Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

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

RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

 – Hi everyone. Because this discussion has become so lengthy (a good 226,000+ bytes), I've moved it to a subpage of the village pump to make the village pump a little more accessible. I apologize if any confusion was caused by this. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC); added icon, 01:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN and essays

I have been thinking about WP:OWN and how it relates to WP:Essays. Essays often contain the opinions of a specific group of Wikipedia editors. But let's say that another group of editors comes along and significantly edits the essay... to the point where the essay no longer reflects the opinions of the original group of editors (perhaps to the point where it now states the complete opposite). If the original editors try to object (perhaps saying "Look, you can go write your own essay... please leave our essay alone"), the new group can just point to WP:OWN (and say "Nope... you don't own the page"). This bothers me. If one of the reasons for essays is to give editors a place to state opinions, shouldn't we provide some mechanism to protect those opinions? I am thinking that we should allow some degree of ownership when it comes to essay pages. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that an essay may ber edited by othger users only to the degree that it still expresses the same opinion. Of course, any user may create an attributed copy, and edit this copy to say anything they want. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No firm opinion here, just some thoughts:

• Is there a distinction to be made between user space essays and Wikipedia-space essays? WP:POLICIES already says that any essay that the author does not want changed should be in user space.
• A policy which says that a Wikipedia-space essay cannot be changed in a way that it no longer expresses the same opinion could be read to say that any change whatsoever causes it to vary from that opinion, since the Devil is often in the details.
• If we have a policy which says that essays can be OWNed, is that going to lead to a proliferation of essays with just tiny differences? For example one essay says that infoboxes ought to have colored backgrounds (and the color should be blue) and another says color, yes, but light blue and another says color, yes, but royal blue, etc. And if so, is that a problem?
• What about an amendment to OWN which says something like, "Since essays are the opinion of the author, a much higher degree of ownership-like conduct is to be tolerated in order to prevent the essay from moving away from the editor's original position. If an essay is located in an editor's user space, the author has the prerogative to modify or revert any changes made to it by any other user. In either case, however, the right to engage in ownership-like conduct does not allow the essay's author to delete or modify other editors' edits to the essay's talk page. Nothing here, however, is intended to allow edit warring over the content of any essay, wherever located."
• Who should be entitled to exercise OWNership of an essay? Only the original author? If the original author fails to defend an essay from changes, should that simply make it fair game for changes or should it trigger deletion or userfication of the essay?

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that most (I said most) essays in the Wikipedia namespace are there because they reflect a large portion of the community's views, though not large enough to elevate the essay to guideline status. Some of these essays are even used (successfully) as reasons for deletion at AfD. They may also be used to explain a portion of a policy page. If any of these essays were changed, this would likely be immediately noticed and reverted. The editor who made the initial change would then have to show why community consensus has changed to the point of having to rewrite the essay (essentially WP:BURDEN, but for the Wikipedia namespace). — Gestrid (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For anyone curious about the context, see the RFC at Citation overkill, where there is some discussion about whether the essay should be changed to (somewhat) encourage citation overkill, instead of to oppose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion about whether any essay should be changed to encourage citation overkill. The RFC is malformed and misinterprets others intentions. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

While that RFC certainly inspired my question, my question here isn't really about that RFC. I would like this discussion to be more general in scope... it can apply to many of our essays (especially those essays that express a minority viewpoint... cases where a group of editors disagree with broader consensus, and have written an essay to express their opinion) Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO, people should be able to OWN their essays, as that's what an essay is, it's an expression of one person's thoughts and opinions. If you disagree with those opinions, write your own essay. If an essay becomes important enough to be commonly cited, it should probably be promoted to a guideline, as happened with MOS:ICON (which was originally Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags). Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You have accurately described essays in user space. Those in the Wikipedia namespace represent the views of far more than one editor, and some of those gain enough support to be called "widely accepted" essays. Notably, WP:BRD is widely considered to be widely accepted, and it carries more weight than the average essay, but repeated attempts to promote it to guideline have failed. You are suggesting that it should therefore be moved to user space, and I don't think that's going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Self-correction: When did BRD get promoted from essay to "explanatory supplement"? Regardless, it was essay for many years, even years after it was widely accepted, and that was seen as a normal situation. WP:OSE is another example that still exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

BRD was promoted from essay to "explanatory supplement" in May 2012. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Supplement}}s are still essays, just a particular type of them. It's not a "promotion", but a categorization clarification that reflects an unusually high level of community buy-in regarding the thesis of the essay as (specifically) an explication of an already existing policy or guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

At the suggestion of another editor, an essay of mine (WP:RECEPTION) was recently moved from my user space to project space. As far as I'm concerned I lost ownership when that happened. If it evolves in a direction I don't like, I'm free to recapture my original ideas in another user essay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. If the community disagrees with the content so much that a consensus emerges that changes it beyond what you originally intended, you can always write another essay expressing your own unfiltered views. That said, it's perfectly legitimate for the community to 'protect' namespace essays even if they don't fully agree with them to preserve the original opinion, as is happening in the case that prompted this discussion. So I don't see a need to introduce a concept of ownership in namespace. Scribolt (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should those who spent time and effort to write an essay to express their viewpoint have to write another essay to express their viewpoint? After all, they have already gone through the time and effort to write one. Shouldn't the onus to write another essay be on those who don't share the original view of the one already written? And if the original (minority view) essay writers do write a second essay to express their unfiltered views, do they "own" that? what's to stop the majority from changing the second essay as well? When does it stop? Blueboar (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Because as Mike said, the second essay would be a user essay. Scribolt (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a user esssy if there are multiple editors who support it. Say the original version (now the second essay) reflects the views 20 editors... but 200 disagree with that view. The 200 can effectively silence the view of the 20 by constantly editing that view away. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not effectively silenced because anyone who wants to can still read it. It's not like it disappears. In your hypothetical example, I think that if 200 people felt strongly enough that something was inappropriate and needed to be removed or amended, then it should be userfied or changed. I disagree with your premise that just because multiple (2? 3?) editors think agree on something that that means it automatically deserves protected status in namespace. Namespace should mean that enough people tolerate it (even if they don't agree with it) for it not to be significantly changed in tone or content (as is happening on citation overkill, where editors are explicitly defending the essay's right to exist and not be compromised). If not enough people care enough about what an essay says to stop others from disrupting, the chances are that it doesn't say anything that other people find useful or relevant and if the author really wants to preserve it, then they can have it as a user essay and the multiple people that agree can still refer to it. Scribolt (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

hmm... a lot to think about here. thanks for all the replies. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss and Hawkeye7, BRD has been tagged as a supplement for years (since at least 2008, and it was tagged that way by the original author). But the {{supplement}} template itself was changed (not for the first time) to remove any mention of "essays" in December 2016. The change itself is not unreasonable, but some of the tags (e.g., the one on BRD) are no longer as obviously appropriate as a result of the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It can be tricky to distinguish between following the original author's topic for the essay versus the author's personal opinion on the topic. Take Wikipedia:Administrators' best practices as an example. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the topic would already fit into another page, are future contributors required to preserve the same best practices as written by the original author, or can they introduce new best practices? Can the original best practices be refined further or modified, or would this be considered a dissenting view that should be covered in a separate essay? In that case, does it make sense for one of these essays to be called "best practices"?

Another challenging aspect is how much of the original author's writing style should be considered part of the original message to be preserved. For this example, I thought the original tone was overly conversational in a way that personalized the advice from a particular non-neutral point of view. I felt this was detrimental to communicating the recommended best practices, as administrators could dismiss them as supporting that point of view. However I appreciate that others may think this is part of the original author's message and so is untouchable. Again some of the problem lies with the essay's title, which implies the content has gained general consensus. If the title more clearly identified the essay as one person's thoughts, there would be less need for the essay to be written from a neutral standpoint. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia-namespace essay is subject to all the same consensus rules/process as any other projectpage. So, no, consensus will usually not be in favor of inverting an essay to state its opposite. However, consensus often is in favor of moderating hyperbole, bullshit, demonizing of others, or an anti-policy, anti-consensus (i.e. WP:NOTHERE) thesis. This is what happened with WP:DICK and WP:DIVA, among others. Essays that cannot be salvaged in these regards, either due to their nature or due to OWNy behavior by particular parties, are regularly deleted or userspaced by WP:MFD. Consensus is also often in favor of introducing other viewpoints in their own sections, or at least linking to alternative essays. On the other hand, a userspace essay is an individual editor's personal opinion, and shouldn't be extensively modified by others without invite. Both kinds of essays can be forked, into either namespace, by someone else for further and different development. But this is not Essaypedia; we are not here to write essays, and any of them we have, in either namespace, should be helpful to the encyclopedia project and its editors as such (not as Internet users, or political pundits, or gamers, or parents, or whathaveyou), or they are subject to deletion per WP:NOT#WEBHOST policy. I don't think I'm suggesting anything at all new or different here, just stating the status quo.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Widely held (but minority) views

A question related to the one above. WP:POLICIES states that "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." My question is... how "widespread" does a "widespread consensus" have to be? Can an essay be considered to have "widespread consensus" if it is supported by a reasonably large and diverse group, or must the essay be supported by the majority of the community? In other words... how large/small a consensus should an essay have before it is moved from main policy space to userspace (or conversely from userspace to main policy space)? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, you'd have to consider the number of people who support this "widespread consensus", the strength of their views, the number of views on that subject, and also how far the essay departs from the "widespread consensus".

