userbox on your user page being akin to having the same slogan on a bumper sticker, a Slack profile, or somewhere on your desk. By having that content displayed on your profile, you are creating a hostile work environment even if you aren't directly walking up to a specific staff member and saying the same thing in their face or in an email or PM. While we do have a rather high profile case currently ongoing on the nature of protected philosophical beliefs, where two protected beliefs (eg religion, sexuality) are in conflict the onus is on the employer to ensure that a hostile work environment is not created. Typically a statement like queers can't be married under God's eye would be considered hostile, whereas saying I'm non-binary and married to my partner is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: The political ghost of Scott Walker still haunts my workplace. I would bet HR would allow a "I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman" statement by an employee. It's rather conservative where I'm at so that's part of my experience too. EvergreenFir(talk)21:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The example in question involves an opinion about governmental policy, not an attack on a person. Just as advocating against allowing polygamy or marriage of siblings is not an attack on those people. Squelching discussion or opinions or punishing for them based on misstating them as an attack on the person is a common behavior. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: Squelching discussion or opinions or punishing for them based on misstating them as an attack on the person is a common behavior: I agree with this very much, especially the phrase I italicized, which happens to me literally all of the time very, very frequently. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is also my stance. WP tells editors via disclaimers they will encounter views from other editors they may find offensive, but that in itself cannot be the basis for action to resolve it. It is only when those views directly target another editor or group of editors is when we need to step in. Unfortunately, we do have past actions (like removal of offensive userboxes) that are premptive and thus an indicator that there is a "thought police" going around on WP. More commonly it is when editors make presumptions about a person's stance and thus tries to seek action to remove that editor from a discussion (eg along the lines of NONAZIS) - I was subject to this during the Gamergate situation. This is broader behavior that we really need to stop. We want to be a safe space for editing, but we can't be a safe space for views and the like, that wrecks the open-wiki nature of the work. --Masem (t) 14:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A userbox doesn't cause harassment appears to be a general statement. If you meant, "no userbox that currently appears in enwiki causes harassment", then you should have specified that to be what you meant. The first is more or less a logical statement, the other empirical. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There are several userboxes in existence that I find 'annoying' or 'agenda pushing' in nature. But, I don't bother reporting them, as I choose not to attempt to control another editor's userpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Which answers a question I don't believe anyone was asking. From "would a KKK userbox constitute harassment" to "I become annoyed at some users' agendas" in one move. The force is strong with this one, Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't advise anyone to have a KKK userbox on their userpage. But, if they did? I wouldn't report them, as it's their userpage. That's all. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
My understanding was that self promotion was an issue when user pages appeared on Internet search engines and WIkipedia's search bar. Is this still the case?
It is not clear how the user page rules links to the 5 pillars. In some ways it runs counter to them.
Mental health - We have a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention . I still find it abhorrent that other users can edit a person's page to hurt. The fact that this happens implies that a person's page is somehow seen to be part of the person. If it is not offending, and is not visible to non- Editors then why let a person have their "safe space:, even if some make it look like Geocities on a bad day.
Your user page" definition" is not consist
What wikipedia is not : "Your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self promotion."
User page is far softer in wording eg blatant self promotion rather than self promotion.
The user page is part of wikipedia physically and logically, but What wikipedia is not does match "our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and GFDL." The user still has rights, and the content does not belong to Wikipedia
"Your user page is not yours" is contradictory. But it should also be clear that it does not belong to any other editor.
There's no problem with the extant wording, and it serves multiple purposes (e.g., you can't really "ban" people from your talk page; they may still deliver necessary notices). "[I]t should also be clear that it does not belong to any other editor"? No, no one competent enough in English to be editing here would ever assume the meaning of the phrase was "Your user page is not yours, and instead it belongs to some other specific person". User pages, like all other pages here, belong to the community. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You can't put anything on your userpage. Including certain images, messages, userboxes, flags, etc. So, indeed nobody 'owns' their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay you can have rights, but also have restrictions.
There are 701 redirects to this page. 65 of them are to the top level, with WP:NOT the clear winner at ~244860 uses and WP:Not in second place at ~2608. The two added together are >100x 3rd place, >1000x 11th place, >10000x 17th place, and >100000x 38th place. 13 have zero usage. The best example for WP:COSTLY is probably Wikipedia:¬, which with this edit has managed to appear on its fourth page in 15 years. The previous appearances were two RFDs[20][21] which it somehow survived, and the TP of its creator in notification of those RFDs...
