Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Proposed wording about descriptive titles and neutrality

For anyone who's interested, I'm trying to produce a proposed simultaneous rewording for the titles section of WP:NPOV and the descriptive titles/neutrality section of this page. Assistance/comments welcome at User:Kotniski/Neu.--Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your draft for AT is acceptable... your draft for NPOV is not. Explained on the draft's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. I see no advantage to changing - and (whether or not you mean it) sentences from your draft will be used against established names like Boston massacre. Use of Gdanzig as an example is not at all wise; there is no consensus, merely a stalemate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained at the talk page of the draft, I'm happy for the Boston massacre examples to be put back (I'm not suggesting that my current wording is in any way perfect). I don't think that what I've said about Gdanzig is at all controversial except possibly among extremists (and given that the subject is neutrality, any good example we give is going to be contested by extremists), but again, I'm not insisting on using any particular example or wording.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this has swung too much back towards "use the most common name even if it is grossly biased". I accept the arguments above in favour of that position. But on the other hand, the fact remains that "attorneygate" is not used because some people feel the name is spin. I don't think any of you guys really believe that "attorneygate" was rejected because it was "felt not to have become sufficiently established in good sources"; so why would we say it? Hesperian 10:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the only legitimate reason (that would be accepted by the community at large if the matter were up to them apart from a small minority with a POV). Good sources", of course, is open to a high degree of interpretation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to talk about our own opinions at this stage rather than try and speak for others, otherwise we might start assuming things that aren't true. The business about a consensus of sources doesn' really work for Climategate and I think the distinction between names and descriptions is a bit artificial, all titles are supposed to be descriptive enough for identification, just saying B-52 for instance isn't really good enough. Possibly the article should be called Climategate eventually as opposed to Attorneygate where not enough people used that but it is still better to call it the long name for the mooment like the AfDs say. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world does "this business about a consensus of sources" not work for Climategate (or any other "-gate")? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am mistified too, and I find it hard to take Hesperian's statement at face value. The term's provenance in terms of who penned it first and in what context has not been established. It might be cited by journalists, but who actually coined the phrase and in what context is not known. This appears to be a classic example of WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who coined the term or what the context was... what matters is if enough other (reliable) sources pick up on the term and use it. When does a neologism stop being a neologism? Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It does, because the article is about a neologism, not just mentioning it. To quote WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
I realise that this whole area of neologism is one that is already dealt with, so if we give any examples, we may wish to point any related example at WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no... to be an article about a neologism, the article would have to be about the word "climategate" (its etymology, meaning and usage)... I would agree that we should not have an article about the word "climategate", just as we should not have an article on the word "Massacre" (instead that page is a dab page with a link to Wiktionary.)

However... as a potential article title the term redirects to an article "about" an event... or rather a series of events that form a controversy (specifically the Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Thus, the article is not "about" a neologism.... it is an article about an event, that might be titled with a neologism.

Thus, the section of WP:NEO that comes closest to applying is Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles titled with neologisms... which states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

However, if "a consensus of sources" use the term, this would indicate that there is an accepted short-hand term that exists. So the advice given in that section would no longer apply. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it does, for would how a complete lack of coverage about the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? Another way of looking at this is that an article about a neologism is also an article about a topic where a neologism is used as the title. I think this is a good example of a non-neutral label: even when it is used widely, the title "Climategate" conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that this is a scandal similar to Watergate. Neologisms are a fancy way of labeling topics as one group of people see it. The fact that a term is accepted by one group but not another is a good indicator that it may not be neutral. That is why significant coverage about the title would be needed to establish its credentials as a widely recognised title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your logic - if calling it Climategate implies something, and reliable (which in this case means, among other things, unbiased) sources are calling it Climategate, then whatever it is that Climategate implies is being implied by those reliable sources, and therefore it's right and proper for us to imply it as well.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of NPOV#Article titles is that that non-neutral names that have been used by a consensus of sources should be considered an exception to WP:LABEL. The word "massacre" in Boston Massacre is, after all, also a non-neutral label... It too was coined to convey to the reader an implied viewpoint. The name was initially coined by partisan political pamphleteers trying to promote outrage among their fellow colonists.

If we were holding this discussion back in the early 1770s, I am sure we would be having heated debates about how to title the article on that event. Editors would be (correctly in my view) arguing that the article should be titled with the more neutral descriptive title of "Boston, Massachusetts shootings controversy". After all, it really is POV to call an event where only five people were killed a massacre"

Yet, today we don't use a neutral descriptive title for the article on that event. Instead we use a non-neutral name. So what changed? What makes a name that would have been unacceptable then now acceptable. What makes the name Boston massacre acceptable today? My answer is... the fact that the non-neutral name has been accepted and used by a consensus of reliable sources.

My point is that "X-gate" is no different than "X-massacre". We can argue about whether a non-neutral name has been accepted by a consensus of sources, but not about what to do once it has been accepted. If and when it has been accepted, we should use it. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Kotniski that we can just accept a title because it is the subject of reliable source; how can a mere mention of the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? I think we need more evidence than trivial coverage to accept the term. Using Blueboar's example for a moment, whether a massacre involves 5 or 500 people, its never going to be a neutral term, but I think it is widely accepted in circumstances that involve the slaughter of defenceless civilians, and acceptance of the term spans several hundred years and many unfortunate events that have been the subject of significant coverage to justify its use. Although adding "gate" to an word is not so serious, nonetheless any claim that a scandal was on a par with Watergate, even if it were only indirectly implied in the title (and then only weakly or in jest), would require the same sort of coverage as the documentation of a massacre. I just don't see the depth of coverage in the Climategate article that documents the affair on a par with Watergate in accordance with WP:REDFLAG; I think any reasonable editor would have have to take this neologism with a pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that if "climategate" (like "Boston massacre") is used in conjunction with the event for a long enough time, then it would be acceptable? (in other words, is it your view that acceptability of non-neutral names is based on time of usage and not volume of usage?) If so, this gets back to a question I raised earlier... when is a neologism no longer a neologism? A year? Five years? 100 years? Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, if has not been the subject of significant coverage. Yes, if, in accordance with WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, it "has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that a "-gate" term might be an acceptable title for an article, if that term has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable. You simply don't think the specific term "Climategate" has met that standard. Fine. In essence we agree: Article titles are not determined by whether a name is neutral or non-neutral, but by a different standard. One that has to do with usage/coverage in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd only add that there's a reason a non-neutral title is okay: we've got an entire article to discuss how all sides view the term. If there's no discussion, then a non-neutral title isn't okay with me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the WikiJargon from this section.

"Neutral" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, as defined in WP:NPOV. Whatever the sources say is "WP:Neutral", even if some people consider the sources' choice of terms to be patently offensive or flat wrong. Using this word to describe anything else is confusing to editors and IMO should be strictly avoided in Wikipedia's advice pages.

What this section describes is not WP:Neutrality (=following the sources, even if you think the sources are leading us right over the cliff); in fact, it is entirely about what to do when you don't follow the sources. This page recommends that when you don't follow the sources, that you choose titles that are inoffensive and non-judgmental.

English has perfectly good words for those concepts that don't conflict with the WikiJargon; let's use those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. From the above comment, I was inclined to disagree. But on reviewing the diff, WhatamIdoing is absolutely right here. Hesperian 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with the post. Non-judgmentalism writing in a neutral tone, is part of WP:NPOV; it's one of the distinctions between WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. But the edit is right; we need not make that point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So are we saying 'Boston Massacre' is a common name not a description because it has entered general usage, 'Climategate' is a common name but..., actually I can't see why Climategate isn't preferred according to the current wording. It isn't like tidal wave compared to tsunami. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With the current wording we no longer directly address this question ... the argument is that "Climategate", as a name, has not (yet) met the threshold that would require us to use it over some other title (such as a descriptive title).

We seem to have some disagreement on what that threshold is, and how to word it... but at least we seem have agreed that a threshold exists. That is a step in the right direction, as it moves us closer to being in sync with WP:NPOV#Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I think the threshold for using a non-neutral name has to be higher quality evidence that the term is widely accpeted than would normally be the case, the direct analogy being WP:REDFLAG in relation to extraordinary claims or strongly held opinions. Perhaps some guideance along the lines of the following would be appropriate:

If topic has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then the term that is simplest and most direct way of refering to the concept in the article title should be apparent. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable.

However, were the title is not neutral, highly novel (e.g. a neologism) or is likely to be challenged for other reason, then high-quality sources are required to demonstrate that a particular article title is acceptable to the world at large.

I realise that contemporary subjects, higly novel and controversial titles are likey to have been coined by just one person, rather than to have emerged from multiple sources. To demonstrate that such a article title is being used my more than one source or group of related sources, I think the burden of evidence needs to be capable of withstand the accusation that the choice of title is purely personal or partisan. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... this might be OK... Suppose we do add it, how would editors interpret it? Let's think of some examples of non-neutral names and see whether they would or would not qualify as an article title under this language. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral title

One possibly non-neutral article title: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. here's been some discussion about that at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#The Wiki Title Violates Neutrality. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point... so do we have high quality sources that we can use to justify that title? (I hope so). Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this example sort of proves my point, that high quality sources are needed to justify an article title that is likely to be challenged. Just because numerous sources use the term "conspiracy" is not sufficient reason to use this term in the title, becasue there is no proof that a conspiracy exists. Conspiracy theorists would say "of course a conspiracy exists", but I don't think we should allow article titles to be based on hearsay, even if that hearsay is cited by reliable soruces.
It seems to me that there has to proof that a conspiracy actually exists for the title to stick; unfounded allegations are merely labels which contain opinions that may not have any real justification. It seems to me that the title is sensationalist rather than substantive, and that the coverage of term consiracy is trival, rather than significant: there needs to be a source that specifically identifies the "conspiracy theories" as a subject of significant coverage per se to justify the title. Putting lots of trivial coverage together, and claim "here is your proof that conspiracy theories exist" is an example of stretching the facts to fit the theory. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" implies that the conspiracies do not actually exist. But I agree it's not a good title - it ought to use a word like "controversy" or "claims".--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether that is actually an example of a non-neutral title... if someone theorizes that a conspiracy exists, that theory is (by definition) a "conspiracy theory". No? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic of that particular article is not theorization about whether or not a conspiracy exists. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct... it says that the theories do exist, and that these theories claim that a conspiracy exists ... hence they are "Conspiracy theories". Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the lead sentence of the article says, "Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama are ideas that reject the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship and his eligibility to be President of the United States." I don't see how this article title can be seen in any way other than as implicitly passing judgment on the subject of such ideas.

Actually, I'm doubtful that many, if any, of those holding such ideas claim that a conspiracy exists. The only such conspiracies I've seen purported have been offered up as strawmen. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think the title is a good example of WP:LABEL: an article title that "conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral".
The significant coverage given to real world events suggests that the subject matter of this article is that Barack Obama's nationality has been the subject of legal challenge which have failed. There is lots of trivial coverage to show that rebuttle of those challenges has resulted in accusations from various plaintiffs that their legal actions failed becuase there is a conspiracy. If this article title where to go to meditiation, I am sure the significant coverage would be given more weight that the trivial coverage, even if the sources for both came from reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that undue weight has been given to trivial coverage when the choice of title was made, despite the fact that it is Barack Obama's nationality or his eligabilty for high office that is the real subject matter of this article.

I think that the following amendment to the section on descriptive titles might be helpful:

Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. If a title is not neutral, or is highly novel (e.g. a neologism), or is likely to be challenged for any other reason, then that is a redflag that should prompt editors to examine the sources for their choice of article title.

Descriptive titles should only be used where directly supported by significant coverage from reliable sources that demonstrate undue weight is not being given to a particular viewpoint. If such sources are not available, then that title should be discarded in favour of a neutral title, even if it is less recognizable.

For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

I think this makes the point that neutrality is the baseline we start from, in line with WP:NPOV. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, To look at the same issue in a less political article... take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories. The term seems to be used quite neutrally there. In fact the article goes out of its way not to pass judgment on these theories, either for or against. Blueboar (talk)

Good point and good example. Perhaps the content of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, if that title is retained, would be beter if rewritten similarly. As the content is currently written, that title strkes me as inappropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly... I think it is impossible to make sweeping statement about the use of non-neutral terms in titles. Non-neutral terms in titles need to be examined on a case by case basis... because sometimes they are actually used neutrally (as in the case of "Boston massacre" or in the case of "Masonic conspiracy theories"), and sometimes they are not. When they are not used neutrally, sometimes (I will even say most of the time) the best solution is to change the title... but sometimes (occasionally) the best solution is to rewrite and refocus the article in a way that makes the title neutral (this would be my choice with the Obama citizenship article). Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact there would be no artificial distinction between common name and descriptive title, just we should choose the best most straightforward description people will recognize which don't conflict badly with NPOV and normally a common name will be fine for that? Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I am not sure if I agree with that... I do see a distinction between names and descriptive phrases, but how the distinction impacts our titling is less clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq in the sense that, if the title is going to be challenged, we look to the sources that can provide the best form of external justification for that choice, whether it is acommon name or a descriptive title. We have to look at each case individually, but there must be some source of external validation we can agree on in order to reach the most neutral title, even if that is the least worst one. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that... as long as it is understood that the most neutral title may not always seem neutral (in that it may include non-neutral terms or names). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which takes precedence: Common name or Manual of Style?

Recently I proposed a move at Talk:Inland Empire–Orange County Line#Move to "Inland Empire-Orange County Line". The issue was whether the common name policy took precedence over the Manual of Style on dashes and hyphens. (I couldn't find a guideline on this, if there is one, I apologise.) Only one person commented, so I thought I would bring this to a larger audience to see what the consensus is. Thoughts? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict... the name without a hyphen (as per MOS) would still reflect the common name. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TorriTorri, is the primary issue whether Wikipedia has to follow the punctuation used by sloppy sources, by using a hyphen instead of the (typographically correct) en-dash? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've come across this issue recently on articles like Ireland 400–800. The n-dash is typographically better and so I would recommend it as the title. (Blueboar, remember what we choose as a title not only affects the name of an article but also how that name is set typographically.) (Struck: I had mistakenly read Blueboar's comment. --RA (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

However, it is nearly impossible to type an n-dash on a standard keyboard and so difficult for user to link to from other articles - and for those of use who like to navigate via the URL bar, etc.. For that reason, I would recommend using the n-dash in the title but creating a redirect page from the hyphenated name. Incorrectly formatted links in other articles can be fixed later on. --RA (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus possibly creating the first clear and deliberate violation of the opaque "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors" injunction that I've ever encountered.

