Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Non-free album artwork in Song articles

Is it acceptable fair use of non-free images if album cover artwork is included in articles about songs on an album. An example is Image:SurferRosa.jpg in Where Is My Mind?. I would suggest that it is not fair use, as the image is not being used to illustrate the song itself. This has been discussed briefly before, but no real consensus was reached. I think this needs to be clarified as it affects a huge number of articles. Thanks Papa November 14:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even find it appropriate in album articles unless the cover art itself is a notable part of the album, I'd certainly say the same for songs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure disagree. The cover art is essentially the only thing that can illustrate the album. I think it's fair to say that for songs, too, unless they had a single cover. Ask User:Mikegodwin. ←Ben^B4 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm hard pressed to see a reason why we would care. It seems to be working fine. The musicians put art on the covers to attract attention to their products and their careers. Having this art at WP atracts attention to their music and careers. Everybody wins but the anal rule enforcers/creators. Please let sleeping dog lie and turn up the tunes. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Here is the text from the US Copyright Office webpage about Fair use:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

So even the Copyright Office says that this is not a bright line. In my view, using an album cover to illustrate a song satisfies all the four points: (1) Wikipedia is nonprofit and for education purposes, (2) and (3) are both answered by the fact that the album cover is intended by the copyright owner for display to the public at no charge before the work is purchased and that only the outer cover is used, not the entire package graphics and text. This would be different if the artwork were used to illustrate something unrelated to the music an on the album, for example an album by Madonna used to illustrate an article about "Nightclubs" would not be fair use. (4) is answered by the fact that album copyright owners actively encourage the display of their album artwork everywhere and that there is no way its display on Wikipedia would reduce the value of their product. This is in contrast to, for example, if there were a bonus fold-out poster of the artist inside the CD package - that would be something of value intended only for purchasers, such that if it were displayed would reduce the value of the package.

For those reasons, I believe displaying album cover artwork to illustrate the following topics is valid under fair use: The album; songs from the album; the recording artist; and the record company (if the record company is the copyright owner).

These are my personal opinions, having done some study of Intellectual Property issues. As said, I'm not an attorney, but I can't imagine a copyright owner of an album complaining about exposure for their music by display of the album cover. Examples are everywhere on the web, wherever there are reviews, there are album covers, and there are no cease and desist letters or lawsuits about those things, the record companies welcome it.

I suggest that WP:FAIR policy is unclear on this and needs to be improved. I'm sure that there are attorney editors who would be glad to help with interpretations and to clarify the language. --Parsifal _Hello 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The question here is not fair use, directly. Wikipedia has policies that are more restrictive than the fair use limits, for two or three main reasons. One is to steer well clear of copyright liability rather than pushing any limits, keeping in mind that Wikipedia has a small legal budget, that it intends the articles and material in them to be re-used by people with very different purposes (including creating derivative works), and that these uses may be in different copyright jurisdictions. Another main reason is to limit the use of copyrighted content overall. And finally, Wikipedia hopes to encourage people to develop free use content, either by creating original material or finding public domain things.

Under Wikipedia's limitations -- not fair use necessarily -- an album cover to identify a single from the album is probably not a good use. This boils down to criterion #1 (replaceability) and #8 (significance) of the 10 non-free use criteria at WP:NFCC. It does not uniquely identify the song. It's there mostly as a visual device, not a necessity. In fact, whereas most album articles do have the cover art for the album in the infobox, you'll find that most song articles here do not use that kind of picture and they do just fine. It's not a question fo can you do it legally under fair use, it's do you really need it. My hunch is, no.

If you don't like the policy this is as good as any a place to talk about it but it's very entrenched and I do not see it changing soon. If you want to know what the policy is instead of what you think it should be, WP:NONFREE and its often contentious talk pages are a good place to read up. Be sure to check through the archives. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not agitating for change about this, I was just offering my view based on the prior question. My personal opinion is that displaying album covers is much ado about nothing, because the copyright owners love it when their album covers are made visible. I've seen the pages you refer to, and I respect that others have other concerns about keep all uses free. I'll leave that debate to them. Thanks for your reply. --Parsifal _Hello 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Using cover art in the album article makes sense, maybe even for singles. However when the article is about a song rater than any particular single release of it I don't see what business we have putting cover art into the article. Now granted people tend to "work around" that by simply dedicating large portions of the article to the various single and cover releases of the song, but asuming the article is actualy mostly about the song itself I would say you need to carefully explain why it's needed if you want to add an image to it, albumcovers can rarely be said to identify the song, a particular release of a song yes, but rarely the song itself (over the years a song is usualy included in any number of releases with all sorts of different cover art), and you would need more than a brief mention of a particular release in order to justify an identifying image of it in a song article. --Sherool (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two different arguments against including non-free pictures, such as album covers. One is that it violates general fair-use guidelines. You hear this one when people say things like, you have to make a serious discussion of the artwork... The other is that Wikipedia restricts fair-use content, because it restricts the ability to distribute and redistribute the material found here. Currently, the line is blurred regarding the first point. As far as I know, nobody has any official rules on what's okay, and what's not. Everyone who weighs in on whether an image is okay to use or not is giving his own opinion (do not use that fact as an excuse to push the boundaries). Just try to keep it reasonable. With regards to the second point, the English Wikipedia supports the use of fair-use material. If you keep it reasonable regarding the first point, you shouldn't have any trouble here either. -Freekee 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two types of stubs

There are currently two types of stubs, those which are assessed as stubs, and those which deserve stub templates. The first is based on content, the second on size. This is an odd double-standard. I propose that we treat these as an either/or situation. There is no reason to limit the stub templates to size when the content is what needs expanding. At the least, Wikipedia should decide on one type of Stub so that the word will mean the same thing no matter where you see it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's a stub isn't based strictly on size, though there are certainly size-related clauses in the (somewhat open-ended and discursive) "definition". What's a "stub-class article" is... left entirely to the imagination, as far as I know. When these first started appearing, the distinction was justified by at least one WP1.0er on the basis that they "weren't necessarily the same", without a clear-cut definition or distinction being advanced. I suspect most people treat them as being the same, and the huge number of "automatic assessments" obviously assume that "stub" implies "stub class article" (whether or not the reverse is also true). Personally, I'd entirely abolish "stub-class article" categories, on the basis of being unnecessary, confusing, and creating just this sort of definitional headache. (i.e. essentially merge the "stub" and "start" classes, with distinction between them being left to whether or not there's also a stub template.) But I strongly suspect I'm on a loser on that one. People seem to like having tremendously fine-grained "assessment categories" -- despite the original rationale for these (inclusion in or exclusion from WP1.0) necessarily having a distinctly boolean character. Failing that, we should probably do as Johnny suggests, and treat the two as being same, and enjoin people to "please make them consistent, one way or the other!". (Though I'm still dubious that's a job for a bot, since if the two are currently inconsistent, there's no way in principle to know which to resolve it in favour of. It'd be possible to do this in a db-query-assisted semi-automated way, though.) Alai 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• There's been quite a lot of comment in the past at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting about this problem. Having the assessment-style templates called "Stub-Class" was a silly mistake from the beginning, since the stub system had already been in place for a considerable time, and there was bound to be confusion resulting from it. Alai's suggestion of amalgamating the terms Stub-Class and Start-Class into a single Start-Class would get around this, or alternatively simply rename Stub-Class to something less confusing. This would not overly affect the assessment system, and would make it easier for WP:WSS, which is often faced with comments from editors confused about the two systems. There are good reasons for the need of two different types of assessment of stubs, though, so I'm less in favour of Johnny's suggestion of making them identical. the Stub system assesses articles in general for expansion by all editors, whereas the Stub-Class assessment is dedicated to individual wikiprojects; as such, it is likely that there'd be a more rigorous assignment of exactly what constitutes a Stub-Class article. This would create a systemic bias, in that articles connected with specific WikiProject subjects would have a different assessment criterion from those with no dedicated WikiProject. So, overall, either renaming Stub-Class to something less confusing, or combining Stub-Class and Star-Class, would be my ideal preference. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the difference between stub-class and start-class is relevant and important. I would support renaming stub-class, but to what? "Seed-class"? Or, rename stub-class to start-class and rename start-class to something else indicating progress, but that would be a fair amount of upheaval. SamBC(talk) 00:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying there's no difference between "stub-class" (assuming that's something like a "stub", as current practice would strongly imply) and "start"; OTOH, it does seem likely that it doesn't map in any way to prospective inclusion or exclusion from WP1.0, so I don't follow why it's important to, or relevant to that (and to what else it might be, remains a mystery). I do think it's pointless to differentiate between them twice, as at present, with the consistency issues that introduces.
    • The categories are template-populated, so if the Stub-Class Articles were to be renamed (which would seem a rather half-hearted measure, if it fails to clear up the alleged distinction between those and stubs per se) it wouldn't be a ludicrous number of total edits, and it'd be reasonably automatable. Alai 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What about this - keeping Stub class, but as synonymous with those under WP:Stub sorting. This would be purely based on size, and these exceptionally short articles should be grouped together. Then change current Stub to Start, and current Start to something that reflects the fact that it is the foundation of a good article. Perhaps Basic-class, or the (slightly lengthy) Foundation-class? I'm okay with upheaval if we can settle a long-standing point of confusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • At the risk of reiteration: Wikipedia:stubs are not defined purely by size. Nor does WP:STUBSORT advance any definition of its own, other than that in that guideline. Alai 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
          • "My bad", as it were. Striking that part, how does the rest read? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If we were going to rename the start class at all I would go with 'C' class, continuing with the theme of letter grades. As one of the few people who regularly makes assessments (going by the number of articles that haven't been assessed) I treat the two as the same. Stub is something lacking heavily in content, start is something lacking significant content but being at least half way there, not just a few lines of something. It's not at all 'fine grained' to have both a stub and a start class - the assessment scheme is fairly 'coarse' with just the classes it has, not that I think that needs to change either. Introducing another class would probably just complicate things further, and confuse those used to the current system. Richard001 01:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't recall seeing any cases where something would be assessed as Stub-class when it wouldn't qualify as a stub for stub sorting, and vice versa. Indeed, many larger projects got a bot (the one written by Kingboyk) to automatically assess all articles with stub templates and add Stub-Class tags to the talk pages. Of course there are plenty of pages where there are inconsistencies, but these are pages that need something updating (lots of stubs have been expanded, but the template or the assessment has remained as Stub). I pretty much agree with Richard on all points. Walkerma 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

what a source is?!

good example :
i put a trivia on The Prince of Tides article, the movie, and some guy, User talk:Spellcast, undid it : cause : "unsourced" - - - sometimes, when i'm on wiki, i'm really asking myself about intelligence, in general - - -
trivia text : "The actress Kate Nelligan, who plays Tom and Savannah's mother, Lila, was born on March 16th, 1950, and was older than her twins in the movie, Tom (played by Nick Nolte, born on February 8th, 1941) and Savannah (Melinda Dillon, October 13th, 1939)" : what more do we need, more than the birtdates?! ri-di-cu-lous, huh! 84.227.48.33 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that you're just posting your own observation. Even though it's trivial to do the math, it's trivial to do any number of comparisons--that's how people come up with all those wacky numerological coincidences. The question is 'why is this observation noteworthy?' The answer is to find a secondary source that has taken note of it, and its reliability is a sign of the amount of value to give this observation. If it was noted in a review, cite that, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the information makes sense, but you need to state where you found that information (ie. its source). Did you read it somewhere? Did you see it on TV? Everything in a good encyclopaedia must be backed up be a reference. Papa November 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • sometimes, too often, people on wiki are really... how to put it politically correctly?! sorry, there is no other word than **ity : who needs sources to read an official birtdate? AND you do not know what a numerological coincidences is!!! what i put is NOT a numerological coincidences but JUST the FACT that an actress was older than other actors playing her son+daughter in a movie, that's all 84.227.48.33 08:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But, it's irrelevant to knowing the subject of an article. As an example, you don't need to know Pikachu was parodied as Ling-Ling to know that Pikachu is a yellow mouse-like fictional creature that can use electricity. It's loading a horse-drawn cart with the equivalent of a semi cab - useless. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Consolidating discussion from my talk page...

bravo, i never read something this *** about what a source is... in this case, the point is just to KNOW the bithdate: no one needs a source!!!! OR : you have to put in wiki all sources for all mentionned birthdates, good luck! 84.227.48.33 08:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

-Papa November 08:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, yes all dates must be sourced on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia and must contain verifiable information only. It is official policy. Any unreferenced material will be removed for that reason. Are you saying it is OK for people to make dates up? Papa November 08:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is very silly. First, it should be clarified that 84.227.48.33 means that the actress playing the mother was nine years younger than the actors playing her children. This is certainly an interesting fact, and Night Gyr's question implies that he didn't fully understand what 84.227.48.33 was talking about.

Second, Papa November is mostly wrong. Birth dates are rarely referenced (though that doesn't mean they shouldn't be), should not be removed for being unreferenced (though checking them and referencing them would be a splendid way to improve the encyclopedia), and, in my opinion most importantly, his last question about making up dates implies that anything unreferenced is made up or that allowing anything without a reference behind it is supporting factually inaccurate information. This is an enormous assumption of bad faith and simply not a logical conclusion. Atropos 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting trivial fact. But is there a source that recognises this observation? Is there a source out there that says "oh look, the actress playing the mother was nine years younger than the actors playing her children!" Spellcast 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a source is unnecessary if there are sources for their birth dates. This is an obvious factual observation, like finding the population density of a region for which you have the population and the area. Atropos 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, but to demonstrate that this is more than a minor factoid you require secondary sourcing. This is kinda like WP:N on a small scale and IMHO is a good thing. It prevents articles degenerating into trivia lists. Zunaid©® 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if this were backed up by a source, it doesn't have to be included if it's too unimportant or not relevant. Now, if this were a part of the critical reception of the film, that would be a different thing. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has a trivia section its a little to late for that pressing concern. Even still, I would certainly suggest that this be included in a well-written cast section were the article more mature. Atropos 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i am User:84.227.48.33 : OF COURSE i was meaning the actress was "much" younger than her son+daughter in the movie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 84.226.96.243 07:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG too many essays

As some of you may have heard before, our category of essays is a complete and total mess, because for years people have dumped anything they wanted to say in there. In an effort to clean this up, I would suggest the following, preferably using a bot:

1. Find all essays that lack sufficient outside participation, feedback, or incoming links
2. Since presumably few people care about these, move them into the userspace of their author
3. Remove all essays in userspace from this category (by removing {{essay}})

ThoughtS? >Radiant< 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a very good first step. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what is the problem with essays in userspace? Many people (myself included) actually prefer writing essays in their "own" space, so as they're not that mercilessly edited and always reflect the author's intentions. I would strongly oppose a plain removal. An acceptable middle ground would be to create a {{useressay}} template that categorizes pages to a subcategory of CAT:E, so that they do not show up there, but are nevertheless accessible. Миша13 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with essays in userspace, and nobody is saying that there is. Note that most people do not in fact bother with "tags" in their userspace, so there are at an approximation ten times as many essays in userspace as we know of. I have no objection to {{useressay}}. >Radiant< 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that segregating userspace categories is the solution. Suggest massive MFD of low quality essays (in whatever namespace) that either duplicate the content of better essays or whose primary contributor has been inactive for 3-4 months or more. Would prefer to slant this toward older essays which never gained many incoming links and don't get updated. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no objection. Please pick any five from CAT:E you like; nearly all of them are in fact low quality. However, I suspect that people will miss the point and go "keep, it's an essay". >Radiant< 14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do we really need that? An essay is an essay, distincion is already made at the "publicity level" they have, that is, essays that are "respected by the community" even get to be linked from policies and guidelines, while other only sit in the category. currently we have two sources of possible revert-wars: link or not from a given policy/guideline, and stay at wikpedia: or user: namespace; doing this we'll get another source: is it an essay or not. Do we need to add yet another layer of policy-like categorization? (there's a somewhat related discussion at Template talk:Poldetail - Nabla 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one possible option; not earth-shaking, but available. You can use the category Category:Wikipedia editing advice, if you want, to draw further distinctions to identify some of those essays which should be used especially as guidelines or suggestions on editing Wikipedia entries. --Steve, Sm8900

I agree with the idea of moving personal essays back into userspace, but it shouldn't be done by bot: each deserves to be evaluated by a human -- using pre-determined criteria (e.g., no outside participation) but personal judgement as well. There are only about 500 essays in the Wikipedia namespace; this task can be done by hand.--Father Goose 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in the cases where users object to the move, go to RFC or Requested Moves to see which of the moves are endorsed.--Father Goose 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support userfying the obviously userfiable essays and subcategorizing the category to make it easier to navigate. Deleting essays outright seems illogical, both because there's really nothing to gain over userfication, and it'd be a hassle to deal with the MfDs. Atropos 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, let's start this simple. I suggest that every essay that has only be edited by a single user (not counting typo fixes, adding the essay tag or a category, nominating it for deletion, or similar minor stuff) should be moved to that user's userspace. The only reason I suggested a bot is because it's a lot of work; if some people chime in to help, we can do it by hand. >Radiant< 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly good start. I'd additionally exclude essays less than a month old, to give them a chance to grow. I'm not volunteering, though, I have salmon on the grill.--Father Goose 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong recommendation: I'd like to add one recommendation to this sensible proposal. To the extent that "human eyeballs" get involved, it would be great if people could identify essays that touch upon the same or similar issue, and flag those as merge candidates with each other (regardless of whether they get moved to User space).