In terms of computational resources, redirects are cheap. What's important is that we don't need to advertize all of them on this page, and we have had to go through every few years to cut down on new shortcuts that are added onto this page. That's not saying all the redirects in the table are appropriate. eg just scrolling up, I'd have a problem with NOTWOKE as that can be seen as a slight, whereas NOBLEEPS is completely fair related to not censored. But just a quick scan and I see maybe up to 10% that could be removed without being an issue. --Masem (t) 06:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you actually read the RfD discussions you link to? They make it very clear why they reached the consensus they did and that there is no problem in general with little-used shortcuts (not that WP:¬, which you seem to have some special dislike for, is actually little used). Redirects are cheap and so we only delete them when there is some active benefit to doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Right now, there are four bulleted (implicitly unordered) points in this section, with the first being regular editing and the last being proposing a rules change. I'm proactively starting this section, because while I believe the bullets are both in logical order and should be presented as such, I expect that someone will revert my BOLD change. But, I could be wrong, so I am making it both for that reason and because it will serve as a concrete example of how minimally invasive such a change would be. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Copyright claim on an individual trying to violate my software.
Over the years I've come across many instances where town and village articles have needless lists of 'prominent' businesses, public transport timetables, bus route numbers, minor road connections, and excessive detail about local sports teams. This is a good recent example, where the editor even added times of church services as well. Usually these are removed, but are often re-added at some point. I think some of this would fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE, but neither of those say anything specifically about excessive detail on transport, businesses or sports teams within articles. Is there a guideline (or even an essay) that could be linked to? Or could we add some of those things to this page? ~Asarlaí12:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Follow his link. "Population 475 ... The village telephone box doubles up as a popular lending library." EEng13:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Message board
Lately on a few article talk pages I have seen (maybe trollish) messages that appear to be aimed at notable people. MAybe we need something to the tune of?
"We are not a messaging service and it is unlikely that any message left here will be seen by its intended recipient."
That seems more suitable for WP:Talk page guidelines, which states the purpose of the talk page. No objections from me to add such a statement, although I don't think this is a big problem on WP... -- P 1 9 9✉13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a forum nonsense
I see a great tendency of trying to silence discussion on Talk pages as being a "forum." This NOTAFORUM idea is being extensively used to the point of abuse by trying to label any discussion on article talk pages as trying to start a forum. A talk page is a form of a forum. I suggest that Wikipedia seriously consider this NOTAFORUM tag, which is being extensively used to silence any discussion on anything as Wikipedia not being a forum. NOTAFORUM tag is almost an abuse on Talk pages and will seriously lower the quality of articles on Wikipedia talk pages. Everything is a discussion and a forum, without talking like a forum an article cannot be improved and will just be a robotic paraphrase of some other information. NOTAFORUM tags logic is being flawed as time goes on and will have a seriously detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I hope this entry will not be removed as another form of a forum. NOTAFORUM philosophy and its purpose needs to be fundamentally revisited so that it helps Wikipedia and not destroy it 202.9.47.48 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
So, if we get rid of WP:NOTFORUM, what are we going to do about people trying to use Talk:Illuminati to communicate with an organisation that hasn't existed for getting on for 250 years? Sure, WP:NOTFORUM is capable of being abused, like any other policy or guideline, but that isn't a reason to get rid of it entirely. Talk pages are for discussing how Wikipedia writes about things. Because that is what Wikipedia is for. Anything beyond that is out of scope, and if it gets out of hand, it is disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that talking about aliens and whether they exist or a thing about Illuminati that most people in the world think is not true in the Talk pages is insane, but since this NOTFORUM philosophy was introduced and people interpreted this tag according to their own specifications and biases, most article's Talk pages (mind you the Talk pages) are becoming dead and fixed. Any discussion on Talk pages concerning the article, whether the article is important, not important, whether this article should be improved more, should be deleted, should not be deleted, if this article is important or not important is being categorized as some kind of a forum, which is not. No one is trying to start a 30-page discussion on Talk pages on anything to the level of if aliens exist, Illuminati is good or bad, but this NOTFORUM is being abused systematically to stifle any discussion on Talk pages (mind you the Talk pages). Since the Talk pages of articles are stifled, the articles are becoming almost a blind copy and paste of who knows what source that the stifling editors themselves decided to include as a valid source. Because of this Wikipedia is becoming a monolithic blind copy and paste of sources that the editors, who decided themselves what is not a forum to begin with, chose and put in as a valid sources for articles, which is not helpful. My point is that Talk page is a form of a forum. Without a forum like discussion happening on Talk pages, the articles will be biased and monolithic. Stifling Talk pages will stifle the articles themselves and that is my point. I see the following tendency starting to occur in all Wikipedia articles. 1. Talk pages are stifled by using the NOTFORUM justification/tag. 2. Because the Talk pages are stifled, the articles are starting to become stifled because of the influence of the Talk pages (most serious editors will look at the Talk page somewhat) 3. A clique of editors with the same idea/philosophy and belief is dominating the articles with their own biases and what views/sources they want to include or not include. 4. Because of these wholesome stifling and clique-like things (between certain editors that know each other's edits and viewpoints) happening in the process of editing/changing any Wikipedia articles, other editors with a different viewpoint (not necessarily a total opposite viewpoint) are not able to edit the Talk page or the article themselves. I'm not talking about this like I want to just ramble, but this tendency has started to occur greatly. I agree that most editors can edit any articles and there is a decent chance of their edits staying put on Wikipedia, but the process of editing Wikipedia is starting to get flawed by this systematic/purposeful use of this NOTFORUM tag, which can be interpreted in any way to remove any discussion on Talk pages (mind you Talk pages). 202.9.47.48 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you can't refute what I'm saying, I think your argument if it existed is nonexistent or weak. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm under no obligation to 'refute' anything. If you want policy changed, it is up to you to convince people that it needs changing. And doing that is going to require verifiable evidence that there is a significant problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, WP:NOTFORUM is capable of being abused, like any other policy or guideline, but that isn't a reason to get rid of it entirely. That's like saying, "Sure, cockroaches, mosquitoes, and flies are capable of spreading disease, but that is no reason to eliminate them from our venue completely."
