Wikipedia talk:Notability

Lede is too long

@Doncram:: The new paragraph in the intro causes a rather long lede, please find a better solution, e.g., the numbered list in the intro could be merged into the first "GNG" section. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Another problem with the lead is where it says

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

We are supposed to avoid referring to images as being on the left or right (WP:MOSIM). The same should probably apply to boxes, for people reading with voice software. We could refer to the box by its title. Plus the box doesn't even appear in the mobile view. We shouldn't have important information in a box that doesn't appear for many readers. What I would suggest is a separate section on subject-specific guidelines, to come immediately after "1. General notability guideline". That would have the additional benefit of shortening the lead. For people who can see the box on the right, that's fine, but it shouldn't be crucial to message. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability for entertainers

Hi, I would like to ask on how to determine the notability for entertainers. Please kindly referred me to the right forum if this question doesn't belong here.

According to WP:ENT:
"Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions,..."

I'm a bit confused about what "significant roles" mean here. Is that mean lead actor/actress only? or it can also be supporting roles. Some US TV show like How I Met Your Mother or Criminal Minds don't have a single lead actor. If they're appeared on the movie poster or participating in the promotion, is it mean that they have "significant roles" in the production? I think usually those who appear on the poster are main roles, but not all main roles appear on the poster. So how to determine if the roles are significant or not? Thank you. Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, significant is not limited to just the lead parts. There are many notable actors who have never had a lead role in their entire career, but who are notable for their many supporting roles. There are "character actors" who are notable for the volume of their work more than any individual role.

It really comes down to sources... if there are reliable independent sources that actually discuss the actor and/or his work (ie something more than just a quick passing reference, or a simple cast list) we can say he is notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliability vs. bias

In the Ahmad Keshvari deletion discussion, some folks seem to be suggesting that if Iranian media are generally deemed unreliable due to their strict control by the Iranian theocracy, it will entail an unacceptable systemic bias against Iranian subjects (such as "Ahmad Keshvari"). Is this the consensus-based view on Wikipedia? When faced with having to choose between reliability and the freedom from systemic bias, should we sacrifice the former for the sake of the latter?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In considering a country where the media is controlled by the state, the issue of the true independence of the sources will be doubt. That's where judgement is needed if this is specifically a case where there is a drive to promote the person (or any topic) with false notability, or simply that it happens to be a notable person/topic that is otherwise covered in a normal manner by sources where there's some doubt to their larger purpose. This AFD seems to be the later - there's nothing that seems particularly forced about this pilot getting coverage to bring up the independence question. Yes, it would be nice to get non-Iranian sources but that's not required at all, and the breadth (in both scope and timing) of the sources used does not suggest some purposely planned action to elevate this pilot to this level. On the other hand, if it were the case of a person where all the sources about the person were from media of a similarly-run country and all within a few days, without the person having made any major news, that's highly suspect. I do not think we can have any immediate ruling out of a topic that is only covered by a media under a strong gov't control, it does raise issues but that's how consensus should evaluate it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree that some "judgement is needed", but how does that judgement get made? In the case of Iran, it has long claimed to have sent monkeys into space[1], and Iranian media have mirrored these claims, but media outside Iran have had great difficulty corroborating them[2]. The pattern with regards to "Ahmad Keshvari" is similar - an exemplary act of bravery and patriotism is presented to the domestic audience, but independent confirmation of its veracity is hard to come by due to the very media controls the Iranian government has itself imposed.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability prevails: We have a fully-acknowledged and built in bias to not include material which is not based on reliable sources. On occasion that results in material being excluded which is Unquestionably True and Vitally Important. To move away from that is to invite chaos since it results in editors having the ability to decide inclusion on the basis of what they believe to be good and important enough. Verifiability, which requires reliable sources, sets the threshold for what's good enough and to move away from it would be madness — and the chaos would be particularly profound in controversial areas such as the Middle East. Whether government-dominated (or other-dominated) sources are or are not reliable and, if so, for what is a different issue, and one that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@user:TransporterMan as the following discussions The bad conclusion based on the wrong assumption and Clarification of The claim show, this proposal wants to ban all of the Iranian media because some of them are not reliable in some of the cases. For examples, a magazine about lifestyle or fauna of Iran is not reliable because it can not criticize the leader! WP:VALID, WP:UNDUE and some other policies and guidelines can solve the problems without banning all of the Iranian media. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• There’s presumably nothing stopping foreign media under freer governments from covering the same subjects. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reliability We need to have verifiable sources, and unfortunately government controlled media are notoriously unreliable. We are concerned with Verifiability not truth, and like others have said, if it truly is notable, it will most likely be covered by outside media that is more reliable. If making things verifiable means there is a built-in bias towards government controlled media then so be it. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:War wizard90, As I mentioned below and Anders Feder clarified, the proposal covers all of the Iranian media not just those run by the government. In addition, it does not distinct propaganda and criticism. It bans all of the Iranian media even those criticize the government or cover the issues neutrally!--Seyyed(t-c) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please share with us some of the media which freely criticize the clerical leadership of Iran (as opposed to its low-ranking ministers) or cover issues neutrally, so as to inform the discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)=

