Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify relation with GNG

There is an RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify its relationship with WP:GNG with respect to lists of transporation service destinations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs)

RfC on content concerning illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification requested for product pricing (Sales catalogues)

What's best practice/general consensus for including vs excluding pricing information? I've not paid attention to discussions, and tend to remove pricing on sight unless there's clear encyclopedic value to the information (eg It clearly belongs in Pyrimethamine, though I disagree on what information is in that article and its emphasis.)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Sales begins, An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention.

It continues with, Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.

So we're clearly excluding product reviews as sources and indicating that some level of detail must be given about the pricing in the independent sources. That seems to me to open ourselves for PROMO and RECENTISM. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In that article, it seems appropriate to discuss the actual sales price to the perceived manufactured price since that inflation of the cost is seem as an issue with that. However, past that, the run down of price per country seems unnecessary (such drugs being far cheaper outside the US is common knowledge). Basically, the third-party should not just be about the price but expand more why that price is interesting or of note. --Masem (t) 19:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well for many medications the price is greater in the US but not for all medications (some are actually less expensive in the US). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm considering a NPOVN discussion, but wanted to get a feel for what I might be missing.

Here are other examples:

• IPhone 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a simple table, sourced from a simple price list. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'd say this is a non-starter in meeting NOT and POV requirements. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  The table is definitely too much. The MSRP in major regions for the product for the base version of the product is reasonable as this is generally standard for any notable standalone hardware product that has an MSRP. (in the video game area, we try to stick to only US, EU, UK, JP, and AUS as major areas that tech products impact within the broader scope of en.wiki), But not for all variations and all regions that gives. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Buprenorphine/naloxone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the reason for inclusion is that a single analysis predicted a lower cost due to a lesser risk of abuse compared to buprenorphine alone. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Inclusion in the lede seems rather grossly undue based upon the sources. Inclusion of any price at all seems questionable given that the rationale is about a relative price. My suggestion would be remove the pricing entirely, but include the material on the relative pricing and why. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Definitely not needed in the lead, and the information could be given by dropping the price, and explaining it's more expensive in the US than UK (And give some %age) which is unexpected due to the rationale used there. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  In WikiProject Motorcycling we've found it helpful to think of pricing as only one of several factoids about a product that vary from country to country and market to market, such as trim levels, or colors. The fact that a "new" model comes out with "bold new colors" is non-news that we ignore. The standard is whether sources attribute some significance to a particular price or a particular color or option. So on Suzuki Hayabusa we talk about the copper paint scheme because it attracted notice, but don't list every color scheme of every model year. We don't tabulate every color, and don't tabulate every price. We don't mention what options cost, unless sources say why we should care about a price, and the article will mention adjacent to the price why that price was worth noting. This became a huge thing with electric cars, calculating total cost of ownership, price of charging in each electricity market, etc. It became endlessly long tables of raw data that isn't really encyclopedic because it's contingent on precisely where you live. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We have many high quality sources that comment on prices of medicines including textbooks like the British National Formulary and US government sites. Prices are important and many, including in the medical field, do not have enough clarity around them. I have had people come to the ER after seeing their family physician a few hours earlier as they were unable to afford what the FP had prescribed and were requesting a less expensive option.

The prices of medicines and transparency around them is key to public health per NGOs such as UNICEF[1] and MSF[2]. These groups are working to improve transparency in this area.

Many within the pharmaceutical industry are trying to decrease transparency around medication prices with lawsuits currently ongoing in the US.[3] We are not censored obviously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