Shall we assume that you're using Windoze? An en dash is no harder to produce on a Mac than a capital letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors" - If you read over my post again you might see that my suggestion was to use an n-dash as the article title. A redirect is a practical consideration. Please see the current copy of this policy, particularly the part that reads:

Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on standard keyboards are used, such as dashes, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters.

With respect to your question, I contribute using a variety of systems. Mainly a Mac but also Windows and various Linux distros. It's not as easy to create a n-dash on them all as it is on a Mac (and even at that, far from every user of a Mac knows how to). 86.95% of visitors to this website use Windows. I (and you?) are among the mere 7.08% that use OS X. See stats. --RA (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the liberal use of redirects, especially for sane purposes like this.

I am, however, always on the lookout for something that justifies, or at least explains, the existence of this "readers over editors" (which I think should be removed). Placing the page at the typographically wrong title for the purpose of making it easier for editors to type the link to the article would be, I believe, the first example I've found (in a year-long search) of a title choice that would violate this rule... except, of course, that nobody is proposing actually doing this: TorriTorri seems to be interested only in following the sources' sloppy typography, not in making links easier for editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should use what is used in reliable sources it is not to us to make editorial judgement on what is or is not "sloppy typography". Next it will be argued that we should use funny foreign squiggles even if reliable sources do not as it is only for reasons of "sloppy typography" that they do not (lets not go there again). One reason for the existence of "readers over editors" is for the alphabetical sorting of articles in categories. Some editors given the choice would use names that give a uniformed look to categories. for example I have seen people object to British generals having titles included in their article names not because it is not common in sources etc (which might be true) but because it messes up the look of categories like Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States). Another is for whether there should be a comma in names like Henry Vane the Younger because if it is Henry Vane, the Younger it can be used more easily as a dab with the pipe trick. The is also consistency, clearly for editors consistency is easier than accurately following the use in sources. If an editor knows that names always use a certain format like "Name, ordinal of country" it is easier to know what to link to even if the name is not commonly used in reliable sources. One example was the original position of the article Gustavus Adolphus see Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. Another is the use of scientific names for flora, it saves editors the bother of working out if the scientific name is the most recognisable name for the general public if the rule is always use the scientific name. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But in principle I think that this policy trumps the MOS on article names while the MOS trumps this policy on how to present content. However there is of course a symbiotic relationship and the two should be phrased is such a way that they do not contradict each other. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS's statement of principle is correct. In this case, there is also a WP:IAR argument; the MOS position on endashes is not documentable, and is not English. Following it harms the encyclpedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are we to decide what is "sloppy" or not? As PBS stated, this would lead to a slippery slope of deciding when to follow reliable sources and when not to. We should stick what is verifiable. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but no. Shall we determine whether sources place a single or a double space after a period, and copy that typographic style, too? If the source uses a serif font, must we? Shall we require the use of proportional fonts, if that's what the source uses? Or put company names in all capital letters, because that's what the company does in its press releases?

Or is it only the tiny size difference between a hyphen and an en dash that worries you?

PMA, I'm not sure what "not documentable" means. Do you mean that you've never seen any of the many style guides and other sources that explain this use (e.g., [1], the sources in the mainspace article en dash, and dozens more), or that you haven't seen any documentation that the contents of the MOS are, in fact, the contents of the MOS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The MOS and concerns over WP:V (or common name) are distinct matters.

We have a certain house style, that is our MOS. Other publications have their own house style, that is their MOS. It most cases, their's will be different to ours in one way or another. When we use look to other publications, we look to them for verification not to emulate their house style. We have our own.

The question of whether MOS trumps verifiability misses the point of both. The two address two different things. In this case, another publication uses a hyphen were were use a n-dash. Verifiability does not mean that we have to transplant their house style into our publication. The important thing for verifiability and common name is that we can verify that another publication calls it the "Inland Empire-Orange County Line". They use an hyphen in that circumstance. We wish them well in doing so. We use an n-dash in that circumstance. So, we use an n-dash. See MOS:ENDASH and the section on "En dashes in page names". --RA (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS is not a house style; in our language, a house style would be those points of usage on which there is genuine consensus. These are few enough, but does MOS mention any of them? yet it spends great amounts of verbiage on points on which there is no consensus.

Those who wish to follow MOS, instead of Modern English Usage, CMS, or the Oxford Guide to Style are free to do so; they will advertise their judgment, their taste, and their learning in so doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judgment? Taste? Learning?... on Wikipedia?? (the unfortunate part about being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that just about anyone does). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RA and WhatamIdoing make good points which I did not realise. Pmanderson, is that a personal attack? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 06:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No; it may qualify as an impersonal attack. MOS is a disaster, and its semi-literate pedantry on endashes is one of its silliest decisions; those who support and enforce those decisions - as inconvenient to readers as it is to editors - should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, Pmanderson, but it is certainly incivil. Saying the MOS should be ignored is one thing. Saying other editors should be ignored is another. --RA (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what they are saying. For a parallel, editors who insisted that Symmes' Hole appear in articles on global warming or ozone depletion should be ignored, insofar as they so argue; the same editors, on other subjects, should be listened to - perhaps with a grain of salt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PMA, are you aware that Chicago requires the use of en dashes in wikt:open compounds (i.e., the case under discussion)? (See section 6.85, ISBN 9780226104034.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly phrased (open compounds, by definition, have no internal punctuation at all) but correct for compounding open compounds. If ENDASH said that, and pointed out that the hyphen suggests a triple compound of Inland, Empire Orange, and County, it would be unexceptionable: but it doesn't, and is useless. Mindless citation of a mistaken rule, even in those cases where it happens to be right, is not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what CMS says. Please actually go look it up instead of assuming that your memory is accurate. CMS gives "a hospital–nursing home connection" and "a nursing home–home care policy" as examples. It does not spam multiple hyphens or dashes into these phrases, and it would not accept "Inland–Empire–Orange–County Line". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are disagreeing with something I did not say; I never suggested multiple dashes, which was Fowler's solution to the problem. It would be legitimate British English, but need not be ours. (And I was looking at CMS 6.85 as I typed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions at WP:USCJ

Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions

I have put up a new set of proposed Tibetan naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Great (sarcasm) - another special topic area naming convention... just what we need. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

titles of articles with non-Latin alphabets

Should .бг, السعودية. and امارات. be moved to their Latin transliterations? bogdan (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Better than a simple transliteration... they should be moved to a suitable English language translation. This is the English version of Wikipedia after all. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there is his desperate need to give things wrong names when we have redirection to cope with searches. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Move 'em to their punycode and let God sort 'em out. Seriously, taking one as an example, the possibilities include:

1. امارات.
2. .emirat
3. emirat
4. United Arab Emirates internationalized country-code Top-Level Domain
5. .xn--mgbaam7a8h

I hope we can all agree that each of these (except probably #3, which maybe not in this case but for some country will need a disambiguation) is a suitable redirect. The question becomes, which should be the article name? I think it is unlikely that internationalized ccTLDs will soon have commonly used names in English, so we should ask which of these will be most useful to readers. I've changed my mind at least once while composing this reply, but at this point I'd go for #4.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see what this is about... I would say the title should be ".emirat". This would conform with the titles of other articles on domains for other countries (see, for example .uk and .us) Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it wouldn't; the other articles use the actual domain name, not a transliteration.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, then what would someone type to send an email to or view a website at these domains using an a standard English lettering "qwerty" keyboard? THAT is what we should use. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On a Latin keyboard, you would use option 5, .xn--mgbaam7a8h to send an email or view a site. Also without Arabic fonts installed this is what a user would see in the address bar too. I strongly prefer using this to using .emirat, as this actually works as a substitute (using .emirat in a URL would not work), and it avoids issues inherent in transliteration from Arabic (whether to indicate vowel length, choice of vowel etc) Knepflerle (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Common names"

Following a thread at WT:MOS, I'd propose to add something like that:

Nowadays, many major modern English dictionaries, such as the OED for British English and Webster's Dictionary for American English, have a corpus-based descriptive approach, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage.

― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) [amended at 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)]

Could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Webster's was criticized for this very reason. See this about the OED. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, but two changes and some additions are necessary: 1) In fact, all major modern English dictionaries are descriptive instead of prescriptive and all use their own and/or a public text corpus. 2) We want to use American Heritage and Merriam-Webster (not the historical or generic term Webster's) as examples of modern US descriptive dictionaries.

Blueboar, what do you mean with an example? An example of a word, a dictionary, a modern dictionary's compilation method, or what? Here's a summary of how modern dictionaries are made that indirectly explains why we should seriously discourage use of search engine testing instead of encouraging it, as we do now.

We should specifically discourage search engine testing if the terms are in dictionaries. It's symptomatic of WP and the rampant OR that goes on in determining terminology in editing WP that both WP:UCN and Wikipedia:Search engine test don't even mention dictionaries and their databases! Those pages should specifically warn that the increasingly popular attitude/habit of dictionary bashing is almost always a sign of linguistic ignorance and not a sign that the bashers know more than the dictionaries. No amount of Googling by almost all WP editors can compete with the data and knowledge that is the basis of a dictionary entry.

I'm not saying we should ban reliable sources that criticise and correct dictionary entries, on the contrary, but we should ban the rampant habit of deleting information in WP that is well sourced from dictionaries as "irrelevant" because dictionaries supposedly describe "only" general English whereas the WP editor(s) consider themselves experts on what the "correct" term/spelling X is for which "most people use the incorrect term/spelling Y". We could even allow the results of very well carried out search engine testing as additions to information quoted from dictionaries to indicate possible new trends not yet recorded in dictionaries, but these are almost always blatant OR that is not tolerated on WP in anything except what most English speakers incorrectly think they are experts on - their mother tongue.

Specifically we should ban the kind of linguistic prescriptivism that is normal and even correct in writing a reference work for a profession. We should encourage use of the terms used by the experts but specifically ban the removal of explanations of colloquial terms used by most people instead of the precise terms used by experts. --Espoo (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this addition:

Nowadays, all major modern English dictionaries have a corpus-based descriptive approach, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage. WP should not try to be a collection of hundreds of professional reference works. We should try to make even difficult topics accessible to lay readers, and we should not ignore widespread English usage that is different from that in our dialect of English or different from that of specialists.

Professional reference works can say "don't use the term X" and "always use Y instead of Z" and can even simply not mention non-specialist usage, but WP should not do these things. Major dictionaries are usually very good guides to the meanings, spelling, and use of words - especially when these are different in different kinds of English - because modern English dictionaries base their definitions on large databases documenting actual use in "a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time".

--Espoo (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we say this without the fancy terms like "corpus" and "descriptive approach" (which could confuse new editors). Remember... "Keep it simple" is always best. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was at the end of my suggestion :-) How about this?:

Nowadays, all major modern English dictionaries base their definitions on large databases documenting actual use in "a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time"ref note, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage and no longer prescribe usage. We should refrain from trying to be lexicographers and doing search engine tests because this is usually WP:OR

Wikipedia should not try to be a collection of hundreds of professional reference works. We should try to make even difficult topics accessible to lay readers, and we should not ignore widespread English usage that is different from that in our dialect of English or different from that of specialists. Professional reference works can say "don't use the term X" and "always use Y instead of Z" and can even simply not mention non-specialist usage, but Wikipedia should not do these things. --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the OR is that those dictionaries don't do what we often need: say which is the most common word for a thing. That X and Y and Z are all words for the same thing is not uncommon - but we need one of them to be an article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if several words are common enough (e.g. bicycle and bike), I'd say the title can be either one, and once it's somewhere it shouldn't be changed without a good reason, rather than trying to determine which one is more common; matter of fact, I can't think of any reliable way of doing that (there's evidence that the number of Google hits can be bogus, especially with large hit numbers[2]). A. di M. (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree... sometimes it just comes down to common sense and consensus among editors at the article (and we already say that, if needed, defer to consensus)... I would argue for "Bicycle" over "Bike" as being more precise (since "Bike" can refer to a motorcycle)... but if the consensus was against me I would not argue very hard. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a range of topics that do not appear in dictionaries for all sorts of different reasons. Not infrequently terms differ between dictionaries. There are also other considerations like national variations etc. Also what is meant by "Nowadays, many major modern English dictionaries", the OED has always used that method as have all good dictionaries or do you suggest that in the past dictionaries used to make up meanings for words? What is the justification for saying "British English" for the OED, as it records usage throughout the English speaking world? For these reasons I oppose the addition of this sentence. -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Murray is a relatively late dictionary-maker (and the First Edition is overwhelmingly drawn from British sources); Johnson had no qualms about suppressing a sense, or a word, of which he disapproved; this continued, notoriously, up through Webster's Second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To give an example of where dictionary usage was decided to be inadequate was the renaming of the article Romani people (it had been at Roma people). The OED entry had not been updated since 1989 and it was shown in the debate over the name that among more recent reliable sources (such as those used in the article) that Romani was more commonly used than that of Romany the OED preferred spelling. There is also another point here the meaning given to the word Gipsy differs between the OED and that under English law, in such cases is the dictionary meaning (that Gipsy is another word of Romani) of the legal definitions more authoritative? This is not something that a simple rule in this policy can cover because it comes down to editorial judgement. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is another reason why this policy says that when the various criteria don't mesh perfectly... you discuss the matter on the talk page and go with consensus. We can outline what to do for the typical article, but no matter what we write, there are going to be articles that simply don't fit our "rules". Do we need to make this clearer... that there are going to be times when the "rules" don't work, and that when that happens it is OK. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Common names when an organization has recently changed its name

An amusement park in California recently changed its name from Pharaoh's Lost Kingdom to Pharaoh's Adventure Park. Currently the article is at the second title; however, most reliable sources refer to it by the first, since the name change occurred very recently. Which name should be used for the article title? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Common sense applies... I assume that there is at least one reliable source that can verify the name change? I doubt anyone would be likely to object to changing the title of the article to match the new name of the amusement park (the old title should become a redirect). The exception would be an article in which maintaining historic context is important... If the park has changed ownership and management with the name change, we might wish to have two articles... one on the old park (using the old name as a title) and one for the new park (using the new name as the title). Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Some quick googling turned up [3], [4], [5], and other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Typically for subjects which still exist, a name change will ultimately be reflected in more sources as time passes. As such, I don't think there's a problem using the new name. An argument can be made the other way in cases where there's reason to believe that the old name will, for whatever reason, always be more popular. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Adopting this attitude is edging towards endorsing "official" names as primary in general, which is certainly not what we are aiming for. Care should be taken in ensuring that the new name is actually adopted widely before we adopt it, per WP:V. There's no rush to change a page's title, as it can be changed in the blink of an eye once it is clear that usage has changed. A redirect from the new title should be created immediately, however.