You want to ban all of the Iranian media because they cannot criticize the Supreme leader! Can we consider all of the France'media unreliable because they can not publish something about denial of Holocaust due to their law !!!--Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, is it logical to ban a magazine which relates to Iran's Fauna because it can not criticize the leader!--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What are the sources, which would be suppressed by France's holocaust denial law, that you consider to be reliable?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability and verifiability trump almost everything. Sometimes that will result in material being excluded that normally would get in. But the integrity of the project would be gravely undermined if we weaken these standards for adding material to articles and or establishing notability. That said, in very rare cases, if we are talking only about establishing WP:N as opposed to the actual material in the article, and the subject is so obviously notable that it could not be denied by anyone with more than two brain cells firing off at the same time, I might give it a pass under IAR and common sense. But that would only apply to Notability. Any content not covered by BLUE would still need reliable independent sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Ad Orientem... It would be very unlikely that Iranian media would be the only sources to discuss a notable subject... but in the rare situations where that was the case, I would argue that the Iranian coverage does count somewhat towards establishing notability (the coverage would, at a minimum, establish that the subject is notable in Iran).

We should be very cautious about what information we support with such sources (but remember that even the most biased sources are reliable in very limited situations... there is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source). I think there is very little we cold use the sources for in an article other than establishing notability... but their existence would indicate that we probably should have an article. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unavoidable features - I think it preferable to have simple system without exemptions, and see no feasible way in general to run an exemption system since I see no way to clearly determine a situation fits the basis mentioned. Having 'notable' driven simply by what is being seen a lot in publications is not only definite and simple, it also fundamentally *is* the reality that people experience -- the things unseen by them just never will exist as much. Also, I am thinking the case is wider than mentioned and doubt it's resolvable. Yes, I think here is geographic bias to the levels of coverage, but that it exists even if the governments are not tightly controlling the media -- for example, recently noted were the sheer amount of coverage attacks in Paris got versus the attacks in Nigeria. Some of that is simply differences in distance, fame, or simply the amount of infrastructure to get transmissions from the area. Some is that governments affect coverage -- but think it is most or all spin it or adjust coverage up and down, the Paris politicians pushed for more attention snd the Nigerians did not -- and that the media themselves also try to serve their base. While different nations offer some variation in coverage and nature -- the BBC does not match Fox or MSNBC -- anything not appearing in majore channels will be both hard to verify as real and hard or readers to accept as real or notable. Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• False dichotomy: No source is completely unbiased. While we try to use sources that at least make an effort at strict neutrality, heavily-biased sources can be used so long they are handled accordingly. I would have a hard time justifying completely excluding a claim from a state-run press, but I would always want to see the statement attributed and the bias of the source noted.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of bias. This is reliability vs systematic bias. They are two different things. The issue being discussed here, concerns reliability. Mbcap (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability everytime. I cannot see how we can just discount one of the five pillars, WP:NPOV which says, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The key word here is reliable and unfortunately this is something that is lacking in Iranian media. If we had reliable Iranian media sources and they were biased, we could use them according to WP:BIASED. However we do not have reliable Iranian media sources so we cannot use it even on the basis of WP:BIASED. Mbcap (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a flawed argument here... that a source should be considered unreliable because it is biased. That simply isn't true. Again, there is no such thing as a completely unreliable source. Even the most biased of sources can be reliable in some situations. The reliability of any source depends on the specifics of what we are trying to say in any given article... on how we phrase the information that we take from the source.