This will help reduce redundancy, and inform essay authors that their ideas have been addressed elsewhere, possibly encouraging further collaboration and conservation of effort. dr.ef.tymac 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Radiant's proposal, but suggest that we delete essays substantially the work of one person, from contributors who have not contributed to WP for at least 6 months, and only include in the contributing editor count those editors who have contributed to WP in the last 6 months. --Kevin Murray 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is that necessary in contrast with just moving it to their user space?--Father Goose 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kevin - to keep things simple, I suggest we move them to userspace as suggested above, and let people who wish them deleted invoke WP:PROD to do so. >Radiant< 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no strong feeling on the matter other than to support a good plan which moves us closer to your goal. --Kevin Murray 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should write an essay about this. Wikipedia:Radiant's Idea Sounds Fine seems to be available. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP isn't a free webhost. If you're going to write non-collaborative documents that no one else cares about, please do it someplace else. I support MFDing low interest essays, or upmerging them. It would be easiest enough to make lists of such pages with the fewest editors and incoming links. --Gmaxwell 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Uhh ... there are a *lot* of essays out there. Yeah, we all knew that already, but the mountain of sand seems so much larger once you start plucking at it with your pair of tweezers. Would it not be a good start to automatically tag essays that have been edited by *only* one contributor? Some kind of time-saving idea seems fitting here. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This could help. Whilst at it, it should distinguish essays with no refs (can't trust it) or no inward links (i.e. seems irrelevant). Add a date so there's a chance to fix it. Ignore bot edits in criteria. LeadSongDog 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding essays with no refs (can't trust it), perhaps you're thinking of mainspace. An essay in Userspace or Wikipediaspace (say, for example, about how to improve disambiguation pages) would obviously need no external links (refs).

Regarding WP isn't a free webhost, if someone wants to write an essay about a particular aspect of how Wikipedia works (or should work), why in the world would we object to having that within his/her userspace? Certainly an essay about (say) "My dog Spot" is inappropriate, but those are already being taken care of by CSDs and MfDs. We're talking about essays that are about improving Wikipedia; if they're not high quality, let them sit in userspace (IMHO), where they occupy trivial amounts of disk space, essentially use no bandwidth, and might - perhaps - someday be useful. In any case, if we start purging essays from userspace because "no one cares about them", then presumably other pages that no one (but the user him/herself) cares about are also fair game - and I don't think we want to go there. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. One person essays are essays. Wikipedia is not paper and it can live with many essays; what is needed is a way to rank them, as suggested here - not 'userfication and decategorization'. PS. To be clear: I don't mind 'userfication', it's 'decategorization' that I strongly object to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We must have a policy for the company lists

I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would bring this up at the talk page for WP:CORP which is the notability guidline for companies and organizations. I would support inclusion of your concept there. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing so much ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT essentially says that you shouldn't do something that hurts the encyclopedia just to prove your point that (for example) a policy is wrong. I strongly suggest starting with a couple of lists that you consider "useless", rather than (say) proceeding alphabetically, or listing dozens of articles in a single deletion nomination (the latter two approaches could well be considered WP:POINT violations). And make the nominations separately, not together, so the merits of each case are debated individually. (And finally, I suggest not raising the policy issue in the AfDs; rather, let the discussion focus on the merits and problems of each list, and from there, see if you can find some basic criteria to use. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the problem is inherent to the whole idea of "list of companies", I'd consider my actions as WP:POINT even if I go case by case in an order of problem-judgment. It'd be infinitesimally more useful if the community could have a consensus on, at least - (1) intro and organization guidelines; (2) inclusion criterion policy; and (3) external link control. It's terrible to see adverts, spam, redundancies and endless lists taking hold of the idea. Besides, why do we need such a least at all, when there's a way to put relevant companies bunched together in categories? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying "I think we should have a policy" and actually having a policy get written and put into place are quite different. If you're not willing to raise the issue via AfDs (you don't seem to agree with my interpretation of WP:POINT as forbidding damaging actions, which AfDs - in good faith - would not be), and you're not willing to post at WP:CORP, then nothing much is likely to happen.

And the issue of lists that should be categories has been discussed before: see [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Category:Lists that should be categories. The general guidance for lists, of course, can be found at Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style); if the lists you are complaining about are not in compliance with these existing guidelines, that's another reason to take them to AfD. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Weights & Measures

When I log here, I'm presented with a page showing the various languages Wikipedia is available in. The language I choose is English, since I liveJGC1010 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) in the USA. The system used in the USA for weights and measures differs from the metric system. I feel that references citing weights and measures in the English language section of Wikipedia should at least contain the system used in the USA.

See MOS:NUM for an explanation of use of units. Metric is preferred, except in those articles which are specific to the US, or in those fields where other units are typical (e.g. aviation). It is usually helpful to have a parenthetic conversion of weights and measures into the other system where appropriate. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with gradually learning a system of measurement that your own country has been trying to adopt for some time, and catch up with the rest of the world? The imperial system of measurement is an antiquated and irregular system of measurement that has been the cause of substantial disadvantage in the U.S. in the fields of military, aerospace, international trade and commerce <see metric system>. The sooner you become familiar with the world's current system of measurement, the sooner you will be able to orient yourself with the World Wide Web. Yes, the internet does extend beyond your country. Andmark 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We're here for the readers' convenience, and either a majority or a huge minority of our readers don't do metric. It's not our job to try to force them or even encourage them. The questioner's point was (at least the way I read it) that the U.S. system should be used, not that it should be the only one used, or even the primary one. The Internet extends beyond your country, too. Noroton 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When sources give measures in a particular system, that system should be given first. For example, dimensions for US lighthouses are given (by our sources) in feet. Using meters in this case is imprecise; they can be included in the article, but they are derived values and should be presented as such. (Ditto for the other direction.) It's not a matter for parochialism, American or Australian or otherwise. It's simply a matter of accurate presentation. Mangoe 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, though I suppose the original point was that the user wanted the units to match the local system settings. Whilst it is an understandable and desirable default for the user, I decided to be a bit opportunistic and poke fun at the ethnocentric viewpoint expressed. Where there is an issue with the accuracy of the presentation, or for proper names (i.e. Ninety Mile Beach) it doesnt make sense to use the metric, so I would definitely agree with you. But in the case of other quoted measures used around the world it would be better that the metric unit equivalent is available. Andmark 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So you mean that it shouldn't be "144.84096 Kilometer Beach"? (kidding) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely it depends on the context what weights and measures are used-e.g. a scientific context would always be SI/metric units, a context about France would be metric units, about Britain would be both (because both systems are official), about the US would be US units. In articles that don't fit into a category like that easily, I can't see anyone objecting to using both metric and US/imperial (the UK equivalent) units. Deus Ex 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on highway shields

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to UK, Irish, Austalisian, South African, and other English speaking editors outside of North America - this is likely to involve Highways in the United States (and possibly Canada) only. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? — The Storm Surfer 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, in the UK at least, we don't tend to have highway logos. Bluap 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing of Main Article callouts

When a lengthy article calls out the template {{main|subtopic}}, there are often well referenced citations in the called-out subtopic. In order to provide an inline synopsis, the lengthy article often winds up replicating the cites for a questionable improvement in verifiability. It seems to this humble puppy that we would be better off to have an identified synopsis in the subtopic article which can be automatically inserted by the call out, keeping all the similar refs in one place. For illustration of some of the issues consider First World War and its call outs under War crimes or the less controversial section Literature and movies. Am I missing a policy/guideline on this topic?LeadSongDog 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes a lot of sense. I think the only problem would be making sure the summary is in line with the main article. It seems like there should be some way to do this with transclusion, but I don't think there is at this time. And no, I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that would let you do this. — The Storm Surfer 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the lines of:

1. a comment field in the main article source text identifying which captures a permanent link to the historic version of the subarticle the abstract was taken from; or
2. a transcluded synopsis (perhaps in a DOI format?) that keeps current versions in sync; or
3. a policy that the refs go in one place or the other; or
4. a way to transclude named refs in synopses

But I have no clue at this time how to make it happen (or whether it should).LeadSongDog 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's possible to transclude a chunk of text from within an (invisible) comment; if possible, I think this is attractive (this is #2, if I understand you correctly). That transclusion would pick up whatever footnotes are embedded in the text, of course, but

I don't think #4 is possible, though I'm not sure if you're talking about simply transcluding refs (which, I don't think, is really the point - keeping text synchronized is more important) or if you're talking about pulling in footnote details from outside the transcluded text (e.g., invisible text is in section 0, body of reference "ABC" is in section 3). I also think #1 is impossible (as much as anything is impossible with software - let's just say that I can't see the developers ever agreeing to this).

As for #3, it makes no sense that refs would go only in the main article; they either belong in just the subtopic (I personally favor that) or in both.

I think as Wikipedia articles continue to improve, this issue is just going to get more important - there are going to be more and more spinoffs/subtopics from main articles, and there will be a continual temptation (I've certainly given in to it) to simply update what should be a synopsis, and let someone else deal with incorporating the change within the subtopic article. Perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:Summary style about this issue would be helpful? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic updating their own article

Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an academic to update their own article here, with new publications, new interviews, new lectures etc?--Filll 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AUTO. The route suggested is for changes to be brought up on the article's talkpage and then integrated into the article by independent editors. (Having said that, something like the publication of a new book is easily verifiable and I personally wouldn't see any problem with autobiography in a case like that.) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Objective and readily verifiable information like the above-mentioned publication of a book is OK, though it has to be prudently sifted so that only the person's most notable stuff is included. I'm far more concerned about cases I've seen where academics have blatantly whitewashed their articles or filled them with puffery. (Not at all to say that such sins are confined to academics.) Raymond Arritt 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• See also our conflict of interest guidelines. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New policy

Upon reading wikipedia articles, I have a concern and an idea for a new Wikipedia policy. The policy is based around the notability of places. Because many articles on places on wikipedia are on non-notable places often with no importance at all. Etc city estates, streets. If you see Farringdon, Sunderland. You will see that it doesn't have anything with it to assert why it has an article on wikipedia. It just describes what is in the area, which is pretty lame. So should there be a policy on the notability of places on Wikipedia? For example, only established, towns, villages, cities and famous Geograghical locations should have articles. Not streets and non-famous local housing wards. The sunder king 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual streets are another matter, but settlements are deemed to be inherently notable enough by consensus. Adrian M. H. 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I mean. A policy to restrict articles on places, hence some are notable some are not. All settlements of course can have an article; but however. I think settlements with populations under 1000 shouldn't be allowed. The sunder king 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can appreciate the point that you have raised, but I think that consensus would be against it. Applying a threshold of population would be too arbitrary, so you would have to find some other criterion/criteria. The current consensus actually works pretty well I think. Adrian M. H. 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there should be a policy on places anyway. Not just notability, but on the accuracy of content, accuracy etc. A policy similar to WP:BLP but with places. The sunder king 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly some degree of notability would trump this, e.g. Valour Road in Winnipeg. The question becomes a philosophical one of whether there is a street anywhere devoid of any notable feature, history or inhabitant. How much value do we attribute to individual people's stories? I'm mindful of the Afghan girl whose remarkable eyes on a National Geographic cover were famous around the world, yet she had no idea herself until decades later she was revisited. Consider also the Last Spike. Wikipedia provides (by dint of its openness) a unique place for pooling of factoids that together reveal a story. To my mind if the article has place-related information not normally captured on a map, it's fair game. LeadSongDog 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the above to link to the girl's article. 207.176.159.90 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More examples include Anchiano, a rural center where Leonardo was born or Roda de Isábena, which is a municipality in Spain of only 51 inhabitants but which has one of the oldest cathedrals and was an important medieval center. In other words, there are so many aspects that may make a town important that trying to include all of them in a policy would be, in my opinion, impossible and could pre-empt the inclusion of towns or villages which are in fact notable. Cheers. --Jorditxei 13:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but you also can't judge a place by its current population. I recently visited Elgin, Kansas. Its a sad, but fascinating place. There is a good size network of brick roads capable of supporting some 200 or more houses. But, now, there are only a few buildings left and some of those are falling down. A hundred years ago, though, it was the area's rail hub. Then it got bypassed by the highway. The Afghan girl BTW is Sharbat Gula. Dsmdgold 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I should change that bit. A policy basically on the notability of places, not judged by population, history, or location. Just notability. Example if an article on a non-notable street gets created. It gets deleted. The sunder king 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As you probably know, the current system involves falling back on the general notability guideline when no more specific guideline applies. This sounds a bit kludgy when put like that, but it usually works just fine. An non-notable street would still be non-notable when measured in that way and very few notable places would fall through the gap, so to speak. Adrian M. H. 16:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate seeing one-sentence articles about places. I also hate how people think that settlements are inherently notable. For one thing, a settlement should at least be incorperated as a town. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a look at WP:LOCAL, where this has been discussed in the past. We didn't get a reasonable consensus last time, but perhaps people should start fresh based upon the older debates. >Radiant< 11:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy

It is my opinion that the deletion policy needs to be looked at radically. Listing bands and other organisations a select few thing are 'irrelevant' and therefore delete is unfair. Wikipedia is great because of the endless amount of trivia in it. Some people, comparable to the (edited), have an almost sadistic habit of prowling through articles people are in the middle of working at and deleting them. Its just plain unfair and it needs to stop. Johnjoecavanagh 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You've already been cautioned about personal attacks. Comparing people to the SS is an interesting way to use your 2nd chance... --Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, edited, but can we discuss the matter at hand and not play around with semantics? Johnjoecavanagh 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not semantics. Being civil is a policy you've repeatedly ignored several times today. You created an article that looked like a hoax. It was speedily deleted. Maybe it shouldn't have been deleted so quickly, but it didn't assert any notability and didn't include any reliable sources. That a subject is verifiable should always be a requirement of an article, and no changes to deletion policy should be made that would change that. --Onorem♠Dil 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but civility is something which must be returned, and I have not seen nearly enough of it. Many articles have been removed unjustly and without adequate explanation. In the Redboy article we were in the middle of improving it and I had just finished a big expansion only to find that the article was deleted, despite pleading for some time on its talk page. There is no civility in that and I was rightly annoyed. Johnjoecavanagh 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these endless policies is that a select few decide what is relevant and what is not. Obvious things such as hate articles should be deleted, or complete and utter spam, but anything saying something about anything should be left there. You don't have to look at an article about Redboy if you don't want to, but its none of your business to go around deleting the said article. Johnjoecavanagh 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Johnjoecavanagh, but you are wrong when you say that "it is not your business to go around deleting". According to Notability certain articles may be deleted. If what you think is that the article was deleted unfairly according to that policy, then I think you should consult the person who deleted it. If still you think deletion was not correct, then you have other mechanisms. I understand your anger but recall that coming here and stating phrases like "a select few decide" may put the community against you instead of in your favour. It would be more constructive to argue in which points the policy was violated. Hope to have helped you. --Jorditxei 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me like a person and not with those endless templates.