RfC: Is "Criticism of foo" an article title to be avoided?

There has been a rather in-depth conversation regarding criticism articles on the village pump, which is linked here. In short, some users feel that these types of articles have inherent problems with WP:NPOV and other policies. Other editors feel that they are useful ways to comply with expectations of WP:Summary style. There is a long standing essay, WP:CRITICISM, which discusses some of the concerns of dedicated criticism sections.

Are these types of articles considered harmful and discouraged except in circumstances where they are obviously appropriate? Should WP:Article titles discourage the creation of articles with these titles? SDY (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the avoidance of the word "Criticism" and changing it to something like Critical analysis or the like because while "criticism" can mean opinions either way on a given topic, the word is nearly always taken in common terms to be negative facets and draw in undesirable OR, POV, and other issues that magnify the problem. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• I *support* the avoidance of the word "Criticism" and a change to the policy. Maybe expand the "foo and bar" section to explicitly state that WP:SYN/WP:NPOV are important factors to consider when choosing a title, and give "foo and bar" and "criticism of baz" as examples of how not to title articles? The NPOV policy isn't silent on this, so there's a question of coordination. I'm pretty sure that's a new bit in the NPOV policy, I don't remember seeing it there before. SDY (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Question misses the point. The solution to whether a particular "Criticism of" page should exist is (sound of drumroll): what do secondary sources say? Not whether pages with such titles, as some sort of abstract category, should exist. Do a Google Book search. Do a Google Scholar search. If there are secondary sources on (and even titled!) "Criticism of X", then they will provide a road map to what the page should say, and what it should omit. Absent those sources, the page is likely to be a coatrack. But editors who have POVs to push and dislike criticism of their pet subject will be quick to shout "coatrack" and claim the nonexistence of sources before they even bother to do such a search. However, I do like Masem's idea of "Critical analysis of X", where appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Spot-checking the major religions, Google scholar strikes a lot of hits for "criticism of X", so it's certainly what sources say. But these are academic sources where the word "criticism" is known to have both position and negative judgment; on WP, that doesn't happen and we hit systematic biases for that. It is a rare case where we should depart from the sources to avoid problems with the articles in the future. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because you can get ghits on a "Criticism of foo" doesn't mean we should have an article on it. It should be covered under "foo" not in a dedicated smear article (criticism is not a neutral term in modern English, don't bother disagreeing). SDY (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't mean one should count Google hits. I mean one should do a search for sources, and pay attention to those that pass WP:RS. Running the search is just the first step. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Tryptofish has it exactly right: Follow the best sources.
  On a side note, "Criticism of" is often more pointful than "Criticism and" as a title. "Criticism of X" tells you that X has been criticized (validly or not) in certain ways. "Criticism and X" is a much broader topic, including X criticizing other things. "Criticism and conservativism" could include long lists of complaints that politically conservative people make against liberals, libertarians, moderates, and foreign groups; it could, in fact, take in all of culture war and several other subjects. "Criticism of conservatism", however, is clearly focused on complaints lodged against conservatism, and the responses to these criticisms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• We already caution editors about the use of "and"... I think a similar caution is in order for "Criticism of". But we need to phrase it a caution, not a restriction (and certainly not an out right ban). If the sources support the title, then it is fine... otherwise it should be avoided (in favor of "critiques of" or "critical analysis of") Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is also a problem with "denial of the [xyz genocide]/[scientific theory]" because denial frames the debate in implying that the thing that is being denied is true. It may be that the genocide or theory is broadly accepted and that denialism is a genuine phenomenon as it is in denial of the holocaust but too often articles are created as pov/content forks. Take for example the two articles denial of the Armenian Genocide and recognition of the Armenian Genocide it is very difficult to present a balanced view (as is done in the BBC article "Armenian genocide dispute" -- also note the use of lower case "g" in genocide) which is needed because the governments of countries such as Britain and America recognise that the killing of Armenians as a crime against humanity, but for legal and political reasons not as genocide. As the POV split tends to force a black and white/binary approach it makes presenting a NPOV difficult. Something similar happens with "critiques of" etc, better to have descriptive articles incorporating "dispute" or "debate" rather than titles which encourage polarisation and POV forks. -- PBS (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking further about this there is a general problem with a class of article titles on Wikipedia because they encourage the collection of random facts into a list that end up a one huge synthesis which unlike the old list of massacres may be sourced. Take for example terror bombing which is another name for a type of strategic bombing that attempts to sap the morale of the enemy (but with an emotive edge that implies illegality: we bomb to sap their morale they terror bomb us). There could be an article on what makes terror bombing distinct from other types of strategic bombing which would involve an analysis of the use of the term by different authors, and the same author for different events. But Wikipedia does not work that way, instead what happens is editors trawl the net looking for mention of the phrase "terror bombing" for an incident they think was terrible and then add the incident as a sourced terror bombing raid. What emerges is a list of strategic bombing raids that someone somewhere has called terror bombing, but the list is not a list of comparable incidents based on a single definition (and so is a synthesise). It seems to me the only way to keep such articles on Wikipedia neutral (and free from synthesis) is to have an over arching neutral title like "strategic bombing" and place the content of POV magnets like terror bombing into them, or face never ending talk page debates over the contents of a badly titled articles. -- PBS (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the views expressed that article titles should not be phrased in such a way as to appear to encompass only views on one side of a debate. So "Criticism of..." and similar is unlikely to be a good title for an article that complies with NPOV. If we have to split out such an article (and most times there's no need to) then it should be called something more balanced.--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article titles such as "Criticism of..." or "Critical analysis of..." are entirely made up, and simply asking "what do the sources say?" is the wrong question, since it is based on the misunderstanding that criticism of a particular topic is an article topic in its own right. Whether you refer to significant coverage that addresses a particular topic directly and in detail as "commentary", "discussion", "criticism", "interpretation" or "analysis", significant coverage is always about a particular topic, so treating it as a seperate standalone article can never be justified. The idea that "Criticism of...", "Critical analysis of..." or "Critical reception of.." is an article topic in its own right is based on a misunderstanding about the role of criticism within articles, where editors often give it its own section in order to provide an article with structure by creating separate sub-headings. However, editorial choices about how articles can be structured is a matter of editorial discretion, and such sub-division will in practise have no external source of validation, i.e. such sub-topic is made up, and such sub-divisions are the sections into which the coverage has been punctuated. Alternative treatment of critical analysis is not is not uncommon, such as leading or defining an article topic with critical analysis rather that treating it a separate sub-topic. For example, in the article Deforestation, critical analysis is fully integrated into the coverage of the topic. It is not standard procedure to put criticism in its own sub-division in every instance, nor to split into separate articles as Masem suggests. Rather, it is better to apply WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and to integrate criticism within the general coverage of article topic or sub-topic to which it is related, otherwise this will lead to coatrack articles, or as a dumping ground for those articles that have been purged of criticism altogether. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also support avoiding these sort of articles from what I have seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the most productive way to think about this is in the particular, though the problem runs through many articles. At Criticism of Judaism, for instance, no source even establishes the concept of "criticism of Judaism." Thus that article is in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines, some of which are fundamental. I have to quickly point out that the subtopics covered in that article are not in violation of any policy. Those subtopics actually have their own freestanding articles. But the concept of "criticism of Judaism" is not really sourced. The phrase may be used many times, but there is no agreed upon significance to it. It can be used by anyone in any way. The editors at the article are debating what should be included under the heading "criticism of Judaism," and I have been involved in that debate. But not one of us has made even the feeblest attempt to consult sources to see how that phrase is used. That is for the simple reason that there is no established usage for that phrase. One cannot rely on secondary reliable sources in order to determine what deserves inclusion because the phrase "criticism of Judaism" as used in countless sources is never intended to be definitive of a concept. The concept does not exist despite the usage of the words "criticism of Judaism." This leads to a basic sourcing problem. The article Criticism of Judaism can't be sourced in its general, overarching theme, because there is no such thing as "criticism of Judaism" other than as a phase that is used as any other loose language might be used. Thus, one cannot speak of "Criticism of Judaism" for encyclopedic purposes. A far better way to construct the encyclopedia is simply to link from the Judaism article to the many articles of the subtopics, without the Criticism of Judaism article as an intermediary. Language can be included in the Judaism article that something of a "critical" nature is associated with a given topic. The Judaism article certainly can mention, for instance, that there are allegations of "animal cruelty" associated with "Shechita," kosher slaughter. The reader, in that case, will have to click on the Shechita link. One advantage of this is that the reader will find the "criticism" in context. This problem probably runs across many articles, as well as paragraphs devoted to "criticism" within articles. General opinions can be formed in a discussion such as this, but I think the best way to proceed is to examine each article that seems to fall under this form in its particulars, to decide whether the problem is applicable or inapplicable. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That criticism of Judaism article certainly looks like a hotchpotch and is short enough to be integrated into the main article and any details put in the specific articles. Personally I'd support deleting it. I'm generally not in favour of 'Criticism of' articles as they tend to give an unsound bias whatever about the scholarly meaning. I've no problems with things like Global warming controversy though as there's no way it could fit into the Global warming article and in fact non-major items are rejected in either as they are over the limit for reasonable sized articles. 'Controversy' is a fairly neutral description which won't get people het up. Denial can sometimes also be okay as for instance in Climate change denial which covers the well documented campaign by various bodies to deny global warming for financial or other partisan reasons. Dmcq (talk)

I just had a look at a number of article entitled 'Criticism of ...' and I'm afraid I've changed my mind. There certainly are some that I think should be renamed or removed but in general they seem okay. There seems to be a valid subject of criticism of for various other religions for instance, that seems to be the major thing that has kept the Judaism one in existence despite it not being well sourced.I'd guess because Jews haven't really gone in for conversions they haven't felt the need, and others who might do a reasonable study just don't want to be branded as antisemitic. I'm surprised even so they haven't found some reasonable sources for the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is certainly valid to assert that criticism sections should be included in the main topic as a subsection of that article before breaking out in the first place (and only if that's needed by SIZE) and all that, but even then, when a section called "Criticism" is within a main topic, they will still draw inappropriate hodgepodge of OR/POV statements and other problems that presently make standalone criticism articles pointy and coatracks, depending on the visibility and "popularity" of the topic. We need to focus this discussion not on whether these articles are inappropriate, but a better way of titling the articles - which should also apply to article sections too, otherwise, a "Criticism" section in the "Judism" article is just going to degrade the same way. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason for a "criticism section" in, for instance, the Judaism article. Any "criticism" has its context. It takes fewer words to weave a negative facet into an overall exposition of a topic than it does to present that facet in an isolated fashion. And the reader is afforded a nuanced picture which is valuable to the overall quality of the article.

But more to the point of the article title, it is not established by substantial reliable secondary sources that "criticism" exists as a real topic of its own in relation to Judaism. I don't think it has been found that reliable sources really speak of "criticism of Judaism." I don't think the reason is, as suggested by one editor above, a potential vulnerability to charges of antisemitism. The reason, I think, is the vastly unrelated charges found in this collection of criticisms of Judaism. It would be hard to find a common theme running through the variety of "criticisms" found in the "Criticism of Judaism" article. Thus, it makes some sense that no source comes forth presenting an overall concept of "criticism of Judaism."

Our article, Criticism of Judaism, is going a long way to establish that topic as a coherent thought. The article is faulty because basic Wikipedia principles assert that topics given the status of article space do not make their first worldly appearance on Wikipedia, but rather first have as their origin substantial secondary sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When there exists a number of either positive or negative opinions of a topic that can be sourced to reliable, independent secondary sources, it is complete denial to say we should not have a "criticism" section/article on a topic. Weaving this into other parts of the article now starts making writing difficult and can lead to worse issues of maintaining a NPOV for large articles since these can be buried in large swathes of useful text; it also runs against nearly every other type of topic where we include a response or critical review section separate from other sections of the article. And it is very common to bring several disparate ideas to come together to form such a section addressing different parts of the overall topic; that's our job as an encyclopedia in summarizing information and choosing the best way to present it. So they may not have a single coherent thought if there are are several disparate facets of criticism to address. Just because a source doesn't specifically spell out what some want as a desired format of an article does not mean we cannot use our powers as WP editors to arrange information as we feel is best presented to users. That means finding the best title words for an article or section to avoid implicit biasing of such sections/articles.