Because Iranian media is biased, it would be inappropriate to phrase the information as if it were accepted fact... instead we need to hedge our language, and present the information as attributed opinion. Instead of writing "X occurred <cite Iranian media>" we should write "According to Iranian media, X occurred <cite Iranian media>" (or something similar). ANY source is reliable in the context of verifying what that source says (it's opinion).

Now, I have not addressed the question of whether mentioning the source's opinion in the first place would give UNDUE WEIGHT to that opinion... but that is a separate issue, unrelated to the issue of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of bias. We are talking about reliability. A source can of course be biased because it is allowed under WP:BIASED but it has to be reliable. I think the poster is saying that because not a lot of verifiabily reliable sources exist for Iran, is there a systematic bias being introduced against Iran. Mbcap (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK... so what makes the source unreliable? So far, the argument has been that it is unreliable because it is biased (and my point is simply that this is a flawed argument). Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE, the most reliable sources are those which "have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." Media in countries like Iran have quite the opposite - they have a structure in place, imposed on them by the state, for hamstringing fact-checking, analysis etc.[3][4][5] The most trivial of matters (such as the weather) may be accurately reported on in those media. But almost everything of any interest to Wikipedia is also something which is likely to be affected by the country's media controls. WP:INTEXT is not applicable to notability, because notability does not concern how an article is phrased, but rather whether the subject can reliably be verified to warrant an article on Wikipedia in the first place.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The bad conclusion based on the wrong assumption The question is based on a prejudice which should be check before making decision. It is strange that some persons think all of the Iranian media are [[controlled by the government! If so, how can you explain the controversies and clashes among them as well as between the media and the government. In addition, when we clarify the source for the reader, they can judge about it. Even if some Iranian media promote the government viewpoint, omitting or neglecting that viewpoint will lead to the violation of WP:NPOV. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:NPOV is obviously completely misguided. NPOV specifically limits itself to "significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It has never meant "anything goes" or that reliability should put aside for the sake of factual relativism. See particularly WP:GEVAL, and WP:NPOV#Controversial_subjects for examples.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• False dichotomy: someone's Reliability is someone Else's Bias, & vise verse. Just try to realize it. I'm not supporting anything here, I don’t know what the first source of this discussion is, but I just see a false dichotomy. I just want to point out that Generalizing like this just leads you guys to false decisions making. It is better to talk about every situation by itself in details & no hurry in making a general decision on before. Hope you guys get my real meaning, wish you all happiness... KhabarNegar ^Talk 14:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See the above. All views are not equally valid, and never have been. Though many obviously have an interest in having them presented as such.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A fact to falsify the assumption To show how the basic assumption is wrong, I just mention one case for those who look for truth. During the third round of the Iranian presidential election debates, 2013 in the state television which is completely control by the government, the candidates had a surprisingly controversial positions about one of the most important issue, the Iran's nuclear program. They openly criticized the Iranian negotiators and Ahmadinejad, who was the President at that time. They disclosed many facts about the former events.[6][7] Now, do you think we should neglect this event in the related article just because it is published by the state television[8]!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about the use of unreliable sources. Your links point to a telegram by the Associated Press and an article by the Washington Post, neither of which are unreliable, so the point you are raising has no relevance here.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder} You have not got the issue. I mean this case clearly shows your basic assumption that Iranian media are generally deemed unreliable due to their strict control by the Iranian theocracy is wrong. So there is no contradiction between Reliability vs. bias. As you can see in this case which is exclusively broadcast by the Iranian state television and then the other media covered it, there is some kind of freedom of speech at least in some occasions. Therefor, we can not conclude that the Iranian media necessarily promote governmental propaganda. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that because other media covered something which was shown in Iranian state television, it follows that Iranian state television is reliable? Please elaborate on how that would be the case.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean the Iranian media even those controlled by the state are not so censored. "Strict control by the Iranian theocracy" It is a myth. Of course, there are some kinds of censorship but we should not exaggerate it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a myth, and there is no reason to think that it is. Other media have covered North Korean television too[9], but what does that tell us about whether it is controlled by the state?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As I showed in the above case, even the Iran's TV which is clearly controlled by the government has freedom to some extent. Of course, the non-governmental press have more freedom. I eager to know how do you interpret the open criticism of the governmental policies by the candidates in that case.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did you show that Iran's TV "has freedom to some extent"?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess you do not pay attention to me. There should be some extent of freedom which lets the Presidential candidates criticize the Iran's Nuclear program policy in the government's TV. Is it clear?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Were any of these candidates contradicting the Supreme Leader of Iran?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Has a candidate from the two major party of the US already criticized the US constitution during presidential campaign? I accept there is some restrictions but it is not so harsh that you has described it as "strict control by the Iranian theocracy". We want to refer to the Iranian media in the issues they can and usually have covered, not the issues they can not cover. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me check with you the result of your suggestion. According to you we should not refer to Iranian media even if they criticize the government's policies as I mentioned above!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - why should we cite any unreliable source just because they criticize the Iranian government? There are all sorts of unreliable far-right or ultra-Zionist sources criticizing the Iranian government. Should we pull them in as references too because we otherwise might create a bias against them?