For example: Basically everyone is in favor of free content, we feel strongly about it, there's really only two views ("for" and "against"), and an essay that favored scrapping free content would be userified.

On the other side, we have a wide variety of views on how to interact with classroom assignments, no single view really holds a complete majority, and an essay that proposed, say, reverting student edits after the assignment seemed to be finished instead of minutes after the edit was made (perhaps with a justification about reducing time spent explaining policies) would not be very far from accepted practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally agreed. A simpler rubric, for anything more closely pertaining to Wikipedia itself than something vague like "free content", is this: It has widespread consensus if it's found in a Wikipedia policy, guideline, {{supplement}} essay, Help-namespace page with a long history, process page instruction section (like those found at XfD pages), or general essay that the entire community treats as a near-guideline (e.g. WP:AADD and WP:BRD). If it doesn't have that level of community-wide buy-in then the view does not have "widespread consensus". An essay espousing a view that doesn't have widespread consensus need not be userspaced; we have dozens that do not, including many that are pro and pro pairs. But an essay that contradicts widespread consensus definitely belongs in userspace, or should just be deleted if it isn't useful and seems not here to help the encyclopedia project. I've even seen users indefinitely blocked for having what amounts to such essays as sections on their user pages – any kind of "why Wikipedia sucks and and you all suck" kind of thing is a deletion candidate. So are "why this policy or guideline I hate must be torn down"-style anti-consensus rabblerousing pages. So are other anti-consensus things, whether they take "essay" form or not; I can think of pseudo-wikiprojects that were consensus-resistance canvassing farms, and were deleted at MfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to be careful how we respond to dissent. Something that is "consensus-resisting" or even "anti-consensus" today may represent the consensus in a few years. Ten years ago, opinions on many WP issues were very different to what they are now. Sometimes the way to move from a lone voice to consensus is to simply wait. (I realize that this opinion is itself anti-consensus...) Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a problem with citation overkill. I created a Citation underkill. It represents the consensus of at least one editor. Me! One editor can make a difference. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Compiling competing essays

A theoretical way to address this issue is to compile essays with competing views of Topic X into a single essay which reports the existence of the competing views, and tries to present each policy-compliant perspective in a fair manner. (Remember that non-polioy-compliant essays are subject to deletion through MFD etc.) But to do that would take a heap of cooperation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new response parameter to COI edit requests

Hi all. As a COI editor who sometimes makes requests on behalf of clients, I've been struggling with the length of the COI edit request backlog. It pretty consistently hovers around 170 requests, with many that are four months old or more.

I understand that the community is busy, and these requests can't take special precedence. However, an uncertain response time that spans months or more is a tough sell when I'm advocating to potential clients to work with me through Wikipedia's proper COI disclosure process.

As a partial solution, I propose creating a new response parameter to the {{request edit}} template, along the lines of "Revision needed." Editors could use this response to ask the original requester to update their request with additional detail or sources as needed before resubmitting. This would reduce the number of poorly formatted or ill-thought-out requests in the queue, so that editors can focus on reviewing the requests that are ready for thoughtful consideration and inexperienced COI editors can receive useful guidance on how to collaborate with the community. I also propose that COI editors be permitted to provide this response to certain COI edit requests, where it's applicable. To be clear: I am not suggesting that COI editors be empowered to accept or reject others' COI edit requests wholesale. This would simply be a way for COI editors to "give back" to the community by providing guidance to their peers and helping make the backlog less overwhelming for the NPOV volunteers who assist us.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts and feedback. Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds too much like the tail is wanting wag the dog. It is COI's who are causing the backlog. Aspro (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This proposal doesn’t reduce our workload but just creates a temporal displacement. It take more of an editors time to review (as other edits may have been made before an article can be reviewed and so the history will have to be searched as well to make sense of it all) so it will increase our workload. Suggestion to remove your frustration -Stop using WP to promote your clients business interests and encourage them into paying for an entry in trade directories etc. Aspro (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that WP:EPH exists that you can point users to. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is from Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Potential_process_changes. Read there for more of the history. Most edit requests from COI editors aren't good edits; I mentioned a half dozen bad ones back there. Still, a bit of help at reducing the backlog at User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable would be nice. I've dealt with about 10 of those, but can't do it alone. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Think the OP is playing with semantics here. There is no difference between Request edit & proposed "Revision needed." Has anyone noticed the second proposal : ”I also propose that COI editors be permitted to provide this response to certain COI edit requests, where it's applicable.” Translate: Paid COI's can then advise other COI's to use Request edit. There, you will find, unpaid volunteer editors that will be eager guide you through how to promote your company etc. with out you having to learn how to edit WP competently. After all, you're not interested in WP mission to spread free knowledge to all but just promote your own self interests. So let some other jerk do the work. Ref: ibid and in OP's own words: “Editors could use this response to ask the original requester to update their request with additional detail or sources as needed before resubmitting”. Notice she did not say We editors. To the OP: what did your last slave die of? Aspro (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: I hope you'll lighten your tone. Whether you like the idea or not, the OP is offering a suggestion to reduce the workload for volunteer editors, by proposing a recognized method for knowledgable COI contributors to offer advice to less knowledgable ones. I think it's a good idea, and I'd support it. As a longtime COI contributor (and longer-time volunteer) myself, I'd be willing to help offer feedback to make requests easier for volunteers to follow up. Moreover, there already is a request edit queue on Wikipedia for this purpose, and Jimbo Wales has asked volunteers to help, so paid editors feel less compelled to edit directly. And speaking from experience, a lot of this work is not about promoting clients, but simply correcting outdated information. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just as quick follow-up note, I think that Aspro might have missed that Mary isn't suggesting pointing COI editors to {{request edit}}, what she's saying is that "revisions needed" be added as a response parameter to close existing open edit requests that aren't appropriate in their current form. COI editors would help adding this response where it's needed, to close open requests that are problematic for editors to respond to, and give the requestors feedback on what they need to do to make their request appropriate to Wikipedia. Same as WWB Too, I'd be more than happy to jump in and help out with such an effort. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: I think you may misunderstand me. As 16912_Rhiannon noted, I'm proposing a new response parameter that would allow COI editors to help triage the incoming queue of COI edit requests, so that NPOV editors can focus on requests that are of high quality, and COI editors (including myself) can help their peers learn how to format and source their requests properly in order to create the least possible friction. Per WP:COI, of course, COI editors are not supposed to edit directly articles on which they have a COI; if they believe changes should be made (including basic factual corrections and updates), they must either use this edit request process or violate Wikipedia guidelines. And to be clear, regarding your "We editors" comment: I fully count myself as one of the COI editors who would take time to use this new response parameter to help reduce the load on other editors. I'm a Wikipedian too who regularly works to improve articles on which I'm NPOV. I'm sincerely trying to help the project here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me either. Think you have a brilliant idea to set the fox to guard the henhouse Aspro (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To be completely clear: I don't suggest empowering COI editors to approve or implement others' requests, just to provide guidance for improving the quality of poorly sourced or ill-conceived requests. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, You have these rights already! As a WP editor you already have the right to offer guidance to other less experienced editors! Also, if you have been grated reviewers rights, you can also improve the quality of poorly sourced or ill-conceived requests on flagged protected pages! Your argument appear to revolve around paid COI's being given a special privilege to have their edits short-cut our policies where we endeavour to treat all editors as equals. Reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Quote: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. Aspro (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

True we can do that now, although the new parameter could help to flag it in the queue temporarily (if in fact that's what MaryGaulke is suggesting) and allow volunteers to focus on requests that are more "ready for prime time". It would also probably help somewhat for the less experienced COI contributors to get some helpful response, even if it's not a final decision. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct—that is indeed exactly what I am suggesting. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, there is such a big fixation on the COI aspects that there is not enough awareness of how they serve it up to the reviewing editor.....whether their method makes it a big or small job for the editor that might put it in. My experience is that even very intelligent editors lack this empathy/understanding, and propose it in a way that would make it a very big job to put it in, thus impairing response to such requests. The best remedy/ forcing statement that I can give briefly is to say to give simple, explicit instructions for the requested edit. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• COI does not necessarily refer just to paid editors--it applies also to the person being discussed in the article, or those with a close relationship. Their help can be very useful in building up articles, and they should be encourage to contribute--in the proper manner. One good way of encouraging them is to respond to their queries quickly, and anything which will help people sort out which to reply to is useful. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) .