My argument is that the deletion policy is unfair. Wikipedia is great for trivia and urban legends and I would like to see that restored. I have been here in guises before and have contributed to articles, its not fair though that a few 'committed' sysops feel it necessary to delete some articles. I think the deletion policy should be rolled back completely to simply weeding out hate articles etc. I'm in the middle of organising a petition and will get back to you when we get our first 100 signatores. Johnjoecavanagh 15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the good way to solve that problem. Good luck! Cheers. --Jorditxei 15:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The problem with these endless policies is that a select few decide what is relevant and what is not."

I disagree. I think you should review the deletion policy and participate on its talk page with specific things you'd like to see changed. As far as I know, everyone is welcome to leave their input and suggestions. I don't believe that a complete overhaul needs to be done here...although I do also strongly disagree that "the deletion policy should be rolled back completely to simply weeding out hate articles." --Onorem♠Dil 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just put the petition up there now. If anyone has read this and agree's with our point of view, please sign the petition:

http://www.upetitions.com/petitions/index.php?id=195

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone came along and deleted this? :-) Johnjoecavanagh 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's place to provide anyone with a platform to speak, in fact it's specifically not supposed to be a soapbox. Rather, it's here to be an encyclopedia and a source of verifiable facts. Information that doesn't fit that ought to be deleted, and there's nothing oppressive or censoring about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ceased to be an encyclopedia as we know it years ago, its much more now. If you want to understand academic persuits you go to a library, or encyclopedia Brittanica. Rather it is now a collection of all human knowledge, be that an urban legend or obscure punk band. Johnjoecavanagh 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at WP:NOT, which specifically notes that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. What you suggest would be a fundamental change in the mission of wikipedia. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed (though I personally don't think it should be), just that that's far too big a change to stand much chance of being made. SamBC(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree about the policy change here. I've been working very hard on Propellerhead Software but, because the article has been poorly done in the past and deleted, my new article has been deleted. I managed to get it restored and added reliable sources but it was deleted again, and I think only because the article had been deleted in the past. Nobody read or commented on the article itself. Very often articles are deleted before anybody has a chance to add sources and prove notability - the very reason they're deleted! Also, some people simply go around wikipedia deleting articles and not contributing anything, which I think is really sad. We're supposed to be building something here to make it better, not taking stuff away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtombullen (talk • contribs) 22:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The Speedy deletion policy is unfair, because it doesn't give time to people who don't have all the relevant facts at that time and date, but wish to work on it later in the day, and not all in one go. Its unfair because a new article is routinely deleted before someone can actually update it. I propose that instead of constantly deleting articles, we place tags on them so as to be automatically deleted within four days if something is not done to improve it or if references are not put in place. It is the only fair compromise. Johnjoecavanagh 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have Proposed deletion, which sort of works like that. Also, if an editor wants to work on an article over time to bring it up to minimum Wikipedia standards, they can always do that in their userspace before moving it to main space. That's how I develop all of the articles I create. -Chunky Rice 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles "go live" ,if you will, immediately after you click save the first time. They should be presentable to the general public from the very first edit. I have not written that many articles (we have so many, focus should be on improvement) but cannot recall an instance where one of mine has been speedy deleted. The speedy deletion criteria are not hard to understand and it is not difficult to make an article that is not speedy deletable. Even if the article just looks good (follows the manual of style, may have an infobox, footnotes are good, etc.) people may give your article the benefit of the doubt. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its become much more than that now. The website needs to fundamentally change to be more accepting of trivia and cultish topics. The base academics is all covered here, wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge. And I don't care what you say, Wikipedia is a democracy, since we the people pay for it through voluntary donations. Johnjoecavanagh 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Paying for something does not give control, short of the fact that people will stop paying if they don't like it. It's not like it's paid for by any government, it's not coming out of anyone's taxes. Please read WP:NOT as has already been suggested, and consider what that says in your further contributions to these discussions. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge. I know Jimbo says it is, but that's because Jimbo is publicizing Wikipedia. Everything does not get an article. While the article you wrote may have been about a notable topic, and if you can rewrite it so that it asserts its notability and has reliable sources (By the way, you can do this without disruption in your userspace. Either use your user page, or add a slash after the URL and add the title of your page.), then you are welcome to recreate it. If the article's subject is ultimately non-notable (if there are reliable secondary sources, it probably isn't though), someone may feel it should be deleted, as is their right according to Wikipedia policy, but that's not something you have to worry about if the deletion really was a mistake. Atropos 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read that. Its irrelevant if its coming out of anyones taxes or not. What is relevant is that we pay for it, and we deserve a say in how its run. Thats not unreasonable. Johnjoecavanagh 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You do have a say. You're saying it right now. -Chunky Rice 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the people that have donated (myself included) that don't want to change things for no stated reason? Also, you are choosing to pay for it, it is a donation. If Bill Gates donates $3 billion to the Red Cross, great for him and the Red Cross. He can include it on his taxes and they can buy some bloodmobiles and provide emergency relief to a few thousand more people. He can't say however, after he donates it, that he only wants them to focus on disaster relief in Africa. Wikipedia is the same way. It is a non-profit organization, you donate] the money, you are giving it away. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The foundation doesn't have shareholders; you're a donor, not a shareholder. The only reason you have any say is that everyone who cares to say anything has a say. Ultimately, the foundation has the last word because it's their servers. People give them money, they buy servers and run the service, but that doesn't mean that the donors have any right of equity over the service or the servers. I've never donated, but I have no less right to say or do anything on wikipedia than people who have. If you want to spend your own money settign up a SumOfAllKnowledgeWiki, then go ahead. Wikipedia isn't it. If you donate money to wikipedia wanting it to be that, then I suggest you not donate again. SamBC(talk) 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that some articles ARE speedied or prodded excessively, preventing editors from properly developing them. One example (which I recently noticed) involved a stub on an elected premier of an Indian state being prodded by someone (I think it was an admin) [struck - I believe now that the editor in question was not an admin] who managed to combine rudeness and a profound ignorance of Indian history, with a claim that orphan and dead-end articles should be deleted - my understanding was that orphan articles should be de-orphaned, and appropriate links inserted into dead-ends. I also believe that, occaisionally, deletion debates are improperly closed, wih eg. one participant calling for deletion, and 5 or 6 for keep, being closed as a delete, with no explanation by the closing admin as to why they have apparently ignored what the consensus appears to be. I do not contribute to deletion debates half as much as I would if I had confidence in the policies and their implementation. DuncanHill 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a valid point worthy of debate. That said, I have no idea how it could be dealt with. SamBC(talk) 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have ways to deal with things like that. If an article is prodded and you disagree, you can remove the template. You don't even technically have to fix snything. If it is deleted before you can object to the prod, it can be immediately undeleted at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Proposed deletions. If you belive an article was improperly deleted at WP:AFD, try Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review or even contacting the deleting admin helps. Requiring discussion on every deletion case would be a disaster. If you don't believe me, watch Special:Newpages for a few minutes. Also please note that AFD is not a vote. If 25 people say to keep an article about Joe Schmo because they think he is the coolest person ever and one person says to delete because the article is unsourced, a list of trivial facts, and the person is not notable - and all of that is true - the admin should delete the article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And just how many Wikipedians have any knowledge or understanding of those processes? Who actually bothers to tell new users what they can do to get their deleted articles restored? How many, for that matter, have the courtesy to inform an article's creator of a prod, or of what it actually means? I give out a lot of welcome boxes to new users, and the level of snobbery and rudeness that some of them are exposed to over articles they have created is appalling, especially from editors who seem to specialise in deletions. Those processes also effectively exclude editors who never had time to see the deleted article in the first place. I don't for one moment deny that some articles need to be deleted, but the process is not, in my opinion, working in a way that allows editors (especially new editors) to participate properly. I know perfectly well that AfD and CfD are not votes - but I have seen several debates (both in AfD and CfD) where I do not believe anything approaching a consensus to delete was obtained, and they were not cases of coolness unsourced or trivial, and again I make the point that no explanation was given. It is entirely possible that there was a good reason for going against the consensus in the debate - but if the closer doesn't bother to explain it, then it is very hard for the rest of us to understand what that reason was. It would be fascinating if someone with the time and expertise were to analyze just how many editors are lost to Wikipedia after bad experiences over their first creations, or who shy away from creating articles because they are deterred by over-zealous deletions. DuncanHill 08:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking at a page that has been deleted, it includes the deletion log at the bottom so people can see the reason. There are also links to tutorial and help pages, as well as Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? which includes steps to follow and links to deletion review if they think a deletion was conducted improperly. In my opinion, people should shy away from creating new articles. We already have 1.9 million +. Now is the time to improve existing ones. As of the last count, there were 83512 articles tagged as lacking sources, 5640 are tagged as NPOV disputes.

It is really hard to address the concerns here because no suggestions are being made. We can't discuss everything, the mean number of pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion at any given time is is 197.9 - and pages there rarely stay for more than a few hours. Admins are given their tools because the community trusts their discretion. While it is unfortunate that some people don't inform users that their pages are tagged for deletion (I think we have bots already for speedy and AFD, you could suggest more at WP:BOTREQ.) we can't make it a requirement, otherwise that would open up a really bad loophole and would make the deletion system even more backlogged. There are clear ways to contest deletion. The WP:CSD tags all include information about the {{hangon}} template, {{Prod}} says that anyone can remove the template to contest deletion, {{Afd}} asks people to "share their thoughts" on the discussion page. I don't see how we can indicate more strongly that people can contest the deletion without saying "please contest this" in big bold orange font instead of "please share your thoughts." (Statistics from here) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you seem to be missing is that the fact that we make an occasional mistake does not prove that the process is not sound. We have thousands of articles per day added about people's neighbors, goldfish, words they made up, planned garage bands, and similar nonsense. That's what the process deals with, rather effectively. >Radiant< 11:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my hot button, an article was added, 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' which is a different organization than soldiers of the cross. The 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is referenced by the articles Arnold Murray and Roy Gillaspie and the initial information came from the 'Encyclopedia of White Power', pg. 120. The article was short but others would add to it if they knew more which is kind of the point of wikipedia. However, the article was quickly deleted by a volunteer and marked as insignificant.

That is exactly the problem, wikipedia is asking college kids, who have no knowledge of a subject to judge an article. The person who deleted it also said he doesn't care about that subject. Wikipedia speaks of vandalism, actions through ignorance is also vandalism (I looked up the word).

On the other hand, if one were to look at an article like Karla Cheatham Mosley. Why would reviewers allow that but delete articles of much more importance? Because it is on TV and has a nice external website to link to? I do not know the answer but it shows the level that some of the reviewers operate at.

Ultimately, the reviewers say, 'do not post on my page', 'go away', something like that. A mechanism should be in place to ensure these people are doing the job they signed up for (including some admins). If wikipedia wants donations from people then volunteers and some admins should start taking their jobs seriously.65.87.185.73 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with templates in user signatures

WP:SIG states clearly that users should not transclude templates in signatures, but makes no mention of what to do when you find an unsuitable signature that transcludes a sub-page. Is MFD the best route to take? WP:DP and the MFD page do not make any specific mention of this unless I have missed something, and UAA looks unsuitable for this. Adrian M. H. 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I encountered a user with one of the flag templates as a part of his sig. I left a friendly note on his talk page with a link to the policy, and he removed it very quickly. I'm not sure what you could do if the user refuses to comply and/or is transcluding a huge page. Probably TfD or MfD. Perhaps adding noinclude tags to the subpage would decrease the size as a temporary measure. But I'm just thinking off the top of my head here. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's generally acceptable to edit signatures that cause problems, say by Subst: the page or replacing it with a more generic less distracting attribution, as long as you don't alter any of the basic information (timestamp and username) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I want to talk to him about it before doing anything, but it helps to have something to tell him about what might happen so that he's fully informed. He hasn't edited many talk pages yet (fairly new user) so it's not yet a big problem for anyone. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The best approach is to talk to him first, and if that fails to resolve anything, ask an admin to get him to stop. MFD is really not necessary, because the existence of his subpage is not the issue. In a few extreme cases, people have been blocked until they changed their sig. >Radiant< 11:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Switchover to CC 3.0

Comments would be appreciated in the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Licenses. This proposed change would change the license selection drop-down to use CC 3.0 instead of CC 2.5. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the "orphanBacklinksOnSpeedyDelete" feature on Twinkle

I would like to remind admins who are using the Twinkle user script to be careful when removing backlinks to pages that they have speedy deleted using this script. Sometimes a vandal or new user will click on a legitimate red link and create a speedy deletable page. Please remember that WP:RED says that "removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their importance or relevance." Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

Per WP:COOL, I have not edit-warred on this, but I'm asking for the end of hostilities and edit-warring on a remarkably silly issue, and have one apology and one request, which I split into separate sections. THF 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. On the question of WP:HARASS

Over the last six months, I have been subjected to an extraordinary amount of harassment because I sought to comply with WP:COI and disclosed my identity. In an effort to reduce the harassment, I made a username change, which I thought was a good compromise: long-time editors generally inclined to behave themselves knew who I was, trolls wouldn't be able to immediately pick me out. Unfortunately, due to a number of unenforced violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:STALK, this has had a counterproductive effect, as efforts to politely ask people not to gratuitously throw my real name around merely encouraged canvassing for systematic harassment. I strongly suspect that much of the combat over this was a proxy war for other Wikipedia controversies that had nothing to with me, but that some editors were seizing upon this dispute to create a precedent for attacking a more popular editor. So I'm just not going to ask any more, and would encourage people to not fight about it, and instead focus on the production of the encyclopedia.

I have to suspect that Wikipedia would not have treated me this way if I were left-wing, rather than right-wing.

Except this is more than a suspicion: it's a demonstrable fact. In February, I complained that the Drum Major Institute had retained two attorneys to act as "Civil Justice Wikipedia editors", and was systematically subverting Wikipedia by completely rewriting every article in my field, legal reform, to reflect solely left-wing views, making literally thousands of POV-pushing and original-research edits that violated Wikipedia policy even without the WP:COI violations. But when I linked to the blog post where they indicated their conflict of interest, I was immediately threatened with an indefinite block, administrators debated whether I should even be given the chance to apologize, and was sternly warned never to do it again--even though the same editor previously edited under her real name before starting a new account with a new username, but no record of her previous account's edit history. No one even suggested that I was not in the wrong, and I abjectly apologized.

I apologize to those who were offended by my invocation of WP:HARASS in what were literally identical circumstances. I am an attorney by training, and my mind thinks in terms of precedent, and this was an obvious application of precedent to facts precisely on point. It should have occurred to me sooner that the problem was with the original administrative decision in the first case to demand an apology from me and forbid me from repeating the evidence of COI.

I want to thank those who came to my defense, and I apologize to them if they are frustrated by my concession here after they spent so much effort on the issue.

I apologize to Wikipedia to the extent that my request for straightforward policies to be enforced as they had been previously enforced was disruptive. For the reasons stated above, these requests were in good faith.