agree with We have many high quality sources that comment on prices of medicines...pricing should be included--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Prices in the lead is probably not the best location for most drug articles. MOS:PHARM suggests costs go in the "society and culture" section, however, WP:SS will apply if there is sufficient controversy around pricing. <aside>Admittedly, MOS:PHARM is an essay (albeit one referenced by MOS:MED).</aside> MOS:PHARM also supplies the instruction not to use such a section for adding WP:TRIVIA, and a recommendation that only costs in major English speaking countries are listed. Little pob (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For many products, prices do not vary considerably from one place to another or from one supplier to another or from one purchaser to another. That is not the case for pharmaceutical drugs. Prices can be dramatically different depending on who is paying, who is insuring, who is selling, where it is selling, and when it is selling. I think drug pricing should only be included if the information is current, can be reliably sourced, and is relevant to a significant portion of the article's readership. I remember seeing a health insurance company's website used to support the cost of a drug (sorry, can't remember which article), but that price would only apply to that insurer's members - that's the kind of situation to avoid. For U.S. costs, I think sticking to wholesale pricing makes the most sense because that's the latest point in the supply chain where there will be meaningful consistency. In addition, I agree with those above that have suggested that pricing info doesn't belong in the lead, but is appropriate for a "Society and culture" section. Deli nk (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For drug pricing I see no problem including it in general based on the above in the same manner we include the base MSRP for notable (standalone page) products, as long as it keeps the same fixed value, like what the MSRP is for other products. If that's the wholesale price, so be it; ideally it should be something that is set when the drug achieves market arrival (following all approvals) that is as unchanging as possible. But definitely needs to pick a limited number of regions as representative and other factors so that people aren't adding the price from a tiny locale to a growing list. The details go behind NOT here, but I don't see drug pricing, kept to a similar level of constraint as MSRP pricing as discussed above, to be against the principle of NOT here. --Masem (t) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree it should only be included if it is reliably sourced (WP:V) and that we should only include prices that will apply to a significant portion of the EN readership. Prices generally vary slowly over time with a drop when generics appear on the market. Agree a health insurance company would not be a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, for pharmaceutical drugs, I think that prices should only be included when (a) there is an unusual difference in the price between countries or (b) the price is unusually high (either absolutely, or due to a sharp price increase). To give some examples, I think we should include price information when it's $1 a month in most countries but $100 in another; when the price is above US $1,000 (some people are on drugs that cost a quarter of a million USD, and they will take that drug for life); or when the price used to be $1 and now it's suddenly $100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Prices vary tremendously. Onasemnogene abeparvovec for example has a price of $US 2.215 million for a dose (though a person only needs one). People are going to want to consistently be able to find this data (similar to how they want to consistently find data on safety when breastfeeding) so not sure about those sorts of cutoffs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't intend those very round numbers to be taken as cutoffs. They're merely illustrations of the kinds of situations that I mean when I say "unusual price difference" and "unusually high" prices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about limiting to just unusual prices as us having usual prices makes it clear that unusual prices are not the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Related to what WhatamIdoing and Doc James's comments, let me play stupid on pharma drugs. Drug gets approval to be sold, so the drug company prepares all the marketing, etc. details on the drug. At what point does the drug company say "We are going to sell this drug at this wholesale price", and is that something that is tracked, or is that not even something made public, and when drug prices are reported, they are based on a summary/average of what consumers see? --Masem (t) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(This is to compare to the MSRP which is nearly universally attached to the press release or first announcement of the product so we know where it comes from). --Masem (t) 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Masem in Canada there is a government review board that sets maximum allowed price of a medicine upon its release.[4]

In the UK the price is avaliable in the British National Formulary. It is negotiated by the government aswell from what I understand.

For the US we have Medicaid data[5]

This is an interesting website.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Something like that, then would seem to be a fair sourcing standard for this purpose (given the heavy regulation of the drug industry in most countries). Of course, it looks like the US has no equivalent so that might be where have to turn to the initial price offered by the manufacturer once on the wholesale market. --Masem (t) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Further concerns with respect to attempts to suppress this information, an account that was pushing to remove medication prices from buprenorphine/naloxone has just been blocked for undisclosed paid editing[7]... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• If pricing is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources, and is a source of interest in and of itself (e.g. price gouging of insulin, or the Shkreli asshattery) then we should include it. We should not include it from manufacturers' or distributors' catalogues, and it should not be included as a matter of course, only when it has been subject of specific commentary in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There may need to be some consideration of how pricing is supported in the product area, and not just the specific product. For example, video game consoles, the big ones, when they are announced, there is clear discussion on the pricing and the competitive nature of it. But other consoles also get released, may not be the same competitive range as the big ones so their pricing may be mentioned in passing but not a focus of discussion. But it would be odd to not include the pricing of those products when the other main consoles get it. At the same time, we hardly ever talk about video game pricing because that is generally accepted in de facto ranges, so only when a game gets unique cost information is that included. Hence, just considering how the sourcing generally treats prices across a range of equivalent products should be taken into account. --Masem (t) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: How much weight is then due in articles where there is no detailed discussion of pricing for that specific product? A footnote in the references? An entry in the infobox? A single sentence? A dedicated section? Mention in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Every essential medicine has extensive coverage / discussion of its pricing by reliable independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about announcements of future vehicles

An RFC has been started concerning WP:CRYSTALBALL being applicable about announcements of future vehicles. See Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles.  Stepho  talk  00:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC to delete Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content from WP:CRYSTAL