• @North8000: Agree—my thought is that this response parameter could be a way of getting more requests into a format that straightforwardly presents all the necessary information before a NPOV editor reviews them, removing some of the pain from the response process. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, that's clear enough. The OP wants to bypass NPOV review, thus removing the pain from paid editors! As pointed out above, if All animals are equal why should some animals be more equal than others ??? Aspro (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like while there may not be overwhelming interest in MaryGaulke's suggestion, respondents taking the suggestion seriously do not seem to oppose the motion. Since there is no lock on the template itself (and it was once extensively edited by another COI contributor) I think it would be a good idea to at least mock it up in user space and have a look. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Circling back on this—I have this on my radar and will share a mockup here when it's ready. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results

Example of sister project search results for "Brazil"

Apparently, the previous RfC was inconclusive on this point (or at least didn't have enough participants to establish a convincing consensus).[1] Instead of arguing about it, let's just see if there is consensus one way or the other and settle the matter. Should Wikibooks pages be included as part of the sister project results in Wikipedia search results? (See screenshot for an example.) Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As the previous RfC determined, the content in Wikibooks isn't worthy of being linked here. The sole voice to support inclusion only hoped that seeing the results in Wikibooks would draw drive-by editors away from dumping their useless content at en-wp. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Just noting that if Wikibooks is included I think it should be placed last. Users are trained to expect content in order of relevance, and in the Brazil example on the right, when they get to "World Stamp Catalogue" in the list of cross-project results, they are going to tune out, in spite of the fact that the Wikivoyage result lower down is very relevant to their search. Of the wikis included in cross-wiki search, Wikibooks content is probably least likely to be relevant, so it should go last. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question, This, that and the other: do you want Wikibooks included in or excluded from the search results? --George Ho (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Don't feel strongly either way, but favour inclusion over exclusion. Positioning might be a good thing to adapt, per TTO. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - There are other ways to cross-communicate and cross-contribute. However, saying that Wikibooks is "least likely to be relevant" implies that readers would not want to go to Wikibooks while using their own search terms. I like the "positioning" idea, but that depends on what the community wants and how the community would organize the projects in search results. Does the community want the results in this order: Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and Wikiquote? (Note that I excluded Wikibooks.) Or does the community want the results organized in relevance order, like this: Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, and World Stamp Catalogue?

  Meanwhile, why including Wikibooks if there's either apathy or not much enthusiasm toward the project Wikibooks? I appreciate the developers' work on improving the Foundation's search engine. However, if no one cares for Wikibooks, and almost no one is willing to complete the incomplete books, then don't include Wikibooks. There's no sense on including Wikibooks if the community doesn't care for it. Also, no sense on including it in contrast to the previous RfC discussion. Unless I see compassion and interest toward Wikibooks, which would prompt me into favoring the inclusion, I won't change my vote. George Ho (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC); changed vote, so see my new comment below. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  – The below "support" votes say limit the query or put Wikibooks to last. If that's the case, then maybe excluding the results from Wikibooks would be a safest bet until I see a newer, fresher enthusiasm toward Wikibooks. Including Wikibooks for the sake of including it, even when limited, is not a good adequate reason to support the inclusion, especially when (as said above) the enthusiasm toward Wikibooks is (nearly) absent. Wikivoyage was limited to just title matches, but the consensus allows the inclusion of Wikivoyage for various reasons, like free travel advertising and driving travel-guide editing out of Wikipedia. I don't see a case here, especially since the consensus seems rarely interested in the project. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Content is lacking; there are just 66 complete (featured) books, and incomplete books don't seem particularly useful to readers wanting to learn a topic. Wikibooks is also just not all that important, judging by the lack of interest in this RfC. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of Wikibooks in search results, but make it last, or organize results by relevance to search term. It could be incredibly helpful if Wikibooks has an entire textbook on a subject. I personally use the cookbook, and find that is very helpful when I remember to use it rather than a general internet search. Wikibooks becomes more useful when it is more visible, and I don't see the sense in hiding it from our readers and editors. The Simple English Wikipedia should be included, too. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - maybe make it so that Wikibooks is displayed only if the search string is matched in the page title. Wikibooks results tend to be mostly almost wholly irrelevant tangential mentions of the search string somewhere deep in a book page. Daß Wölf 19:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How would that help? E-textbooks are titled slightly differently. Type either "ESL" or "English as a second or foreign language" or "English", and you'll see partial matches in Wikibooks. Also, the titling varies, depending on b:Wikibooks:Naming policy. If you type in b:English, it redirects to "Subject:English language". Pinging Chris, This, that and the other, TheDJ, Jc86035, and Jack about this suggestion. --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Daß Wölf for response. Also, how would title matching help improve "chalupa" search results and include b:Cookbook:Chalupa? --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was an idea. The Wikibooks search engine is certainly lagging behind our other projects -- when I search for "chalupa" even on Wikibooks, the only result is b:False Friends of the Slavist/Russian-Polish. Daß Wölf 23:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but some tweaking might be necessary to avoid pointing to books that are only tangentially related to the search query. --Yair rand (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support goal of this project from the start..Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia . --Moxy (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Jimbo Wales mentioned Wikibooks at the very end of the video, Moxy. It's been 14 years since its creation. Some books are completed, most of them Featured Books. By the way, I typed "risotto", and it doesn't include b:Cookbook:Risotto. --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So your suggesting we improve the search engine.....they are doing just that. Best to try to improve what we have over pusing it under the rug. We need to put our efforts in to problem solving. Your examples are a great starting point.--Moxy (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

b:Cookbook:Risotto could be a very helpful search result. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: this seemed rather strange to me. When looking into it, I realized you cannot even find that cookbook on en.wikibooks itself. I think I have found the cause of that in phab:T170473 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm, TheDJ... you can configure advanced search, select whichever namespace(s) you want to search through, and... voila. :D --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The default setting should normally search all content, not just main space. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment regarding purpose of this project from the beginning: Wikipedia actually came from Larry Sanger, the man who did most of the heavy lifting. We should ask Larry Sanger, the man who actually created Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Hmm... At first QuackGuru, I thought the source was misleading because it doesn't mention Wikibooks and because it's about including the project in the search results. But then... I used Ctrl+F, typed "search", and found what it said: "More users meant more articles, and more articles meant more search engine results, which brought in even more users. It was a snowball effect that would send Wikipedia traffic – and content volume – into the stratosphere." A nifty quote, admittedly. Still, I wonder how it helps to persuade me into supporting the inclusion of Wikibooks. We already have live cross-wiki search results and included Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource. --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  What is the quality of Wikibooks? What does the WMF say about adding it to the search results? What did QuackGuru mean? Others can decide for us? QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Well... I was thinking the third question, QuackGuru. I could answer other questions if I can. Sorry about the previous response; I was either confused or unsure whether your comment was an attempted humor. My apologies if you feel offended. George Ho (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've found Wikibooks to be helpful when learning programming languages, and think it's a valuable thing to link to as a side matter. No doubt the search results need some refining, but that can happen over time. Legoktm (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- aren't Wikibooks collections of Wikipedia articles to begin with? If so, there's no need. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: No, you're thinking of Wikipedia Books. Wikibooks hosts original free content textbooks. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: Some or many pages were imported from Wikipedia or Wikiversity, like b:Cookbook:Zippuli from Zippuli. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • • It should be noted that content has gone in both directions, where I have personally moved Wikibook content to Wikipedia to start new articles here.... usually from misguided folks who simply didn't know where to put the content. Also, Wikiversity started on Wikibooks and was hosted on en.wikibooks for nearly five years before moving onto its own server. en.wikibooks also used to be multi-lingual and hosted every language version of Wikibooks at one point. Content has been moved to Commons, Meta, and even onto Wikia servers at various points of time... for better or worse. That from time to time content is also started on Wikipedia and gets moved to Wikibooks is more of a style issue and depends on the content, but Wikipedia is usually not the seed from which books are created. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment--@Fram, Dlohcierekim, Beetstra, and WhatamIdoing:--Pinging participants of the prev. discussion.Please share your views on the regard.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - As a long time admin at Wikibooks and somebody who can be asserted as a champion of the project, I am utterly dismayed at the lack of understanding of what the project even is based on many of the above comments. I might add that among the various users of Wikipedia that are clueless about what Wikibooks is about includes Jimmy Wales himself, even though he supported its creation based upon a policy discussion here on the Village Pump. The featured books would indeed be valuable to link in terms of search results, and as for the incomplete books.... those can and ought to be treated as if they are stubs no different or as complete as stub articles here on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I'd say that the skills necessary to flesh out and finish a book on Wikibooks are far more difficult than it is to flesh out a Wikipedia article (having done both... I can say this with experience). Particularly for featured books, they should definitely be linked in appropriate Wikipedia articles (and usually are I might add). That the project could use some loving from its bigger sister on Wikipedia is no doubt, but I'd also invite those who might not know about Wikibooks to any great extent to simply go over the the project and check it out... and help out if possible. It would be nice for the project to have a search engine display some results potentially to encourage more readers, but frankly I'm personally neutral either way. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Policy on location of RfCs

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.

---

This page is currently 636,434 bytes long. I suggest we remedy this by having RfC on sub-pages, with a short, neutral, notice posted here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose such a general rule. This takes away a lot of attention from the RfCs (makes them much harder to notice if you only check your watchlist and not the entire page). It may be justified on a case-by-case basis when some RfCs become overwhelmingly large. —Kusma (t·c) 13:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the principle of a general rule, Strongly support doing so for individual, lengthy RfC like the referrer one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• We are three days from closing the RfC on referrers. It is a bit long, but it is hard to predict when you post an RfC how many people will respond. I will make it a point to see that it gets archived leaving a link to it shortly after it closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Since it has gotten so lengthy, I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly moved it to a subpage at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Proposal seems to be analogous to AfDs which work well? We could even have RfC sorting postings . . ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  AfDs suffer from terribly low participation. I disagree that they "work well". —Kusma (t·c) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that longer RfCs may need to be moved to a subpage, but not by default. Besides RfCs are held at numerous locations, not just at Village pump but also on article talk pages, noticeboards, etc. — Music1201 ^talk 17:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: per user Music1201's rationale especially concerning default moving. Moving longer RFC's on an individual basis is a given. Otr500 (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This page is now 175,000 bytes. 251,311 bytes. After several days the enormous school-template RfC (now closed) can also be one-click archived, which should get the page down to 100,000 bytes or less. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC); edited 10:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support when the RFC discussion is long. I think it's fine to start them here (or on other pages), but when the discussion is long, then it should be moved to a subpage. (That solves lots of archiving problems as well.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose generally. If RfCs get incredibly long, it's a good sign they should have been started on a subpage to begin with with notices, but most RfCs are fine here and benefit from the exposure. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 4 July 2017 (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.