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets not take away attention from the real issue of unreliability that is churned out of Iran. When you run stories about aliens controlling US government or sending monkeys to space or inventing a time machine, you really have to take that source with a pinch of salt. By the way the time machine that was invented in Iran was compact so you could carry it with you, in case you were wondering. Now honestly, you tell me, if they make up stuff like that, what is stopping them from rehashing protoplasmic unverifiable nonsense. Academic freedom is severely restricted across the board in Iran. Read this letter to the "supreme leader" Ali of Iran[10], showing how academics and students are imprisoned. Also read this[11] which details the atrocious academic freedom further. Sources can be biased all day and as long as they are reliable, we can use them. However, WP:RS states that a source must be reliable and we simply cannot ignore all rules on this one. This is an encyclopaedia, not onion news. Mbcap (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion is too general and including all of the Iranian media whether run by state or not. In addition, it contains every issue from any viewpoint. You want to ban all of the Iranian media because some of them are unreliable or covered something which is not endorsed by the western media such as sending monkey to the space. This suggestion is a kind of censorship to punish censorship!!! --Seyyed(t-c) 19:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that you chose to ignore the story about building a time machine or that US government is controlled by Aliens. This was reported by Fars news agency which claims to be completely independent but which is called a semi-official news agency by reuters. Did you read the human rights watch report and letter documenting the lack of academic freedom and the imprisonment of University academics and students. Mbcap (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mbcap, WP:VALID clarifies that we should not cover such strange ideas without need to consider all(!) of the Iranian media as unreliable sources. There is also some strange claims in the western media, but we do not disqualify all of them. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of The claim @User:Anders Feder, As I understand, you want to disqualify all of the Iranian media because some of them promote the government's propaganda or they can not cover some issues due to censorship. Am I right?--Seyyed(t-c) 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. "Some of them" is not an expression I am operating with. That is a term you have introduced. I consider practically all media which are subject to Iranian media laws unreliable. The same goes for media under North Korean law, Belarusian law, Syrian law etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the Iranian media are "subject to Iranian media laws" and your proposal is a kind of censorship and completely against WP:NPOV. The Iranian media law forbids covering some issues but does not enforce to propagate anything. So all of the Iranian media are reliable, except they violate a policy or guideline. For example, making strange claim (WP:VALID), covering small minority viewpoint (WP:UNDUE) or violating copyright. Therefor there is not any general rule as you want, but we should check them case by case.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. As I've already explained above, your understanding of NPOV is completely wrong.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But your understanding of censorship is completely correct. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you that you are conceding that you are wrong.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean you want to distort the policies so that you can censor wikipedia.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When there is a talking about Iran or Iranian issues, we all are talking about a more than 70 million people population, The problem here is that you guys (foreigners) just generalize anything, and react and judge about a country just like when you judging about a small group of people or community! This is simply wrong. I see someone told & talked about the invention of a time machine, you know what! I just see this time machine news from a foreign source, then checked & see this is also mentioned in a website in Iran, then it is not something people care about here! But you guys just realize with yourself that all the media here are talking about that... No! Nobody cares about an interview on a website, maybe you foreigners care, yes, you guys care I'm afraid... Make everything short by saying that any time you wanted to judge, Just try to feel that way you are talking about a nation, about 70 million people. Not just a website or a small group, This way you can have a better understanding about the whole world, as I said it’s better not to generalize and make fixed ideas in this regards, and it is better to see any issue and situation separately and in details, Do not generalize. Regards,KhabarNegar ^Talk 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is not "us foreigners". The problem is people who don't understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is (or rather, is intended to be) an encyclopedia consisting of reliable information. You may not like reliable information very much, and prefer to go by unreliable information in your daily life. That's great. Good for you. Keep doing it, for as long as you want. Just do not bring that information into Wikipedia. It's pretty simple and has nothing to with what 70 million people in Iran may or may not feel. It has to do with what Wikipedia is. Namely an encyclopedia. Not a temple to mediocrity, where we all get to present our favorite worldviews as if they were equally valid to all others.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies, CNN controversies, Can I suggest banning the media of the entire nation? No!... It is EASY. Every "single" situation can & should discuss in detail separately, you never can generalize it... I think sorry, simply you don't desire to realize the change in your way of believing. I will say good day to you sir, KhabarNegar ^Talk 08:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What does Fox News and CNN have to with torture and executions of dissidents?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you read and understand the English language?! Good Bye man, have fun! KhabarNegar ^Talk 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I believe banning the media of an entire country will create a severe systemic bias, especially in the cases of notability. But, before providing supporting evidences for my abstract statement, let me ask a more concrete question about your statement about "strict control by the Iranian theocracy" and your deduction about unreliability of the media based on it. Consider Iranian Students News Agency, can you elaborate on why you think this news agency is unreliable? Taha (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the same reasons that any other source under severe media control laws ought to be considered unreliable: it's freedom to perform the most crucial journalistic tasks, such as fact-checking and reporting truthfully without fear of retribution, is greatly impeded. According to Slate Magazine, ISNA's former director was "hauled into court on numerous occasions", once merely for reporting on Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner. The government also "no longer allows ISNA to cover the arrests of activists, students, or dissident journalists."[12]--Anders Feder (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is the simple logical flaw in your argument: "Not being allowed to publish on some subjects does not imply that the agency publishes false news." Hope it helps. Taha (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't help in any way or form. "Always having published made-up stories in the past does not imply that all stories published by The Onion are false" would not have been helpful either.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Dude, the examples are not the same: my example was to show that in order to show that an agency is unreliable, you need to provide evidence of falsification by the agency. Again, let me help you by repeating that to support your argument you need to provide concrete evidences of news falsification by Iranian Students News Agency.