I note that this incident raises three issues for discussion:

• The need to modify WP:HARASS.
• Whether Wikipedia has a bias in enforcement of its blocking policies.
• Whether Wikipedia should be permitting any anonymous editing of the encyclopedia. THF 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

2. On the question of WP:COI

I would like to repeat again that, over the course of 7000 edits in over 2500 pages at Wikipedia, I have consistently tried to comply in good faith with the WP:COI guideline, seeking guidance from admins with legal training. I would again like to ask editors to comply with WP:NPA, and comment on edits, not editors: for all the complaining about me, no one has identified a single instance of a bad-faith mainspace edit. Compare and contrast SPA User:Drum Major Institute, which has made precisely one non-promotional edit in the course of its Wikipedia career without anyone saying boo or nominating its articles for AFDs.

I again ask that COI guidelines be enforced neutrally. Chip Berlet and William Connolley are permitted to edit articles in their field, even though they have very strong opinions, and even though they are attacked by trolls on- and off-wiki for the appearance of COI. But when they are attacked and harassed by trolls on-wiki, the trolls are blocked. In my case, however, not only are the trolls not blocked, but their demands are taken seriously: there are editors who are demanding that I entirely avoid not just articles in my field of expertise, but any controversial articles. I'd like not to have to fight the same battles over and over, and not have to wade through mud on such simple basic tasks as participation on the WP:BLP/N cleanup. Can we get a definitive and internally consistent ruling: are Chip, William, and I permitted to edit, and if so, under what constraints?

I note that an overexpansive COI ruling, while simultaneously permitting anonymous edits, is only going to cause more conflicts of interest, by making it perfectly clear that different rules apply for anonymous editors and non-anonymous editors. There is also discussion at WP:COI/N#Sicko, where I demonstrate that there is no reasonable interpretation of the COI guideline that suggests I should be prohibited from editing that article. THF 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A ban on anonymous editing is not going to happen, but I think you're right on COI. The popular understanding of the policy penalizes people for every bit of personal information they reveal. This is completely backwards: the policy should encourage COI disclosure so that such edits can be monitored by others. Many editors have suggested that you start a new anonymous account while simultaneously suggesting that your edits violate COI. That's doublespeak, and its bad for the project. Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problems with THF's Posts above

This is a repeat of the argument I made at the Community Sanction board. I find it highly disingenuous that THF now wants us all to learn from his experience, as if is a victim, when in reality he caused a massive amount of disruption. The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. I've outlined this case in my above comment. Our policies and guidelines protecting user anonymity are there to protect the NYPD police officer who makes a factual but unflattering edit to the Michael Bloomberg page, and should his identity be found out, may have ramifications for him with his job. However, if Fernando Ferrer, a Bloomberg opponent, began editing the Mayor's page, his identity would be pertinent to the discussion, and our guidelines and policies would not protect Ferrer. The situation with THF is analogous to the Ferrer situation, not the police officer. THF's career is to criticize public figures that disagree with his ideological point of view, and in the situation at hand, with Michael Moore in particular. Our guidelines and policies are there to protect those of us who are not public figures so that we may edit with knowledge we possess without fear of negative consequences in our waking life. Harassment, death threats, stalking, job problems. THF, who now says he has nothing to hide, so I am guessing he does not mind being called Ted Frank, has none of these issues and if he does, they are probably more a problem when he goes on Fox News than when he edits Wikipedia. Therein lies the rub: Ted has wanted to protect his identity against "unseen forces" on Wikipedia that he curiously is not concerned about when he goes on national television, with his face, employer and identity for a much larger audience to see. The problems I see for sanctioning are as follows:

1. THF's WP:Wikilawyering - using and abusing the letter of policies and guidelines with no concern for the spirit of why these were intended. This has caused a massive amount of disruption on the Wikipedia Project. He argues he should be protected by rules that are not there to protect Fernando Ferrer or Ted Frank when they bring their public disputes onto Wikipedia.
2. THF's Disruptive editing - He has consumed the ANI board over the last week asking to have pertinent content removed from articles, in this case Michael Moore and his sub pages, because Moore fingered a known, notable public critic of his as one of his main Wikipedia editors. THF has instigated disruptive edits and made them himself by gaming our policies and guidelines.
3. THF's WP:COI - when a person authors an unnotable piece as THF did, and then argues strenuously to have it included, going so far as saying it is a violation of policy not to include it, they are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. When a person who has a public feud with another public person, such as Michael Moore, and then efforts to have that person's content removed from Wikipedia, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines.

Those are my arguments for sanctioning.
--David Shankbone 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is about the enforcermnet of wikpedias rules not what some editors think the policies should be. Shankbone and cydes repeated harassment of an editor due to his political beliefs is appaling. The fact that no admin has stopped this blatent breaking of the rules is even more worrying. Just so you know i will post what policy actually says;

1.4 Posting of personal information Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

AND

2 Off-wiki harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking.

There is not interpretation ArbCom was clear and the harassment is still on wikipedia So do something about it.^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Wouldn't a user conduct RfC be a much better forum for this? --Iamunknown 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly. Although my edit count with THF will go up for the amount of forums I edit about regarding his behavior. I also posted that in response to his post. --David Shankbone 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that both parties allege that the other has acted unacceptably, it would seem more appropriate to seek mediation, then arbitration. That said, mediation is probably not going to work well at this point.

I must say that I applaud THF for his restrained and mature response to this ongoing issue. His behaviour at (what I believe to be) his original COI discussion was far from appropriate, and he's learned from that and is now behaving much more reasonably and I can't find fault with his behaviour based on a casual inspection of the case (I don't have time to look into it in depth). THF has declared his interest and behaved appropriately from that in every case since that COI that I have seen. The behaviour of those editors persuing the matter seems to be approaching that befitting a witch hunt.

In the interests of openness, I should add that I am generally in support of most of Moore's agenda, and despite THF's politics. That doesn't extend to me despising him, nor does it (or should it) lead to me obstructing his edits in support of that political agenda where it actually leads to better articles. SamBC(talk) 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not premature in saying that David and I have reached a reconciliation on his talk page. I hope that resolves the majority of the issues. I encourage discussion of the COI issue at WP:COI/N#Sicko. THF 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Project Coordinators

I have noticed recently that several WikiProjects are starting to have "Coordinators." Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement are among the two principal ones I noticed. Now I believe we have all read Wikipedia is not a Democracy and Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and as far as I can tell this a violation of sorts. At least WP:MIL is where a method of voting is employed with no real discussion. I don't what other's opinions are on this, but I believe it would instrumental if we had some sort of policy prohibiting or at least restraining the power given to these "people in charge." Perhaps, I'm wrong here, but I thought it should be brought up. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• We generally frown upon adding ranks or hierarchies for editors (or in extreme cases, simply take down the concept, as was done with esperanza). In general such coordinators do not appear to be necessary. This is especially true for projects that are small, or new, or have not made significant contribution to articles (but note that the Military project falls in none of these three groups). If the added bureaucracy is getting harmful (e.g. it is used to exclude some people from discussion, or add an "executive veto" or whatever) that'd be the time to step in. >Radiant< 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• If these coordinators do not fall into the trap of behaving like bosses and restrict themselves solely to the task of helping the project to run well and help their fellow members, then I don't have a problem with that. Although, saying that, none of the projects with which I am involved actually have coordinators (just a core group of active members) so I don't know whether I would feel entirely comfortable with it. Even if WikiProjects are sometimes given (or take) a bit more latitude, the most important thing is that their decisions and actions should not in any way adversely affect the rest of Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. There's a "bureaucracy watch" on the admin noticeboard that is occasionally invoked to cut through red tape. >Radiant< 09:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Successful Wikiprojects tend to have one person, or a small group, who act as de facto coordinator(s) anyway. It's not unreasonable for MILHIST to elect coordinators, seeing as they're so big and successful (FA machine), but for smaller Wikiprojects coordinators are really not needed. Moreschi ^Talk 10:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay then. As you guys have no real concern we can drop it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Oversighted Material Review and Disclosure (a proposal)

I recently became aware of the potential in respect of pertinent information regarding oversighted material that is available to a few trusted members of the Wikipedia community. I am wondering if there is any potential in having a request system so that oversighted material might be reviewed in order that non-contentious information may be disclosed to an interested party who has given a valid reason for needing disclosure. Before I attempt a proposed policy I would like to take the temperature to gauge the possible need, support and opposition to having the facility.

My suggestion:

Nutshell; Oversighted material may be made available against a specific and valid request.

Preamble; Oversighted material may currently only be viewed by those entrusted with oversight privileges. There is no restriction on what may be seen by those with these privileges, including material oversighted by others.

Precedent; WP:RfCU. Editors with Checkuser privileges are requested to perform checks on editors against requests citing specific and valid reasons. They can accept or deny such a request, and make the information known if accepted.

Suggested proposal; That following a request giving both good reasons for disclosure and an indication of the content contained, a person with oversight privileges shall review the described material (if found within the request criteria) to see if the request can be met. If the material exists, and it is in the interests of Wikipedia, it shall be disclosed to the interested parties, providing;

i. It contains no material that is in violation of the current Rules, Policies, Guidelines, or was otherwise the reason for the original oversight request unless that a reason that such violation formed part of the request for disclosure. An exception would be that such content may be removed from the disclosed material, if it is the opinion that the remaining material satisfies the request.

ii. That the original parties (the oversighter and oversighted editor) to the oversight be consulted, noting the reasons for the request and requesting their comments, if available. While the wishes of the original parties should be weighed carefully, it will be the reviewer who should determine how the interests of Wikipedia are best served.

iii. That requests are made by email only, to ensure protection of privacy of the oversighted material, and initial correspondence (including denying the request) will use the same method for the same reasons. The method, protocols and and address for such requests will be part of the policy page. Premature indication that a request has been made by, or on behalf, of the requester will default to a denial of the request. Premature indication that a request has been made by, or on behalf of, the original parties will result in such sanctions as is deemed appropriate.

iv. That a successful request be declared on a subpage of the Policy page, with the disclosed material available for viewing by all, including the identity of the requester and the reasons given for the request. This will allow the community to evaluate both the request and material. The material will, after a while, be archived at the Policy Page. The material may only be copied onto other pages which were noted in the request for disclosure, or as appropriate for otherwise non-contentious material.

v. That where a request is denied no reason should be given, only that the request has failed. A party may make further requests providing that better or more detailed reasons are provided. However, if in the opinion of the reviewer that the request has no chance of succeeding, or that the stated reasons for the request are disingenuous, or that the continued efforts are a "fishing expedition", or any combination thereof, that a deny and desist response be given.

vi. That any registered editor may request that disclosed material be re-oversighted, with valid reasons given, and such requests be dealt with promptly with the exception of material now forming part of a procedural case where such request will be considered at the conclusion of the case. Such requests for re-oversighting shall be made on a subpage of the Policy, for community viewing and comment.

That is it. Before I ask whether this should proceed to a proposed policy subpage I would make the following comments, per the layout above.

This is analogous to Checkuser, but addresses (no longer generally available) material rather than possible identities.

I understand that oversighted material may contain very sensitive information - stuff that should remain undisclosed. I am also aware that a great deal of the information oversighted is not sensitive, but that it was easier to remove it along with the sensitive material and that leaving it in place would have made the part oversighted text difficult to follow (and give some indication of the sensitive material - defeating the purpose of oversight). The Request for Disclosure should be for the non sensitive material, unless there is a specific reason clearly indicated for the sensitive material. This would generally form part of a RfC or Arbcom case, or a major policy debate, etc.

The original parties will have had very good reasons for removing the content. They may not wish to have any part re-introduced, and consideration should be given to their wishes. However, the desire to withhold the information needs to be weighed against the good in disclosing it. Very tricky, and I can see this suggestion falling at this hurdle.

Requests by email. Let me be blunt; we know that some off-wiki sites, with an interest in Wikipedia, hold data dumps (which may contain material that is now oversighted at WP) and use material they find there in attempts to influence, embarrass, harass, or otherwise disrupt WP and/or its editors. Private emails should protect WP from speculation being generated if such requests were to be made publicly. Likewise, private emails between all parties both protect privacy and may help stop ill-feeling between participants being created - and stop any potential wikidrama. Premature disclosure may be considered a means of harassing another editor - both that "editor a" declaring they are requesting oversighted material by "editor b", or "b" declaring "a" is "fishing". This should not be allowed. (I think these may be the most emotive areas of consideration/discussion).

Public disclosure. If it is going to be unoversighted then this material should be both made available to the entire community, and why it has been made so. The reactions to the material and the request may help the oversight privileged editors make better choices in what they both agree to oversight initially, and what they choose to allow to be disclosed. What should remain undisclosed is the original reason for requesting oversight, simply because it gives too much indication of any remaining oversighted content (and may create a fear for requesting oversight in case such a request/reason may become later known). Material disclosed should also remain with any remaining oversighted material (so the context remains) wherever it is held currently, as well as being available at the Policy site/archive. That way subsequent requests for disclosure within the same area can be reviewed in context. How the disclosed material is used would depend on the disclosure request; if it forms part of some procedural process (ArbCom and the like) then it can only be used there - if it was for some general editing request for non-controversial material that got sucked up with some other sensitive material during oversight, then it should be used wherever it proves useful.

No reason to be given, just "No". Fishing for juicy info will not be tolerated, and no help potentially given. This would not stop Good Faith requests, since the requestee can try again with better details. At some point, though, it should be realised if there is no chance of succeeding, and the oversight reviewer can make it plain if it hasn't already occured to the requester.

If a member of the community believes it not to be in the interests of Wikipedia to have the information disclosed then they can request re-oversighting, with their reasons. Since the material is potentially sensitive this should be reviewed promptly, but the views of the community need considering to disallow possible interested parties from removing material un-necessarily. Of course parties can request disclosure again, should the request succeed, but they need to answer the reasons given for re-oversighting.

(end of comments)

Okay, let 'er rip! I don't want this to be a battle ground and if this suggestion of a proposed policy is only going to crash and burn then let it die here... If however there is a reasoned debate then the above could be moved to a subpage of my talkpage, and continued there (with a link from here). It is late here in the UK and I am shortly to bed, so if someone wanted to be WP:BOLD go ahead. I will see what tomorrow (later today, in truth) brings. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

responses

An interesting idea, LHVU. Theoretically, the information hidden by oversight is that which likely should never see the light of day - critical privacy violations (phone numbers, home addresses); copyright violations (a serious issue because of the GDFL); and material considered to be potentially libellous. I note that the last two of those criteria are to be determined in consultation with Wikimedia legal counsel. Frankly, I suspect Oversight is used for many more things than just this, and that legal counsel is seldom consulted. There are important GDFL concerns with the use of oversight, so its use should be carefully monitored.

I think that there is a place for an oversight auditor whose job is to ensure that only material meeting the criteria is removed. I would suggest that this role be filled by a steward, by Mediawiki legal counsel, or by an individual appointed by the Foundation Board specifically to fill this role. Dependent on the number of oversights done (nobody seems to have any data, which would be very helpful in determining best steps), the auditing process could be 100% of oversights or a representative randomly selected portion of oversights carried out by each oversighter. Any edits that are deemed not to fit the criteria should be "returned" to the article, probably with a message to the oversighter and/or requestor. Oversighters with an unacceptably high proportion of "returned" edits should be re-instructed on its use; if this is found to be a continued problem after re-education, then the Oversighter should lose the privilege (with the possible exception of Foundation staff). This could potentially cause some difficulty for arbitrators, who have an obvious need to look at oversighted edits for some of their cases. On the other hand, if the non-arbitrator oversighters are doing the majority of oversights, as I suspect, then this is less of an issue.