Archiving blanked sections of other users' talk pages on one's own talk page?

Hey, I'm not sure of the appropriateness of this.[2][3] I know that everything is properly attributed and the like so that there is no "licensing" problem or anything, but as "saved" there is no apparent indication that the conversation originally took place somewhere else, and it does seem to go against the spirit of our being allowed to blank our own talk pages. Has this kind of thing come up before? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if there is a policy reason for it, but it seems to be pretty POINTy. Everything that you all have said is already available until the WMF goes bankrupt and shuts down the servers in the revision history. I can't think of a reason why it would be necessary to move something like that if one party made it clear they did want to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For goodness' sakes, people - there is such a thing as asking. I assume that this [4] fixes things? Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing with that, though? Drafting an ANI report? I disagreed with you on an AFD, and you kept posting non sequitur arguments and demanding responses, then when I had made it quite clear I wasn't interested you took it to my talk page, where I again explained I wasn't interested, let you have the last word anyway, and then blanked the section, to which you responded by copying it over to your user space. I have no idea why you would want to preserve it any form (including a permalink). I assure you, I am not going to get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for wanting to work on articles rather than talk philosophy with you. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not feel that you need another ANI appearance, Hijiri. I simply want to have ready access to both of those "conversations", for the next time I am optimistic about moving dialogue to a talk page from a discussion page. And for gosh sakes, your characterization that I "kept posting non sequitur arguments and demanding responses" is entirely counterfactual, since I didn't post any nonsequiturs (as explained by now ad nauseum) nor did I "demand" any "responses". If you stop asking me questions ("What are you doing with that, though?") and mis-stating my comments ("wanting to ... talk philosophy") then I can promise you a voluntary, one-way IBAN on my part. :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no policy issue that comes to mind. In general it's a good idea to annotate copied conversations with some indication of their source (something like This thread copied from User talk:TenOfAllTrades would do) just to avoid confusion down the line about who said what on which page—and to aid in locating diffs, should that become relevant. I've very occasionally copied threads onto my own talk page to consolidate discussions and keep records all in one place; in due time they roll off into my archives with everything else on my talk page. Having the text unblanked on a page somewhere means that it can be searched, which is sometimes useful—but that searchability is also sometimes a valid reason to ask for content to be blanked, depending on the circumstances.

Editors are allowed (in most circumstances) to modify and blank their own user and talk pages; that privilege works both ways. I can silence you and remove any record of our discussion on my talk page, but you can keep a full record in your own user space.

Personally, I don't sweat my talk page much. I'll roll back vandalism and block-evading trolls, but pretty much everything else stays where it is until the next archiving. If someone shows up and is abusive, I'll let them look silly. If I make a mistake, I try to own up and apologize. Other people have different philosophies for maintaining their talk pages. To each his own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability for electronic devices (including mobiles)

Hi
Since almost a month now, I have been having discussions about a notability guideline for electronic devices, which resulted in an essay.

Recently, the situation that I was describing came in effect, when an editor created 16 articles for cameras, all of which are being considered for deletion 3 PRoD, and 13 AfD.

The essay is almost finished, but I would like more opinions/suggestions on it. Maybe it will not become an official guideline/policy, but I think it should be treated at the least as an essay. The essay is currently in userspace, if consensus is achieved theb it can be moved in mainspace.

Here is the essay: User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices).

Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)

A short-lived move request at Talk:Boeing Insitu ScanEagle#Requested move 6 July 2017, now withdrawn as wrong venue, established that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), a titling guideline established by WP:WikiProject Aviation, has a de facto community consensus based on its longstanding presence in the listbox at the top of Wikipedia:Article titles (the link text there is "Aircraft"). The project's guideline is contrary to titling policy including, in many cases, WP:PRECISE. If there has ever been a community-level discussion, nobody has found it yet or claimed that one exists.

Is this an adequate substitute for the formal community approval required by WP:CONLEVEL? Or, should the project seek that approval now? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Even stuff linked as "see also" and "further information" in polices does not become policy or guideline merely because of the reference. That goes double for stuff in templates, such as listboxes. All of those pages are ended independently of the policy or guideline and aren't reviewed with the same care as the policy. Just as notability isn't inherited, neither is policy status. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, nearly all of the subject-specific naming conventions and a good many of the subject-specific style advice pages predate WP:PROPOSAL.

At this point, you should either treat it like something with no (non-historical) connection whatsoever to any self-selected team of editors (including, but not limited to, WikiProject Aviation), and therefore propose changes just like you would propose changes to WP:AT itself, or – if WikiProject Aviation asserts priority – it should be WP:MOVEd back into the group's 'namespace', e.g., WP:WikiProject Aviation/Naming conventions (in which case, a non-participant should no more edit that page than you would edit an essay in someone else's userspace).

What we do not want is for the page to be in the Wikipedia: namespace and to be treated like a community-wide guideline, but only for certain self-selected editors to be permitted to decide what it says. So either it's everyone's, and you're free to edit it, or it's not, and the page needs to be moved. (The WP:PROJPAGE guideline probably has links to suitable tags if it ends up getting moved.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do with possible family editing FA about dead person?

Today, somebody using an IP (whose edit summary indicates they might be a family member of Bud Dunn) added info to the article that considerably changed what was there about Dunn's children. The article is FA and has been for about 10 months now. If the info was obviously false I'd revert, but they provided bare urls for sources which do back up what they are saying and seem to be reliable. Unfortunately, they also go against what all the book and newspapers I had used as sources in writing the article said. I really don't know what to do; just revert, or fill in the urls, or ask the IP to fill them in since they added them, or just assume their sources are wrong and the 20+ others are right. I don't know. What makes it even weirder is the IP said the article was a great job except for the part about the children. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Having a COI doesn't make them wrong. Often, it makes them right. I would just go to the talk page and start hashing out the sources and to be honest, I might lean towards what the IP put in, as they may have a COI but there is no financial gain from it nor "evil" intent in putting in sourced corrections. Having conflicting sources isn't that unusual, so again, I would give a little extra faith in the IP if the sources check out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of what I was leaning towards. I have seen some instances where an editor had a COI and it wasn't like they were making money off it, but somebody else saw it as an issue for them to edit something they had a real life connection with. Since this is an FA I figured it might be particularly contentious. I'll probably post on the IP's talk.White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep one set of data and reduce the other to a footnote and write a few sentences about the sourcing situation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I may end up doing that, although upon rereading some of the original sources they do imply Dunn was married more than once and therefore his children had two different mothers. I guess they didn't say it because that wasn't as common back then. For now I'm leaving the IP edits and have left them a friendly talk message. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find at Familysearch, do you have a free account there and know how to find original documents indexed there? Looks like Kentucky does not have a marriage index like California and Connecticut does. OK, I confirmed their changes from the Kentucky Vital Record Index (1911-1999). When an obituary calls the last wife, the mother of all the children it is correct, even though she is the stepmother, and has no biological connection to the children. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't have a familysearch account. I didn't know that about the stepmother being called mother, although I wonder if the last wife might have formally adopted one or more of the children if they were minors and living with him when she married Dunn. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• The obituary called the first daughter "stepdaughter Billy Ann Yeomans", that may be why I didn't find her in the birth index. Did the family change her from stepdaughter to daughter? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Billy Ann was stepdaughter to Charlotte Dunn, the second wife, but a daughter to Bud Dunn by his first wife. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't blank but archive talk pages.

I know that "blanking" on Wikipedia is essentially the same as archiving (but without the search 🔍 results being shown). But it just seems useless to have a bot blank IP talk pages when archives can be created, it would seem better if IP addresses got archives than were being blanked. Sure "newbies" who use new IP's will be amazed by it, but by creating archives we will keep relevant discussions searchable, blanking helps no-one. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we really have a bot doing this? I was editing as an IP address since 2005 before recently creating this account and my previous IP address' pages were never blanked. It's possible that for some ranges with a header like school blocks those are regularly restored. On the other hand, most of those messages are user warnings, I'm not sure how useful it would be to have those among search results. Also, archives would be likely to be pruned by IP address editors because they would often not be related to that person's activity. If they were protected, this would be non-standard practice. —PaleoNeonate - 14:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think IP talk pages should be archived properly, because it's much better than rooting through revision history, as well as recording the history of the IP in question for reference. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)

Recently, there has been some confusion on whether or not the 7 July 2017 UNESCO decision to list the Old Town of Hebron, specifically the Cave of the Patriarchs, as a World Heritage Site, can or cannot be listed in the main list of World Heritage Sites in Israel. I have proposed that it be listed there, while other co-editors have disagreed with me. Wikipedia policies outlined in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) do not specifically deal with the historical/geographical aspects of sites in the West Bank and which places were, in antiquity, called by different names. For example, the geographical place known as the "Land of Israel" is also a country historically defined as such in the Midrash and Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). Saying that a place (Hebron) is in the Land of Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or whatever, is NOT necessarily a political statement, as it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," the resentment in having Hebron or the Cave of the Patriarchs listed there may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsoever about its historical connections to these geographical names. If UNESCO wanted to politicize something, as in the recent case involving Hebron (see: UNESCO puts Hebron on endangered heritage list, outraging Israel), does that mean that we, on Wikipedia, must also politicize the same thing? Of course not! Please clarify Wikipedia's policy in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) with respect to the use of geographical names used in antiquity, and which are NOT meant to offend any ethnic group, per se, but only mention its historical context.Davidbena (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what claim is being made here. The page World Heritage Sites in Israel references the modern country Israel, not the historical Land of Israel, as is true of all of the Lists of World Heritage Sites by country. The list for Russia, for example, would be quite different if it were based on the historical Russian Empire. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on Davidbena's argument, we would also list sites in Ireland, the United States (east of the Mississippi River), Canada, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia and so on as being in the British Empire. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The one difference being that the countries you've mentioned, their borders have changed, but in Israel's case, the borders are the same, and the ancient geographical names are still being used today for these places. Why deny the obvious?Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"The borders are the same"? Are you trolling? If you think that Israel extends to, and beyond, the Litani river, you had better inform the government of Lebanon.