Should we delete the sentence "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" from WP:CRYSTAL? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Current version

As it easier to judge in context, here is the current text (as of my edit here). Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. --Masem (t) 18:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support — as nominator, and because what value it has is redundant, repeating WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NOR, etc. Other than that, it only contradicts the rest of the policy, and sows confusion, per my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Speculation and rumor has to be approached extremely carefully, especially when it touches on WP:BLP, but it is incorrect to say that we can never cover it (and does not reflect current policy.) There should be policies mandating extreme caution and requiring multiple very high-quality sources, plus in-line citations to make it clear who is saying what; but there are still situations where speculation and rumor become central to the topic, and in such situations we ought to cover them. Listing it in WP:NOT implies we should never cover speculations or rumors, no matter how well-sourced, no matter how broad and WP:SUSTAINED the coverage is, and no matter how central the sources treat them to the topic. This is not desirable and does not accurately reflect how we cover things. I also have some concern about editors dismissing the reporting of a WP:RS as speculation from the position of "I don't see how they could possibly reach that conclusion; it reads as speculation to me." (eg. "experts said that if X happened, Y might result" - is that speculation? Are the experts cited in eg. Impact of Brexit merely speculating? Plenty of people who disagree with things on that page would dismiss it as speculation, but I'd argue that in any case it has to be covered because those predictions are central to how many of the stakeholders involved approach the topic, ie. it actually isn't possible to understand the topic unless you at least know some people believe or argue for these different things, even if some might be speculative.) Generally speaking we presume that a high-quality RS is doing basic fact-checking, so few things would actually qualify as mere speculation unless the source itself overtly frames them as such. Even then, the speculation of experts, posted in a high-quality source and covered in a sustained manner, deserves at least some potential weight. Similarly, if a rumor (for example) leads to the resignation of a high-profile official or some other concrete event, we obviously have to report it, otherwise our coverage of the topic wouldn't make any sense. --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal but support reworking We clearly do allow "rumors" but they have to be backed by strong RSes, should absolutely not be BLP rumor-mongering and should be limited to major industry areas/products where there is known to be a lot of attention - eg high tech products, cars, etc. Clarity on these facets would be more appropriate to discuss then outright removal. --Masem (t) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, because we do have a problem with this, but I would be interested to see alternative wording that addresses the perceived problem. Guy (help!) 18:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal without an alternative explanation, support clarification per Guy and Masem. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In general, it is not desirable to attempt to change policy during an active disagreement, such as seen at Talk:BMW M3. In particular, announcements of routine proposed events (for example, that a car company will issue a new and improved model) belong in magazines, not an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Some people instinctively discount "speculation" because they default to the false archetype of "trite uniformed speculation." But it is basically impossible to function without speculation. It's a basic empathy skill necessary in a world that keeps secrets and tells lies. Suppose Country X tests a new missile days before it meets with a global superpower to discuss sanctions. Even if Country X does not come out and state its reasons for doing so, analysts can use inductive reasoning to conclude that when Country X fires missiles, it is typically done in order to gain leverage at the negotiating table. This is a reasonable claim that should be perfectly acceptable to use on Wikipedia when it is repeated in reliable sources. When we ignore informed speculation, we do so at our own peril. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose specifically due to the ongoing conversation at Talk:BMW M3 and generally because this would open the door to all manner of problems. Continual WP:BLP violations already happen and this would only exacerbate that. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many rumors these days printed in RS as they try to keep ahead of the 24 hour news cycle and it would inevitably bite us with a BLP.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:CRYSTAL already says Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, so the line in the subpara #5 specifically for product announcements contradicts that without explanation as to why it's a different guideline for product announcements than for any other future thing. Schazjmd (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Less is more. It already says that above. It would be OK if you added "about product releases" instead of deleting. It looks like that is what the writers intended. If you want add "about anything, including learned speculation in reliable sources about political events and trends, scientific events and trends, cultural events and trends, and anything else" you could do that (altho that'd be a new conversation). Because without a "about product releases" specification, people can use it as a hammer to attack actually useful description of speculation such as speculation in Oral tradition about future events -- after all the entire field of Eschatology is speculation. "Describing this scientific theory, even if we want to, is forbidden by WP:SPECULATION, which says "Speculation[s]... even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Of course that's a rank perversion of the intent, but I mean it is an ALLCAPSPAGE so busy people are likely to be of the mind that there's a policy in place here. And yes, Wikipedians do do stuff like this all the time, to win arguments. Why give them the ammunition? Remove it. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would open to floodgates to (surprise surprise) speculation and rumor. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the arguments below. I agree that BLPs are to be held to a higher standard, but that's for a discussion of BLP, not here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Careful though to report speculation and more generally any statements about the future correctly. It is almost always wrong to say that something "will" happen, except for things like lunar eclipses, the date of Thanksgiving 2030, the date of a presidential inauguration, etc. (even though in theory these could be changed between now and then). A spokesperson may say that it will happen, the press may predict that it will happen, but generally WP should not say "Model X will be released in February" but rather "A BMW executive expects that model X will be released in February". --Macrakis (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Rumors and speculation have no place in BLPs and articles about RECENT events. However, discussing rumors and academic speculation in articles on historical figures (if worded appropriately, and attributed) can be encyclopedic. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I'm not sure if deletion is necessary right, but there needs to be a strength of RS sourcing behind rumors and which should absolutely not involve BLP, and the RS sourcing should be top-of-the-line for the area. For example, Wall Street Journal frequently is first to publish industry rumors based on inside sources. That's generally acceptable but it depends a lot on context. But your average rumor-mongering fan sites are absolutely no-nos. --Masem (t) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• This section is coherent right up until this oddball sentence tacked on the end. It contradicts the sentence before it. The policy seems to be only addressing the mad rush to make a new stub for every announced or anticipated product. It sensibly suggests merging into the parent topic, like the company, or the previous (and notable) version of the product. But then it has second thoughts, swerves, and backpedals: "No! Even if a reliable source tell us a product is coming, we dare not mention it anywhere on Wikipedia!" What if Elon Musk makes headlines with a stunning, hyperbolic claim about a future product? What if Donald Trump tweets that he's going to accomplish something that is believed to be impossible? To say it has no place in an encyclopedia is not helpful, and clearly not a correct description of the community consensus. If reliable sources give weight to some speculative thing, it has a place, somewhere in Wikipedia, if phrased correctly and well cited.