So, if we get rid of WP:NOTFORUM, what are we going to do about people trying to use Talk:Illuminati to communicate with an organisation that hasn't existed for getting on for 250 years? Easy solution. That is what the talk page guidance is for. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC is sufficient for this on talk pages, and WP:OFFTOPIC is good enough for articles. NOTFORUM is needless disease ridden instruction creep that should be eliminated from this venue.Huggums537 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
After looking at this issue more closely, I see some benefits of NOTFORUM, and I am striking my previous comment. I still think NOTFORUM needs an overhaul though. Huggums537 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
One of the main reasons why I'm talking about this NOTFORUM and recentism is this Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident article, which faces the following issues. 1. It is recent so there is a lot of media talk about the good and the bad on this topic. 2. All the garbage goods and bads and the emotions regarding this topic were sucked into Wikipedia without a filter and hyped. 3. There is a clique of editors on this article that doesn't allow any talk on the Talk page, by deleting talk page items as not being a forum. 4. The editors of this article know each other pretty well because they have accounts and can see each others' edit histories and have the same tempo, idea, beliefs, and such most likely (this is likely true). They most likely come from the same country. 6. There are increasingly emotional and biased responses and edits happening on Wikipedia on any media talk about something, especially something that has to do with race, most likely involving the United States. So the suggestions and ideas I'm saying on this Will Smith - Chris Rock slap article are this. 1. Recent events tags and such should be clearly displayed and conveyed to visitors and editors alike. This fixes the issues where emotional garbage article and info without proper context and time is being sucked into Wikipedia by a clique of editors that wants the slapping issue to be bigger than it is. I'm saying the article is too recent, too hyped, too emotional, too biased to have such a big say on Wikipedia, especially involving a clique of editors that locked in this article in their own way. Since there is a lot of bias and emotion about two black people slapping each other and how the world is collapsing because of it, there is clearly a clique of accounts that wants to send a certain message on this slap as being a lot bigger than what it should be. All Wikipedia article and certain articles involving race especially (especially) the United States faces major bias, recentism, and emotion from a certain group of editors that wants the issue to be looked at in terms of a certain way. That is my main point. The use of this NOTFORUM tag is the main way that these editors try to stifle opposite viewpoints and lock in their articles. That is my point. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The removals on the talk page that I'm seeing are appropriate , they have nothing to do with improvement of the article but instead just crititicizing why editors are spending so much time on it. There is a valid complaint that RECENTISM should apply here, along with BLP issues, as well as NOT#NEWS, and if the complaint was framed from a policy-based standpoint, that should not be considered a "forum" posting. But without policy arguments, the complaints are not useful and thus approprate to remove per NOT#FORUM. --Masem (t) 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There are many different ways to do "improvement" of an article. All articles involving the United States, race, recentism, emotion, bias should be very carefully observed and paid attention to. All articles involving the following two words: "United States" and "race" should be closely watched by everyone for the following bias and tendency. 1. Who are the editors? 2. Is it recent? 3. Is it too recent, too biased and too emotional to be locked in by a certain editors from the United States? 4. Is there a specific message trying to be conveyed by the manner of speech and the tone of the article such as the nuance of the words and selection of words, and how certain messages and words are used to convey what topic and phrase and how the sentences are constructed in the article 5. Is there a worldwide view of the article from a different country's perspective for instance if the article was mentioned in another country or not 6. Lastly the most important of all as I stated earlier. Who are the editors, what message is the article trying to convey and the choice of words and nuance of the words and how the sentences are constructed to convey information. This is the most important of all. I suggest all Wikipedia editors from top to bottom pay very special attention to articles involving the following words occurring in the same article/sentence: "United States" and "race." This applies to everyone. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