Lists of UNESCO World Heritage sites are clearly intended to be classified according to current political boundaries, not irridentist fantasies. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For the most part, the borders are indeed the same. But what you have said about Lebanon (although it has no bearing on the point that we wish to make here about ancient topography), Josephus mentions the land of Judea and Galilee under Herod's Dynasty extending to places that were, prior to 1967, held by Syria (i.e the Golan Heights), but this is a regression. What we are mainly concerned with here is NOT to delineate the modern-day border of Israel based on the old, but rather to simply recognize that old appellations for the country (Canaan/Palestine/Judea/Israel) would include within them Hebron, a thing admitted to even by the Palestinian Arabs. Therefore, the old appellations are still relevant. There is no such thing as "fantasy" when historians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish, Greek, Roman or otherwise) have given multiple names to the same country, and which "naming conventions" of old are still being used in academic literature, and often have more of a historical/geographical bearing on the ancient sites today, than do any political considerations.Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The "argument" you offer has exactly the same bearing on the Russian Empire. I have seen no rejoinder to that. The list pages for UNESCO sites only refer to current boundaries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My friend, in a historical context, one may also mention the old names given for the Russian Empire. Here, in this case, however, where the Land of Israel is concerned, it has NEVER lost its appellation. Let's say that you were a geographer, or a historian, and you had mentioned the site of Hebron in its historical context (Canaan, Palestine, the Land of Israel, Judea or the Holy Land), it would still be relevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern-day disputes over the site's location, or whether or not Israel has sovereignty over the country known as the "West Bank," a matter currently given-over to dispute. If you feel that Hebron cannot be listed under the name "Israel" because of its political status or its implied connotation, that can be remedied by adding an asterisk after the word "Israel" on the page, World Heritage Sites in Israel, making it clear that the term Israel as used here is only a geographical location, one and the same as Palestine, Judea and Canaan, when used in a historical context. Otherwise, we run the risk of infringing upon WP:IMPARTIAL. To steer clear from partiality, in this case, let us add an asterisk with an explanation.Davidbena (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So... you want us to put a star * next to a load of Jews? I'll get my coat... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The tag Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel was recently added to Cave of the Patriarchs. I removed it, and there is now a discussion fork on this topic underway at Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs#Categorisation with respect to status as World Heritage Site. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(Re-paste of argument). The use of the category, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," ought to be considered valid with respect to the Cave of the Patriarchs and/or the Old Town of Hebron for the simple reason that its being designated as a World Heritage Site is irrelevant of the country, seeing that the identification of the place itself is undisputed, although the UNESCO board members have opted to take a political stand by not calling the country of its location "Israel," using instead the word "Palestine." The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country, the one word used in place of the other by Jews and by Arabs. Moreover, seeing that the final borders of the "State of Israel" with respect to the Palestinians have yet to be finalized, and by saying that Hebron is not in Israel proper, you have taken sides in this argument. Secondly, it was Great Britain who first decided to partition the country known as "Palestine" by dividing it into two sovereign regions, which never came to fruition. Considering the history of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to 1948, Britain decided in 1936 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948, published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166: "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews." (End Quote). In this matter, nothing has been resolved. Still, prior to these recommendations, the area of Hebron was called by Jews and Arabs "Palestine," as was it called in classical Hebrew literature dating back to the 2nd-century CE "the Land of Israel." It is not our place to politicize the situation, simply because UNESCO wishes to do so. By that logic, Hebron is a "no-place" - neither in Israel, nor in Palestine. It would be outrageous to actually say such a thing.Davidbena (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this discussion open both here and at AN? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Here, it is open because of the desired or expected outcome, namely, of bringing about either a "modification" or "clarification" in Wikipedia's stated policy with respect to naming conventions used in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially since what has happened with UNESCO's decision to list the "Cave of the Patriarchs" in Palestine. There, on WP:AN, its purpose is to achieve agreement as to the use of a category called "World Heritage Sites in Israel.".Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an element of forum shopping in having three active discussions. Nonetheless, let me repeat my comments from Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs: There are no World Heritage Sites in Biblical Israel or Mandate Palestine for the simple reason that all WHS have been designated since 1972. Machu Picchu is not a "World Heritage Site in the Inca Empire," because these two terms never overlapped in time. When we say "by country" we mean the present, without feeding the extralegal ambitions of either side in international disputes.--Carwil (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only does this appear to be a case of forum shopping; there also seems to be an element of disingenuity by the editor originating these discussions, who advances different (even tangential) arguments in each of the three fora. I would suggest that, right now, there is no evident desire to revise the naming conventions for West Bank articles (which would require an eventual RfC anyway, rather than being resolved in any of the fora in which Davidbena has raised the question); those interested in the specific case ought to address the most active discussion, which seems to be at Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs#Categorisation with respect to status as World Heritage Site. For my response to the editor's bizarre argument that because borders have not been finalized that therefore the effective borders of the state of Israel are coterminous with the historical Land of Israel, and that any other view is "politicizing the situation", see the discussion at the aforementioned talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to User:Davidbena, I was the one who opened the third discussion at Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs. I was aware of the discussion here, but unaware of the one at AN. However in contesting the categorisation I felt the article's talk page would be the proper venue. I apologise for adding to the confusion, and for not notifying this discussion immediately upon opening the thread. Snuge purveyor (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take some responsibility here too, actually. I should have opened a discussion on the talk page when I saw one beginning here (and later on AN). The talk page discussion should always happen first, before any forums are consulted/shopped. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL: Since, as far as historical topography is concerned, no juridical legitimacy or anything "binding" can be ascribed to UNESCO's decision of 7 July 2017 to mention the Old Town of Hebron (the Cave of the Patriarchs) as a World Heritage Site in Palestine, anymore than its decision earlier (in 2001) to mention the fortress Masada as a World Heritage Site in Israel, as you can see here: UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Israel, although both places are located in the so-called "West Bank" captured by Israel in 1967 (or what some hope to be the future State of Palestine). UNESCO's use of nomenclature in this most recent matter is based purely upon political motives. However, in terms of Wikipedia's recognition of this unresolved border dispute, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous proposal; clearly Wikipedia should maintain the category "World Heritage Sites in Israel" according to the same principles used for all of the other categories for World Heritage Sites by country, using currently accepted national borders. The adoption of so-called apolitical toponyms as a cover for irridentism would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would be no more appropriate than categories classifying World Heritage Sites by the historical borders of the Russian Empire or of Poland. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, historical/geographical names such as "Canaan," the "Land of Israel," "Palestine," "Judea," - are all used for one and the same country, as is well-known. As for what you claim to be an "ulterior motive" of mine (or being, as you said "irredentist"), meaning to say that I am seeking to advocate the restoration of territory to my country (or what was formerly thought of as such), that notion is incorrect, as Israelis do not need the world's approval or disapproval, as G-d is our witness. Still, in your allegations about me, you have not assumed WP:Good Faith with me and with these rather sane proposals. But let others, here on Wikipdia, be my judge. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not confuse historical regions with contemporary countries; the categories for UNESCO sites by country use contemporary names and accepted borders and should do no other.