  We know that the community consensus is not to forbid all mention of anticipated technology or products or what have you. The community has expressed that by promoting dozens of examples to GA and FA status, such as Renewable energy in Scotland or Shuttle–Mir program#Phases Two and Three: ISS (1998–2024) or Alzheimer's disease#Research directions or City of Manchester Stadium#Stadium expansion or Boeing 777#777X. Can the GA Dyson sphere exist at all, if speculation has no place?

  Perhaps WP:NOT could have a whole new section covering our policy about the future for content within otherwise notable articles or lists, but for the present, we could have clear policy statement, if we removed this this wart at the end that helps nobody and inspires endless debate. Delete it, and if you have a better idea, propose at your leisure.

  With regard to the fact that, as Masem said, "your average rumor-mongering fan sites are absolutely no-nos", what does that have to do with WP:CRYSTAL? Rumor mongering fan sites fail WP:V and WP:RS. We already have clear guidelines and policies telling us not to rely on those. WP:CRYSTAL does not need to repeat that, and doing so here only muddles it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Dennis is one of the principles involved in the topic just above this concerning the announcement of future vehicles. These 2 topics overlap considerably and it will confuse the issue by starting 2 separate but closely related RFC's at the same time.  Stepho  talk  04:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm posting notices as fast as I can. How come when I start an RfC, it will "confuse the issue", but when you do, it doesn't? Seems like if you can start an RfC in the midst of a dispute, the rest of us can do it too. This RfC is policy change. The other RfC is only at the WikiProject level, which is local consensus, subordinate to both policy and guidelines. If the two have contradictory outcomes, policy overrules local consensus. That other RfC has a very long, not exactly neutral, "question" [sic] statement, and asks at least four different questions in one RfC. It's unlikely to be accepted as a valid RfC, and unlikely to end with a definitive, binding RfC closure.

A clear yes or no outcome on keeping or deleting this sentence from WP:CRYSTAL will help everyone get closer to a solid consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please try to keep personal issues out of this and restrict discussion to the actual issues of policy. A general policy RfC takes precedence over a project guidance case. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Some predictions are more appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia than others. To a large extent this depends on the credibility of the persons making the prediction, and whether there is published agreement by experts that the prediction is plausible, and where relevant supported by scientific analysis. Where prediction is speculative the responsible persons should be named in the text and their credentials specified, as well as cited from a reliable source, and stating the type of speculation. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have many issues with WP:CRYSTAL. Some background:

• In 2011 I contacted one of the authors of the original WP:CRYSTAL after the policy kept coming up at AfDs of unannounced products. The editor (User:Dpbsmith) thought I was crazy and said his language categorically did "not put a blanket bar on all speculation from outside sources."
• Following that conversation I updated WP:CRYSTAL to clarify the ban applied to poorly sourced speculation, and that speculation offered by reliable sources was permitted.
• I can't immediately find the discussion, but I believe that the blanket ban on speculation was reinstated within a year once the issue was brought up again on this talk page. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is maddening.