While I agree with getting rid of NOTFORUM, I must say I concur with Andy you should use less words in your arguments since a WP:Wall of text can be difficult to follow. I also concur with Masem about why people are slapping you with the NOTFORUM tag with your tendency to go off topic. It also doesn't help matters at all when you keep talking about other editors in their groups rather than the solution. Take a step back, and focus on the results you want to accomplish, then concentrate on that. This page is for talking about NOTFORUM, and the other page is for talking about that article. See? Huggums537 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about specific articles are specific topic. I'm talking about larger policy and how certain articles and controversial topics should be vetted and analyzed. This isn't about a specific one thing. The most glaring example involves all Wikipedia articles involving "United States" and "race." NOTFORUM philosophy should be clarified and revisited. Not all garbage topics and especially controversial should be sucked into Wikipedia without a filter because someone tried to send a specific message on it. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that "not all garbage topics and especially controversial should be sucked into Wikipedia without a filter". WP:NOTFORUM helps keep garbage off Wikipedia, so I don't understand why you are against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
NOTFORUM is being abused/overused by a clique of editors that have a lock on certain articles who want to convey their message. That is the problem. Plus too recent and controversial article should have alert, menu or something on top saying that this article is too recent or controversial. Wikipedia is sucking all sorts of garbage all over the world because certain people thought that this slap caused the world to collapse202.9.47.48 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
If the policy is being abused then tell us where, and that can be addressed. The policy itself actually helps your case, rather than hinder it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Having read the above post, I am reminded why NOTAFORUM is so important for keeping the difficult work of creating/editing articles that can in any way be construed to be controversial (or even have a tenuous link to a controversial topic) on a steady path. I am often impressed at how prescient the early builders of Wikipedia were. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the new Wikipedia policy should be this: "Wikipedia is not a vacuum cleaner. - Wikipedia is not the world's garbage bin where all nonsense and irrelevant topics are deposited. Wikipedia is a serious and credible platform that is not intended to be the vacuum of all nonsense and garbage news that happens any given day. It is a serious deliberative platform that is not intended to stick its nose in every thing that happens in the world." 202.9.47.48 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
You are basically arguing the intent of both WP:NOT#NEWS as well as WP:BLP; we do have editors that get overzealous on burst-of-coverage news topics. We tend to lack judgement in the first 24-48hr if the topic is really one that will meet WP:NEVENT but it is very hard to correct the mass editing behavor here. --Masem (t) 17:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
My end point is that news articles shouldn't have its own pages on Wikipedia. The articles are too new and too shaky in the long run. Some of the credible articles on Wikipedia had their time on Wikipedia where they were boiled and analyzed. Wikipedia cannot vacuum all the garbage into it and start posting news articles as a Wikipedia article. Issue is this. 1. News articles are being created as Wikipedia article 2. Criticism of the news article on Wikipedia is stifled by this NOTFORUM tag, which basically says "shut up." 3. News articles are very biased and shaky because they are recent and don't have full weight in the long run. New approach is needed so that news topics along with their emotions and biases behind them should be taken care of differently, especially if they are controversial like race and such. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I’ve seen invisible comments that said that users should not add films in development for various actors/companies’ filmography lists per WP:Crystal. Eg: Jake Gyllanhaal However, WP:Crystal doesn’t directly mention this. Can someone contact the creators of the invisible comments about this? Bobowl0921 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see mention of WP:CRYSTAL when editing Jake Gyllenhaal. However, the assertion that films in development should not be listed is in accord with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Clarifying scope of non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines
If anyone objects to the following change, please revert and we will discuss the change.
"Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"
to
"Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made outside of articles, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, articles, article talk pages, and pages that change the content of articles should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"
Reasoning:
Some editors are of the opinion that the current policy only applies to the Wikipedia: and User: spaces, and does does not apply to things in other spaces that are only used on user pages, such as Template:User separatist and Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians.