Trust is important, but accountability and competency must also be front and center when it comes to actions that can directly affect the security of its subjects and its users, not to mention the potential for violation of the GDFL and other copyrights. Risker 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a number of misperceptions here. A minor note first, Risker, Copyright violations and BLP violations are not supposed to be oversighted. There's too much potential for a mistake and little to be gained over simple deletion. It's only for information that is inherently harmful like personal data. The main mistake here is not realizing that oversight is actually essentially irreversible -- it's not just a higher level of deletion, even those with oversight privileges can't see what was oversighted. To the mediawiki software, the edit is gone. It takes a developer's manual intervention in the database to restore oversighted material. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoration might be that difficult, but Wikipedia:Oversight appears to say that any oversight editor can get a diff showing the changes that were oversighted-out. SamBC(talk) 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? As far as I know (and from what I read) all other oversight users can see is the log that states that a revision was removed and records a reason. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It says so in the policy, Night Gyr, as it does about copyright violations. This is what the policy says are the acceptable reasons for use, and the hidden revisions:

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

• Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
• Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
• Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

It is possible that things have changed from time to time, and either the policy hasn't kept up with the practice, or the policy does reflect current practices and capabilities but other users haven't been advised of things. Perhaps someone who has Oversight privileges could comment (and fix the policy, if necessary). Risker 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's not normal practice, it's used in exceptional cases for copyright and libel on the advice of counsel, which isn't common. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am/was concerned about non-controversial material that is oversighted as collateral content when the personal/libelous/copyright violations are removed; I suspect (but I do not know) that the entire post/edit is oversighted. Should someone mention that a book (title/author provided) is held at the library they work at - and it is one of the few libraries in the stated area to hold a copy - they may wish to have the entire discussion oversighted as a troll or vandal may determine the posters identity. The oversight also removes mention of the book. I was suggesting a method by which the books details may be found, providing the original poster is uncontactable. However, if the data is gone or can only be reconstructed by developers then the proposal fails - there is nothing for the policy to achieve. I seem to remember reading that WP no longer has data dumps, or that data dumps before a certain date have been lost. This might need clarification before any further discussion? LessHeard vanU 09:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page policy question

Per a recent discussion I had with an anonymous editor who removed entire comments made by another editor, I'd like to know if there is a policy that states specifically, that comments you leave on your talk page, or other users' talk pages, may not be posted elsewhere. (Basically, an editor "quoted" an anon editor from his talk page to illustrate a point, and the anon editor feels that's against policy to do.) I've reviewed the policies and guidelines and find no such policy, in fact, the issue of other editors quoting you, is something mentioned more than once. Thanks in advance. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, there's not, per the GFDL people are allowed to cite one another. It does matter what they're doing; for instance, following a user around and quoting a hasty unfriendly remark he made everywhere is clearly not constructive - and neither is selectively quoting (or removing) only part of a conversation with the apparent intent of misrepresenting it. The relevant "policy" is probably WP:DICK (which is not aimed at you but as a general principle). >Radiant< 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, yes thanks Radiant. This edit removed the quotations (that were also accompanied by diffs) but also removed the entire comment of the other editor, which is why I reverted it in the first place. Thanks for the clarification! ^Ariel♥Gold 11:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture galleries

The following tag is being used to tag photo displays, but I can find no specific guidline or policy that expresses a preference for removing picture galleries to Commons, nor can I find any prohibitions against the use of image galleries. --Kevin Murray 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's based on WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; "4. Mere collections of photographs or media files." See also Wikipedia:Galleries.--Svetovid 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above, (and part of that proposed policy cited) Mainspace galleries which states: Mainspace gallery pages must be titled (e.g.) Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain. A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. (Much more information in that section) ^Ariel♥Gold 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that these both recommend against pages which are substantially pictures only, but does not prohibit a gallery section as an illustrative tool in a comprhensive article. --Kevin Murray 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good summation. Perhaps because having many images in one article could hinder those on dial-up or slower internet connections, but I personally feel that galleries simply don't "fit" into the article format as well as images that are placed in a balanced, eye-appealing manner throughout the article (my opinion). ^Ariel♥Gold 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate these for the general case, but I can't see a prohibition when the tool makes sense for the subject matter. --Kevin Murray 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How are BLP guidleines interpreted for a subject who is dead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Full discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#How_are_BLP_guidleines_interpreted_for_a_subject_who_is_dead.3F

---

I asked this on the BLP noticeboard as well: This is a serious question - obviously we always should source articles, but do the particularly stringent BLP rules apply for a subject who is no longer alive? Specifically I'm talking about the removal of material that hasn't been adequately sourced(BLP) vs. adding a "Fact" tag requesting citations (most others). Thanks. Tvoz |talk 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

With BLPs, it is an urgent matter that unsourced content, particularly that which is negative, be removed. With BDPs, the content should be sourced or removed, but it isn't the same sense of urgency. It's the difference between a mad gunman vs a mildly annoyed guy with a plastic knife. --B 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given a comprehensive answer to this and to some followup questions at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#How_are_BLP_guidleines_interpreted_for_a_subject_who_is_dead.3F, and am closing this discussion to avoid WP:MULTI. THF 04:37, 28 August 2007 (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.

You beat me to it. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ps. The recently dead will likely have bereaved family and friends who may be even more litigious than the recently dearly departed, given their emotional state. I have in the past suggested that BLP should be extended to 6 years after the recorded death, i.e. at the point where the tax office also declares them deceased. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If the concern is litigation, you can rest easy. Generally speaking, family and friends have no standing to sue for libel or slander on behalf of the dead. On the other hand, my understand is that BLP goes a bit beyond mere legal concerns and general ethical concerns still apply. -Chunky Rice 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't rest totally easy. Remarks about dead people can sometimes create a libel about people they are associated with. Tyrenius 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue of libeling the living person, not the dead person. Of course a living person has standing to sue if they themselves are libeled. They just can't do so on behalf of the dead person. -Chunky Rice 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but the point is that you can make a remark about a dead person which creates a libel about a living person, so you have to take care what you say. Tyrenius 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should always take care what we say. But on the question of BLP, I think it goes without saying that it applies to living people (even if they aren't the subject of the article). -Chunky Rice 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Log in

When did "Log in" grow the enter some weird letters requirement & why? It is frustrating. -- SGBailey 08:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You likely entered your password incorrectly once. It was done due to recent concerns over password strength, and one particularly notable incident where the account of an administrator was hijacked, which resulted in the main page being deleted, among other things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When you made a mistake typing in your password. Someone's been running dictionary attacks against peoples' passwords, and this keeps it from working anymore. --Carnildo 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - That makes sense. Thanks -- SGBailey 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PRECON

I'm considering to compose a draft for what could become a new supplementary guideline to WP:MOS. Initially, I thought about something like "writing as a fan", but it's probably even more interesting to have a guideline on all sorts of "writing with a preconception", be it as a fan, or as a [what's the word for "opposite of a fan"?], hence the (arguably a tad offensive) WP:PRECON moniker. I imagine the guideline to relate to WP:COI, but with strong emphasis on stylistic aspects. But before wasting hours of my life on this, I wanted to make the round and ask for general opinions (ideally in the form of encouragement). —AldeBaer 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as an antonym for "fan" ... "detractor". As far as WP:PRECON ... is there a sense of dissatisfaction with WP:NPOV and the related materials already referenced from there? dr.ef.tymac 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine aspects of many related policies (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:FICT) flowing into one centralised guideline focusing on aspects of writing as a fan, particularly for new editors, who are often attracted by the possiblity of writing about their favourite subject in the first place. Btw, the title I first had in mind was "Wikipedia:Writing as a fan", which may be even better. —AldeBaer 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point below by Wikidemo seems to hit the nail on the head. Different people have different reasons for editing. Even for people who "couldn't care less" about a subject, they've got to have some personal motivation for contributing. As long as those motives don't blatantly manifest in the text of the article itself, and the content is otherwise substantiated and appropriate, the "fan/detractor" label seems like just another way to put people in "categories" instead of evaluating the independent merit of their contributions. dr.ef.tymac 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are both good and bad aspects about fan-writers. The good ones are obvious (but I'd mention them anyway, as those deserve encouragement), the bad ones may not be so obvious. —AldeBaer 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good essay. As a guideline, people's affinity or distaste for something should not color how they write about it, but that isn't something that anyone else but they can know, answer to, or deal with. So it would be a policy without any enforceability, and we don't need more of that. As part of the "judge the editor, not the edits" approach, we cannot impugn the quality of someone's work by their closeness to it. Many people write about things because they are interested in them...you want military history, for example, written by people who know about the subject, not people who couldn't care less. Wikidemo 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... it's not intended to be policy but a style guideline, which in turn would be massively backed up by enforceable policy. Other than that, you're right that people's affinity or distaste for something should not color how they write about it, but in fact it happens all the time. It's a good thing of course when people are writing about something they're interested in, but too often "fan enthusiasm" triumphs over "professional enthusiasm", and that's where this guideline comes in. Of course, you can also point new editor to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. But I consider that a form of biting and I think this guideline could do a lot to prevent alienating well-intentioned new editors. —AldeBaer 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems like something that could be added to the welcome package (or a variant where the new editor is identified as a fan). As WP expands welcome templates may well be orientated toward the perceived type of editor (cos' we want to encourage all the good'uns!) and this would certainly help some. LessHeard vanU 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Needless to say, I very much agree. —AldeBaer 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do people really like those "boilerplate welcome messages"? I know I didn't. I had already read most of that stuff before deciding to make an account. I think people forget how annoying "canned responses" can be. dr.ef.tymac 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate (or any other) welcome messages are a necessary evil, IMO. Those who are irritated by them likely know enough about WP to realise that, and will remove them. Those who don't know enough about WP are both unlikely to be irritated and likely to find them useful. LessHeard vanU 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just write an essay? "A guide to writing about stuff you like without sounding like a total fanboy" could be useful, and just point people in the direction of the existing guidelines and policies that they need to obey, without creating special-case instruction creep. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because everybody laughs at essays. Well, not everybody, but you know what I mean. I'd strongly prefer a guideline, because it'd be one. I don't want to write an essay nobody's ever going to read. Also, while there is a point regarding WP:CREEP, I consider fan writing a really important issue, not a special case. WP:COI simply is not enough of a guideline for editors.

To give you an idea of what I consider a good topic for an essay, I've been thinking about an essay on the general concept of "reading and writing" for some time now, which I may hopefully get around to soon. The difference is, it is clearly only my opinion, and it's wikiphilosophical rather than anything remotely guideline-suitable.—AldeBaer 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT is merely a widely-cited essay, but it describes guidelines with a lot of consensus. It states what people are thinking, and lets them show it to others without actually setting a rule. The citations show the consensus, instead of the tag. You can be advisory (you should try this) without being mandatory, and without being laughed at. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a guideline just that? Being advisory without being strictly mandatory? —AldeBaer 08:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• You hit the nail right on the head. WP:ILIKEIT is a de facto guideline, regardless of what the tag says. >Radiant< 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I take it the community doesn't welcome this proposal, which is a satisfactory answer to the question I asked. I'm not going to write that page though, as I wouldn't want to see it rot in essay purgatory, which is what would basically happen seeing as it appears not to have any consensus in the community, and indeed consensus seems to be against it. I believe this is unfortunate, but I accept that others don't share my take on things. No need waisting hours writing it though, as it would just be a formulation of the basic concept I laid out here.
Yet, judging from some comments here —where I should note that commenting is a good thing in the first place, so thank you for that— I'm not convinced about some people's understanding of what the guideline proposal is about and how serious the wikirealities the idea is based on really are. I'll readily concede that this is merely my own perception of things, but that perception formed itself over a period of several months and in a range of different groups of articles. I still believe that the guideline could do a lot good. I would have preferred to be convinced by counter arguments, and not just bow to consensus, but that's just the way it is. —AldeBaer 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, the community welcomes the proposal just fine, however please realize that the vast majority of proposals are rejected. >Radiant< 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I honestly expected no less. The moment making good-faithed proposals is not welcomed any more will be the moment I will *have made* my last edit. The proposal itself however, as opposed to my proposing it, has been rejected. In my opinion, contrary to the vast majority of proposals it's a potentially really useful idea, and in addition to that I offered to do all the groundwork. —AldeBaer 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Ignore me. I'm planning to compose a draft for it in my userspace anyway. Now that I've boasted about how this would be a great thing, I'd better write my ass off accordingly, whether or not it finally become a guideline or an essay. Maybe I should explain my being obsessed with that "official guideline" seal: I'm German. I'm going to drop a note here as soon as I've come up with something halfway debatable. See y'all around, good luck. —AldeBaer 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Killing' vs. murder II

I'd like to reopen this issue after a dispute with another user. He, and other editors kept referring me to an earlier village pump discussion [1]. According to the user I was in dispute with, his interpretation of that discussion was 'We do not say "x murdered y" or "x was convicted of murdering y", we say "x was convicted of murder"' [2]. The precedent or 'consensus' supposedly established in this discussion was the justification certain editors used for reverting my edits. He suggested that I reopen the issue in this forum if I wished to change the 'consensus', so here I am.

I do not believe, as some editors do that there is a NPOV issue here. Surely the words killed, killing mean any form of non-natural death. When we use words like murder, executed, assassinated etc. anyone reading the article realises that the person was in question was killed, but we are using a term which is more specific, more accurate and more factual. Obviously, we need to have a source to prove that a person was convicted of murder or a person was sentenced to death. Killed is an accurate term to refer to someone who was death was caused by someone convicted of manslaughter, because that word presupposes their was no intent in the act of causing death. When someone was sentenced to death by a court of law , it is common sense to say, e.g. 'Hans Frank was executed', not 'Hans Frank was killed'. When someone was killed by a person who was convicted of their murder, then we should say, for example 'Holly Wells was murdered', not 'Holly Wells was killed'. I do not agree with the user that "we do not say "x murdered y" or "x was convicted of murdering y"-in my last example x is Ian Huntley an y is Holly Wells. We have to ignore the fact that some users are clearly uncomfortable with applying this common sense to articles where moral guilt is less obvious in some people's opinion than in a case like Huntley's-that has no relevance to 'NPOV'. The articles I were in dispute with were about the victims of a person convicted of murder, Thomas McMahon, who was a member of the IRA and thought his political convictions justified the murderous acts. That doesn't change the fact that just like in the Huntley case, McMahon was found guilty of murder, and therefore his victims were murdered, not merely 'killed'. Deus Ex 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. - Crockspot 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still adding POV to articles in that way, it's not neutral. "x was killed" - fact. "y was convicted of murder" - fact. "x murdered y" - opinion of a jury, or in some cases a single judge. I've yet to see a single reason why "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder" is not sufficient. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. I guess this one is a little too subtle for me to be any great help. - Crockspot 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. "Thomas McMahon was found guilty of murder in 1979" is not a point of view, it is a fact. Any opinions you or others have over the efficacy of the criminal justice system doesn't have any relevance in an encyclopaedia unless there is specific controversy about the legitimacy of their conviction . If someone was found guilty of murder, it automatically follows as a point of simple logic that their victims were murdered. Your opinion over what you think is 'sufficient' doesn't have any relevance either, in fact you are introducing your own POV rather than following simple and clear facts and their corollaries. Deus Ex 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said, not what you incorrectly think I said. I say "y was convicted of murder" was a fact, contrary to your assertion. But "x murdered y" is not a fact, it is an opinion. In the Republic of Ireland such cases were handled by the Special Criminal Court, so it's the opinion of three judges. In Northern Ireland such cases were handled by Diplock courts, so it's the opinion of one judge. I'm not introducing my opinion at all, how is saying "x was killed" an opinion - it is a fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Even "x was killed" could be both POV and OR. Compare instead "Whoptysplash County Coroner Dr. Saw Bones gave expert testimony that, in her opinion, x died as a result of homicide commited by another person". <ref>''The Whoptysplash Daily TattleTale'', February 31 1900, p.1 </ref>.LeadSongDog 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Hackney's last point: I understood your point, please understand mind. If you accept, for example, that "Ian Huntley was convicted of the murder of Holly Wells" is a fact, not an opinion then you logically should accept the corollary of that fact. The statement "Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells"-which from your argument above you say is an opinion rather than a fact-must be accepted as fact since you accept the statement "Ian Huntley was convicted of the murder of Holly Wells". The difference between those two statements is syntactic, not a difference between fact and opinion. I don't understand your point about the differences between the two courts you mentioned. Both the Special Criminal Court and Diplock Courts are legitimate branches of the criminal justice systems in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Their convictions are not merely the opinions of judges or juries, they are the lawful, legitimate actions of the government which it is not our job as encyclopaedia writers to question unless there is a specific controversy about, for example contentious evidence used to reach a conviction. Deus Ex 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In some extreme cases quite possibly, but those will be special cases. Sally Clark shows perfectly why a conviction doesn't make "x was murdered by y" a fact, or even x being murdered a fact to begin with. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To grasp why extreme care is needed, see todays news here [3] LeadSongDog 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The example provided by LeadSongDog and Sally Clark show exactly why the verdicts of courts are not facts, they are opinions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? They are facts until proven otherwise-that's why the government has the right to send people to prison. Do you know anything about basic legal principles? I'm talking about the conviction specifically-it is not an opinion that someone is convicted of murder and sent to prison. Anyway, these are completely misconceived arguments considering what my original point was. I said specifically I'm not referring to causes where there is established controversy over the conviction-clearly those specific cases need to be qualified. I agree with LeadSongDog, care is needed in some cases, but in the majority we can use a general rule. Please ignore this issue and address my main point. Deus Ex 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm 100% serious. "y was convicted of murder" is a fact, but as those two examples show that does not make "x was murdered by y" or even "x was murdered" a fact. By stating "x murdered y" as fact we are breaching NPOV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified by your continued use of 'NPOV'. When we have a concrete source, for example a reference that says "Ian Huntley was convicted the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman" in this case, like the majority, where there is no specific controversy of the legitimacy of the murder conviction, why are we restricted syntactically? Why is it not 'NPOV' to say in a cause with no controversy over the conviction that Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman? Deus Ex 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They are findings, not facts, not opinions. The finding is the opinion of the justice system as of that date, which carries the force of law in most countries, but is only considered infallible (so far as I know) in the Vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 20:53, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The findings of the court, the case summary, can be described as opinion, but a criminal conviction is not an opinion, it is an act of the justice system. That is a fact. And where there is no specific controversy attached to a case, there is no reason to question a conviction, especially in an encyclopaedia. Deus Ex 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem with saying that "x murdered y", especially when it is a better technical phrase to say that "x was convicted of murdering y". Unless x has admitted to murdering y, in which case, I think, an exception can be made. But is that the only problem you have with Deus Ex's argument, One Night? Because it seems to me he has a legitimate point for the other examples.