• "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."

later

• "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."

• WHICH IS IT?? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Mark, that's exactly why we're better off without this sentence. The !votes saying we have to keep it until we agree on something better to replace it with don't give us much to go on as to what they think is better. Moreover, they don't tell us what benefit there is to this sentence. There are several other policies that forbid spreading poorly sourced rumors, so it's not as if the floodgates would suddenly open if we deleted it. It would be far less disruptive if we replaced it with the text you offered, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized...", but everything in that sentence derives from some other policy. "Reliable, expert sources" is what we mean by the WP:RS guidelines. Why does that need to be restated at WP:CRYSTAL? Speculation and rumor are also pushed to the fringes by, sure enough, WP:FRINGE. Avoiding undue bias? Hey, look we have the policy WP:UNDUE.

Masem worries that there "should absolutely not be BLP rumor-mongering" but the WP:BLP policy has that covered? "Major industry areas/products where there is known to be a lot of attention"? In other words, subjects with sufficient WP:WEIGHT do deserve mention? Already covered by another policy.

Saying encyclopedias can't cover announcements that a car model will continue is yet another way of arguing with our sources. If quality sources think it's significant enough to mention, then who are we to judge? Whatever sources are considered reliable for a given topic -- car magazines for cars, pokemon newsblogs for pokemon, major news media for world events, etc -- should be trusted to guide us on what deserves weight.

It matters whether a car model is discontinued or not. It matters if a TV or streaming series is cancelled. At the beginning of Season 4 of The Good Place, it had been widely reported that it would be the final season. This "future speculation" is not trivia, it's vital to anyone who cares about the subject. It's telling you wehther or not the series-produced product or media content is complete or incomplete, successful or -- often -- a failure. We shouldn't have to ague over this. If we trusted our sources, they would tell us whether or not a fact like this matters.

I don't believe there is a viable example of unencyclopedic content that would be deleted under the current version of WP:CRYSTAL but would have to be kept if we deleted this speculation and rumor sentence. Anything that is biased, poorly sourced, treats opinion as fact, or spreads misinformation will be deleted based on other policies. Keeping this misleading sentence would justify deleting entirely GAs like Dyson Sphere, and would require gutting the 'latest developments' sections of several technical and medical science Featured Articles like Alzheimer's disease or Virus. Mark Schierbecker's point is exactly right: this oddball sentence creates a paradox and does not describe the consensus on mentioning predictions, forecasts and future plans. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP actually doesn't cover the idea of rumor-mongering well, hence why it needs to be included here. And NOT is a core policy - one of 4 (V, NOR, and NPOV) that all other policy derive from, so we have to be careful of how changes bubble through the rest. There is no DEADLINE to fix this. --Masem (t) 02:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

When a core policy contradicts ITSELF, that problem would be an extremely urgent priority. I do not believe for a second that this page is anywhere close to being clear enough or important enough to compare to WP:Verifiability. There is a double standard here, btw. You said we need to be careful that changes made on this page do not adversely affect the reliability of this encyclopedia, but evidently no one took such care in the first place when parts of this page were brought into conflict with itself. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Rumors arguably not the same as "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories", so there's no contradiction. --Masem (t) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I found the original insertion of this in April 2013

# Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements: While Wikipedia is up-to-date and includes information about newly revealed productions or works, such as films or video games, as part of large series, franchise or spinoff, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic information about the product can be included, the discussion of such announcements should be merged to a larger topic using redirection to guide readers to the proper location; speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, on the content and direction of the work are not appropriate encyclopedic content. (Emphasis my own)

The next edit three days later completely changed the meaning. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have something of a crisis of confidence on Wikipedia: Seemingly iron-clad policies turn out to be the product of some ancient unilateral change (See: the demotion of WP:POG). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

From the evidence I see at WP:FA, the best editors simply ignore this dumb policy. It's the ones who aren't royalty and rockstars who suffer and have to argue out from under this nonsense.