@Guy Macon Alternate Account, I'm extremely confused and perplexed by your recent revert, and edit summary; "It was correct before. Opinions on Wikipedia are not allowed on article talk pages. "Not allowed on talk pages" is wrong." because it seems to be in direct conflict of your stated reasoning above for making the change in the first place; Some editors are of the opinion that the current policy only applies to the Wikipedia: and User: spaces, and does does not apply to things in other spaces that are only used on user pages, such as Template:User separatist and Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself where above you were saying, I also made it clear that you can't use articles for your personal views either, whereas the previous language only specified article talk pages. But, your revert in the edit summary now says something completely opposite to all that you described above: "Opinions on Wikipedia are not allowed on article talk pages. "Not allowed on talk pages" is wrong. So, which is it? Huggums537 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Plus, now that I am reading what the stable version said more carefully, I think I disagree with the change anyway, and I support keeping the stable version. Huggums537 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Other than the confusion, my concern is adding an explicit prohibition of discussing Wikipedia matters on an article talk page. While they are certainly not the normal venue for that, such conversations often bring that up. This would make that a clear violation of core policy and thus a behavioral issue. IMHO pretty serious wp:creep and prone to weaponizing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you meant your concern was with the explicit prohibition of discussing Wikipedia matters on User pages, and Wikipedia namespace pages, but yes I agree that even if user pages are not the normal venue, namespace pages often do have conversations that bring up article matters, and the stable version should stay intact since the proposed change affects all those pages. Huggums537 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I am fine with whatever the consensus is, but I would note that, despite North8000's edit comment "Adding a new rule to a core policy which forbids talking about Wikipedia on article talk pages is major wp:creep at best. Please take such a proposed change to talk for consensus" the page said "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" before my edit, and it was Huggums537 who changed it to "talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"[22] -- a major change in the existing rules.
Original language:
"article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"[23]
My version:
"articles, article talk pages, and pages that change the content of articles should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"[24]
So my version didn't change the existing rule regarding article talk pages. I have no problem if you folks want to change the rule, but I tried to keep and clarify the existing rule.
Now let's look at what we lost ("and pages that change the content of") in the revert.
First, let's assume for the sake of argument that opinions on Wikipedia policies are not allowed in the user namespace.
Would it be OK for me to create a template or a category, then use the template/category to insert an opinion on Wikipedia policies into userspace where it isn't allowed?
Now let's assume that opinions on Wikipedia policies are explicitly allowed in userspace.
We seem to be assuming two contradictory things are true at the same time. We need to nail down one of them or the other as true before we can begin to have a conversation about the other. I read the current stable version to clearly say opinions are allowed in user space, and Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't mention any other name spaces such as Template or Category, except to expressly discourage article main space. My interpretation of this would be that if they wanted to expressly discourage any other project space, then they would have named them right along with the express naming of of main article space. It is clear that Template and Category spaces are more easily grouped together with Wikipedia namespace than they are with article main space. If the authors intended any other meaning, they would have made the separation of this intuitive grouping more clear. Therefore, it is clear in my view that Template and Category name spaces are allowed just as much as Wikipedia namespace, so if someone is trying to delete your template/category, I would say they are wrong. Huggums537 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
That's the way I would interpret the existing language as well, but several veteran editors have shown that they can read the exact same words and come to the opposite interpretation[25][26][27][28][29][30] with comments like "User categories are in the Category namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace or on user pages.", "Express opinions on talk pages but not with categories, although I suspect I may have done it.", "Delete, obvious case of WP:USERCATNO", and "A category page in not in userspace." Thus the need to make it explicit. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I thought that "It is clear that Template and Category spaces are more easily grouped together with Wikipedia namespace than they are with article main space" was a very useful bit of analysis. It clarifies the issue nicely. Might I suggest a minor modification? There are some templates and categories that are only used on user talk pages. Others are only used on article talk pages, and others are only used in articles. It seems to me that in those cases the templates and categories should follow the rules of the pages they are always used on.
It is interesting to note that many userboxes will automatically create a category, and place it on a user page. Userboxes are well known for opinions, but they are also created as templates that are currently in the process of being moved into user space. Huggums537 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
There are actually two changes here, which actually go in opposite directions; it might be worth discussing them separately, since I think one is less controversial than the other:
"Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. was changed to Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made outside of articles, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. If we take the current (pre-changes) text literally, it does not allow people to give their opinion about Wikipedia policies on article talk pages. I don't think that that's how WP:NOT is currently interpreted, though, and it seems like enforcing it that way would be unworkable, so this change seems straightforward and reflects current practice - opinions about policy are legitimate subjects for discussion on talk pages as long as they relate to potential changes to the article. "I think your interpretation of that policy is wrong and would have bad consequences" is a reasonable thing to say on an article talk page. Something like "I think that the current policy as written is wrong and should be changed" is probably a bit off-topic for an article talk page, but that's because WP:CONLOCAL means that it's impossible for it to go anywhere there, and even then it seems reasonable to say something like "I think this shows a problem in the policy; I'm gonna go suggest a change / clarification in the appropriate place." It's even valid to suggest WP:IAR in places where you feel policy is dysfunctional, which includes expressing your opinions about the policy and why you think it should be ignored - it's not always a strong argument, but it's certainly one we're allowed to make on article talk.