BTW, I suspect that our discussion is a clear example of WP:DONTGETIT and I am not here to discuss things forever. Taha (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@طاها: Do I really? Please direct me to this page that says that I need to "provide concrete evidences of news falsification" by anything. It must be one of the many policies I've never come across yet. (BTW: If you suspect your behavior is an example of WP:DONTGETIT no one are requiring you to discuss anything forever.)--Anders Feder (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: As a practice, let me first explain where I got my statement and I will ask you to provide yours: Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) is a news agency (surprise!) and usually does not publish op-ed pieces. Thus, given the first paragraph of WP:NEWSORG plus one of the items there that states Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. it is crystal clear that in order to disprove reliability of ISNA, you need to provide concrete evidences of falsification. Now, your turn: please enlighten me how the fact that ISNA cannot report on some topics, makes its news on other topics false. Taha (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's as crystal clear as a piece of mud. There is nothing in the wording "should be assessed on a case-by-case basis" that suggests that I "need to provide concrete evidences of falsification" any more that someone would need to do so for some blog that someone set up and called their "news agency". Particularly in a country where people routinely wind up getting killed or tortured for cross-checking other bloggers' stories.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I am done. Good luck finding another user to argue with. Taha (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Media control in Iran is not as bad as it is advertised. The so called theocratic regime tolerates criticism towards pretty much anything including the executive branch of the government. There are a few items in the taboo region of the media mainly the supreme leader and religious values. Other than that, it is relatively open. If you are looking to save journalism you might want to focus on here. Cheers.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to disrupt the discussion with whataboutery please. Does censorship in Turkey make censorship in Iran better? As for the taboos of the supreme leader and religious values, which of those do these fall into: journalist given 6 months jail and 74 lashes for criticizing conservatives[13], newspaper closed for publishing an opinion disputing the legality of a certain detention[14], woman arrested for describing her previous arrest online[15], newspaper suspended for commemorating Hussein-Ali Montazeri's death[16], journalist jailed 6 years for "anti-government publicity"[17], filmmaker jailed 5 years for "anti-government propaganda"[18], newspaper suspended for publishing information "likely to disturb public opinion"[19], website blocked for publishing letter criticizing nuclear policy[20], etc., etc., etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder; I read your case and also read through some of the subsequent debates with your opponents. You seem so adamant to discredit all Iranian news agencies based on a series of allegations some of which despite seeming to be at least partially compelling, but are still debatable at a more fundamental level. As a person well familiar with Iranian and Islamic culture in particular and being a critique of Western Orientalist cultural biases on general, I hope to point out some of the flaws in your arguments which I think generally reflect some of the political/cultural biases of the Orientalist, Euro-centric discourse.