Note that we do need to be very detached to information included and be aware of necessary distinction. Just because a section that includes negative criticism of Judism where appropriate exists, that does not mean we are engaging in antisemitism, nor does it give us allowance to write in the manner of antisemitism; that's why we have to be carefully in these types of sections or articles to be very detached from the work and present the critical analysis in an academic manner : that negative criticism exists by some people or groups and whatever responses there have been by others to counter it. But for example, the approach you're trying to advocate would render us pretty much impossible to cover the well-known criticism of Scientology in a cohesive manner, as an example of one case. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources would have to establish first the existence of a theme of criticism. This could apply in some cases and not apply in other cases. And this could apply to a variety of degrees. Any time you isolate a quality you are implying that secondary sources support that isolation. I think that a substantial degree of support is required before we set aside an article or even a section of an article just for criticism. That is because the implication is that we have found in reliable sources a decided support for criticism apart from simple exposition. A well-written paragraph or series of sequential paragraphs can explain, for instance, the biblical origin of a practice, the present-day views on that practice by its modern day adherents, plus the problems that its detractors — both present-day as well as historical — have found with that practice. This is all within the capability of normal, straightforward, expository writing. Yes, this is a style decision (not that you implied that this was simply a style decision). But I would contend that setting aside a special section for "criticism" represents a "style" that calls for explanation. And that explanation should be source-based, not merely rooted in the whim of editorial decision-making.

I take exception to the assertion that the un-relatedness of the topics is a non-issue. This once again gets back to sources. Do sources tend to link these "criticisms" together in any way? Or are they just found in isolation from one another? It is more a matter than just of writing style when you rearrange information in ways not consistent with the way you found that information. The setting aside of negative material carries with it the implication that sources have gathered together this negative material in this way. The implication in any paragraph is that a theme runs through it. Yet we don't find in any source an articulated theme for the variety of "criticisms" presented. I therefore feel that the least conspicuous way of presenting "criticisms" is within the context of each given topic. To do otherwise carries with it the implication that we are making a "point." That "point" does not have support in reliable sources. It is really the same problem, or a similar problem, that is found with article titles as with section titles, in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, well said... and what you discuss is the reason why we have the WP:Coatrack essay. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But again, this is starting from a stance that criticism is always a negative issue, and more importantly, criticism from the editor as opposed to a detached critical analysis. It is not; criticism sections/articles should always be able the larger, mass population response to a topic, which is a means to document these, not create them, and to distance the personable issues of both the critic and the editors from the topic. I do no question the fact that for some subjects, the distance between the undesirable "negative connotation and criticism" and an academic summary of criticism is paper thin, and coatracking and NPOV and all those other issues are a stone's throw away, and why there need to be huge caution flags on these articles or sections for heated topics as many of the "Criticism of X" articles appear to be like presently. The idea of trying to get rid of these sections (much less articles) is based on fear that we can never make that distinction, and abandoning otherwise good organization of content (from basic to evaluation within a single article). I contend that such sections/articles manned by the right editors can be kept clean of coatracking and maintain the proper academic, detached stance that is needed to prevent NPOV-ism. Heck, I'd suggest that for certain sections or articles, the community can set forth 1RR-type restrictions on editing to prevent problems (for lack of flagged revisions). We cannot let the fear that editors will make coatracks articles prevent us from improving the encyclopedia by having well-developed critical analysis sections based on strong reliable independent secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

True... if done by the right editors and supported by reliable sources... which is why I would not support an outright ban of these article titles... but would support a caution about them. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a stronger worded policy, and WP:IAR can be invoked and justified in those rare situations where it's appropriate. In almost all cases, the "nattering nabobs of negativity" do organize their views into distinct criticism. As I've stated before, it is fairly easy to incorporate all of the individual criticisms in the context of the specific elements rather than having a separate "all negative" article. I'd also like to reiterate that criticism means, in almost all cases, finding fault. In the extremely rare cases where it does not and does have a neutral meaning, the rule can be ignored. SDY (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have any "all negative" articles; those are called content forks, and they're already banned.

But there's no reason why we can't have a properly balanced, encyclopedic treatment of reactions/controversies/criticism/complaints — one that is not "all negative", but one that provides both negative criticism and responses to that criticism.

For example, there are whole books and dozens of scholarly sources that directly address criticism of American foreign policy (including what complaints the critics make; who, when, why, and how they criticize the USA; how the complaints made by (e.g.) Greeks differ from the complaints made by Mexicans, which in turn differ from complaints made by Chinese, which differ from the complaints made by Egyptians; and the rewards critics receive for this [e.g., blaming America for local unemployment might help a politician to stay in power, even if the country's "real" problems are corruption, poor infrastructure, and an undereducated work force]). Criticism of American foreign policy currently reflects very little of that scholarly information, but the subject itself is perfectly encyclopedic—and there's no reason why American foreign policy should be unbalanced with pages and pages of criticism, "integrated" or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be many sources that include "Crticism of...foreign policy" in their title, but surely they are addressing various aspects of foreign policy, not "criticism of foreign policy" per se? It seems to me if you can split an article into notable subtopics, then surely that involves adding criticism to each article? It seems to me that the segregation of the significant coverage into "Crticism of..", "Analysis of..." or "Commentary about..." makes no sense. In order to write a well balanced article, surely you need to include all three (commentary, analysis and criticism) in the one article in order to provide context to the reader? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have my doubts that a "Criticism of.." or "Critical analysis of..." type article could ever be justified, and I favour an outright ban. I recognise that this very dogmatic, and I am not sure that I am right on this, but it is a useful starting point, as it can either be proven or disproven to be the right approach. If the article Criticism of Judaism is anything to go by, I would say that that, of its 26 sources, none provide evidence that it is a separate standalone topic in its own right. An analogy might be in order: if a database contains data, then information about the database itself is referred to as Metadata. If commentary, criticism and analysis is the stuff that "significant coverage" is made up of, then commentary, criticism and analysis of "significant coverage" itself could be referred to as Meta-coverage. However, I have never heard of such a term, which is why I am sceptical about the existence of coverage from reliable sources that could be classed as Meta-coverage, nor could be used to justify such article topics as "Criticism of.." or "Critical analysis of...". The only alternative to an outright ban is have wording similar to WP:REDFLAG: only high quality sources could be used to justify this type of article or this type of article title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, Criticism of Judaism is a bad example, considering it is in the process of being over-hauled. And i'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with Meta-coverage. Our criticism articles are just explaining criticism of the subjects that have already been made by others. If you mean, if we use sources that are reporting on other criticism, that would be meta-coverage, in the sense that it would be a tertiary source, instead of a secondary one, then I can agree there, but we already have rules regarding tertiary sources as it is and there is, generally, more than enough secondary sources of criticism to find as it is. The main argument on Criticism of Judaism right now is what sections should be included under the topic umbrella, which has nothing to do with sources. As has been stated and shown, there is more than enough material on criticism of religions to make an article, it's just organizing it and keeping the wording NPOV that's the problem. Silverseren^C 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• My personal experience so far on wikipedia is that "criticism of foo" articles (nearly) always tend to be essays on the line of "things I don't like about foo". As such the format invites to synthing and pov-pushing, even though secondary source references are sometimes borrowed in to give a facade of neutrality. I wouldn't necessarily support a total ban on such articles, but at least there should be a guideline (which could be invoked in AfD debates) that such articles be avoided. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — Can you show me a source that confirms the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" What source confirms for us the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" I am not referring to an assumption that "criticism of Judaism" must exist since we are finding negative comment number One about topic A, and negative comment number Two about topic B, and negative comment number Three about topic C. I am asking what source confirms the existence of "criticism of Judaism?" No source that I've seen confirms this.

I further disagree that the question bedeviling the editorial process right now is unrelated to sources. It is in fact directly related to sources. The question facing the article Criticism of Judaism involves just what constitutes a "criticism" of Judaism. That question can't be answered because no sources address "criticism of Judaism." At this point only Wikipedia is setting a precedent by establishing that "Criticism of Judaism" is a genuine topic. Outside of Wikipedia the articulation of such a topic is not to be found. And the article is at the moment stymied by the choosing of which "criticisms" to include and which "criticisms" to exclude. That is found here. Without sources to refer to in answering this question, any decisions in this regard are just editorial whim.

Soman — I also wouldn't support a total ban on "Criticism of…" articles. It is possible that one could be justified. Sources would have to unambiguously establish that particular realm of criticism. One can assume that that realm of criticism exists for Judaism. But that assumption is hardly a substitute for sources, and it is on sources that any Wikipedia content is supposed to rest. I think that holds also true for the topics that articles are written on.

WhatamIdoing — the subject isn't "perfectly encyclopedic" unless sources exist for the topic "criticism of American foreign policy." But that is an example of why this issue has to be addressed on a case by case basis. In the case of Judaism the "criticisms" span an inordinately wide range of topics: criticism of Jews considering themselves the "chosen people," criticism of Judaism for kosher slaughter causing unnecessary pain to animals, criticism of Judaism for not treating females with equality… what is the common thread running through these topics? The answer is that there is no common thread. Judaism unites these disparate topics seemingly without rhyme or reason.

Blueboar — there are no "right" editors. All that can be discussed are policies and the correct application of policies. But I agree that there should not be an outright ban. I have been almost exclusively involved with the "Criticism of Judaism" article. It is an example of what I think is a topic for an article that does not have any sources supporting the existence of that topic. Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a source that calls out "Criticism of Judism" as a topic. It is our job as an encyclopedia to determine how best to organize content. If it is the case that we have a huge amount of content on Judism and have to split it across numerous articles, and that we see that there are many critical analysis or opinion of facets of Judism, just not in one single source, it is appropriate to group those together under a common theme - this is one of the extents of OR that we have to engage in, for any topic, in how to organize and present information. Now, there's a right way to do that organization for a "Criticism of" article, and there are several, several wrong ways, which most all lead into coatracking. But there is at least one right way, and that's the important part: it can be done. Most of the opposition to this idea of criticism articles seem to be overly concerned that they are easily used as coatracks. Yes, they are, but that's not a reason to run away and prevent them from happening because if you block them in one area, they will appear again elsewhere. Instead, we should be discussing tighter controls on these, similar in nature to BLPs, but not for legal reasons but for professional ones: avoid having these as coatracks, avoid editwarring, and a whole bunch of other concerns, but let them develop where its appropriate. If they can't develop past the coatrack stage, then yes, merging useful info back needs to be done. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — No, it is not generally speaking "appropriate to group those together under a common theme." Doing so is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, given the fact that there exist alternative ways of presenting the information without implying the existence of a realm known as "criticism of Judaism." And it is not an example of "original research" that we "have to engage in," also for the same reason — that alternative ways of presenting the information are available to us. These alternative ways do not have the unfortunate drawback of implying that a body of reliable sources supports the overarching concept of "criticism of Judaism. And finally, the solution is not the "merging" of "useful info back." The solution is, in this case, the direct connecting of the Judaism article to the subtopics that are now being considered for inclusion in a "criticism of Judaism" article. The "Judaism" article may be full, but there is surely room for a few words indicating that an area of negative commentary is to be found in the expanded version at the full article on each given subtopic. This is easily accomplished. At the point that a link is provided to the article on the subtopic, a few words are included. For instance, for "Kosher slaughter," those few words might be, "including allegations that kosher slaughter involves cruelty to animals." Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not synthesis, when it is done right. "Criticism" , academically, is not a bad term, and in fact a completely fair and necessary part of most topics we present here. Grouping things that would fall into objective "criticism" of a topic into a single section or article is not synthesis. It can also be argued to be its own right as a topic, and spreading it among other topics is certainly not reducing the amount of synthesis if it is the same information being included. It can be the type of synthesis we do not allow if it is done highly subjectively, of course, and that's when coatracking happens. But I'm entirely sure it is possible to write a criticism of Judism section or article that is approached in a neutral and encyclopedic manner that is not against other polices. It's just a difficult prospect among an open encyclopedia where people see "criticism" and thing "I can add my own complaints here!". That's why going bakc to this core discussion, what name we should use for these, is the argument, not whether they can exist. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — We are not trying to "reduce" the amount of "synthesis." We are trying to eliminate it entirely. There are no violations of synthesis in the inclusion of the negative criticism in the article devoted to the subtopic. Furthermore there can probably be brief mention of the "criticism" in the Judaism article itself. The only violation of synthesis occurs in those articles that artificially create a topic that doesn't have a prior existence in reliable sources. That is the violation at this particular article, the "Criticism of Judaism" article," and the same violation can probably be found at other articles that follow a similar form. Policy requires us to create articles only on topics that already exist in reliable sources. This topic is a chimera. Sources have not been found for the topic the article is ostensibly written on.

Jimbo Wales has this to say:

"In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

The subtopic articles are a perfectly acceptable place for any exploration of all of the aspects of any topic for which there are space constraints at the Judaism article. Some negative aspects can be touched upon in the main article, the rest can be expanded upon in the satellite articles. No breach of WP:SYNTHESIS is involved. And good writing remains a possibility. (Note Mr. Wales concern with bad writing.) Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are starting from the assumption that criticism is negative. It is possible to work both ways. Until you drop that presumption, it will be impossible to come to a fair means of handling article titles or sections. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism involves value judgements. Why should value judgements, whether positive or negative, be separated out from material that might not pertain to value judgement? Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Because sometimes it is a better organization to an article to group critiques that apply to the overall topic depending on the sources - maybe there's an academic study that hits on many points, or maybe the organization that the criticism is directed at hits all the disparate aspects in a single statement. If the criticism is only directly at a specific element and can be isolated in that fashion without sacrificing readability and organization, then yes, put the criticism right there. That doesn't happen for every topic and its sub-topics within it, however. A practical example of where we cannot separate on a per-element section with respect to criticism is Family Guy and the article Criticism of Family Guy, because the criticism is directed across all aspects of the show, and impossible to split without ruining the ability to make sense of the article. Thus, we still need to consider the need for criticism sections, and how to best title them (and if necessary, articles) and the like. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — I would counter that there are rarely needed "criticism" sections or articles. The exception is when there exists sources singling out "criticism" in relation to a topic. But most of what we see are editors scouring the Internet for negative comments. And then they gather them together and create a "criticism article" or a "criticism section" of an article. That is not being true to the sources. If the sources are widespread, and you are consolidating them on the basis of their negativity, you are misconstruing information in the article in which you are ostensibly shedding light on a subject. This represents a transgressing of WP:SYNTHESIS because you are conveying an impression which sources do not support.