Your argument that "Israelis do not need the world's approval or disapproval, as G-d is our witness" to restore territory to your country "or what was formerly thought of as such" is precisely an irridentist argument. I did assume good faith when you began this discussion, Davidbena, but you exhausted that assumption long ago; you also seem not to hear what others are saying, in spite of several editors raising similar objections to your arguments as I have raised. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My friend, my only objective here is to resolve disputes, rather than create new ones. So far, you are the only one who has responded here, after submitting my proposals. Let's wait and see how the administrators will handle this issue.Davidbena (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Right after we move the old city to world heritage sites in Judah. This whole notion that Israel is eternal and undividedly belonging to the Jewish is hopeless fringe POV (in terms of available scholarship on the subject which shows that the historical reality of "Jerusalem as a capital of Israel" was much more complex) - but forget about that, it is a fiction - fortunately this is not that complex or confusing, it is not a world heritage site in Israel, which cant mean anything more then a UNESCO designation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

SIMPLIFIED REVISED PROPOSAL: As per Wikipedia's recognition of the unresolved border dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.Davidbena (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't just ignore UNESCO's own designation, which is what this category is about, for no reason other then editorial POV. Attempts to present this as WP:NPOV are ill-conceived, to say the least. If you actually read WP:NPOV it has nothing to do with the kind of reasoning that is being presented here, which has nothing to do with WP:RS and basically amounts to "if I don't like it it's not neutral". Editors are really getting tired of this. While there has been criticism that can be briefly noted in the article, it can't be categorized as a "World Heritage Site in Israel" because it's not one. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Friend, my contention is that you cannot call half of the country "Palestine" and half of the country "Israel," when both toponyms were used for ONE and THE SAME country. Besides, it was the British who first proposed dividing the country in 1937, and which proposal eventually led to a war between Jews and Arabs, each trying to gain as much control of the country as possible. As far as borders are concerned, nothing has been resolved between the two parties in this dispute ---- a dispute, mind you, which I call one of the great "political intrigues" of the 21st century! Have a good day (here, it's evening).Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This is now clearly not an issue about the World Heritage Site, but rather a general issue of nomenclature for the entire West Bank and Gaza. Revisiting the current consensus would require a well-formulated RfC, at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That has been the entire foundation of this argument from the beginning. It's only WP:NPOV, if the whole country is Israel. Why not treat the whole country as Palestine instead and include all World Heritage Sites in both categories? That is the only way this proposal could be construed as neutral, otherwise we have no choice but to adhere to UNESCO's own classifications without imposing editorial POV on them. This "half of the country" language is fringe POV―Israel is a modern state that was created through modern quasilegal processes, it has no other existence and never has (except as a mythological concept and a reality that all kinds of scholarship and evidence has shown was far removed from that mythology). What everyone else is talking about is Israel as a nation-state, not Shangri-La, and the recognized borders define the entire country. Even the partition is disputed by some, but views that "the whole country is Israel" or "the whole country is Palestine" are generally regarded as equivalently outside the mainstream. The mainstream view, reflected in UNESCO's decision, is that settlement activity beyond the agreed upon borders of Israel is illegal, and that Hebron is not within those boundaries. What you are proposing is a pretty unworkable position in terms of WP:NPOV. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Friends, @Newimpartial: and @Seraphim System:, editors have been "politicizing" the situation since who-knows-when. But why do you insist on politicizing the situation when it negates Wikipedia's stated policy? As you can see here, the Israeli objection to calling regions of the country by two names - the one "Palestine" and the other "Israel" - based on political motives, or more precisely, on the now defunct 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, is what we are dealing with here. (For the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, see discussion here [Green Line]). Israelis view the entire country as one, but to give two separate names for two regions of the country is inherently wrong and is based on perpetuating an errant political stand taken by the British in 1937 who sought to divide the country. Moreover, the 1949 Armistice Agreement is no longer binding. While some might refuse to recognize Israel's de facto claims and hold of this territory, hoping to return to the pre-1967 border, the reality is such that the entire country is called "Israel" by the Israelis who live here. What's more, in a broader sense, the country's historical and geographical names have never changed, whether Palestine or the Land of Israel. So, I object to your claim that this discussion isn't about the "World Heritage Sites in Israel," as it still is. As for Wikipedia's naming conventions, the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed. My proposal is to leave the "West Bank" just as it is (since it only describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan), but to add a disclaimer there, stating to the effect that Wikipedia's use of the words "Palestine" and/or "Israel" are meant to be understood apolitically, and as purely geographical-historical terms used in antiquity. In this manner, we steer clear from politicizing the situation. Whenever editors mention "Israel" and their intent is to describe a political case involving the State of Israel, or the Government of Israel, the words "State of Israel" or "Government of Israel" should preface their editorial entry. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hebron is not recognized as part of Israel by the United States, and even if it were that would not help Israel or the United States. Palestine is considered a state now, and the only place this is heading is straight to the ICC, or possibly other courts, where all the wonderful youtube videos of people saying "the whole country is Israel" will be available for prosecutors in the future. Fact finding is not as difficult when people openly admit to genocidal intent on youtube, but no, it is Palestine and to say otherwise may satisfy several of the demanding requirements for genocide under the law, so why don't you stop and certainly do not drag Wikipedia into it. What I am trying to tell you is recent developments in genicide law have shown that courts may not require a state policy and may bot require as dramatic an actus reus as you imagine, if the intent requirement is met so certainly anyone who is stating an intent to destroy Palestine as a nation, which is what this amounts to, may not understand how serious what they are saying is. It isn't cute, it isn't benign, and it isnt WP:NPOV, the majority of scholarship including legal scholarship is in agreement that the settlements in Palestine, and Hebron, are illegal - Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece to legitimize fringe and hateful right wing POV, we dont tolerate it for the KKK, we dont tolerate it for neo-nazis and I certainly hope we dont tolerate it from the Israeli right either. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For example you just suggested that we rewrite the policy to state that "Palestine is a historical-geographic term used in antiquity" - I have literally seen people indeffed for much less then this when the comments could be construed as "anti-semitic" - so, what you are suggesting is that we use "State of Israel" for Israel, and Israel for Palestine? Are you actually being serious right now? - I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, I actually can not tell if you are seriously proposing this. Whatever your intentions are, and I will assume you are acting in good faith, it's disgraceful and sad that this discussion is being allowed to continue like this is a reasonable proposal that should be entertained. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're politicizing the situation, and you've taken-up a non-neutral position, in defiance of WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL, besides having stated that "Palestine is considered a state now", when, in fact, it is NOT a sovereign State. We all know that International Courts are not unassailable, so whoa! Hold back your horses and try to proceed in this case on neutral ground. Why use such harsh derogatory words as "genocidal intent"??? That's a clear regression from the topic here. And, yes, I see nothing wrong with using "Palestine is a historical-geographic term used in antiquity." Have you never read English translations of Al-Muqaddasi's description of Palestine, or Al-Tamimi, the physician's use of the word Palestine? Have you never read where the Mishnah (Kelim 1:6), compiled in 189 CE, mentions the "Land of Israel"? All are used in a pure historical-geographical context.Davidbena (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are wasting our time with strawman arguments at this point. I'm not "politicizing" anything, there is nothing political about what I'm saying beyond the general effect of the massive press attention it would attract, I am telling you my understanding of the current situation based on many different sources, including recent scholarship and law cases, is that this is a very serious matter. The majority of sources, far from accepting the position that "There is no Palestine" seem to be discussing which of a variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity would be the best legal fit for the facts of the occupation in the territories. This isn't my POV, it's my understanding of the situation based on a lot of sources, including the recent activity of the UN. You can think the UN is just being flippant with this most recent designation, but the proposal that Wikipedia should declare that UNESCO is a politically motivated anti-semitic agency and that we should alter our policies to favor your POV on this basis should probably be worth at least a trouting.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The decisions passed at the UN are often biased, as we all know. I have never once suggested that "there is no Palestine." For me, Palestine, the Land of Israel and Judea are one and the same country. Our duty as editors is to remain NEUTRAL in political disputes. My proposal will help ensure this, and will help remedy a problem that currently exists. There is nothing wrong with mentioning aspects of the political morass inherent in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this can be done with civility, and without taking sides in this issue.Davidbena (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So, you think you are neutral, and everyone else is biased? That because Palestine and Israel "are one and same country" for you anyone who disagrees with you must be biased, including not only the UN, but the experts at the UN (whose reputations and subject areas expertise carry far more independent gravitas then anything association with the UN adds to them) Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think if someone posted the equally foolish proposal that we should rewrite our policies to clarify that Israel is actually the "Zionist entity" in order to avoid politicizing the situation and to fulfill our obligation to remain NEUTRAL, that they would at the very least be strongly admonished, so once again I am dismayed that this conduct is being normalized and tolerated. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the country names of "Israel" and "Palestine" are not disputed on political grounds. They are! All it takes is for you to look at the objection of the Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UNESCO declaration, here or Netanyahu Protests UNESCO Hebron Decision with Scripture. This dispute revolves around how the government of Israel exercises de facto rule over these parts, and considers them an integral part of the multi-national and Jewish State of Israel, while the other side wishes to be given a sovereign state of their own. For this reason Netanyahu voiced his displeasure at the UNESCO declaration, where it, in turn, referred politically to the region as "Palestine." You see, the matter of how the country should be called is disputed on political grounds by two peoples (Jews and Arabs), with Israelis calling it Israel, including Hebron. We ought to steer clear from this dispute, and use the words apolitically. Moreover, as good editors who adhere to policy, we are expected to uphold Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. This does not prevent us, of course, from talking about these heated political issues. It does prevent us from taking sides in this conflict. What we might feel personally about this issue should not come across in our editing.Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Could I direct attention to this recent comment: "This dispute revolves around how the government of Israel exercises de facto rule over these parts, and considers them an integral part of the multi-national and Jewish State of Israel" - that, my friends, is irridentism. This is as if we were to adopt WP:NPOV by treating all sites in Slovakia, and Croatia, and Transylvania as though they could also be equally be described as "as integral parts of the multi-national and Magyar state of Hungary". The perspective Davidbena is advocating here is purest marginal POV; leave it to this new editor to formulate an RfC if they choose, but WP has a well-established, neutral, and quite carefully-balanced consensus on this nomenclature AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You stand to be corrected, User:Newimpartial. Irredentist is defined by Oxford Dictionary as: "1. A person advocating the restoration to their country of any territory formerly belonging to it." This is not true of me because Wikipedia cannot change the borders that already exist. I was merely showing what the Israeli Prime-Minister thinks of this issue, without advocating anything. Look again at my words above. Besides, in Jewish orthodox law, even if the country were governed completely by non-Jews, it does NOT change the halachic requirements associated with the land and a Jew's obligation to uphold those laws vis-à-vis the country. Who the country is, therefore, governed by is totally irrelevant here. Even internationaly recognized borders has no bearing whatsoever on what Jews will do within those same borders, since Jewish law stipulates special laws to be performed in the territorial boundaries once held by Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity, and which State boundaries are not necessarily the same today - some still in Lebanon, for example. The Halacha, nevertheless, remains the same, no matter who is in control of these territories. I have been trying my best to deal with a problematic issue, the issue of rampant POV editing, as in the case of the UNESCO declaration concerning Hebron and our being prevented from listing the site in Israel, on political grounds, rather than historical grounds, but you have not assumed "Good Faith" with me.Davidbena (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article on Israel does not refer to a territory governed by Jewish orthodox law, but to a legally-recognized state, which happens not to include Hebron. Your argument that this article should deal with "the Halacha" is hopelessly POV, and is in fact the topic of another article. When there are two perspectives on an issue (e.g., the limits of a state's sovereignty), one belonging to political factions within one small country and the other belonging to virtually the entire rest of the world, WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE do not mean that those two perspectives should be presented in parallel, as I believe I have shown with the examples I have taken from Russia and Hungary. But by all means, formulate an RfC that all nomenclature governing Israel and Palestine should be "historical". In the mean time, your argument that "what country it is" doesn't apply to the listing of UNESCO world heritage sites by country is - well, entertaining. I'll give you that. Newimpartial (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstood me. My reference to Jewish Halacha was only to show to you that what we do as Jews, here in this country, is NOT affected by what Wikipedia writes here. This was said in order to stress to you that my motives are pure, and that my only interest is in correcting a wrong, namely, blatant POV editing, and non-neutral editing. That's all. And, yes, I'm aware of world public opinion (majority view by virtue of their sheer numbers), but in this country the majority opinion is reversed. That means WP:DUEWEIGHT does indeed apply, with consideration of both views. Your analogy is almost like saying that if the majority of Chinese (being the most populous nation on earth) adopts a two-child policy, the same policy should be adopted by all other nations. Of course, you can see the absurdity of such a statement. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No, my argument is the equivalent to saying that UNESCO world heritage sites in Taiwan would not be listed in a category for World Heritage Sites in the People's Republic of China, unless such a categorization was established by reputable sources on the world stage. The fact that the majority of Chinese might regard Taiwan as part of China does not affect the way wikipedia would list such a site, because it does not affect the standing of Taiwanese territory in the domain of world public opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