* First, you argue that Iranian media are not reliable for they "are controlled by the government and the theocracy." As for the merits of this above claim, first, if you it is the government regulation and oversight of the Iranian media that you are objecting to, then I think that is not whatsoever a practice confined to Iran. Ofcom for example is the British media regulation office, a government approved body, that claims "to represent the interests of citizens" and has a wide range of authorities over the British media. But that apparently has never been thought as discrediting the credibility of British media despite the fact British mainstream media are known to closely conform to the key policies of the British government. So the fact that a government controls or regulates its media is neither exclusive to Iran, nor does it, in and of itself, automatically undermine the credibility of media in any given country.

* As for your argument from ownership. Government ownership is not, in and of itself, a factor in deciding a news agency's credibility or lack thereof. BBC is a very influential media company which is funded by the British government, but despite that it is considered reliable by the Wikipedia standards.

* Your allegations of false/inaccurate reporting. Even given the veracity of your particular charges (which is debatable), they are hardly adequate to indicate a general trend of inaccurate reporting with a news agency. Moreoever, in comparison to the record of some of the Western media, I can argue that even a stronger case can be made against their reliability at least in covering certain fields, yet despite that these media sources are considered "most reliable" according to Wikipedia. A prime example is the notorious Iraqi WMD allegations that were uncritically picked up and propagated by some of the most influential Western media sources, and the repercussions as we know was a catastrophic war imposed on people of Iraq and also overwhelming financial costs inflicted on American and British taxpayers. Despite grave consequences of such a diabolical case of vehement public agitation by the Western media under a false pretext for war, it seems that nobody has effectively yet questioned the credibility of such sources as Foxnews, CBS or BBC at least for their reporting on Mid East, Iraq, Islam or Western governments' foreign policy!

* The other problem with your "control" argument is that you completely ignore the fact that indeed all media are in one way or another "controlled". The "villain" however is not just the "bad" governments that may manipulate the media for their political aims, but also even more critically the corporations that own some of the most powerful media companies in the world (example) and can use (as have used) them for advancing their 'financial' interests. Read Corporate media for this thesis.