It would be my contention that such "criticism" entities can only be justified if sources have already compiled the negative comments into one place and presented them as one entity. In such a situation we would be justified in passing on that consolidated view of multiple "criticisms." We are not finding that for instance in the "Criticism of Judaism" article. No source thus far presented is saying, for instance, "Here is what is wrong with Judaism: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G." (Or anything even approximating that.) Thus a separate article "Criticism of Judaism" is creating its own topic. The topic being written about does not have a prior existence outside of Wikipedia, thus is in violation of WP:NOTE:

"Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources."

In some instances the above problem is applicable; in other instances it is not. Each article fitting the form "Criticism of…" (and including a few other related forms) and each "criticism section" within an article, has to be evaluated on the basis of its own particulars. Such set-aside areas for criticism are not justified unless "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" establishes that the grouping together of the particular negative comments in question has a prior substantial existence outside of Wikipedia — in reliable secondary sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability only is to determine the appropriate of the inclusion of a topic; once that is shown, notability has zero say in what is included about that topic; we of course turn to content policies (namely NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV) to make sure that what is included is an encyclopedic summary of available information on that topic. Thus, if a topic has received a critical review or analysis by sources, a criticism section is completely appropriate - but again, NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV drive the content of this section. So criticism sections are not bad of themselves, and do not need to meet any special notability in-of themselves.

Secondly, WP is all about summarizing multiple sources into an encyclopedic article. We already engage in a level of acceptable OR to assemble sources in the necessary manner to make a useful topic as rarely one single source covers every aspect of a topic in the manner we would like to present it. The amount of OR we use here is driven by consensus, and thus has led to policy and guidelines like WP:SNYTH and WP:COATRACK as to what types of summary and assembly is inappropriate. But it is certainly not inappropriate to take what can be called various individual facets criticisms of multiple sources and work that together into a common narrative with a strong emphasis on treading away from SNYTH/COATRACK issues - if this makes it better to comprehend the criticism towards the topic. This is what is done on nearly every book and movie article in their "Reception" sections.

What you seem to be arguing for is that say we have statements A through F that are criticisms of a topic - you do not feel that we should have a singular section that has statements A-F all together, but instead spread throughout a topic's subsections where they best fit. Assuming we don't have to change the language at all to do this, I would call what you want to do as much "synthesis" as putting them together all in the same section. It's the same information, it's in the same tone, it's just organized differently. Now, of course one likely can put these statements in the same section, but with different wording, go from an entirely neutral tone to one that is biased, even with the same facts. eg: "90% of all medical operations are a success." and "One in ten medical operations end in failure" are saying the same thing, but one spins the stats one way (positively) and the other in a negative fashion.

We have to deal with how criticism is handled in articles, period, and while the choice of using spread-out comments, a separate section, or a separate article should be determined on a case-by-case basis, we can't bury our heads in the sand, disallow some formats, and hope the problem goes away. Criticism statements/sections for controversial subjects (religion, policitics, etc.) are very very touchy subjects and the type of thing no one wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. However, we would fail ourselves as an encyclopedia by not having these sections when it is clear the subject is controversial, and so we need a means to handling them to avoid them falling into coatrack articles and flat out false accusations. Fixing the naming of articles and sections to avoid the negatively-preloaded word "Criticism" would go along way, but that's the tip. We can write these in an academic, detached manner and in a way to avoid them a honeypot for anons and editors with chips on their shoulders from disrupting the work, and we just have to figure out the means to do that, instead of running away from the issue by taking the simple, but unprofessional approach of disallowing them. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, if you need more, let me know, ([6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]). Silverseren^C 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — The topic of "Criticism of Judaism" is made up. The existence of the phrase doesn't establish the topic. Obviously three words strung together occur in sources. That is all you searched for. You merely searched for examples of three words occurring in a certain sequence. But the topic "criticism of Judaism" does not exist. Nor would it exist. Why would any serious commentator attempt to put under one heading a group of unrelated topics? Only this article (Criticism of Judaism) is making that unlikely claim. It is doing so primarily by implication. That implication arises because Wikipedia is only supposed to have articles on subjects that are already covered in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The topic is not made up if multiple sources discuss criticisms of Judaism, which those sources I gave do. They discuss various kinds of criticisms about Judaism given by different, notable people. Thus, they are topic subjects that should be included in the article. You are saying it is made up when I am offering sources that discuss it, what else do you want here? Silverseren^C 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — An article devoted to "criticism of Judaism," on Wikipedia at least, creates the impression in the reader's mind that the topic has substance to it. It does not. The topic is given an existence by the assembling of the components that editors have been able to scour up for that overarching topic. But no source actually affirms the existence of that topic. Thus Wikipedia is giving life to what doesn't even exist in reliable sources. The key component missing is that source which says that: here is "criticism of Judaism." Here is what it is. Here is how we define it. Here are its parameters. Here is what is not included under the general rubric of "criticism of Judaism." Have you found a source for that or anything that could substitute for that? Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the stated purpose of this RfC, it should not be turned into another venue for forum shopping after the failed AfD of Criticism of Judaism. And as for the canard that there are no sources supporting that title, [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish — you are linking to a long list of books. I don't think that is a source for anything. My question is, what source establishes for us the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just "a long list of books"? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish — you are presenting entire books. Are you considering the titles of the books to be "sources?" Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE says, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Underlining added by me.) What you are referring to as "sources" are for all intents and purposes "unopened" books. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to books that "exist". Some editors will want to "open" them, and some editors would rather "burn" them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The main question to my mind with 'criticism of' type articles is with the state of the main article. They usually appear when somebody has deliberately broken the criticism article completely off to remove all mention of criticism from the main article to deliberately create unbalance. This is double plus ungood with knobs on when it happens.- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are saying that "criticism articles" are the result of editors at main articles refusing to allow any "criticism" in that article? Is that what you are saying? That would be remedied pretty easily, wouldn't it? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

More often Criticism of articles are created when they become too long for the main article, so they are split off. There may be some times when they are split off so that people looking at the subject will think there isn't any criticism for it, but that happens very rarely. Silverseren^C 01:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — material should be organized by topic, not by any negative or positive light shed on a topic. That should be the primary organizing principle. It is very common to find the good mixed in with the bad. It would be unusual to encounter unalloyed good or unalloyed bad. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the scope of the main article encompasses any criticism article. So logically it must be a subarticle of the main. So subarticle style should be used, or they should be merged. There can be no exceptions!!! ;-) [wolfkeeper waves fist comically]- Wolfkeeper 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Public image of American politicians seems to be an offshoot, that hasn't been mentioned yet. Possibly Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt belongs in there? Possibly that category should be a subcat of Category:Criticisms? Possibly that's a good article title idea for these others? Not sure, just noting. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are former "Criticism" articles, and it's a good example of how retitling the article invites a more balanced viewpoint. It doesn't beg any questions. Criticism articles can be moved to less emotive and partisan titles. For example, the article that started this whole exchange could be retitled to Academic views on Judaism. The sources don't use that title, but it's an impartial summary of what we expect in the article content. SDY (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You would receive resistance to that suggested title. There is support (here) for the notion that "blood libels" should be included. Does it sound like an "academic view" that Judaism should be faulted for "blood libel," or "Jewish deicide"? There are editors arguing for the inclusion for those sorts of things.

But the real bottom line, and the real issue, is there exist no guidelines as to what should and should not be included. Reason? There are no sources for "Criticism of Judaism." As a topic, it is utterly made up. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There will be some degree of resistance to pretty much any change to any article treating a controversial topic, that's just part of wikilife. FWIW, I don't agree with your assertion that there are no sources for "Criticism of Judaism", but that's not material to this RFC. I would suggest that if you wish to debate whether the article should exist at all, a better venue would be the talk page of the article itself. But given the recent AFD, I would suggest that it might be better to wait until the horse is resurrected. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in at the relevant place, but I'll repeat the logic here: Criticism may be correct in an academic sense, but it does not have that meaning in common English usage. Titling articles as criticism, even if the intent is neutral, will be misunderstood, and that is anathema to good writing. SDY (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ive got an issue with the phrase "criticism of foo" as it just sounds like weak english. however, i believe its well established that certain subjects have been, well, subjected to criticism. major religions, inasmuch as they are made up of ideas, are all criticized, and all substantially from within the religion itself. Protestantism was founded on criticism of catholicism. Christianity was founded on criticism of judaism, to a certain degree. secularism is founded on criticism of religion, as was the United States founded on criticism of state religion. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is an example. some religions, definitely judaism, have a long history of their religion being rooted in criticism itself. the name Israel translates loosely as "god wrestler". so, while i bemoan the lack of a better phrased title, i think, when we have more than adequate sources for criticism of a subject, we need to have an article with that title. the issue of what is included is the key. Bus stop is right that we must not have propagandistic condemnations of a subject in the criticism articles, as that is really not criticism. pointing out the difference between anti semitism and criticism of judaism is appropriate, but must be clear and brief. By the way, i dont see any evidence that anyone wants "blood libel" to be among the critiques included in that article. I would simply say that each article that arises be looked at on its individual merits, and where substantial sources use phrases like this, or language that is unambigously critical, by any definition of the word aside from pure attack, then the article can probably stand. we have a lot of articles with this name, and a lot of afd's have happened, with a lot of keeps for the larger topics, and a fair number of deletes for more obscure or inappropriate topics. check out Special:prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of to see for yourself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"By the way, i dont see any evidence that anyone wants "blood libel" to be among the critiques included in that article." Did you do a word search for that term on the article Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that would be better discussed on the article's talk page?--Nuujinn (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Silverseren has started an information request for comments on Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism, I suggest folks interested in that particularly article weigh in (briefly) there. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Commnent In general, I would agree that "Criticism of ..." articles should be avoided. However, there are many "Crticism of ..." articles that are appropriate. The most notable example is in the area of religion, where we have:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Catholicism

These are all very valuable articles in the encyclopedia for several reasons:

• (1) Criticism of religion is an important area of human discourse that must be prominently documented in this encyclopedia;
• (2) They are WP:Summary Style articles that help readers navigate and find content;
• (3) Due to ownership issues, the content - as a practical matter - will never be found in the primary articles on the religion;
• (4) These articles have survived numerous delete and rename proposals for good reasons, documented in the Talk pages;
• (5) These topics are notable, well-documented subjects in their own right, with a large number of sources that document the content; and
• (6) The Criticism of religion article is very important and broad, and these can be viewed as sub-articles of that top-level article.

--Noleander (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do they exist as topics that are subject of study outside Wikipedia? Are they notable (in themselves)? It seems to me that opinions about these articles are all very well, but are there sources that address them directly and detail or which define them as seperate stand-alone topics? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave an example of several sources for Criticism of Judaism before. If you need me to find them for the other religions, I will,though I think,since those articles are much better formed, their sources will likely show that they do cover it as a study. Silverseren^C 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Silver seren, using WP:GHITS is a discredited arguement, and does not advance your position. It seems to me that those who have argued that these "Criticism of XYZ" have not been able to provide specific sources to demonstrate the existence of these topics outside Wikipedia. For example, a reliable secondary source that defines the topic would provide a knockout argument that these not made up topics.

Having had a look at the Criticism of Catholicism article which contains 76 citations, none of them are entitled or mention "Criticism of Catholicism" even once. It is just a coatrack article with a list of 76 citations which duplicate coverage of topics in other articles. The more I look at this whole area, the less convincing are the arguments that these are bona fide article topics in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used WP:GHITS as an argument, so I don't know what you're talking about. What I linked to was where I showed several books that discussed criticism of Judaism. Silverseren^C 09:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What ever you are doing, I am not making the connection between the links to books that come up in a word search of "criticism of Judaism" and providing evidence that this is a standalone topic in its own right. All these links provide only mentions in passing. Of the four books you list, none actually are about criticism of Judaism per se: one book is about Antisemitism[12], another is about Biblical hermeneutics[13], another is a foot note in a book about Hegelianism[14], another is about History of Judaism and the last about Paul of Tarsus. I don't see any connection. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but it is not working for me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A case could be made that 'Apologetics' is the correct word to use for the religious articles instead of 'Criticism of'. There seems to be Apologetics articles as well for some of them which are not so well developed. I guess people just don't know that's the word to use. As well as being less well known the word suffers from the same sort of problem for people who aren't conversant with the subject in that it it give the idea they're apologizing. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I think your last point, about sounding to most readers like apologizing, is probably an insurmountable problem. Masem's earlier suggestion of "Critical analysis" may work better in some cases. Gavin and Silver, it gets to be a problem if this talk becomes a discussion of a single page, as indeed this largely is. However, I don't think that Silver was arguing by counting Google hits at all. Rather, the question is whether reliable secondary sources, subject also to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, treat the given subject as a standalone subject. The existence of sources that are actually titled that way is certainly a significant case for notability. However the absence of evidence of titles is not really evidence of the absence of notability. Gavin is quite correct that brief, passing mentions in footnotes are not sufficient to justify a page (although they can reliably source a sentence within a page), but if, for example, criticism of Judaism is treated as a topic for a chapter or part of a chapter in a book about history of Judaism, that can be very strong documentation of notability. In other words, doing a Google search is just the first step in a process. The next, very important, step is to actually look at what the sources returned by the search say. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue to decide content issues, which seems to be the basis for this proposal. Assuming we have "Criticism of ..." articles, then all we can decide here is how to title them. Whether or not such articles are appropriate should be discussed in a content-related talk pages, like WT:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the correct venue. Article titles and content are closely related: generally speaking, if the content of an article does not match the title, there is a problem, and its going to be even more obvious if the title is made up, because the content becomes irrelvant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "Criticism of foo" problematic?