But if Taiwan was held by China, it would. Both history and reality would dictate that fact. Therefore, your analogy of China and Israel is inaccurate, especially given the history where Jews and Arabs in this country, prior to 1948, were both called Palestinians. Golda Meir had a Palestinian passport. But, let us leave aside for a moment this argument. I can see that we are nearly the only ones debating this issue. You seem to be a wise man. What steps or measures would you take, here on Wikipedia, if you wanted to impress upon our general volunteer staff of co-editors to maintain a more neutral posture in our editing? Any suggestions?Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I have suggested before: if you would like to propose a change to the nomenclature for locations in the West Bank and Gaza, you should formulate a Request for Consensus (RfC). Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. If this venue closes with no results, I will do exactly that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a response to this conversation here. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the dubious merits of the proposed change, the tendency of Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian disputes to bring a whole host of historical baggage, documentation, and arguments into quotidian matters like categorization, nomenclature, and syntax on Wikipedia is exhausting and unproductive. There's no need to change a well-established consensus on what "in Israel" means. Supposing there were, understanding the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate period, and 1948 would not contribute to it. I would urge all parties to avoid litigating the conflict itself when wikipedia categories are the issue at hand.--Carwil (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, just for the record, you mention "a well-established consensus on what 'in Israel' means," which is fine. I can also agree to that. But is there a well-established consensus on what "in Palestine" means? You see, the current category designation for the Cave of the Patriarchs is "World Heritage Sites in Palestine." If the words "in Israel" refer to the country, and they do, are you saying that "Palestine" refers to a different country? Here, it seems to me, that we're meddling with politics. All said and done, have a good day, and may you be given the wisdom to help solve some of these problems.Davidbena (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A colleague on the Cave of the Patriarchs Talk-Page has suggested a good solution (see here), and that is to rename the category to read: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. This seems to be the most compromising thing that we can do under the current circumstances. Anyway, my own suggestions have not gained much ground here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RECOMMENDATION: I earnestly urge those who are in a position to mend the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) that they define and present a more clear guideline as to the categorization scheme used in "by country" categories on Wikipedia. This modification is important, as it will help solve the issue now underway in the Talk-Page of Cave of the Patriarchs, see Categorisation. Can the word "Palestine" be used for territories now referred specifically to as the "West Bank"?Davidbena (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI proposed rename of Wikipedia how-to template

FYI comments welcome Template_talk:Wikipedia_how-to#Requested move 11 July 2017NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fundraiser banner "ad"

Is there a discussion page anywhere about the latest batch of fundraiser banners? I've looked extensively, and can't find one. Perhaps the Foundation has decided in advance that it knows the feedback it'll receive (massive-sized, joltingly intrustive, hectoring in tone, JW insisting on his (utterly revisionist) "proper title" of "Founder", and so on), and just doesn't want to hear it? 89.101.50.203 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Many Israelis would find it insulting that it calls 15 shekels "the price of a cup of coffee", which is actually 6 shekels now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I imagine meta:Fundraising#Contact_Us would be a great place to start. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 00:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO

Hello everyone 🙋🏻, I’d like to request some amendments to WP:SEEALSO. I’ve created a plethora of articles and while creating them I tend to follow this policy to the letter, however I do notice that other editors simply ignore this and immediately start adding links already in the article.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.

Background

The articles I’ve created and / or greatly expanded always link appropriately upon publishing/expansion, I tend to use templates like “Main” and inline “Seealso” to make sure that interested readers know where to find related articles. This however doesn’t stop other editors from still (re-)adding them into the “See also” section, I’ve seen this not only on “my” articles (as in the ones I’ve created, don’t worry I'm not asserting ownership, it’s just a manner of speaking), but on countless of other articles that I either read or just make minor edits to, for example I’m reading an article about let's say German history and Herr Bismarck is mentioned several times and even appears in a “Main” template above some users will still add him into the “See also” section, now I’m an inclusionist and I really hate to revert edits that aren’t maleficent in nature, but I know of several “dedicated” (read: Over-active) editors who go out of their way to find every break of WP:SEEALSO, and remove the links. Now my proposals below will not only save those people countless of hours in what can basically be summed up as “useless edits for the sake of following WikiPolicy”, but I believe will greatly benefit the readers (you know? The people we all do this for).

" but I know of several “dedicated” (read: Over-active) editors who go out of their way to find every break of WP:SEEALSO, and remove the links." What a lot of garbage. Did you make your account yesterday just to enlighten everyone as to how properly using a see also section is inferior to having every link from an article repeated? Primergrey (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My proposals

I'll get straight to the point, abolish the guideline that states that a repetition of links is bad 🙅🏻, especially on larger articles though I personally don't plan on ever adding these links if this proposal would go through we have to think of how some readers read Wikipedia, I personally when I have the time prefer to read full articles 🤓, heck I even click on links or add some references through Bing News if I find “Citation Needed” 🔎📔, reckon that most of y’all do something similar, but I would guess that since the majority of the readers never edit that they would probably only look for the things and sections they’re interested in (at that moment), maybe someone only needs to read the end of the article and never bothers to go through the rest but they’re still interested in related subjects, what then? Well under WP:SEEALSO nothing, the assumption is that everyone reads full articles.

In my current editing style I tend to (re-)add links from earlier in the article if it’s for the first time in a large section again, imagine that an article on sulfuric acids has a link 🔗 to let's say base, but the article itself is 90 kb’s long, abs it gets mentioned again as an important comparison very late in the article, not linking would be a major disservice to readers, and from most people I know that only read and never edit Wikipedia, many don’t even know that there are navigation templates 🗒 at the bottom, let alone categories. In fact from the people I’ve asked (NOT A SCIENTIFIC SAMPLE, THIS IS WP:OR BUT I’LL CITE FOR REFERENCE AS NO ACTUAL STATISTICS CAN BE GATHERED AT PRESENCE) they tend to not read further than the “See also” section, sure we should still be able to differentiate when a navigation template suffices, and wen the “See also” section is needed (in fact I started my first “over-active” account purely to make a navigational template).

I propose therefore that links MAY be repeated (especially in larger articles, which for me as a mobile editor are hard to navigate through as is) if relevancy is either direct to the subject, or is extremely comparable / antonomic to the subject. I mostly read and edit Wikipedia on a mobile device (my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL) and in order to even be able to see a template at the bottom (LET ALONE EDIT ONE) I am forced to click on “Desktop”, I don’t think (read: Speculation) that most readers would do this to look for related subjects. So far WP:SEEALSO is a bane on the mobile reading experience, and as none of Wikipedia’s developers seem to have any interest in improving either the mobile reading or editing experience changing this one policy would probably be easier and best for the readers.