However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" was changed to However, articles, article talk pages, and pages that change the content of articles should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject". I think I understand what you're trying to say here (pages like eg. WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN should be covered), but it seems a bit awkward. Honestly in my experience people are more likely to cite WP:FORUM in this case (though glancing at it, FORUM technically also has comparable language that technically doesn't apply to Wikipedia namespace). Either way I'm not sure it's a serious enough problem to require a policy change. Also, "views on a subject" to me means, here, "don't use an article talk page to express your views about the subject of the article, which doesn't make as much sense in other places.
My feeling is that we should probably keep the first change and wait / workshop the second. Most people seem to agree that things already work the way the first change implies (ie. people above express concern that these changes could forbid discussing policy on article talk pages; but really, the first change actually does the opposite and unambiguously seems to allow it - it's just that since that is already accepted practice, that part of the change isn't attracting much discussion.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Let me start the workshopping with a question:
Should we change However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" to However, articles, and article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"?
Does anyone object to that? It is derived from WP:V (you must attribute an opinion to a suitable source) and the fact that the personal views of individual Wikipedia editors are not a suitable source for anything in any article. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
On the change, there nothing bad about it except it adds something that is beyond-obvious. If you can't personal soapbox in the article talk page, you certainly can't do it in the artic le. But I do disagree with your rationale. WP:V does not apply to talk pages. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for being unclear. WP:V is my rationale for changing "article talk pages" to "articles and article talk pages"
I keep running into situations where multiple editors who have been here quite a while don't agree with something that I find to be obvious and need a policy that states the obvious. Then the challenge becomes clarifying the policy without adding a bunch of words and causing WP:CREEP. An added word -- maybe two -- is usually OK. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This has become too complicated and unclear for more voices to join. May I suggest framing a single-item proposal, possibly adding the rationale for it and describing the type of extant problem that the change seeks to solve? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Aquillion, you brought up a good point in your comment because when I made my change, I wasn't really paying that much attention, and I really only thought that it looked awkward to me. I did not realize I had changed the actual meaning of it until I got reverted. That is when I looked at things more closely, and after North changed things back to the stable version, I was rather confused by the changes because the old language was clear about Wikipedia name spaces, and the new language was not. I think you are absolutely right in saying the first change is having an opposite effect to the point that I didn't even realize the OP and myself actually agree on things until we got into the discussion. I think the new changes should also have language that includes Wikipedia name spaces to be just as clear as the old language was. So, it should say, Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on namespaces outside of articles, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. This would include the User, Template, and Category namespaces as well as others. I'm not married to the edit I made to the policy at all. In fact, I consider it an oversight, and the nominator made a good revert to bring it to my attention. Huggums537 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I like "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on namespaces outside of articles, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." Nice improvement over my version. You can expect a little something extra in your Wikipedia paycheck this week. :) Question: on namespaces or in namespaces? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Either, or I guess. Makes little difference to me, but leaning more to "in". However, you still need to address the concerns of other editors about the second part of your changes in the second paragraph; However, articles, article talk pages, and pages that change the content of articles should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject especially the part that was bolded by @Aquillion because this is another part that was confusing me, and having the opposite effect. It could be simplified and made less awkward by keeping with the namespace theme: However, article main space should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. This pretty much covers both articles, and their related talk pages without awkwardly spelling it all out individually. Perhaps you could set this all out together as a final proposal as suggested by @North8000 below, and I for sure would support it. Huggums537 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I need to figure out what wording is acceptable to everyone first. I think we are almost there but not yet 100%. I like your suggestions and North8000's suggestions better than what I originally wrote.