Will makes a good point... let's refocus on the general question. I think there is consensus that "Criticism of foo" is problematic, but that sometimes it is legitimate. The question is... should we include some sort of cautionary language in this policy? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a very good point, too. As for cautionary language, I really do not see anything to add beyond what is already covered by existing policies and guidelines (sources good, coatracks bad, etc.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that (for here at Titles) that the first thing is to try to change "Criticism" to a term that is less .. inviting? to newer editors to add their own comments instead of an academic critical analysis or whatever term is best for that field. I know we have lots of "Criticism of X" articles but there's got to be a better term. After that, the next thing is definitely a guideline, perhaps policy page, on what these article should contain and to place them on a higher level edit war prevention for the more problematic ones (eg anything to do with religion for one). --MASEM (t) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — "policy pages" should not override "policy pages." We have fundamental policy, and it should not be overridden by minor concerns. This is a minor concern, in the scheme of Wikipedia. Wikipedia major policy still holds, despite the drive to consolidate all negative commentary on Judaism in one article. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, what policy page would be this overriding? --MASEM (t) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — it seems you are advocating a degree of disregard for WP:NOTE. It is a fundamental policy. Wikipedia is supposed to follow sources. There is no entity called "criticism of Judaism." It is just a sequence of words. I don't find any of the hallmarks of notability for "criticism of Judaism," though in all honesty I don't think I or anyone else can say exactly and exhaustively what would constitute notability for the term "criticism of Judaism." The possibilities are too large, in my opinion. But I don't think we've seen any semblance of the establishment of notability for that term. Nor, I don't think, would any other tossed-together words be likely to entail notability. What we have here is a desire to do something and an attitude of Wikipedia-policy-be-damned,-I'm-going-to-do-what-I-want-to-do. Sources set the precedent for the creation of our articles. Our articles only exist as a counterpart of what already exists in sources. There can be some debate about how closely Wikipedia needs to adhere to sources. But a factor that I find important in this case is the factor of context. I don't think it is in abidance with Wikipedia principles to create a new context that has no counterpart in the world outside of Wikipedia simply because of the desire of editors to compile on one page all the so-called "criticism" they can gather together ostensibly relating to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's two ways to consider this: First, obviously Judaism is a notable topic, and because it is a huge topic that no way can be fit into a single article, summary style gives us the ability to split off appropriate detailed sections into their own articles; Summary style does caution about notability concerns, but neither restricts a non-notable split.

But that arguments more troublesome than the best argument: there is a notable area of "criticism of Judaism" out there. It is not a singular topic of itself, but can be inferred without the bad type of WP:SYNTH from multiple sources; just because the entire area of "Criticism of Judaism" is not covered by at least one source does not mean it is not a notable topic. But it is clear there is a large body of sources than can be grouped together under the term "criticism of Judaism" or its synonyms. Now, again, I am fully aware, and in fact can point to some of our Criticims of X articles where this collection is biased-pulled to create synthetic POV and coatracks - not all of them, but a fair number. But as I've said above, just because this can happen should not mean we should avoid the issue and bury the ability to write a good article on this type of topic. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Blueboar, you make a sweeping statement, but don't back it up with a working example. Masem is the same, he thinks there OK so long as they have a different title, but we have no working examples. I have trawled through two articles (Criticism of Judaism/Catholicism, and found no sources that address the topic directly and in detail. Neither article contains a definition from a reliable secondary source. If you are suggesting there is an article topic that does, then wheel it out and lets see if there is an example of a "Criticism of XYZ" that is bona fide. Show me the money. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And, as has been explained to you before, this talk page is not the right venue to be discussing whether such types of articles are notable. If you wish to have that sort of discussion, please take it to the correct venue. Silverseren^C 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The question still stands: can you show me an instance of "Criticism of XYZ" that actually a recognised topic outside of Wikipedia? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Silverseren^C 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For Christianity. Silverseren^C 23:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of religion from psychology. Silverseren^C 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Paine's Criticism of Christianity and the Old Testament. Silverseren^C 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful information here. Silverseren^C 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's Nietzsche book, for good measure. Silverseren^C 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because a source uses the phrase doesn't make it appropriate as an article title. Verifiability does not overwrite the basic demand that we are writing an encyclopedia, and to be useful an encyclopedia must be understandable, and the term "Criticism" is vague and potentially inappropriate. If the sources use technical and confusing language, it is more important to make it understandable than to mindlessly parrot selected sources. 66.224.147.58 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussing whether the titles should be changed, I was just responding to the assertion that the topics are made up. Silverseren^C 01:16, 27 May 2010(UTC)

I think what is missing from Silverseren's argument is whether these books are relevant to any of the "Criticism of XYZ" type articles. In the first instance, are any of these sources actually cited within any article in Wikipedia? If so, which article are they relevant to?

For example, the first book cited[15] is about the work Theologico-Political Treatise by Baruch Spinoza. It mentions "Criticism of Religion" throughout the book, but I don't think that establishes its credentials as a stand-alone topic. Another example would be Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, which does not establish "Criticism of Reason" or "Criticism of Pure Reason" as a seperate standalone topic. Despite the many search results, I am still not seeing how "Criticism of XYZ" could be a valid topic, and I would like to see a detailed example of where the topic is actually well defined within the context of a Wikipedia article, not just a series of links vaguely related to "Criticism". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that a book called "Critique of Pure Reason" leads no credence to a topic "criticism of pure reason" is a fallacy. It is the same thing - not as spelled out, but in terms of what it actually means. I understand the need to be accurate - using the right book title in a reference or in prose - but when it comes to what constitutes a topic, we use meaning and context, because it is near impossible that a single source exists to build out every facet of a topic, and thus need to consider the grouping and summary of multitude of sources that may address the topic by different names even if they are the same concept. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles are subtle and require meaning and context, but I think what is missing from most if not all "Criticism of XYZ" type article is a clear defintion of the subject matter, and here again I must challenge you to provide an example of an article has one. As far as I can see, most of these articles should really be titled "Criticisms of XYZ", because they are just coatracks for criticism - they are not about one particular topic. Is there an example article which you can point to that provides a good example of what you mean? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A "Criticism of X" article that works where the structure is built from a multitude of sources without becoming a coatrack is Criticism of Family Guy (albeit a much less controversial topic than religion). --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I can see, this article should be titled "Criticisms of Family Guy", because it is just a lot of themeatically related coverage stitched together, and this does not justify the creation of a seperate article. The definition of the topic provided in the lead paragraph is unsourced, and is most likely to be original research, because, of the 91 sources in the article, none actually say what defines the subject matter of this article. I will stick my neck out here by saying that this article is a content fork because undue weight has been given to op-ed from one source, namely the Parents Television Council (43 citations). It may not be particularly controversial, but it appears to me to be a synthetic topic that conflicts with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" verses "Criticisms" is "TOmato vs toMAto"-type bickering and is not an issue. And to argue this is an improper split is inappropriate, since the main article is already beyond SIZE requirements; this is exactly the situation where SS steps in. I will agree on one thing, and that there should be some additional information on the favorable criticism that is included on the main article page, and other things like awards or the like, because again, criticism is both positive and negative judgements; as it stands, its got a few problems towards that but its quite fixible. But it far from the cries of being a coatrack article that claimed for the various Criticism of Religion articles. This still goes towards the point of this discussion: there is likely a better term that "Criticism" to use as this article's title, as "Reception", "Critical Opinion", or the like would be better statements without the implied bias of "Criticism" --MASEM (t) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it's very revealing that this sub-thread started yesterday with some editors, quite correctly, trying to re-focus the discussion back to page title policy, but it quickly degenerated back into a discussion of why some editors want to delete Criticism of Judaism. Were it not for that actual agenda, we would either be having a much simpler discussion here, or none at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is, what, the fourth time this has happened in about two weeks? And always involving the same users? It's getting a bit ridiculous to me. Believe me, i'm trying to keep the subject away from that one article, but I don't want to just leave accusations on its non-notability lying around without a response. Silverseren^C 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then lets get back to the topic at hand. Why then is an article like Criticism of Family Guy not the subject of any book, magazine article or even blog post? Is there an example article which you can point to that provides a good example of this genre that is actually written about outside Wikipedia? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Likely the sources that are referenced in that article, for one. Ideas, including topics, can exist without being documented in literature. As long as the sources contribute towards that topic, there's no need for the topic to be explicitly defined in sources. (And note, this is NOT the topic at hand. This is about whether we should use "Criticism" or some other word for such articles) --MASEM (t) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Criticism of Family Guy could easily be summarized down to about three paragraphs and returned to the main Family Guy article. I also note that there is an over reliance on one particular critical group as a source. In other words... I don't think it is a good example of a "criticism of foo" article. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it can be summarized that much, as I think it can be expanded in the inclusion of positive responses as well (hence the naming issue). There are a lot of sources from the Parents Council likely because someone required a source for each episode of the show panned by the group; that doesn't invalidate the article. But this is offtopic for the naming question. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So Masem, your view is that the article could be renamed Reception of Family Guy and include neutral, positive and negative critiques? Alatari (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Masem, his views reflect many of the problems associated with having to make difficult editing decisions when an article topic is the subject of a lot of coverage, and that coverage has to be paired down. Neither the article title Criticism of Family Guy nor "Reception of Family Guy" are supported directly or in detail by a specific source, nor is there any coverage to suggest these topics are or ever could be notable in their own right. This is a classic example of a Derivative article whereby article topics are split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details, trivial coverage or questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is common usage of many editors to adapt WP:reception essay's view that a notable topic is not covered in NPOV unless a reception section is included. If you read through South Park episodes and other popular TV shows' individual episode articles you'll find they all have Reception sections. Family Guy is a blockbuster in popular culture and I can see a terrible fight if you AfD'd Criticism of Family Guy. Alatari (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we would have a "Reception" or "Response" or something neutrally-titled section in Family Guy to describe outside, secondary opinion of the show, despite the fact there would never be any source that calls out "Reception" or "Reaction" exactly as that, we're simply synthesizing - as part of our job as WP editors and allowable - the collection of such element into a readable summary. However, because all the other aspects of the FG article together make an article that approach our size limitations, and because FG has attracted a larger share of reception compared to other TV shows, this makes for a section that pushes the article over SIZE limites due to WP being an electronic medium. (If WP was paper, all this spinouts would simply be sections of the larger article). Thus, as the detailed reception of the show is the type of detail that is not significant to readers that are learning up on FG but likely will never watch it at all, it would be an appropriate type of section to split off (given all the other splits already tehre like characters and episode lists) to a separate article. Only in light of the aspect that that article focuses on the negative criticism while there is positive criticism for the show as well , would I consider that the standalone article, well established in concept by the agglomeration of sources, should include both types of criticism and changed to a different name to remove the implied negative bias that the word "Criticism" applies. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem is placing too much weight on these headings which were never intended to mark the begining of a new article topic. As I said in my post of 23 May, these headings are common, but they are just a method employed by editors of providing structure to an article, as opposed to being externally defined sub-topics in their own right. Many articles dispense with such headings altogher, for example the article Deforestation is defined in terms of criticism, so a "Criticism of Deforestation" section is not warranted. In short, it is a mistake to view article headings as the starting point for seperate article topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of art is standard fare. Reviews of cultural entities are the norm. Even reviews and receptions of new technology are commonplace. But religions don't receive criticism, reviews, or receptions, except rarely. What the "Criticism of Judaism" article attempts to do is bring unrelated topics together in one article. The only thing the topics have in common is some degree of relation to Judaism. I doubt that there is a title that can be found for such an article because there is no coherent area being explored in such an article. This problem is one that is not likely to lend itself to being corrected by coming up with a new title, I don't think. But I am open to suggestions as to some title that can encompass the unrelated topics that editors are attempting to bring together into one article. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am following proper guidance of WP:SS to split out section X of an article Y, I think the best and most logical place to start for a new title of that article is "X of Y" (or however it would work out to make sense in English). That's the most logical way to go. Thus, it is important that in this discussion about article titles and the appropriateness of "Criticism" that the use of "Criticism" as a section title needs to be addressed too; it has the same problems as a standalone article that it implies in an non-academic sense negativity. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are following the guidance at WP:SS because you seem to have missed half of the guideline that falls under WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Criticism is usually about a particular topic, so "Criticism of XYZ" is not a topic per se, just an heading within an article. Headings are a bit like coathangers; they exist to provide shape. Try to create an article out of coathangers, and you have a coatrack article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sections or articles that group outside judgement - positive and negative - in an academnic, detached manner are all not coatracks. They certainly can be coatracks if not maintained and watched, and finding a good example of a section or article that's gone that is probably as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. But they don't have to be, and running away from the issue as some are suggesting by removing them altogether is not a useful solution. Of course, naming them "Criticism" or "Criticism of" is going to help, unintentionally, encourage editors to make them coatracks. We are here to decide if we can change "Criticism" to something different. We're not here to discuss the merits of these sections or articles; that's a different disucssion. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is of no consequence if creating a new article based on article headings conflicts with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This is a key point you are ignoring; if articles are split by heading, we simply end up with lots of new articles that fail this guideline if the topic is not recognised by the world at large. Not every article heading represents an article topic that is supported by reliable third party sources. Surely it is now apparent to you that headings with terms such as "Reception of..." and "Criticism of..." are the equivalent of article "chapters", and do not mark where one topic starts and another begins? I think what may be confusing you is that some topics are the subject of a lot of coverage, but that does mean that splitting these articles into headings marks the beginning of new article topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. As long as we have size restrictions, a topic may need to be covered across multiple articles to cover it fully, which is clearly the case for many of this criticism articles on religion. "Criticism of X"'s topic is "X", not a new topic of "Criticism of X", so we don't have to argue a new case for notability. This would be true if it was a subsection in the main topic, or its own article. Thus, naming is the key factor, whether in a section or its own article, to make sure that we're not creating a possible POV/coatrack sections or articles. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Masem — these articles already exist. There is already a Schechita article, a Jews as a chosen people article, a Jewish feminism article, an LGBT topics and Judaism article, an Agunah article, and so on and so forth. These articles, in distinction from the Criticism of Judaism article, pass WP:NOTABILITY requirements. You say "we don't have to argue a new case for notability." But that is hardly the case. Clearly the bringing together of unrelated topics requires sourcing. No source thus far brought forward relates any of these topics to one another. This article squeaks past notability on the assumption that a thread of "Judaism" connects them all. But in point of fact there has not been brought forward any source asserting the connectedness of any of the component topics of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just got here and learning what everyone has said will take awhile. I would like to observe that "Criticism of Foo" tends to be negative; the foo-ers "watch" the page and try to reply to attacks/"criticism". Whereas "Anti-Fooism" tends to be, well, supportive of Foo-ism, by reporting all the (apparently and obviously) unfair attacks on Foo. People who don't admire "Foo", watch those articles, to try to respond to perhaps over-reporting of Anti-Fooism. Amusing in perspective. Not quite if you are involved! So naming defines the tone of the article and which side "owns" it. (I know, nobody does. Please!) Student7 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Each article that may be presented as being a part of a class of articles is actually an individual article, and should be evaluated individually. The article around which much of this discussion swirls is the "Criticism of Judaism" article. In my perception that article primarily fails WP:NOTABLE, with WP:SYNTHESIS as a failure trailing close behind. Other "problems" exist as well. I think the failure that you are suggesting concerns WP:NPOV.