Masem, if the BLP policy fails to address rumor and speculation, the solution is to fix the BLP policy. It's not a reason why it has to be addressed here. That's like saying if the BLP doesn't cover rumors it has to be addressed over on the image use policy. I have to say, though, WP:BLPGOSSIP is crystal clear: "Avoid gossip and feedback loops". Is some kind of pettifogging Wikilawyer is going to get away with saying "I'm only adding rumors, not gossip!" Who is going to read "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" and think that leaves room for speculation? But let's fix WP:BLP rather than keep this goofy caboose stuck to the end of WP:CRYSTAL.

Even if BLP didn't forbid rumor and gossip, how could WP:V and WP:RS possibly allow it? Rumor, gossip, speculation, and fringe theories are very well covered. That dead horse is dead.

"There is no deadline to fix this"? How is that a reason to not fix it? If it's broken, then fix it. If it's wrong, fix it. If you're saying, "give me a few days, and I'll cite examples of bad content that would be allowed if this policy were pruned", then yes, by all means. But only if you really think such examples exist. Otherwise, if this bit of nonsense words isn't adding any value, let's get rid of it.

I like the idea of a separate paragraph addressing article content rather than article creation/deletion. Everything at WP:NOT should keep WP:NNC in mind, rather than leave editors confiscated about whether we're saying "don't create that article" or "don't dare breathe a word of this anywhere". Two very different things. But there's no deadline for adding that, and while we wait, this policy is causing harm. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Mark and Dennis, you need to calm down. We don't rush haphazardly to make policy changes (particularly to core policy) until consensus is made - as you opened an RFC, its got to run it course so we have to wait for that to conclude. And rght now, the consensus is towards at minimum changing that line to reflect practice that we do allow rumors in some cases. It's just that as a core policy , we need input before rushing to change it. --Masem (t) 03:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And to add, as Johnuniq, this RFC appears specifically to be in response to an active dispute on an article talk page, so we need to definitely have more voices here before anything can be changed. --Masem (t) 03:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "You need to calm down"? What is that a reference to? What "rush" are you referring to? This is an RfC discussing whether or not to make a change. It's the normal process. Who is rushing?

Johnuniq is wrong. That project-level dispute is a prime example of why this is a badly written policy. The whole dispute wouldn't exist if we didn't have such sloppy wording in the crystal ball policy. If this RfC right here has a clear outcome, it will resolve the intractable dispute over at WikiProject Automobiles. The RfC over there is a hopeless muddle; it has four questions. Nobody even knows how to !vote. Why is it so muddled? Because of confusion from on high. A clear message from the policy level to the level of local consensus would help all of us. It would be really wasteful if first the Automobiles project judges that WP:CRYSTAL says we can't mention next year's BMW M3, and then a week later WP:NOT has a RfC on policy with the opposite result. Clarifying policy is the first step. That's why I'm here.

If you want to have reasons to lose one's calm, go back to 2017, to the sad debacle of the Tesla Roadster (2020) article. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020). On the one hand, you have editors vehemently arguing that BMW M3 cannot even mention a mere 39 words about a totally conventional car coming out next year. Yet three years ago, a whole crowd of editors just as vehemently argued that WP:CRYSTAL totally allows creating a whole separate article about a future car. Three years+ ahead of time. Look at Talk:Tesla Roadster (2020). I had no luck removing mention of Elon Musk's ridiculous promises about the record-setting performance of a car they hadn't even begun to manufacture. I quoted "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" and yet consensus supported drooling all over the untested and untestable claims that the Roadster 2 would be the fastest supercar ever, have the best batteries, and will cook you breakfast in bed. WP:CRYSTAL fails in keeping out speculation and rumor, and fails at allowing encyclopedic announcements of future products.

The policy text I propose deleting is doing no good to anybody. Its existence is distracting editors from relying on better-written policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:V.

Thinking about the Roadster 2 makes me feel less than calm, I'll admit. But accusing other editors of not being calm about this RfC? That's not nice, and has no basis. Nobody is rushing anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Between you and Mark, you seem to want us to rush to make the change asap, and that making your replies seem heated and over the top. There's a way we do things on WP that this doesn't capture. As Johnuniq said, it is not right to try to change policy to "win" an article-space content dispute ( (that's WP:POINT). I would also argue after reading the Telsa AFD and the BMW situation that there is a major cry between an official product announcement, even if the work is far off, and some quotes in a blog (which are not always reliable sources) that require reading between the lines to guess about a new product. In other words, even if we removed the line from NOT, that source would still fail RS and probably wouldn't be included. Hence my concern about making sure rumors are coming from vetted sources. --Masem (t) 04:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just casting aspersions. WP:POINT refers to applying a rule consistently to win a dispute. If I were to go to one of the many FAs I mentioned, and tried to delete speculative content to rile up a lot of editors against WP:CRYSTAL, that would be pointy. It would be to "enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." I am not doing that. Not even close.