Minor question: what percentage of new editors reading this page for the first time do you estimate will understand what the phrase "main space" means? Are we using technical jargon where plain English will do? On the other hand, "articles and article talk pages" is clumsy by comparison. Is there a better choice than either of those? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure. I think maybe a better choice would be to borrow from the example of the original text and link to the explanatory page for more clarity. So, you might want to change it to something like; "However, article namespace should not be...". This kind of linking has worked fine to avoid confusion with technical jargon in the original text so far. Huggums537 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
In addition, if you get consensus for your change, it is extremely important we have consistency in the guidance. So, you will also need to remove the word "categories" from citation number two in the notes section of the guidance. This was brought to my attention by Randy Kryn, who made a dummy edit with the summary, →Notes: "forbids talking about Wikipedia on article talk pages" (the first rule of Wikipedia Club). However, I strenuously disagree with this interpretation of the notes because the notes specifically say, Talk pages, user space pages and essays are venues where you can advocate your opinions... It's right there in citation #2, and the link to Talk pages says, Talk pages (also known as discussion pages) are administration pages... It is here on the administration pages link that you will take notice of the Wikipedia data structure table on the right hand side, where you will see all of the Wikipedia namespaces divided into two different categories called the subject namespaces, and talk namespaces. This clearly demonstrates that article talk pages are listed among the talk namespaces as administrative pages in the talk namespace that are obviously allowed as talk pages. Also, when citation #2 says, Wikipedia article pages (and various navigational pages: categories, navboxes, disambiguation pages, etc.) are off limits for any advocacy., and it actually links to something that specifically says, The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be (for example, Talk:Mathematics), then it is quite clear we have a very contradictory statement with However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). I also agree with @Aquillion in interpreting "subject" to mean to mean the subject of an article, so I vehemently disagree with whoever added this bit of text to the guidance saying that article talk pages should not be used as platforms for personal views on the subjects of articles, and I'm beginning to wonder if that part should not be eliminated entirely. The first part is fine, but I don't know why I've been assisting with rewording the second part. It's very problematic now that I'm thinking about it harder. Huggums537 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
At any rate, we have discovered what appears to be an apparent conflict in the guidance that does need to be resolved, or at the bare minimum it needs to be modified in a way that it will have no appearance of any conflict. Huggums537 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It will be difficult to get consensus for anything other than some variation of "article talk pages should not be used as platforms for personal views on the subjects of articles." Every day, dozens of comments are removed per WP:NOTFORUM, which says "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article."
I am still concerned about they way we say certain rules apply to certain namespaces rather than plain English phrases such as "in Wikipedia articles". Lets assume for the sake of argument that we really don't want the claim that "Finland does not exist" in Wikipedia articles, but what we write is that it isn't allowed in main space. So I create template:fdne that inserts the phrase and use it in the article. That's allowed. right? template space and main space are not the same. Or I create category:Nordic counties that don't exist and apply it to an article. Category space and main space are not the same either. That sounds like a silly interpretation to me, but I have documented multiple editors who have made it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I figured as much. NOTFORUM is just a restatement of Stay on topic over at Wikipedia:TALK#TOPIC. However, that would mean the citation I pointed out needs a rewrite since it obviously contradicts NOTFORUM, Stay on topic, and the current version of WP:NOTOPINION. I personally would rather change all of these three instead, but that's just me, and I'm not holding my breath on that.
I think we misunderstood each other. Neither your template, or category would be allowed in the article no matter what language you use. So, it makes no difference if you use plain English , or technical phrases, except that technical phrases make things much more clear. I now see that maybe we don't agree on things as much as I thought we did. Earlier in the discussion when you asked, Can someone delete the template/category arguing "the rules say can do that in user space, not category space or template space"? I responded by telling you they would be wrong for deleting your template/category, but I thought you were talking about deleting the actual template/category itself like through a speedy deletion nomination or something. Had I realized you were talking about removal from an article, I would have said the template/ category would not be allowed in article space, but you have every right to create it for other namespaces, and so nobody can have them deleted since they serve a purpose for other namespaces, but they absolutely should be removed from articles where they don't belong. I hope this clears things up Huggums537 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we pretty much agree on everything and I was unclear. I was indeed talking about template deletion. I tried to add a hypothetical regarding what the basic error I have been talking about (specifying a namespace instead of specifying what you actually mean) could cause. I obviously failed to get my point across, so feel free to ignore my hypothetical Finland example. I hope that you can see the error in action in the two cat deletions I linked to above. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll point out one more important difference between plain English, and technical phrases. Plain English is highly susceptible to being gamed because it is so open to interpretation, but using technical phrases as far less vulnerable to that because it is much more defined so policies written with technical phrases are far easier to hold people accountable than with plain English, which can be wiki lawyered far easier. Most people who want to trick you into using plain English simply for the sake of being easier to understand merely wish to have the personal advantage of being able to w wiki lawyer later on. This kind of selfish motivation is a detriment to the project as a whole because it is exactly what leads to the kinds of policy conflicts and contradictions that we are dealing with now. Huggums537 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a really good point. O.K., you have convinced me. We should use namespaces, being careful which ones we specify to avoid the "the rule only says user space and category space isn't user space, so you can't criticize Wikipedia on your userpage with a category such as Category:Wikipedians who feel disappointed with WMF" problem.