In particular, the sentence "x was murdered" does not refer to the person accused of killing x, but it does refer to the manner in which x died. I think that "kill" implies that the victim has been deprived of life; but "murder" implies much more under the law, particularly referring to intent and malice, which can be conclusively determined by the manner of death. Stanselmdoc 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Not really. This is a neutral encyclopedia, we should not be judging whether convictions are correct or not. We should state the facts as they are known - "x was convicted of murder". We should not under any circumstances use that to state "x murdered y". Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:American murderers is relevant here. To say "x murdered y" is not verifiable either, all that is verifiable is that "x was convicted". It's also a leap of logic we shouldn't make to even say "y was murdered", as Sally Clark shows. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points Stanselmdoc, thank you for taking the time to read my argument. Yes, I agree "x was convicted of murdering y" is a better technical phrase, but we can't allow that to prohibit the use of "x murdered y". Whether an offender has admitted murdering a specific person cannot be relevant, because people can make false confessions or refusal to confess to murders that undeniable evidence proves they committed. The existence of court conviction is proof enough to make an assertion that "x murdered y" in an article. If their is significant documented controversy, then we should be more limited in our assertations. Deus Ex 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"The existence of court conviction is proof enough to make an assertion that "x murdered y" in an article" - wrong, it is not neutral. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And where's the rationale or argument to back up this sweeping statement? Why do you think it's the job of an encyclopaedia to doubt or question whether convictions are correct or not unless there is significant documented controversy about the case? I don't understand what your continued use of 'neutral' is supposed to mean. Deus Ex 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple - policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. You cannot present the opinions of courts as facts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The encyclopedia should simply, accurately record the conviction by the court. That does not mean saying the court is right, wrong or creative. The original "x was killed" runs afoul of assuming homicide (incorrectly ruling out the possibilities of suicide, death by misadventure, or even miscarriage of justice.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

When did I say we should we apply this to cases where there is significant doubt or controversy? Can you please read what I've read. Deus Ex 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hackney, this has clearly stopped being a serious argument on your part. Read my points rather than presenting your own warped versions of them. I'm talking about the act of conviction and the legitimacy of criminal convictions in general, which should be accepted by any serious encyclopaedia. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy has nothing to do with that point. By citing NPOV I suppose you mean we have to take into account all views, not matter how bizzare and flawed. You've stopped addressing my points specifically. By your bizzare reasoning, nothing is a fact. Deus Ex 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no you're mistaken. "x was convicted of murder" is a fact, "x murdered y" is not a fact simply because a conviction has been gained. I don't see why you can't understand this fundamental principle. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand that 'fundamental principle' because it's based on completely flawed arguing regarding cases in an encyclopaedia where there is no documented controversy over the legitimacy of the conviction. Your use of crass phrases like 'erm, no you're mistaken' shows how personal and shallow your argument really is. Deus Ex 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stepping back, is there anything WRONG with simply reporting the W5 on the ACT of conviction?LeadSongDog 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to your "crass" comments directly above my calm reaction to your provocation. Can you show me one person that has replied here that agrees with your "x murdered y" position? I can't see any, but I can see more than one editor agreeing with my position. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is more people agree with you than me so therefore your argument is correct? Given the tiny number of users that have contributed to this discussion, that it a ridiculous comment. Deus Ex 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Just you seem to be attempting to portray me as some sort of lone voice operating from a bizarre viewpoint, whereas the converse seems to be true and needed to be pointed out. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are losing sight of CIVIL. There's no need to be dismissive of each others arguments.LeadSongDog 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One user, LoneSongDog has agreed with your view unequivocally, out of the 3 total outsider contributors to this debate. I suppose to you that is an unbreakable consensus, but I would rather wait for more people to join the debate. I call your viewpoint bizzare because it denies the legitimacy of criminal convictions in cases where there is no documented controversy. As a side argument (NOT my main argument), why is it that in other respectable publications like other encyclopaedias and quality newspapers, editors don't automatically deny the legitimacy of convictions. Why can't you use common sense, there's no conflict with NPOV here. Deus Ex 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My viewpoint does not deny the legitimacy of anything. My view is we state unequivocally that "x was convicted". As an neutral enyclopedia we do not take sides and assume that the verdict was correct or incorrect, merely state what the verdict was. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the job of a 'NPOV' encyclopaedias not to accept a conviction as correct unless there is documented controversy to the contrary? If there is no evidence to back up a point of view, like 'the Earth is square', it isn't a valid point of view that needs to be considered. In all articles we are 'taking sides' when dealing with facts. There is no evidence that life exists on Mercury, so that point of view is not expressed in the Mercury article. There's no evidence that the verdict which convicted Ian Huntley of murder was incorrect, so why take a point of view that has no evidence to back it up into consideration? Deus Ex 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand not stating murders as unequivocal truth (not using X murdered Y), but what could possibly be wrong with "x was convicted of murdering y" that would be improved by "X was convicted of murder" without stating the victim in the murder X was convicted of? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Hackney's description of WP:NPOV is not quite correct. WP:NPOV does not mean we have to be neutral about whether X murdered Y, it means that we should be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". If all sources assert that X murdered Y, then so can we. Similarly, Verifiability in the Wikipedia context means not that we can prove 100% that something is true, but merely that the reliable sources agree that it is true.

I've no clue why "X was convicted of murder" is better than "X was convicted of murdering Y". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the problem Hackney has with the argument, Jitse. His problem isn't with what the courts decide, but that the statement "x murdered y" cannot be logically deduced from a court ruling. Whether he is right or wrong, I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the argument.

And I'm a little upset with both Hackney and Deus Ex, for losing sight a little of the argument, and for resorting to counting the number of editors who "agree" or "disagree" with one side. In fact, I don't agree or disagree with either of you. I'm only trying to decipher which parts of the argument I find objectively correct. Whether or not that means I end up siding with someone has nothing to do with it.

I like the phrases "x was convicted of murder" and "x was convicted of murdering y" better than "x murdered y" because they are the more technical statements. "The existence of court conviction" is not proof enough to outright say "x murdered y", though NOT because it is POV. It's not POV, it's just a misleading statement. The language itself forces the reader to conclusively argue that x definitely murdered y. Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Laci, but that does NOT mean that he actually murdered her. HOWEVER: it DOES mean that Laci was murdered. It's not a "leap of faith" to state that someone was murdered, when forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously. The few exceptions to this do not dictate that we cannot say "y was murdered", but rather that in those exceptions, we should say "y was presumably murdered". Stanselmdoc 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we've had some new input into the discussion. In Hackney's view which he argued during the dispute over the Thomas McMahon and Nicholas Knatchbull articles, "The agreement for convictions is "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder"" [4]. I'm glad we seemed to have moved beyond the idea of not being allowed to say "x was convicted of murdering y" and only being allowed to "x was killed", then as a separate statement "y was convicted of murder". I think we should never be using the using the word 'killed' to refer to someone who was clearly murdered. As Stanselmdoc says above, "forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously". Using killed instead is, whether the writer's intentions are good or bad, a euphemism and inaccurate. Avoid euphemism is very important, it a clear example of not using NPOV. Stanselmdoc, regarding the use of "x murdered y", clearly we see differently here-my argument is that we should be allowed to use it where there is no significant controversy attached to the murder conviction. But I am prepared to compromise if it means a majority will support the change to the 'consensus' that users Hackney and Padraig used as the sole justification for reverting my edits. Under the old agreement, we should say, for example "Holly Wells was a British schoolgirl who was killed in 2002. Ian Huntley was convicted of her murder". In a new agreement, we should say "Holly Wells was a British schoolgirl who was murdered in 2002. A criminal trial convicted Ian Huntley of her murder in 2003." The same applies to less clear-cut cases, e.g. Pat Finucane (solicitor) we should be able to say "Pat Finucane was a Belfast solicitor who was murdered in 1989. No-one has been convicted of committing his murder to date" Deus Ex 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with the positions argued being argued here is that they break WP:NOR and are at best lazy about WP:V. It's not so much about the POV in kill vs. murder, although that is clearly a hot button too. This is an encyclopedia we're working on. Just get the attributions right and the wording of quotations pretty much becomes automatic. LeadSongDog 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When done properly, this doesn't break no original research. There will be reliable secondary sources that report someone was murdered (in a generic sense) or x was convicted of of the murder of y. "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" (WP:NOR). Not breaking verifiability is easy, just follow the guideline ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" WP:V. I.e. a reliable source like a report from an established newspaper or news service. Deus Ex 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously" - no, they cannot. They can determine whether someone was killed "deliberately and maliciously", but they cannot determine murder. Little else has been said to rebut any points about WP:NPOV and WP:V, I will reiterate that we do not assume a conviction is right or wrong, only report that a conviction occurred. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to speculate what the definition of someone killed "deliberately and maliciously" is? That's what Stanselmdoc was getting at: the common, not legal meaning of the word murder, murdered. Deus Ex 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll change my original point, they can't even prove that someone was deliberately killed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the case either. I'm sure there are many sources that prove forensics can prove whether someone was deliberately killed. Here's a modest example, written by a professional pathologist: "Autopsies are performed [by pathologists] in two situations: at the request of clinicians (with relatives' consent) to determine the cause of death..." [5]. He states determine the cause of death, not speculate on the cause of death. If pathologists can determine the cause of death, then they must be able to determine whether it was deliberate or not, except in obvious exceptions like someone killed by a motor vehicle (the intentions of the driver are unknown). I'm talking about the common meaning of murder again, not legal or specific to a suspect. Deus Ex 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of "diminished responsibility"? It's quite common when it comes to manslaughter verdicts, which as you may be aware are different to murder. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "diminished responsibility" is a legal term that applies to cases where a offender has been judged to be mentally incapable when committing the act. As I said above, I'm referring to the common meaning of murder-not the legal meaning, or a specific legal situation like diminished responsibility. If someone has been found guilty of manslaughter, the we would say that they were convicted of killing x, not murdering x, obviously. Deus Ex 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what, if any, point you are attempting to make. On one hand you're talking about whether forensic scientists have said it was murder, then you are changing back to your position of convictions. Neither of which rebuts any of my points to begin with. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument is: when we say "x was convicted of murdering y" we mean obviously the legal meaning of murder in what jurisdiction they were convicted in. We need a source to say a conviction was reached. When we say "y was murdered", we mean the common, dictionary definition-I think that's obviously to a reader if we don't name a person as a murderer. We use the phrase "y was murdered" only when there are sources to back up that assertion, i.e secondary sources referring to a pathologist's report. Deus Ex 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case we're back to WP:NPOV. If a pathologists report says that, we report that they did say that. However we don't just use "x was murdered" without any qualification. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you agree we should be allowed to say "Holly Wells was murdered [footnote to a source describing pathologist's/coroners report]" or "according to the coroner/pathologist, Holly Wells was murdered"? I don't think there is a specific NPOV issue here. In most articles with citations and references, we are relying on the findings of experts like scientists, historians, statisticians to be not inherently biased or 'NPOV'. Why make an exception for pathologist and coroners? Deus Ex 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with that, if done correctly. To see how all this came about to begin with, look at the Norman Stronge article. There's now a reactions section there, that says who said what about his death. Historians are not inherently biased or 'NPOV'? Sorry, but if that was the case why do they not all agree? Why do historians have opposing viewpoints? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry historians was a bad example, consider scientists, doctors, they are more similar to pathologists and coroners. Deus Ex 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Investigators can't determine murder? Whole legal systems base themselves around the notion that investigators can objectively determine the difference between killing and murdering, hence this whole discussion. If they couldn't determine the difference, then a legal difference (manslaughter v. murder) wouldn't even exist!

I don't see it as an NOR or Verifiable issue at all. I approached the argument linguistically - the word "kill" has broad connotations (the loss of life unnaturally), while the word "murder" has much more specific connotations (premeditation, manner of death, etc). I don't think that that is POV: there are lots of synonyms like that (slender/thin, house/home). It's not a matter of original research - we should not have to "prove" someone was murdered. Our job is to write down the conclusions of the coroners and crime scene investigators. If their conclusion states, "x was murdered", then logically we should be able to say that as well. Stanselmdoc 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:NOR and WP:V is that editors shouldn't prove anything in an encyclopedia. We should identify the sources (usually secondary and usually credible) that allow the reader to examine other writers analysis for themselves. If the document cited says Bloggins was intercoffinated by a frumious bandersnatch then the article should report that, not make up new analysis. LeadSongDog 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with that summary. I hope this replaces the previous agreemen]]t regarding killed v. murdered. Deus Ex 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's basically the same as the previous agreement. Nothing in the previous agreement stopped anyone saying "The New York Times referred to his death as cold blooded murder". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. In the new agreement we are allowed to say y was murdered, in the old agreement we were only allowed to say y was killed. Read your explanation of the old agreement on my talk page. Why would we cite a sentence like "The New York Times referred to his death as cold blooded murder"? We would use the NYTimes as a secondary source referring to pathologists report to back up the statement "y was murdered". Deus Ex 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to your own words, the current "agreement" on usage of the word murder is "The consensus (which is in line with WP:NPOV) is to use killed to describe the death of somebody (unless a source is being quoted directly, in say a "Reactions" section), and to use murder when describing a conviction (eg "x was convicted of murder", which is the actual charge)" [6].