But in my estimation the primary problem is one of notability: The many topics covered by the article ("Criticism of Judaism") are unrelated. While it is logical to assume that the thread of "Judaism" connects them all, this has not been established by sources. Furthermore, the topics in and of themselves are unrelated. That is, no source makes any attempt to say that one of the topics bears any relation to any of the other topics. No source can be found saying for instance that "kashrus" has anything to do with "chosenness." No source, for instance, connects "chosenness" to "deicide." And so on and so forth. These are unrelated topics not brought together by sources in any way. The article's existence, as concerns WP:NOTABILITY rests only on an assumed to exist thread of "Judaism" running through otherwise unrelated topics. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and this is why we need to table a proposed amendment to this guideline that introduces a new section "Segmented article titles", which requires high quality third party sources to provide validation along the lines of WP:REDFLAG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These are wrong assumptions. As editors of Wikipedia, we have a certain amount of freedom (allowed by consensus) in how to collect related information on a topic - whether it is going to be an article, or a subsection - and determine how to present and name that to 1) make a clear, readable, and perhaps engaging text to present to the readers and 2) avoid bias, imbalance, personalization, and inappropriate synthesis that leads to a point. So first, we cannot assert that there's an unfixable problem with grouping sources that don't clearly state they fall within a given topic together. Sometimes a title for these will fall naturally from sources. Sometimes we will adapt certain expected titles or subtitles for topics that fall within common fields. But sometimes, it is common sense that the sourced information is all connected and best presented as one section of an article, but there is no clear or obvious section/article title that can derived directly from the sources but yet can be made up by the editors in a non-POV-ish way. We also need to think of what is going to be the most obvious title to a reader that may be searching for that topic (per WP:CN) As long as we're not engaging in NPOV to decide that article or section title or other problematic terms, then WP editors have the freedom to group and title such sections and articles that way that seems most natural, even if it is something synthesized - this is a practical application of IAR even though we try otherwise to have objective means of article naming to prevent page move wars. The reason it is important to consider section titles here is because the logic used prior to my point would have to apply to sections by that same logic, but I see no one looking to enforce "NOR in section titles", nor any chance of getting consensus to apply to that.

On a different not, Bus Stop's point about "if subtopic Y of topic X has criticism, it should placed there instead of in 'Criticism of X'" is a completely valid point, and if that were true, I would think that highly specific criticism of a notable sub-topic should be located there. But sometimes, depending on how topic X is organized or the types of public opinion that result, there may be no practical means of talking about subtopic Y, or that the opinion is so broad that it covers - at the same time - many subtopics without any depth. Take, for instance Scientology controversies (which is not Criticism of X but the title is immediately implied to be negative and that it has the same "problems" in that many many sources are used to build it up; nor am I implying this is a "good" criticism-of article). Ok, there's a few sections, like "Starting a religion for money" which are tied to more detailed articles, but the main parts of the article - basically the first four main sections, are general to the whole of the religion and no specific facet of it. There is no way to break this up in the manner that might be possible for other criticism-of articles, given that it is already spun out from the main Scientology article. Splitting apartment criticism to avoid the need for a singular section for it is great if it can be done, but sometimes it just can't. And even if you were able to split it all out, it would be expected to at least have a 1-2 para summary in the main topic with links or notes to the others.

I think most of this issue all depends on a better application and spelling out of of WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism. Words to Watch, which that section is based on, used to have more explicit lists of words that would have been useful to have. But basically, I would argue that if you are making a descriptive title, you either completely have to avoid the use of W2W words, or have a good number of sources to completely assert the use of those words. That is, "Criticism of X" is naturally a contentious label, so unless a large number of sources explicitly described the phrase "Criticism of X", then it needs to be changed to something like "Critical opinion of X" or "Reception of X" or whatever is best appropriate. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rephrasing the question

This is ultimately boiling down to one simple question: is an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic (criticism) consistent with WP:NPOV? SDY (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Should an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic exist?" is not equivalent to "Should an article dedicated to Criticism of X exist?", since criticism is not inherently negative. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A complete canard. Criticism of Foo is negative. Foo Criticism (e.g. Literary Criticism) is a more neutral academic term that just means analysis. Look at the content of the "Criticism of..." articles that we have and identify something that is constructive or positive. SDY (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree... but this is a question that is better asked at WT:NPOV. What we need to focus on here is... should we title the article "Criticism of foo" or something more neutral (such as "Critical analysis of foo", or perhaps "Critiques of foo") Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Asking NPOV questions is not appropriate for this page. If NPOV is wished to be discussed on the subject of Criticism articles, it needs to be taken to a related NPOV discussion page. Silverseren^C 01:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that article naming (specifically sub-articles created from content forks) have NPOV concerns. Discussions may end up here, at Wikipedia_talk:Content forking or Wikipedia_talk:NPOV. You are wise to suggest they be confined at NPOV. Alatari (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) This has already been settled at NPOV. Let me quote the relevant section: A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. Trying to "dismiss the case" for "lack of jurisdiction" is a pretty lame argument anyway. The disagreement is whether a "Criticism of..." title limits the content in a non-neutral fashion. I hold that it does. The only arguments against it that I've heard are "Criticism is neutral" (which is clearly inaccurate in modern English usage) and that we have a lot of articles that use the phrasing. SDY (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, above I said "Should an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic exist?" is not equivalent to "Should an article dedicated to Criticism of X exist?" I did not mention "Foo Criticism", although I freely admit thinking of it. Possible telepathic powers, I ask that you please not twist my words while trying to make your points. I agree that by common usage criticism is problematic, but criticism has an academic usage which should not be ignored in these discussions. The 'simple' fact of the matter is that this is not a simple question. And I believe you have been presented with a wide range of arguments. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it, state what they are, don't just state that they exist. I admit that there are nuances to the situation, but they are rare and our rules are not absolute. The titles I am objecting to are solely those that use the formulation "Criticism of..." so the "Foo Criticism" formulation is not a point of discussion. SDY (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter would be a valid retort to me had I made the claim that "Criticism of..." was equivalent to "Foo Criticism". I made no such claim. As for the arguments presented, there pages of them just above here, on the signpost, and article talk pages. I would ask you to ask yourself how effective your arguments are. What I personally believe is that this is one of those areas where the fifth pillar applies--slavish devotion to the rules is not a requirement of wikipedia policy, and I think trying to delete all of the criticism of X articles would prove fruitless. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think forcing people to cover criticism in context would make for better articles. That's the only reason I'm doing this, the rules are just a tool to that end. SDY (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you'll be successful in trying to force people to do that. Trying to force people to do anything around here is seldom productive, from what I've seen thus far. I think you would be better off trying to persuade people--and if people will not be persuaded in an AFD on a particular article, they surely are not going to be persuaded to support a general rule that would result in that same article being deleted. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily in favor of deleting any articles, much less content. I just don't think that article titles that limit the content to the negative are appropriate under NPOV, and negative content should be reported in context according to weight, not isolated. Given that the NPOV policy explicitly addresses this exact concept it's not like I'm some fringe wacko on a deletion spree. For what it's worth, I'd also like to see "Awards won by foo" as a "strongly not suggested" article name, but we have a lot less of those types of articles. SDY (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh "Awards won by X" is less a problem, as long as we're not seeking too far and wide for less notable accolades to fill up the table. Notable organizations give out awards for positive response, and rarely the opposite for negative (eg something like the ig nobels or razzies). But if one starts using *any* award and not just those that are notable, you definitely are POVing. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally would rather see articles titled "Critical Analysis of X" rather than "Criticism of X" to emphasize that an article should not contain all negative data, but it seems there is substantial resistance to using the former in lieu of the latter. So as a practical matter, while it is certainly possible to draft recommendations against such titles, I'm not sure the articles can be successfully renamed. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like that suggestion. It will be contended just because it isn't ferocious enough (i.e. pov). How can I "slam" (say) Mormonism with a "Critical Analysis of Mormonism," when "Criticism of Mormonism" is so much more self-satisfying!  :) I can say almost "anything" in the latter article. Which is your point, of course! The former seems to require a somewhat more thoughtful approach.

On the other hand, maybe this is too kid-glovish. It takes a kindly attitude towards the subject of the article, which may "demand" severe criticism, as it were. Like Nazism, for example.

We should discuss this IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of X titles/Reception of X titles

I asked for opinions on the WP:Reception essay which has been around since 2006 and suggests that major topics can not be covered in NPOV without the Reception section. Since it is relevant to why these Criticism of foo titles exist it seems you all would like to way in on this essay. Alatari (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional article titles

I propose a new section to this policy guideline, perhaps as an addition to or as part of a wider consolidation of the section Neutrality and article titles.

The idea is that double or segmented article names, such as "Flat Earth/Round Earth", or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)", "Criticism of Flat Earth", "Scientific objections to Flat Earth", "Flat Earth/Round Earth controversy" or even "Flat Earth/Round Earth conspiracy" should be supported by high quality sources, not just mentions in passing, in order to justify their use along the lines of WP:REDFLAG ("Exceptional claims require high quality sources").

I will refer this section as "Exceptional article titles", as the use of segmented article titles can lead to conflict with WP:NPOV:

Exceptional article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles if they not commonly used as such, and so unlikely to be recognized as being topics in their own right.

The use of segmented or unusual titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if:

• it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
• it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
• it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
• it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of exceptional article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. If such sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Perhaps example of "exceptional article titles" would need to be added to this section. I am sticking my neck out here, but is there any support for this proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a shotgun approach that includes likely many non-offensive article titles that are created by WP editors but are the most nature means to name a topic. I think the key here is to remember the Descriptive Titles section, which points to WP:Words to watch, and that if the title is descriptive and includes a word on this watch list, then sourcing is an absolute requirement to show that as the best name for the topic. Otherwise, the descriptive title needs to strip out such words to avoid introducing bias. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. For the purpose of the policy, we should be able to condense what Gavin is proposing, though I'd prefer a little more clarity on what we mean by "one-sided." Again, my main issue is the criticism articles, and that's as much a forking question as a title question. Ultimately, though, this policy has to spell out what Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming's second paragraph talks about: what is a "non-neutral article title" that encourages "multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." SDY (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To that end, would it be feasible to define the use of the word Criticism for wikipedia purposes? I honestly don't know, but since verifiable, reliable source, even good article have specific meanings here, perhaps the same can be done with Criticism. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of the term "Criticism" as a section heading within an article is perfectly fine, and requires no defintion or explaination. However, once "Criticism" is used as an article title, then a defintion needs to be obtained from a reliable third party source which would justify its use. That way, if the article title is challenged (as has been the case for many such articles such as Criticism of Judaism), then if there is external validation for the use of this term, then the article title has credibility. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, we can use the definition of Criticism to make sure that the academic usage has a presence in these articles, if nothing else. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of article titles

Can articles' titles differ only in capitalization? The examples given in Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation are not the same as other articles.

• All caps
  • Given WASP vs. wasp: WASP redirects to a disambiguation page and wasp is an article about an insect.
  • PIN vs pin: PIN is a disambiguation page and pin is an article about a fastener.
  • TIME vs. time: TIME redirects to an article about a magazine and time is an article about the common meaning. None of them redirects to time (disambiguation)
• Capitalization of the second word
  • Given Red Meat vs. Red meat: Red Meat is a comic and Red meat is meat which is red when raw. Note that in Red meat (disambiguation) "Red Meat" has more than one meaning.
  • National Treasure vs. National treasure: National Treasure redirects to National treasure which is an article about cultural assets. A number of users oppose to move National Treasure (film) to National Treasure, see Talk:National Treasure (film)#Move? and Talk:National Treasure (film)#Requested move.
  • Iron Maiden vs. Iron maiden: Iron Maiden is an article about a British heavy metal band and Iron maiden is a disambiguation page. The dab page lists several entries but only Iron maiden (torture) has the second word in lowercase.

The last sentence states that "In case of very minor differences, a parenthetical tag should be added as if the title forms were identical, as in Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game)." The reality is that Streets Of London (computer game) has been moved to Streets of London (computer game). The policy needs to review. --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where a given capitalisation only refers to one of the subjects I don't see a problem with it. I think this is really best worked out on a case-by-case basis. National Treasure would be fine for the film and I think the opposing arguments there are weak; the bit about "minor differences" does indeed need to be tightened. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the above list, I added one more case, "Iron Maiden vs. Iron maiden".