My solution was "Talk about Wikipedia on user pages and pages that change the content of user pages" (followed by the other places you can talk about Wikipedia) but it appears that everyone hates that solution, so I am open to hearing about a better way to do it. "Talk about Wikipedia in user space, template space, category space, wikipedia space, help space, etc."? "Don't talk about Wikipedia in main space (except on pages about Wikipedia), file space, portal space, mediawiki space, etc.?" --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the writers of the Category guidance have far surpassed the bounds of policy, and it is in dire need of some paring. Huggums537 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it's more complicated than that because certain parts seem to match up, but many components are at conflict here. For example, The policy here seems to be at conflict with itself because the part Guy Macon wants to change seems to be able to be interpreted as allowing categories, but the notes section expressly says no categories while also being in direct conflict with its own self by linking to other pages that suggest categories are in fact allowed. However, the guidance over at User Categories does partially match up with what the notes section says at the policy here because they both agree about categories, but there is a clear contradiction where the notes in the policy here clearly say you can advocate your opinion if it is related to Wikipedia, and the guidance at User categories is extremely vague, and ambiguous about that. Until the conflicts can be resolved, that guidance can't really be substantiated by the notes in this policy. There are also other problems I see with that guidance such as the fact that the WP:OC/U#Irrelevant likes section allows for grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences provided they are relevant to encyclopedia-building, but the WP:OC/U#By dislikes section does not allow grouping of users based on shared preferences no matter if it related to Wikipedia or not. That is very problematic, and highly contradictory in my view. If we make the changes Guy Macon is suggesting, (and I think we should) then not only does the notes section need to be modified to allow categories, but the guidance over at User Categories needs to be changed to match up with the policy change here as well so there are no contradictions. Huggums537 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Requesting help in converting claimed to be essay to non essay
Greetings,
I know there are other forums for for making copy edit requests but one of the draft Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala rewritten by me with proper sourcing has been marked like an essay though I have not added any personal thoughts or original research. May be I am still missing in my language skills may be some one knows and helps out in converting claimed to be essay to non essay, hence requesting here.
Please read the "Submission declined" box at the top of your draft. It gives the name (Devonian Wombat) and provides a link to the talk page of the person who characterized the draft as an essay. They may provide more information. It also contains a bullet point with two links that says "If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors." You could try one of those links. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Tuition and fees for colleges and universities
This policy states that "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent sourceand encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention."
Our advice for college and university articles recommends that articles include an "Admissions and costs" section. The advice doesn't give much guidance about what should be in this section; in its entirety it says: "If the institution's admissions process is competitive, it may be described here. Include factors admissions considers or does not consider. For American colleges, {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}} may be used to summarize statistics. If an institution's cost model is complex, such as having separate in-state and out-of-state tuition fees or offering significant financial aid, describe that here."
Does that advice conflict with this policy? Are there any recommended modifications that may help editors steer away from violating this policy e.g., add a note that this information requires independent sources that discuss tuition and fees in detail? ElKevbo (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I see no reason why educational institution costs/fees/tuition/bookstore markup should be included in their articles. The specific advice referenced seems to run afoul of the more general principle. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, the policy says unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention and the header under which it's disallowed is [Wikipedia is not] A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article
I don't think university tuition fees and admissions data fall into doing business. I think there is probably encyclopaedic significance and educational value in discussing / mentioning this data. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems like WP:NOTPAPER is very old, outdated, and antiquated by virtue of the fact that it describes Wikipedia as a "digital encyclopedia", but then the only distinguishable differences it makes between paper, and digital are the amount of text, and content that can be created. Even the link in the first sentence primarily discusses size limit, and structure comparisons before anything else. There are very brief mentions about the very oldest concepts of "digital" such as color, digital art, photographs, and animation on the meta page in the Style and functionality section, but no mention of the newer capabilities we now use such as audio, and video files. For example, we now offer WP:Spoken Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever of any of these digital capabilities at all here in our local guidance at NOTPAPER. Why? Huggums537 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It's called "What Wikipedia is not" but why? I couldn't find any helpful information in it.
A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
Please add the following:
If a request was made in the wrong forum, the original thread may be closed as part of fixing the error, but only after the thread has been posted in the correct one. 93.172.252.36 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The initial statement is there as an example of bureaucracy to be avoided. Instructions on the correct way to handle procedural errors don't really belong in 'What Wikipedia is not', they belong in the relevant policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
In other words, I think we should mention the specialized list articles (such as glossaries or articles that have glossaries) as well as the Wikipedia help glossaries. I'd also like to point out that this "little section" I've been referencing is actually a subsection of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and so it is clear that it was intended to be grouped with all the other subsections under that heading including WP:NOTFORUM, which I mentioned in my edit summary is also about talk pages, not just articles. It also mentions in the main section that The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.WP:SOAP says, This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.WP:HOST is much about user pages, and WP:NOTESSAY also has guidance about user pages. So, there are several places in this section indicating that within the whole of the context, the guidance in that main section is related to more than just articles. What was done on the original post here was actually taken a small portion of text out of context and used as a reason to justify the claim that the first item in the subsection must be restricted to only talking about articles. It's fairly obvious from the rest of the context that nothing has to be restricted to talking about just articles in this section nor should it be since both types of glossaries and other indices are exceptions that should be, and need to be noted. Huggums537 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