You know what WP:POINT says? It says "If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns." I bet you didn't even bother reqading those words before you came here and started casting aspersions on me. Let's read that again:

"If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns."

I think WP:CRYSTAL is problematic. And where have I come? RIGHT HERE!

What is the definition of an "official product announcement"? You mean how Elon Musk had a big party, with lights and fireworks? That's what made it official? I don't get it. I'll tell you what makes the BMW announcement "official": the words were spoken on record by someone with the authority to say so -- Markus Flasch, head of BMW M division. He's the office-holder who gets to speak on this. His words are official.

You could dispute that carmagazine.co.uk's interview with Flasch doesn't count because you have a problem with carmagazine.co.uk. None of the editors who want to delete mention of the 2020 M3 made any mention of that. They have a history of edits on that article, and they had many opportunities to delete or remove the other citations of carmagazine.co.uk, yet not a peep. We have an older, more established source Car & Driver crediting and citing Car UK for their Flasch interview. So we have other reliable sources who consider the cited source reliable. No reliable sources dispute that Flash gave this interview, or dispute that he said they would release a 2020 M3. You'd think BMW and Flasch himself would be the first to walk this back if it wasn't true. I kind of feel like you're making stuff up here.

Let's say you're right. Let's say that the reason we shouldn't mention the 2020 BMW M3 is that the source fails WP:RS. So then why does " Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." need to be kept? Your argument bolsters what I've been saying: this sentence only causes problems, and whatever good can come of it is redundant. If the announcement of the 2020 car is from unreliable sources, then the whole crystal ball policy is unnecessary and irrelevant. Let's delete it.

I've asked you more than once to cite what you mean by "rush". What have I done that is rushing? If I had boldly edited the policy, and then edit warred over it, that would be rushing. I didn't do that. I came to the talk page and I started a discussion. I started a valid RfC. Where do you get off acting like I'm "rushing" anyting? I'm meticulously following established process and respecting consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that the current trend of consensus agrees that statement may need to be removed, but it should not be removed outright without considering better wording to make it clear some speculation and rumor is allowed, and absolutely not allowed in other areas. The responses here, as well as reading through the BMW M3 page, show clear frustration that you can get editors to see your way, which is not how we develop policy.. That's where POINT comes in. Assume good faith. We're trying to help, though the dual RFCs make this situation more difficult than it needed to be, and so we have to work through the process to get to an answer. (Starting a second RFC while the first was ongoing, even by only a few hours, was an action done with too much haste). We will figure out something, but we're working from the generalized case, not for just cars. --Masem (t) 05:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, how about you try assuming good faith, eh? I'm not going to continue addressing your personal attacks here. Please take your personal issues to an appropriate noticeboard. If you have something to say in defense of the text I've proposed deleting, please share it. Otherwise, lay off. The first "dueling RfC" you speak of was a dead letter. It doesn't conform to RfC guidelines, and will not produce an outcome at all. It will only generate more noise. And there is no rule against starting a separate RfC on a related topic. You keep attacking me for something that is in no way a violation of any rule. Stop making shit up. Please? If I violated a policy, cite my actual violation.

All your insular "this is not how we do it" remarks are arrogant WP:OWNership behavior. If you're so confident that this policy must be kept, why can't you simply focus on the merits of the policy instead of this ongoing effort to discredit me personally? I don't want to hear it here any more. This isn't a behavioral noticeboard, and it's not my personal talk page. Enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks (see WP:NPA for what qualifies: your behavior is of concern, but at a trivial level no one can call action on, but no one has mentioned anything about your person) When one comes on a major policy talk page like this with a chip on their shoulder to insist on a change be made in that tone, it is not going to go far and it becomes hard to assume good faith. And no one is OWNing this page, the stuff I've cited is wiki-wide consensus development and dispute resolution process, alongside the fact NOT is a core policy and can't be changed without careful consideration. That's why I have addressed the merits here, that we have to be very careful what removal of that line could apply elsewhere and better to seek a replacement that allows rumors to be used with limited conditions. --Masem (t) 06:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How about you answer the question you ignored: what is an "official" announcement? What is the basis for you claim of reading between the lines? The cited source simply says the head of BMW M said they'd build the car. It says that. Directly. In words. Not between the lines. In the lines. An establishment source, Car & Driver, accepts Car UK as reliable, and is capable of clearly reading the statement from Flasch for what it is. BMW will build this manual transmission, RWD car. No world record setting acceleration. Not an unprecedented electric car. Not a submarine teleporter car. A plain RWD stick shift car. Nothing shocking.