I am not talking about statements where, to use your words "a source is being quoted directly". I'm talking about describing the death of someone directly. The existing 'consensus' on that is to only use the word killed, regardless of the situation. That is not the same as the suggestion that Stanselmdoc and I are putting forward. Read my paragraph that begins "My argument is:" and Stanselmdoc's that begins "Investigators can't determine murder?". The only continuity between the existing viewpoint and the new one regarding describing someone's death directly is agreeing with the usage of "x was convicted of murder" (meaning convicted of the criminal offence of murder). In the new view, we are allowed to say "y was murdered" when qualified by a source to directly describe someone's death, not restricted to saying "y was killed". We are using the common, dictionary definition of murder in this "y was murdered sense". I have compromised and dropped the 'x murdered y' argument. I don't intend to contribute to this discussion any more because I cannot make my situation clearer. You can read through what I've written already regarding specifics, e.g. why I think we can take pathologist's reports as fact. Deus Ex 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that we can take pathologist's reports as correct, you should see The Goudge Inquiry. If, on the other hand, you mean that we can duly cite the reports as extant documents, I'll agree with that.LeadSongDog 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That refers specifically to giving a cause of death in infants. Determining the cause of death in infants obviously has significant documented controversy attached, I've heard of several cases myself. In deaths of adolescents and adults there is not the same general amount of documented controversy to not take pathologists reports as fact in general. In any case, the crime of infanticide often applies for those kinds of cases which is not the same as murder. Your argument could apply to not taking the findings of any practitioner of a science as fact, just find some different examples. It isn't strong enough to not take findings of pathologists as fact in adult cases as a general rule. My and Stanselmdoc's argument is to accept the conclusion of pathologist/coroners in general (obviously being more limited in controversial cases) and logically from that we can say "y was murdered", citing the report that makes that conclusion. Deus Ex 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read Stanselmdoc's argument.

Our job is to write down the conclusions of the coroners and crime scene investigators. If their conclusion states, "x was murdered", then logically we should be able to say that as well.

He didn't say accept the conclusion. You did. I don't think that has any place in an encyclopedia. LeadSongDog 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you don't think accepting conclusions by educated investigators should be in an encyclopedia? I think I just got confused, sorry. I don't understand what you're saying about my argument. Because I'm definitely NOT saying "We can choose whether or not to accept conclusions offered to us by experts." I'm saying the opposite: we should accept what they conclude, since it's not for us Wikipedians to decide. Of course, this still applies only to those cases which do not incur vast amounts of controversy. Stanselmdoc 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you have said what you previously hadn't. I still respectfully disagree. I don't think as editors we should accept or refute those conclusions. I think we should report them and leave the acceptance or refusal to the reader. We simply are not in a position to know (let alone certify) if any given document we cite is correct or authentic. LeadSongDog 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But in other contexts, we don't just "report" experts findings, we present them as fact. The statement "Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system" (contained in the Wikipedia article about it) is the findings of scientific experts using scientific instruments and methods. The statement "Herbert Clutter was murdered" (when qualified by a secondary source referring to a pathologist's report) is also a conclusion reached by scientific experts using forensic materials and tests/techniques. Are you suggesting we should merely "report" that experts believe Alpha Centauri s 4.37 light years from our solar system, rather than stating that Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system". Why leave a reader who likely has little knowledge of the subject matter to "accept or refuse" the judgement when it is substantiated by conclusions made by experts? That is certainly not the job of encyclopaedia, where articles are written from the POV of an reader ignorant of the subject matter for obvious reasons. Unless there is significant documented controversy, why not accept scientific experts' findings as factual? In any case, Wikipedia articles are not set in stone. If findings that had no reason to be doubted at the time are occasionally found to be wrong, we can simply change the article. Deus Ex 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, LeadSongDog, about saying I said something I previously hadn't. However, while I did say something I previously hadn't, but I have not changed my argument - I've merely clarified my position as it has developed. And I still see Deus Ex's argument about qualified experts. Stanselmdoc 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Stanselmdoc. They are interesting examples that Deus Ex chose. The Herbert Clutter article is based on a single (quasi-novel) source document. The Alpha Centauri article says 4.37 ly, but the reference cited says 4.36 ly and goes into considerable discussion of the variation in that figure. As a reader, I can figure these things out in short order because the refs are cited and made readily accessible. If there is no controversy on the topic, cited sources will agree and the reader will not be confused. LeadSongDog 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're reading significance into my choice of examples when there is none except to illustrate the argument. They could be replaced by other examples easily. I didn't look at the Clutter article, it came into my head randomly-if the article is based entirely on In Cold Blood, its obviously very badly written, because that is a novelisation of a real event. I'll use a better example instead Theo van Gogh (film director) as a random choice.

I don't understand what argument you are saying is your position in you latest post. My last post was responding to when you said "I don't think as editors we should accept or refute those conclusions. I think we should report them and leave the acceptance or refusal to the reader. We simply are not in a position to know (let alone certify) if any given document we cite is correct or authentic" So, logically according to that argument, you disagree with using statements like "Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system" [citation] or Theo van Gogh was murdered [citation] in articles because that inherently accepts the conclusion of an expert, rather than reserving judgement to a reader. So if we should never accept or refute the conclusions of experts, we have to write articles like this: "Astrophysicists believe Alpha Centauri is around 4.37 light years from our solar system [citation]/according to the report into Theo van Gogh's death, he was murdered [citation]. I don't agree that this should be the case because I think we should present scientific finding as fact unless there is significant, compelling controversy. It also makes for clunky writing and encourages people to believe every possible point of view, every interpretation is equally legitimate. Deus Ex 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that slightly clunky writing is a small price to pay for wp:v particularly when the alternative is potentially harmful. If I quote an incorrect report and fail to properly attribute it, do I inspire some lunatic fringe to revenge a supposed murder? If I paraphrase too high a flashpoint for kerosene do I cook some amateur chemist? I'm not terribly happy with the Theo van Gogh article either. While it lists sources, it is pretty loose about attribution. If you keep citing examples like these, I'm going to be awful busy fixing them. I'll give you Alpha Cent. Nobody is likely to build a spaceship that goes 0.01 lightyears too far without first checking the distance in primary sources. Except maybe NASA, but they'd try to do it on a shoestring and mess up the unit conversions anyhow. LeadSongDog 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on "X murdered Y" vs. "X was convicted of the murder of Y": we have to remember that those are two separate facts, they are not one and the same. I believe that in most cases we should favor the latter, because it will be much more easily sourced: for example, coverage of the trial. However, "X murdered Y" (without further qualification) would be fine with me if we can attribute it to sources: although most writing about crimes tends to be very careful because of libel issues, there are probably some cases where sources are willing to go beyond mentioning the conviction and actually conclude that the murder did in fact take place. If this is the case, and the sourcing is good enough, and if there are not actually opposing opinions (merely examples of hedging), I think it's fine to write X murdered Y. Without direct sourcing, though, I think it's inappropriate to use the "X murdered Y" wording without qualifying it. Mangojuice^talk 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying Y was murdered and citing a source should be fine, as long as it has been determined by the relevant scientific process. Saying X murdered Y follows logically from X was convicted of murdering Y is completely different and a logical fallacy. A jury is not the equivalent of a scientific expert, and neither is a judge. I think this is an especially sensitive issue considering many of the X's in these articles are still alive and therefore fall under the intense scrutiny required by Biographies of living persons. Ardent^†alk_∈ 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mango and Consequencefree, for your contributions to this debate. However, with all respect, the question of allowing "x murdered y" has been dropped in favor of a compromise. No one is arguing for it any longer. Stanselmdoc 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability re Agents

I have a question re what might or might not be the appropriate perspective for notability with respect to agents: The question is prompted by the fact that I created an initial entry for an agent (deceased) by the name of Kurt Hellmer, who had represented Max Frisch and Friedrich Dürrenmatt amongst others. The entry was deleted as non-notable. My thinking was that a literary agent who had represented such major authors was of some note in an encyclopedia. Now, in most cases, agents, even very successful ones, keep relatively low personal profiles in the general press. Therefore, unless an agent is just starting out, a personal publicity hound, or a ripoff artist, they tend (with some rare exceptions) not to be the subject of articles devoted solely to them as opposed to passing references in other sourceable articles or books. Now, perhaps WP simply isn't interested in the possibility of an entry for such folks, that they simply aren't as important to the community consensus as, for example, anime characters, reality show contestants, minor athletes, or porn stars. On the other hand, it would seem to me, to cite this particular example, that a literary agent who represented major writers such as Frisch and Durrenmatt is of some interest, is verifiable to the extent of verifiable references though not devoted solely to them as the subject, and is appropriate. How do others feel? Would whoever T S Eliot's agent may have been be of interest to WP, or not? AtomikWeasel 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• That article shouldn't have been deleted, as it did genuinely assert importance. Talk to the deleting admin, I'd say. But ultimately articles need to be based on information from published sources... if so little exists that we could never create more than a directory-style stub article on the person, then deletion might be called for, but through WP:AFD, not speedy deletion, as happened here. --W.marsh 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Pardon me if I don't follow protocol well here -- I'm not a regular editor and rarely make it to these back pages. At any rate, agents are without question an essential part of the publishing process and their role is hardly trivial. They're more than repackagers and advocates -- frequently they determine the merits of a writer (or actor or whatever property the agent represents) before anyone else. Many agents work with writers on a line-edit basis before editors and publishers have their say. They're the difference between a solicited submission and unsolicited, or 'slush'. Certain agents have helped shape entire genres and publishing lines. For example, Virginia Kidd (and the agency named after her) at one time represented a huge number of the major writers that made up the 'Golden Age' of science fiction in the 40s through the 60s. A submission from her to a magazine or book publisher frequently meant the difference between acceptance or not. In the relationship that can establish a sub-genre or publishing trend, and agent can sometimes be more influential than a publisher, though not an editor. Of course the big problem is often documenting this. Many agents keep their client lists close to their vests for professional reasons -- others boast. But there is little question of their importance; especially historically." JimFreund 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Please, the entirety of the article when I deleted it read: "Kurt Hellmer was a New York literary agent who represented, amongst others, Friedrich Dürrenmatt." Period. If that's an assertion of notability, there's nothing that can be deleted for a lack of notability. Notability is not inherited, so an agent is not automatically notable by virtue of notable clients. In order to survive speedy deletion, the article has to assert that the agent is significant or important, which it did not. Even if significance / importance is asserted, the article can still be deleted at AfD if the consensus is that the subject is not Notable, as defined here (as opposed to here), meaning that there is adequate discussion of the subject in published sources. -- But|seriously|folks  22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Notability is not inherited" is an argument for AFD. A7 isn't about whether something is important, it's about whether it claims importance. Even in the deletionist 2007 it's still held that A7 doesn't apply to articles that claim notability but an admin doesn't feel it's enough to survive an AFD. A movie with notable actors, a player for a notable sports team, and yes an agent for notable people, these are claims of importance. --W.marsh 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It simply seems to me common sense that if an agent can verifiably be established as having represented one or more authors who are, as in this instance, generally understood to have been amongst the most important of the century, they are as noteworthy as, say, a pornstar, an anime character, or a Startrek uniform. Perhaps I lack an appropriate perspective. AtomikWeasel 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That a given agent represented, at one point in time (for how long - two months? two years? two decades?) a famous person is hardly an assertion of notability as defined by Wikipedia; the deleting admin was correct (in my opinion). More to the point, "notability" isn't a totally subjective matter here - we have a guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (people). Looking through that, I saw nothing that argued that an agent who (let us say) has never had a published article about him/her is somehow notable. I think we're confusing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (which MUST rely on the published, historical record) with some sort of subjective "importance" criteria. Spouses and parents and siblings of famous people often play a significant role in the success of their famous spouse/child/brother/sister, and on an "importance" scale presumably could be quite important; but if there is no historical record as to that importance, then Wikipedia isn't the right place for a biography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As defined by Wikipedia it is an assertion of importance. An assertion doesn't mean it's something that passes WP:N, it just means it asserts some credible level of importance. Being the agent of someone notable is a claim of importance. --W.marsh 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Firstly WP criteria are demonstrably rapidly and nearly infinitely mutable. Secondly, I am unaware of their addressing a question of this form. The very definition as to whether or not an agent is important is whether or not they represent major figures. If WP prefers to confine itself to the trivial and arbitrary for the sake of convenience or its internal dynamic it condemns itself, ultimately, to trivially agglomerative status. The example you offer, that a friend or relative may be important to the dynamic of a notable figure begs the question in that one does not create an entry for Wife or Friend of X then argue notability based on X being important. In this instance, though, the simple rational fact is that an agent is a major agent if they represent major figures. To argue otherwise is effectively to argue that there is no criterion for notability for an agent in which their central function is the central criterion but, rather, to argue that notability would be determined by trivial or derivative consideration. Is this meant to be an encyclopedia of verifiable trivia? AtomikWeasel 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Add'l: I've just looked at the entry for literary agents. By virtue of the delete arguments offered here it seems to me that most if not all of the examples given require deletion and that WP simply feels that literary agents don't make the cut, rather preferring entries for high schools, anime figures, porn and reality show stars, etc, etc. I fail to see the rational basis for this other than an anti-intellectual bias in the name of convenience and bureaucracy. AtomikWeasel 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I would agree that this article asserted notability. Since the deleting admin has publicly disagreed, I have started a conversation at Deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 02:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new guideline

I was wondering if the Guide to good indentation should be turned into a guideline. It's currently an essay and is fairly sensible. It just needs to gain consensus--Pheonix15 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've (inadvertently) duplicated the material that's already part of Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting. Perhaps you should just merge any additional instructions or clarifications to that page...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I have. This has it's own page though and elaborates further--Pheonix15 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. Would that mean it's already a guideline?--Pheonix15 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the material you linked to isn't redundant; the essay in question is more detailed and I believe that level of detail would be inappropriate on Wikipedia:Talk page. Perhaps a mention of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation at Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting, or making it a subpage? My original intent in writing a guide to indentation was to be comprehensive and representative of current best practices. Having more than the general, non-comprehensive pointers at Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting would overshadow other sections and give unnecessary detail for a page that covers a broad range of topics. BigNate37_(T) 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has mentioned WP:TPG; in any case, I've reverted the edit that declared the page to be a guideline, as being a bit premature. See Wikipedia talk:Guide to good indentation for further comments. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of talk page and hiding its archive

I've been told by one admin that you can be blocked for blanking out your own talk page. I've been told by another that it's perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with it. So, once and for all, which is it? User:RookZERO continually blanks his talk page to hide the long litany of vandalism warnings, blocks and complaints from other editors. One editor was nice enough to set him up a talk page archive but he's deleted it from his talk page as well. He's also, prior to the current blanking, removed only portions of discussions between editors on his talk page, which drastically alters the character of those discussions and what was being said. wikipediatrix 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removing content from your own talk page is permissible. But refactoring discussion in a way that changes their meaning is not permitted. Adrian M. H. 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO continually blanks his talk page to hide the long litany of vandalism warnings, blocks and complaints from other editors. - Editors should try to remember that clicking on the "history" tab for a user talk page will show all the prior postings. If the editors who have posted on the user talk page use informative edit summaries, it's pretty easy to see, in a single scan, whether a user should get a low-level warning or be reported at WP:AIV. Checking the user's block log should be another routine step when a registered editor seems to be committing vandalism. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a much misunderstood policy. I have seen users receive escalating page blanking warnings precisely for this. --Moonriddengirl 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the title of this section, I think what Adrian is concerned about is users who move their talk page to an obscurely-named archive (taking the edit history with it), and then not provide a link to it on a newly-created talk page, which has no edit history. I assume that admins would be able to view the history previous to the move, but general editors would not. Not knowing the archive name would make it difficult to locate. I would also like to point out that WP:User_page is a guideline, not a policy, and I believe that it does not really apply to IP editors. The user space of an IP account is not "owned" by the editor who happens to be using that IP address. That user space is "owned" by the community at large. So it is generally frowned upon, and IP users will be warned if they blank their talk page of warnings. Of course, the only IP editors who continually do this are usually chronic vandals anyway. - Crockspot 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In the cast of User:RookZERO, his User Talk history is still intact. Hiding archives is not really possible since all User-space subpages can be found using Special:Prefixindex, and non-admin users can't make versions or history disappear. The missing archive is at User_talk:RookZERO/Archive. Users who seem bent on acquiring a bad reputation can still blank their User talk all they want, but they can't hide their track record. EdJohnston 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but in the practical terms of a non admin doing RC patrol, it can be problematic in determining an appropriate warning level. - Crockspot 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial experts