The policy accepts titles differed only in capitalization, but it also say a parenthetical tag should be added as if the title forms were identical. So when a given capitalisation only refers to one of the subjects, some people still insist to add a parenthetical tag. The current policy is confusing. I also agree to work out on a case-by-case basis, but the policy page should provide some principles or guidance to folllow. --Quest for Truth (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can differ only in capitalization, but they don't have too (i.e., differing capitalizations might be/redirect to the same article, or if a particular capitalization doesn't exist, Wikipedia automatically lands on one of the ones that does). Like others, I'm good with deciding when on a case-by-case basis. The criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might lead to different primary topics for different capitalizations, or the same primary topic for different capitalizations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, capitalization can be an issue. As JHunterJ knows, we have been attempting to deal with capitalization questions as they relate to dab pages... we recently moved the dab page "Masonic Temple" to "Masonic temple (disambiguation)" in part to differentiate that dab page from the article on "Masonic temple" and also to enable us to include that article in the dab page... now we are debating whether to:

a) move the title of the dab page back to "Masonic Temple" (the argument being that "Masonic temple" should not be considered the primary article for the dab),

b) keep it at "Masonic temple (disambiguation)" (the argument being that "Masonic temple" should be the primary article) or

c) move the page (yet again) to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)"

We keep going round and round on this with no consensus. It can be frustrating. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus, but my statement isn't dependent upon it: Wikipedia articles can differ in capitalization (such as Masonic temple and Masonic Temple). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI... I was not trying to drag that debate to this page... just using it as an example of where capitalization is an issue, and how you can have three different points of view (ie no clear consensus) on how to deal with it. JHinterJ is correct in saying that sometimes two distinct topics are differentiated by capitalization consider Pulp fiction (a genre of fiction) vs Pulp Fiction (a movie title). Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS allows for different points of view within a consensus, which is what I think we have here. You happen not to agree with what I think is the consensus, but that doesn't mean there isn't consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Three editors, all who disagree with the other two, do not a consensus make. However... I have made a suggestion that I hope all three of us will agree on (at the dab project talk page). So there may be hope for this example yet. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What, you, me, and Doncram? I was thinking more of the consensus of the disambiguation guidelines, which has been formed by more editors than the three of us. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus on what the guidelines say... but our debate is centered on differing interpretations of how to apply those guidelines to the articles in question... we would need more people to opine to settle that. But that is irrelevant now that we have agreed to take a different approach to resolving our differences. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One consideration (which points toward the case-by-case preference as desirable) is that sometimes a lowercase letter can be harder to distinguish from an upper case letter (ex.: Home improvement vs. Home Improvement). Powers ^T 21:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that considerations comfort on the eye is as important of the distinction between an name and a description as an article title. If the article title is a proper name as indicated by the use of capital first letters then the name of the article should appear in the first sentence in bold but not if it is a descriptive title which does not (WP:BOLDTITLE), and in cases where there the name is commonly but controversially used as a description, a less POV introduction can be crafted. -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Brothers" in titles

I've noticed that on articles on people professionally known as "the ____ Brothers", some articles capitalize Brothers (e.g. Marx Brothers, Luna Brothers) while other leave it lower case (e.g. Wachowski brothers, Coen brothers). Is there a reason for this? If not, I propose that it become standard that "Brothers" be capitalized since it is name used professionally.--71.121.67.163 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on the situation? I'd have expected Marx Brothers but Coen brothers to be more common usage; I may be wrong, but I don't think we can state a general rule.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

German sharp S

Where are we with ß in article titles? My reading of the language on the policy page is that it should be used when the phrase doesn't appear or appears rarely in English sources, and when the phrase contains the ß in German sources. I'm aware of several arguments both ways but if there's some simple, snappy way to answer the question, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, some people may say this page prohibits it as a non-Latin character ... actually, it's considered a ligature of the Latin alphabet (change "Insert" to "Latin" at the bottom of your edit window and you'll find it). - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If it "doesn't appear" in English sources, odds are that it fails WP:N, but if it doesn't I'd use the spelling used in German sources. If it "appears rarely" in English sources, and more than (say) 80% of those few sources use consistently the same spelling, I'd use that spelling, whichever it is. If those few sources are more equally divided than that, I would not move the article from one spelling to another unless consensus emerged that there's a specific reason to do that. (If I had to create such an article in the first place, I'd use the German spelling if it's a proper name and the English alphabet equivalent otherwise, but YMMV.) A. di M. (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to disagree, that's exactly the answer I needed, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with any non-English characters is that is can't be searched using my keyboard. More importantly to the editor, I think, is that it cannot be found in a search. True of all "accented" French and German letters as well. We aren't giving grammar/language lessons here. A compendium of information. The article can assert that the word is spelled in a certain way in German/French as the case may be. I'd rather see (and be able to search for) "-strasse" any day. What English speaker cares about the spelling? Student7 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The "not on my keyboard" issue is irrelevant, as we have redirects. --Golbez (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'd prefer to use the normal spelling on any article and cater for searches by using redirects. Google is pretty good at figuring out what people mean. I've had this problem before with people complaining about ω-consistency for instance which is how anybody spells it but they wanted Omega used instead which was wrong as a capital and wrong because it isn't what people write. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree... with the comment that "normal spelling" means: the spelling that is used in most English language sources. In some topic areas, this may actually be the "foreign" spelling that includes a funky character. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about pure numbers, of course. Let's say, using made-up numbers, that 60% of sources say "Espanola" instead of "Española" for the town in New Mexico. We should go with Española, because that's the correct name. If 90% of sources used n instead of eñe, then you could start to say that common usage trumps fact. Usage must be both common and overwhelming to go against the factual name. For example, let's say that, again, purely hypothetically, 90% of the sources used the n instead of the eñe. But, let's say there's only 10 sources, because it's a tiny village in the middle of nowhere that few people have written about. This is an indicator that there is no common exonym at all, and in the absence of a common usage we cannot create one ourselves, which means we have to go with the actual name, regardless of if it's only used in 10% of English-language sources. My whole point to this paragraph: It's not finding a mere majority of sources to determine the common name, nor is it percentage. It has to be a combination: Both volume and percentage. Lack an overwhelming amount of either, and there simply is no common name to use. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite... Yes, determining commonality isn't a pure numbers game, but Wikipedia does not recognize any name as being "correct" (we must stay completely neutral on that issue)... we simply follow the sources and use what is most common. We base our decision on English-language sources because this is the English-language version of Wikipedia (just as the Spanish-language Wikipedia would base its titles on Spanish-language sources and the Russian-language Wikipedia would base it's titles on Russian-language sources). If the bulk of English-language sources call it "Espanola" (without the tilde above the n) then so should we. If the bulk of the sources use the tilde, then so should we. If the sources are close to evenly split, then the consensus of editors determines the outcome. it really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was, it's not simple "50%+1". There has to be an overwhelming common usage to trump the actual name, rather than simply 50%+1. or, if the bulk is of so few sources as to be statistically irrelevant. My only concern was how you defined "bulk". As for NPOV, I don't think there's anything more neutral than using a city's own name for itself, except, again, in the face of overwhelming common usage. (Of course, by definition, 'common' is the overwheling usage) --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a "city's own name for itself" is often the subject of controversy and political debate. This is why we don't care what anyone says the "official" name should be (including the government of the city itself). We neutrally follow the sources. If the sources are essentially evenly split, then it is up to consensus at the article talk page to determine what to use. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate and feel grateful for redirects that take care of article titles in the English Wikipedia with non-English characters, but it sets a bad example for the remainder of the article which may also include non-title words with non-English characters in them that search engines file which I cannot reach. I don't want to worry about non-English characters in English Wikipedia. Similarly, Japanese, Russian, Arabic Wikipedians should not be forced to deal with Roman/English characters which their search engines cannot reach. (Yes. That is their problem since they make their own rules). Student7 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency June 2010

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).[16]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 17#Consistent, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#What is "consistency"?, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 19#Consistency wording, Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 20#Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 21#Consistency December 20

See Talk:Zürich Airport#Requested move. We have people who do not want to move "Zürich Airport" to "Zurich Airport" even when it is shown that the official name of the Airport in English "Zurich Airport" and common English language usage in reliable sources runs at 8 to one in favour of "Zurich Airport" when a Google book search is used, because the name is "consistent" with "Zürich" yet anyone who knows the history behind the Wikipedia name of the city knows that it ended up at that name through a none consensus move and then there was no consensus to move it back (and no consensus for the current name). Also that survey was done years before the addition of reliable sources was added to the policy.

I suspect that if a move is proposed for Zurich some people will oppose a move whatever the evidence is to usage in reliable English language sources because it is "consistent" with articles like "Zürich Airport" (chicken and egg).

Therefore I propose (yet again) that we change the wording from

• Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

to

• Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

-- PBS (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me... I approve of consistency where appropriate... but I do not approve of consistency for its own sake, and definitely not when other criteria and factors indicate some other title would be best. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is just the same as it always is when this is proposed - we on this page might agree, but the community doesn't (see Victoria of the United Kingdom et al. ad nauseam). Consistency in article titles is something that editors value highly (and unfortunately, they value consistency of form between related articles more highly than consistency of approach throughout the encyclopedia). It's out of order to try to tweak a policy page in order to try and win an argument elsewhere - if practice is to be changed (and this page should reflect practice), then there should be a well-publicized RfC to show what the community really thinks.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency was introduced into this page from a draft proposal which at the time supported the wording on flora. It was never part of this policy until last year and IMHO it should never have been introduced in the form it was. The wording I am proposing is much closer to how it has usually been used in the past. Promoting consistency to a level where it means people can ignore other criteria such as reliable sources is not in the interested of the project as it tends to be used to justify historically bad decisions by saying we don't care if the name is not the best it is content with other [incorrectly] named articles -- As is being done with the Zurich example. The reason for Victoria is not that it is consistent with other articles but that it is covered by the nobility guideline. If we were to take this to its logical conclusion and a change in the nobility guideline was made after an RfC on the issue agreed that country would be placed in parenthesis, this could never be implemented even though editors agreed it should be because all the articles on European monarchs were already in a certain format of "monarch numeral country" and to change any would be inconsistent. Clearly what is meant is "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth repeating the same arguments every time you bring this up, since you'll just bring it up again next month and pretend you've never heard the arguments before, but anyway, here goes: consistency may have been "introduced into this page", but it certainly wasn't introduced then as something new in Wikipedia practice - consistency has been taken into consideration in naming issues apparently right from the very early days, which is why we have these (IMO ridiculous) names for some monarch and ship articles, and why bands of editors once fought (and still do, to some extent) to keep the ",State" in as many US city titles as possible, and why the botanists use Latin names, and... oh but we've been through all this before, many many examples have been given of how consistency is used alongside the other criteria, usually perfectly acceptably; if we change the statement on this page we merely make this page worse (by making it describe our practices less accurately); it won't suddenly make people want to drop the umlaut from Zurich or give Queen Victoria her usual name.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency has never been used for consistencies sake, it has always been subservient to other criteria. Please show me where in the archives of this page before the middle of last year where consistency was discussed as criteria. The rules on in both Nobles and Flora were devised originally to work around problems with non reliable sources, where in the development of either of those guidelines was consistency advanced in the guidelines as an explanation for the rules that were being used? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if the word "consistency" didn't appear (which I find unlikely, but I can't really be bothered to look), the very fact that they were formulating rules (and then going on to enforce them with more or less disregard for common name or other principles) shows that the ideal of consistency was a goal they were pursuing. And as we can see from naming discussions today, it remains a goal that editors want to pursue.--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I was one of "they", no it was always for reasons closer to the way I am describing it above. Take two examples. Richard the Lionheart and Alfred the Great, The word overwhelmingly in the sentence "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen," in Wikipedia:NC (names and titles) was to the best of my recollection introduced because of conversations on the talk page to work around the problem that clearly in reliable sources Alfred the Great is the common name, but in cases like Richard the Lionheart the reliable sources are split but tend to Richard I, but if one includes unreliable sources it would defiantly be Richard the Lionheart. If the policy then had included reliable sources, the whole thing could have been simplified (and should be now) but we did not have that concept in naming articles. Having consistency in this policy with its current wording actually undermines the intent of "names and titles" because it encourages some editors to want Harold II and other such names because of "consistency". Consistency as worded would probably have Alfred the Great moved to "Alfred I of England". It was never the intention of "names and titles" to promote consistency to the same level as sources when considering a name and I think my proposed wording is much closer to how most people understand constancy to be used in practice. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, so start an honest RfC and prove it (you have my vote for a start; but it's not up to us two to determine what people think on a major issue - whatever your intention might have been with your input to the royalty convention, the end result is that we have titles that have nothing to do with sources or conciseness or precision or anything else except stubborn "consistency", and they seem to be well supported).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no RfC to add the current wording to this policy. It was added without any prior discussion, so I don't see the need for an RfC to modify it. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There were acres of discussion about this (surely you remember?) A multitude of examples were presented to show how consistency motivates naming decisions alongside (and sometimes in the face of) the other criteria. Modifying the wording of the page to reflect actual practice (which we should do in good faith regardless of whether we agree with that practice) is a whole different matter than modifying it in the hope of changing practice, which is what you seem to be proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"added without any prior discussion". I know I got frustrated a few times because I felt like PBS wasn't listening to any voice except his own, but I never expected this. This beggars belief. Hesperian 11:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Following on from the discussion in the section "Exceptional article titles" (above), I have rewritten the proposal to broaden its scope and cover several related issues.

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Article titles can sometimes be controversial because of negative connotations, often related to social, political or historical disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to use the reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title.

Descriptive or segmented article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles to resolve editorial disputes, because if an article title is not commonly used or is likely to be challenged, it is unlikely to be recognized or accepted as being a topic in in its own right.

The use of descriptive or segmented titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if the title is likely to be challenged because:

• it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
• it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
• it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
• it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. If high-quality sources sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Where descriptive or segmented article titles are used, choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

See Wikipedia:Words to watch for further advice on potentially judgmental terminology.

The objective of the proposal is to address the ongoing issue of descriptive titles. Not all titles are controversial in nature, but what they have in common is that they are titles that attempt to describe their subject matter, whereas most articles are described and defined by article content, rather than their article title. Some examples of descriptive article titles that may illustrate this issue are as follows:

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
• Introduction to evolution
• Creation and evolution in public education
• Outline of the United States
• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Beginning of pregnancy controversy

Generally speaking, these article titles are being used to describe "meta-topics", i.e. topics about topics, rather than specific sub-topics described in WP:SUMMARY. In theory, there should not be a problem with creating such articles based on these titles, provided that suitable sources can be found to justify their inclusion in Wikipedia as distinct and identifiable topics in their own right. In practice, the creation of such articles and the use of these titles is frought with difficulty: since coverage of most topics is about the topic itself, coverage about a "meta-topic" is likely to be rare, if it exists at all.

Hence this proposal. Following the precedent set by WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia's policy on descriptive titles should be based on high quality sources that provide reasonable evidence that the article title can be externally validated, not just by mentions in passing, but in terms of soruces which address the article topic directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a problem that this proposal would help solve?--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)