Simple question: how is the words spoken by Flasch not an official announcement? How is it not clear? What is open to interpretation? For contrast, many of these newsblogs have posted breathless speculation about the 500+ horsepower super engine that the 2020 M3 will have. Nobody has proposed mention such nonsense now. Merely the existence of the 2020 model. Please explain why this is not "official" (whatever that is) and why you think it requires "reading between the lines". Nobody at WikiProject Automobiles thinks this is a simple question of reliable sources. If it was, we could just go to WP:RSN and resolve it. This is all about trying to tease out the obscure truth hidden in the goofy words of WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

An interview with a BMW official can definitely be a WP:RS. But let's just make sure to report it correctly. Leaving aside perfectly predictable events like eclipses, any statement about the future is not a fact and should not be described with the future tense. If Flasch said "we will release model X in January", the correct report on this is not "BMW will release model X..." but rather "A BMW executive announced that BMW will release model X...", or "multiple sources predict that BMW will release model X in January"(footnotes) or "the automotive press is predicting that...". An official corporate announcement typically comes out as a press release, not as a statement during an interview. --Macrakis (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. I offered similar examples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Unannounced vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Would this apply to soon-to-be-released or in-production feature films? I'm not sure it should. Praemonitus (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Without eyewitness independent sources who personally visited the set, read the script, verified the film is really being made, we only have studio officials and spokespeople 'speculating', spreading 'rumors' like "production has begun on Annihilation II: Rennihilation (working title Aliens: This Time it's War) starring Aaron Eckhart. OK, fine, it's Gerard Butler." It gets reported in movie newsblogs. This policy says we can't mention that, and policy applies everywhere, and it overrules WikiProject Film's WP:NFF guideline. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The language is unequivocal, leaving no wiggle room "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Even from reliable sources. Spider-Man (2018 video game) was promoted to FA less than a month ago. This policy, if we actually followed it, would not allow mention that the chief designer told a mere newsblog, io9, they couldn't confirm plans for sequel. It isn't even "there will be a sequel" or "there won't be a sequel". A company official saying "I won't confirm or deny it" is, in actual practice, encyclopedic. Most of Wikipedia ignores this rule, and when someone cites the strict meaning of the words "even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content", we end up with perverse outcomes. The only thing that really prevents this from becoming a dumpster fire is WP:IAR, which is a serious indictment of the policy.

Given that the bold headline "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" isn't going anywhere, and WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:SPS aren't going anywhere, the "floodgates" to speculation and rumor will remain firmly shut. This is strictly about the fact that well sourced statements about future plans are de facto encyclopedic, and WP:POLICY is supposed to reflect that, not impotently contradict it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on WP:TABLOID

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, there is a shortcut from WP:TABLOID to the section Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Is it an appropriate shortcut? Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a properly formed RFC, but answering the question anyway. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper doesn't even mention "tabloid". I would have expected that shortcut to take me to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources which does. Schazjmd (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a little reminder that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow." and "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". Look at any important article on a current event and you'll see that WP:NOTNEWS is not widely accepted. Where we draw the line between encyclopedic and "over-detailed articles that look like a diary" varies wildly and depends on context and how our sources treat it. The real accepted consensus on how much detail we give to unfolding current events, and which sources are acceptable, is best represented by Featured Articles promoted in the last month or two: 2018 World Snooker Championship, Hurricane Rosa (2018),Hurricane Sergio (2018), 2019 Tour Championship or Spider-Man (2018 video game). Look at how man newsblogs are cited. Look at how often commentary, developing, changing facts are included. NOTNEWS would have you think we have this rigid policy against this kind of content, but that's not true. NOTNEWS is a de facto guideline and life would be so much easier for everyone if we lifted out of this policy page and gave it an appropriate home on the guideline pages WP:DETAIL and WP:NEWSEVENT, where it would be much happier.

And before you say it, WP:NOR isn't going anywhere, so original reporting still isn't going to happen, even if NOTNEWS is demoted form a policy to a guideline. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3: I suggest you close this RfC and start a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the proper venue. --Bsherr (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.