Question: Has this Arbcom ruling --

• 5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Passed 8-0

• 6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Passed 8-0

-- been superseded in any way other than WP:COI? (There was an identical finding in December 2005.) Please restrict answers to the general abstract Wikipedia rules and guidelines, without reference to particular individuals. Thank you. THF 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What's this in reference to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in reference to a user who has announced that he will follow me around and complain about all of my edits, including talk page edits, as possible COI, though he has yet to find an actual example of a COI violation, unless administrators explicitly tell him to stop. But before I complain, I want to ensure that the principle of "undue focus" from this 2005 arbcom has not been modified in some other rule that I am not aware of. THF 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anything else 'superseding' the arbcom ruling, but I don't see how COI actually contradicts it at all. SamBC(talk) 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't either, actually. I just wanted to clarify that I was aware of the COI guideline so that the discussion would not be derailed by someone raising it in response to my question. THF 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• However, note that the ArbCom does not create policy through their rulings. >Radiant< 09:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not immediately apparent specifically who or what this is about. However, if people are misconstruing COI it might be useful on the COI guideline page to clarify that the mere fact of a lawyer (or a pundit, lobbyist, or gardener or web designer for that matter) having worked on a certain issue or for a client in a particular walk of life does not in itself create a conflict for that lawyer to later write a Wikipedia article related to the issue or subject. As a paid advocate, a lawyer may over the course of a transactions or litigation career come to represent any cause and industry under the sun. Just because, say, I helped a multinational company buy a shoe factory, or defended a manager accused of accounting improperly for vacation day accrual, does not mean I have a conflict of interests every time I discuss shoes or vacations. Making these kinds of accusations is a cottage industry in politics, and I hope the cynical partisanship games that promote them do not spill over into Wikipedia. Further, criticizing an expert from writing within his own field of expertise is a matter of keeping hens out of the hen house.Wikidemo 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this be handled through an RfC/U, or an arbitration, rather than by raising it on talk pages and noticeboards all across the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable limits of the {{otheruses4}} hatnote template

Using all of the parameters of the {{otheruses4}} template as so:

{{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4|USE5|PAGE5}}

resulting in the hatnote

This article is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For USE4, see PAGE4. For USE5, see PAGE5.

seems like an abuse of the idea of a hatnote – can anyone point out an instance where a hatnote should point to four different articles, rather than to a disambiguation page? Even three other pages seems like too many – I would consider a four article disambiguation page far preferable to a wordy three article hatnote. Is there some existing rule of thumb for the threshold where a dab page should exist? If so, would there be support for changing this template to only allow disambiguating one or two (possibly three, but certainly not four) other pages? Does anyone know how to find which pages transclude this template with all the parameters filled? — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine a viable reason for multiple uses in this format is if they were closely related to both the intiial topic and each other, in which case the reference to them in this manner would be akin to a "See also" section at the base of the article.

That said, I think too long a list of other uses disrupts the article opening and presents alternative pages in a disorganised way. If I saw more than (say) two "other uses" in this cotnext, I would probably go ahead and create a disambiguation page or add the relevant links to the "see also" as described above.

I'm not aware of any mechanism for detecting pages with the template filled - I would think it is not necessary to amend the template as I've not noticed this being a problem to date. other views welcome, as always. Euryalus 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a mechanism that can do this. You change the template to include a "hidden link" (a space char that links to an article) to a tracker page in case, for instance, paramater USE5 is used by the template. Then you use the "What links here" of the "tracker page" and you will see how many pages make use of USE5. Of course that will generate quite some load on Wikipedia, because all pages with transclusions of otheruses4 will get queued for processing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic is also considered improper use of the hatnote, a guideline with which I agree. I haven't seen the full paramaterization of {{otheruses4}} in practice, but I have seen it used for three other pages, which I generally make into a disambig page when I find it. It just seems to me that there is no reason for the template to allow so many parameters, and that this would encourage poor structuring. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say that that is what disambig pages are for. >Radiant< 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic - topics that are directly related to the main topic should be linked as outlined rather than as a hatnote. What I was envisaging was the cocnept of ssay, articles on a chemical structure where there were similar structures sufficinet that a reader could have sougth them instead, but the article cotnent was not sufficiently related to link it elsehwere in the text. Sorry if that sounds a bit unclear - I think we agree on the main point which is that multiple hatnote references are better converted into a disambiguation. Euryalus 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

cleanup-restructure?

What's the status on this infobox? It's pointing to a dead Wikipedia instruction page, but is still being brandished over at Adult. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Silence equals consent

WP:CON suggests that "silence equals consent" in the context of editing an article. Does that translate to silence equals consent in terms of approving proposals for new policies, guidelines, etc.? --Kevin Murray 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That depends very strongly on the circumstances. Do you have a specific issue in mind? If you're not sure about whether consensus exists on a policy, wider consultation and comment will always trump 'silence' or an assumed consent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be blunt. Sometimes an interested party does not notice a change to a particular section of WP until it is brought to their attention. Silence may mean many things. dr.ef.tymac 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is reasonable given how we treat guidelines and policies. The premise that silence is consent needs to be complemented by the idea that if someone raises an objection the old consensus is overturned and a new one (possibly the same of course) has to be constructed. Generally, however, once something is a guideline more than a single voice is needed to remove that status. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree it's very difficult to provide an answer without a specific example. In terms of proposing entirely new policies/guidelines, a strong and clear consensus is needed to establish the guideline or policy as such (obviously moreso for policy than for guidelines). If it's standard tweaking and revision that takes place constantly in a wiki, than in the absence of objection, consensus may be assumed. If it's a significant revision, without outside solicitation (here for example) and clear discussion, such changes can validly challenged as inappropriate or invalid. At least, that's my understanding of how it's intended to work. You're welcome to some grains of salt with those thoughts. :) Vassyana 02:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Silence equals consent when it comes to common practice, I think—and common practice may eventually become a policy or a guideline. When practice varies too much, however, or if practice is criticized, a more formal type of consensus is required. (Commonly in the form of supermajority, and preferably in the form of unanimity.) Gracenotes^T § 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I should think a wording of "silence defaults to consent" would be better applied when it comes to policy, guidelines and the like. As mentioned by dr.ef.tymac silence is sometimes a result of non-awareness, but also it is the case that proponents of change argue they have implied consensus since the supporters of the status quo have not demonstrated their support previously - although the proponents have never demonstrated how this might be proven. It is difficult to define the degree of consent by silence (even by counting traffic against non-consent comment), but it should be recognised that it forms part of the process of consensus. LessHeard vanU 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not think that one person raising an objection means there is no longer consensus - that is not feasibl in a Wiki environment, with thousands of editors varying their attention. I think this is especially so when it comes to policies. "Airplane" pretty much means the same thing around the world and anyone who knows anything bout airplanes, even a newbie, can ad significant important content to the article on airplanes. But Wikipedia policies are unique to Wikipedia and there is no reason why a newbie would understand their value or implications. When thinking about consensus and decision-making and editing processes in gneral, we need to consider articles and policies separately: the former ideally require expertise in a subject matter; the latter ideally require expertise in Wikipedia. For that reason I think the threshold for change of policies must be much much higher than for articles - one person's objection surely is far below that threshold. I would even say fifty editors who have been around only a few weeks or months would still be below the threshold. Moreover, I think we need to distinguish between changing the text, and changing the policy - again this is because policies are fundamentally different from articles. An article about airplanes is about real things out there in the world about airplanes. A policy is itself the actual policy. A policy page is about itself, not about something out there outside of Wikipedia. Now, when it comes simply to improving the wording of a policy page - editing the text for a more elegant style, or clarity - newbies may have very valuable suggestions, and if say ten editors are active on the page and seven or eight agree to an edit, fine, why not. But if an editor - even someone who has been here 5 years ith 100,000 edits - proposes an edit that in effect changes the policy itself, I do not think that a consensus of "whichever editors happen to be active on the talk page that day" is enough. Ideally, I think such a proposal should involve creating a new page that presents the proposal, with its own talk page dedicated solely to debaing the proposal to change the policy (the talk page of the policy should be reserved for improving the text). And I feel very strongly that any editor or group of editors who want to change a policy need to publicize the proposal as widely as possibl: an announcement on the list-serve, on the Admin's bulletin board, and on the talk pages for other policies and guidelines, minimally. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes improving the "clarity" of policy has the effect of subsequently altering the perceived meaning of policy. This both is usually a consequence of good faith editing, and unremarked by those who check only the diff and not its overall effect. Also, proposed changes to policy is often worked upon outside Wikipedia space, for very good reasons, and then presented as a proposed change. The authors will then have a their considered arguments marshalled, while other interested parties only become aware of it at that time and whose responses are fragmented and hastily assembled. Having a workshop space linked to relevant policy pages may be useful in reviewing the gestation of proposed policy change. LessHeard vanU 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to apply censure for any person intentionally or by gross negligence fraudulently changing an existing Wikipedia article or articles.

Reading a news article “Dutch Royals Caught Revising Wikipedia “ (1) from another source then following a link at the end of the article to Wikipedia about a flagrant attempt to change embarrassing information from no less then a member of the Netherlands royal family by marriage, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau (née Mabel Martine Los; later Mabel Martine Wisse Smit; born August 11, 1968, Pijnacker, Netherlands) who is the wife of Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, second son of Queen Beatrix and the late Prince Claus of the Netherlands and Prince Friso, as noted above a royal member by blood. (2) Although the details are described in the cited article (1), what is truly bothersome is that Wikipedia has no stated policy I can find but may have missed in my search of Wikipedia policy for someone intending directly or by gross negligence try to commit fraud by altering an existing article in Wikipedia.

With regret but seeing the necessity, I feel a discussion by appropriate Wikipedia community members to censure any individual or individuals who attempt or later be found out to commit fraudulent changes be done.

What form censur should be enacted could include probationary or permanent exclusion of being able to edit any article directly or through another agent any article within Wikipedia. It appears that currently the offending individual or individuals are noted in the Wikipedia article where the fraudulent or questionable change or changes were made. I suspect embarrassment is used for "punishment" for questionable editorial practices. Instead or in addition, the creation of a published list of offenders who directly or through another agent(s) were found to be a participant in fraudulent or ethically questionable changes created on Wikipedia is registered on a so-called “List of Shame” The new "List of Shame" would include names, reasons of being on this list and tenure of restriction. The intent of the "List of Shame" of course would be to discourage more vigorously such reprehensible practices.

I would also suggest if a questionable edit is thought important by an author, a policy of first submitting it for editorial review is done before attempting to actually make changes. Journalistic or academic ethics may set the proper precedence for editorial review. Editorial review could be possible done by direct Wikipedia committee or community debate on Wikipedia before a change is accepted. The author of a questionable change would be responsible for submitting a controversial change to editorial review as a starting point. As a case in point, the removal of “and false” statement in the above mentioned article (2) argued by Princess Mabel and Prince Friso should clearly have been proposed for editorial review first rather then making the change initially then later when exposed of this questionable elimination of these two words, the Prince and Princess later defended the elimination of these two words from the original article as correcting a mistake.

It is my strong desire not to restrict proper or truly sincere editorial corrections of Wikipedia articles since it is important for the trust of the Wikipedia community to maintain a high level or accuracy so critical to the mission of any encyclopedia. Nor would I like to see any restriction of debate of questionable material within a Wikipedia article as needed on Wikipedia to maintain the high quality and accuracy members of come to appreciate and rely on. However, unethical editorial practices should and does need to be curtailed with consequences supported by the Wikipedia community in general. I hope my proposals spark true and honest debate of what I believe is an important issue.

Ref:

1. http://www.comcast.net/news/technology/index.jsp?cat=TECHNOLOGY&fn=/2007/08/30/751411.html Dutch Royals Caught Revising Wikipedia.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Mabel_of_Orange-Nassau

Respectively submitted by, Sadius 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Conflict of Interest addresses these concerns, and suggests remedies. LessHeard vanU 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is also somewhat covered by Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "Sneaky Vandalism," which specifically refers to "adding plausible misinformation to articles." (Unintentional misinformation is not vandalism, and, in the absence of clear evidence otherwise, we begin with an assumption that the misinformation is unintentional.) The typical procedure for addressing such misinformation is to place a {{Template:Uw-error1}} label on the user's talk page, which points out that the information seems to be incorrect and asks the editor to properly source it before they reinsert--and, if its controversial, to discuss it on the talk page first. The warnings escalate (midway asserting that "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.") to the point that a ban is initiated. Many wikipedia users would likely be against a "list of shame" as you describe (see for example Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and it would be impracticable, I'm afraid, because Wikipedia's vandals are legion. :/ However, there is a list of some of the more egregious vandals at Wikipedia:Long term abuse. --Moonriddengirl 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES: the rejected proposal that keeps on giving

We've been around WP:BADSITES a number of times now, and it has been rejected (for lack of consensus) many times over. Yet it keeps coming back.

What is is particularly vexing is that its focus has shifted from the original target (sites critical of Wikipedia) to official websites of article subjects. The problem, of course, is that as subjects of Wikipedia, the people on these sites are inclined to talk about it, and in some cases discuss Wikipedia editors as real people. This fits the parameters of the (non-)policy, and someone deletes the link. This in turn sets off an edit war, because other people think that it's obvious that the subject's own official website belongs in the article about them.

So far at least three articles have been subjected to this treatment:

• Teresa Nielsen Hayden (it's been hit twice)
• Michael Moore
• Don Murphy

The last is the subject of attack at this time.

I've always taken the position that it's not our job to hold these sites to some moral standard of Wikipedia discourse. I also think we cannot take on the responsibility for guaranteeing editor anonymity outside of Wikipedia, which is in effect what this "policy" attempts. But more importantly, this is an issue that simply refuses to die, and it's no longer possible to argue that it isn't affecting the quality of the encyclopedia. My position is that we ought to have an stated policy-- in WP:BLP or elsewhere-- that the subject's official/own website can and ought to be linked to in their article. BUt one way or the other this needs to be settled. Mangoe 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I just want to make sure people know that there has been an ongoing and extensive debate concerning our NOR policy. I just archived August's discussion, including a considerable amount of debate that led to, and followed, page protection. There are a series of issues I hope other editors will comment on.

• one editor questions the importance of policies, and whether they require universal consent to be enforcable, or that's how I interpret it - the comment is this
• I believe some editors are simply opposed to NOR, period

Of those who claim to support NOR in principle, there are a variety of disputes:

1. should the policy distinguish between primary and secondary sources?
2. should the policy encourae the use of secondary sources over primary sources?
3. should the policy encourage the use of reliable sources?
4. are explanations considered original research?

In order to move the discussion I cleaned up the talk page and selected the firs two questions for discussion - they seemed to be at the heart of the conflict that led to page protection. But in the most recent archive you will see all these points (and more!) debated, and I am pretty confident that if we ever reach resolution on points 1 and 2, people will immediaely begin debating points 3 and 4. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)