Alright, I'm done for now. This turned out already too lengthy and so far I have only addressed the flaws in your arguments on the political side of things. I leave the cultural critique for later after a consensus on the above points is reached. Maybe I can hope the outcome of this exchange can be used to update the Wikipedia Systematic Bias. Thanks! — Strivingsoul (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Local (county level) politicians in the US

Are county level politicians usually considered notable or not?... The question relates to a recently created article on Jake Shade, a county commissioner in Maryland. I am not sure whether the subject passes our guideline for politicians or not. Please note that the article was just created today, so I am reluctant to jump right in and nominate it for deletion (at least not yet). I am asking more so I can advise the article creator on what our standards are... so he/she can try to improve the article (if possible). Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not without passing WP:GNG. The specific guideline is WP:POLITICIAN, and limits notability-by-position to statewide offices and higher. Even then, that guideline is on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page which says that the specific categories listed there are not prescriptive, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I express no specific opinion about Jake Shade, except to note that I'd find it surprising if there weren't at least a few articles in local or regional newspapers about him and his candidacy which would be enough to serve as reliable sources to at least support a stub about him. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK... that's what I thought. I will try to work with the article creator based on that. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Also take a look at WP:POLOUTCOMES. I kind of suspect that this person would not be notable at AfD because of being elected to office with 13,000 votes. County level offices normally aren't, and neither are city council members in smaller cities. His best bet is probably to have attracted at least statewide attention as a promising young politician. It also needs better sources. Facebook and college newspapers aren't considered reliable sources. (The college papers could stay, but they won't count toward notability.) I'd suggest looking for stories in major regional newspapers. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That matches my take as well. Don't know if the sources exist, but we do need to at least give it a try before we jump on a new article. thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

please publish article about the military award - right of line award. history, criteria, privileges and qualifications.08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)49.150.242.211 (talk) 49.150.242.211 (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

please create article about military award - right of line award, it's history, criteria, privileges and qualifications.49.150.242.211 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Notability. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Immediate merges as a solution to articles?

What is our policy / practice / best practice for the situation where one editor is against an article and so decides, unilaterally and without discussion, to redirect it or merge and redirect it, to another article?

I'm seeing a lot of this lately. A few examples [21], [22], [23] & [24]

We are supposed to be a collegiate project. We are supposed to work by group consensus. AfD et al generate list indexes so that those who wish to monitor what's going on can see them pass by. PROD allows time for some chance of a response. Even CSD isn't immediate. Most things here grind imponderably slowly, so why is this loophole for immediate single-opinion removal sanctioned?

What are the conditions when it might be appropriate to act in this way, as opposed to the visible routes? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are supposed to be expanded into articles, unilateral merges are not supposed to bypass PROD or AfD. You owe me € 0,02. Be..anyone (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See MERGEINIT which is part of WP:MERGING, an information page (which is a little more than an essay, but a little less than a guideline and claims some degree of community consensus), which says that BOLD mergers are acceptable if the editor feels that the need is "obvious," with the next step up from that being a local discussion, then up from that a listing at Proposed mergers. I don't remember where I saw it (based on my editing habits, it was probably somewhere at the Village Pump), but there was a recent discussion about either specifically allowing or prohibiting — I don't remember which — nominations at AFD when the nominator only nominated it to propose merger or nom'ed it for deletion but also proposed merger as an alternative, but I don't think that the discussion ended up going anywhere, but the fact that it happened, along with MERGEING, suggests that AFD is not generally regarded as the normal way to propose mergers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (PS: If this is a collegiate project does that mean that I'm not supposed to be editing here, since I graduated from college over 30 years ago? .)

No objections against the BOLD clause on this information page from my side, I know that BOLD and IAR are policies. And the last thing this wiki needs are more bureaucratic guidelines, style manuals, or any other instruction creep. But it should be really obvious, as in, nobody in possession of their marbles has a snownall's chance in hell to contest the undiscussed unilateral merge successfully. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more as to the probable intended meaning of obvious, but so long as we have anything short of a policy which absolutely prohibits redirects and mergers without some kind of discussion first (a policy which I would oppose, by the way: we need more housekeeping, not less, and redirects and mergers are not always controversial), then obviousness will always be in the eye of the beholder. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MERGEINIT gives this useful example, "This might be appropriate and easy where, for example, there are two stubs with nearly the same title with slightly different spellings. " Now that's obviously sensible and few would question it. The problem is that there are merges instead that are simple deletions by stealth. Look at my first example, Two Weeks with the Queen. This was taken to AfD to resolve the issue more clearly, where it was both expanded for sourcing and closed as a resounding keep with the remarkable comment, "I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below ". The original merger, unsurprisingly, sent it to an immediate second AfD. Where it collected a comment by an admin familiar with the book who had also been one of the few against keeping it the first time, " You don't get to just keep relisting pages you don't like until those who disagree aren't paying attention and the discussion is ended.". Firstly, thanks to Lankiveil for displaying an even-handedness that's getting rare these days. Their comment highlights the problem here: We also have to guard against the persistent and unrepresentative, because WP is often weak against the truly dedicated edit warrior. There is a theme developing where deletion by merge is simply becoming a short-cut to sneaking articles away when no-one is looking. That is no part of WP:MERGEINIT.

Hi Andy, I really appreciate the nice comment! For my own two cents, I don't have any problem with the actions taken by anyone up until the second nomination; boldly redirecting and then reverting, followed by a discussion, strikes me as the sort of thing that we should be doing. My only problem is that the discussion reached a conclusion, and was then extended on what I consider to be very thin grounds, based on a technicality. At some point, everyone sometimes need to realises that their view is not always the consensus view, and walk away. Now, in theory one might use WP:PM for this purpose, but they'd have to get around all the tumbleweed to do that. AFD is for better or worse where people comes, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we should propose binding merges or redirects there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

'Collegiate' BTW is from the root from collegium or 'partnership'. We're supposed to work here in the same way as the Fellows of a college are (also supposed) to operate: as a self-organising collaboration with minimal hierarchy and a respect for all viewpoints. Some however would prefer a magisterium of proper deference to those arbiters of all content decisions, the admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those examples you've given are perfect examples of where immediate redirection is the best choice. If someone wishes to come along later and provide third-party reliable sourcing for the articles, the material is still there for them to do so.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And one more word: BOLD redirects or mergers are just like any other BOLD editing here. If someone opposes it, they're free to revert and once that happens, the proper solution is to discuss, not re-revert. If discussion between the two editors in dispute is fruitless, then move on to the steps described in MERGEINIT, or nominate it for deletion at AFD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There were also other options. The Gleitzman novel had never been tagged for notability, so the editor could have done that. Or better yet check whether it was notable himself. It survived the AfD discussion rather easily, so if the editor had checked it probably would have been easy to find those book reviews and add them to the article. Instead he just glanced at what was in the article, decided it was unsatisfactory, and redirected, as 1 of 50 other things he did that day.

Also it's considered good practice when making a bold redirect to leave a note at the destination article so that other editors know that the redirected article existed. That wasn't done either. As it happens we were lucky that someone was watching. It could have just vanished with nobody being aware that it ever existed. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Options is exactly the right word. While virtually all that you say is best practices, editors almost always have the right to just do the minimum that's actually required. Unless they uniformly or consistently fail to follow best practices, which may show that they're not really editing in the best interest of the encyclopedia, then they're not really subject to any effective criticism merely because an occasional act does the minimum rather than the best. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true. About merge proposals and AfD, I think that discussion may have been this RfC. Basically I think it comes down to having good judgment, and you can do it if you are Andy. I would have tagged it myself. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Which Andy? The problem here is largely one of judgement: these one-act deletions-by-redirect are unreviewed and secretive (unlike almost anything else at WP). They rely on the judgement of a single editor. As Two Weeks with the Queen shows, this article began as an unclear article on a notable topic, although this notability was strong and hinted at fairly clearly, even if not sourced in the article. Poor judgement though vanished it. With the slightest review at AfD (never a good place, but often the last chance) the appropriate sources were added. This should have happened as part of WP:BEFORE the redirection, but poor judgement had skipped that part. The second ridiculous AfD, even after very clear sources had been addded, is just a typical behavioural problem.

WP needs practices that are robust against individual poor judgements. AfD helps to do that. Single-editor deletions-by-redirect do not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia even more desperately needs editors capable of understanding the difference between redirection and deletion. Any editor can undo a redirect, and, if the material being restored meets our fundamental policies and guidelines, can do so without any negative repercussions. That's not true of deletions. Now, it's quite true that this was a disruptive edit, because the material being restored did not meet our guidelines and policies. Had the editor that performed the reversion shown any grasp of our fundamental policies, he could have added the sources necessary to do so on the spot. Unfortunately, he apparently considered it to be an opportunity to attack other editors.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)