--Nayman30 (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

G11 deletions

I propose that, in the case of abandoned drafts and AFC submissions that would otherwise be subject to criterion G11 of the speedy deletion criteria and show promise of possibly becoming a full-fledged article, be instead moved to draftspace. I am aware of the refund policy, but it's better to not delete the page in the first place, because other people would more easily see the content and contribute if the page was not deleted. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this is wishful thinking. I'd be very surprised if more than 0.1% of such drafts would get someone willing to clean it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind that a number of G11 articles are copyright violations which frequently aren't caught at the time of G11-tagging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this the whole purpose of draftspace though? To hold pages that have potential to be articles, while getting rid of copyvios and other obvious garbage on the spot? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah, the scope of draft is unfinished articles and these which need review. Spam and copyvios don't belong there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Anything which won't eventually become an article good enough to survive our deletion process doesn't belong in the draftspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean, when spam and copyvios are made in draftspace, they get deleted before they can make it into mainspace. They are vetted in draftspace. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is based on the false premise that deleting admins are unthinking bots who are too unintelligent to recognize an article with potential. How about producing an example of a problem before proposing a solution? Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The policy defaults to (soft) deletion. I'm aware that admins know better, but I'm trying to change policy itself. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How about producing an example of a problem before proposing a solution? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I already did propose the problem; that drafts deleted by G13 cannot be seen and improved by the average editor, and finding examples is impossible because of the problem. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a hypothetical problem. Can you point to a discussion showing that someone saw a page before deletion and believed that the page should be kept as an article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, this happened a few hours ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Brendan_Kelly_(politician)&oldid=790775496 . I know an admin probably wouldn't delete it, given its state, but it shouldn't be in the policy to speedy it at all. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down, it sounds like you're suggesting that admins are capable of higher thought, that can't be right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACTRIAL

The discussion on this topic has been occurring in a low trafficked page regarding the implementation of ACTRIAL. The WMF, apparently, has agreed to go along with it for a short trial to gain statistical insight. Their reasoning is a six year old consensus on the matter. When it was brought up whether or not a new RfC should be done to reconfirm that consensus it was shot down as unnecessary. Due to the immense change in Wikipedia policy that would result in this trial I felt it was necessary to post this notice to a much more seen board. The fact that this is being done in relative secret, away from the knowledge of most people, is astonishing and should bother any Wikipedian who values community input on such wide reaching actions. Therefore, the notice. Please see a retooled Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial for further details. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone interested in responses to the above may like to see User talk:Jimbo Wales#WP:ACTRIAL. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Editors are invited to join the conversations at WT:NPPAFC and WP:ACTRIAL. I think the discussion at Jimbo talk has made it clear that this discussion is about a trial, and not any permanent change, which is often a misconception. Jimbo talk is probably the best place to continue having this conversation so it will be in one place, but I did want to make it clear here as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• The claims made above by Majora are based on a misunderstanding broadcast in several places by Majora who is not familiar with what ACTRIAL involves. There have been no secret discussions. Any current relevant discussions invovle development by the Wikimedia Foundation and are being held very openly in various high traffic places such as WT:NPR, WT:NPPAFC, the two projects that handle these issues. Any RfC have been published properly and at Cent.

Depending on the results of the experiment, the WMF will collaborate with the communit to make or improve the tools that have been requested. A decision to run the trial was reached by a consensus of a series of RfC including one of the largest RfC ever held on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, your constant assumptions on my understanding, my profession, my life, and everything about me is nothing more than pure arrogance. Once again you assume and cast aspersions when you know nothing about me. Casting aspersions left and right for much of the past 24 hours, constantly attempting to put me in a negative light. You know nothing. All I wanted to do was ensure that people know what was going on. That is it. Now I'll ask you to stop but I know that you won't and that's ok. You've been doing it all day and I doubt any request from me is going to change that. --Majora (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• A different response would have occured if you had posted a neutral message without the nudge-nudge adjectives that suggest the effort to salvage new pages patrol is a secret plot to subvert Wikipedia. How about acknowledging that there really is a gigantic problem with new pages, and that hoping someone else will fix it is no longer adequate. A neutral message would simply have linked to the ACTRIAL page with a brief explanation of what ACTRIAL is. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No body is casting aspersions on you! WP is not the optimum place for discourses in Gandhian ideology and One can't expect to throw stones and in return be welcomed with a shower of flowers!. On a seperate note, you would probably do well to understand that a single statement can be delivered in numerous ways each highlighting a different part of the issue.Your statement precisely highlighted something of the sort of--How dare, we some underground editors try to implement some shady deals on the entire wiki?!And now that you have fairly got an idea on how the issue appeals to your intended community(Sigh!) of Jimbo-talk-page-visitants, stop bellowing out-- All I wanted to do was ensure that people know what was going on. and the usual accompanying garble---arrogant, negative light....Winged Blades ^Godric 11:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• The notice wasn't neutrally worded, but that is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. Marjora was concerned and posted here to let people know, and while I would have preferred to work them on the wording of the post, its fine and more people know where to look if they want information now, which is good. The Jimbo talk conversation makes it clear that the community is still behind this and has brought more voices to the conversation. There's plenty of work to be done going forward, so lets do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales has made a statement on his talk page regarding ACTRIAL. As I pointed out following it, I will also emphasize here that ACTRIAL is a community driven initiative that the WMF is assisting in implementing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification proposal on user subpages closed as "opposed"

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification is closed as failed/opposed. The rationale is too detailed, but one of rationales is worth quoting: "Abiding by rules is an integral part for the development of any community. But rules exist primarily and solely for the development and the greater good of the encycloepadia in general. Rules are not meant to be created just for the sake of it." Read further more. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on labelling page mover closures of RMs

An RfC has been opened on the labelling of closures of requested moves by pager movers at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The first two lines of the lede, and the importance thereof.

Google Search often takes the first two lines of the lede for a Wikipedia article and puts them in search results. As a result, promoters of some articles try hard to get what they want in those two lines. Or they try to keep out negative information. If they can just push the bad stuff down a bit by adding some verbiage, it disappears from Google. I've hit this issue twice in COI editing situations.Is there policy on this? Should there be? Discuss. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There absolutely should be. I've found too many times editors want to make sure labels that may be predominate in public opinion/media coverage but denied by a person or organization are stuffed into the lede sentences, claiming WP:UNDUE requires them to be there. WP:IMPARTIAL and other points in WP:NPOV tells us to use caution, and the first few sentences absolutely set a tone for the article. There should be not one single controversial statement in the first two or three sentences of the lede and should be left as uncontested facts. A second paragraph or later, sure, attributed statements that are controversial should be be included if they are critical to the person or organization's notability, but they don't need to be present in the first few lede sentences. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah. That problem. That's shown up at English Democrats, over how right-wing they are. The UK has several right-wing parties, who argue over who's "far-right". That's a tough call. Ideas?

The problem I was thinking of is when a company or person did something really bad, and they want it out of the first two sentences. We've had that at Michael Milken, the "junk bond king" of the 1980s, who has a paid editor trying to de-emphasize his time in the Federal pen. (There are at least four wealthy ex-cons on Wikipedia with paid editors, and those are just the ones that came up at WP:COIN). We had a huge problem with this at Banc De Binary a few years back. BdB turned out to be a total scam and is now out of business, and they had some really aggressive paid editors. John Nagle (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry about accidentally deleting this whole page. Firefox crashed during editing and recovered, but that somehow turned a section edit into a whole page edit.John Nagle (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC))

Of course the lead sets the tone, I don't see how we can set a one size fits all restriction for the first two lines of the lead. That needs to be worked out between editors following our policies and guidelines. The idea that nothing positive or negative should go in the first two lines just won't work. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If an entity has been found by courts of law to have done something illegal or criminal, and that contributes greatly to their notability, then hiding that is pretty much impossible (eg Lee Harvey Oswald) and it would be silly to actually hide that in the lede sentences. But that then diverges into two cases.

• If we have a case of an entity that has been found to have done something illegal/criminal, but that is not greatly contributing to their notability then it shouldn't be pushed into the lede. For example, a lede for Exxon Mobil should not call out the Exxon Valdez oil spill, though clearly this should be somewhere in the article.
• The other case, and the one that is usually more problematic, is where an entity has been accused of a crime but either not found guilty or still awaiting trail - or more often have fallen afoul in the court of public opinion, and that fact contributes greatly to their notability. This is where the first sentences should be as impartial as possible, but then break into the attributed issues that are part of their notability. Eg, there are several articles on entities called out as white nationalists as an clearly-attributed label from the mass media/public opinion, but they have not self-identified that way. The fact they are widely seen in this light is definitely needed to be included in the lede, but it shouldn't displace objective, uncontestable facts like their actual profession/service, etc, and definitely not included in the first two-or-so lede sentences. (Consider the counter-case of a highly received entity like a famous movie star or scientist; we don't start those articles off with intense praise in the opening sentences, but do get to how they are generally recognized as the best in their field with attribution.)

I agree there's no common formula to use here, as there's so many divergent cases, but I think it is fair to have editors avoid any facts that are of any type of subjective nature until after a few sentences. It's not hiding material but setting a neutral tone for the article at the start. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about establishing a new speedy deletion criteria

There is currently a discussion underway about establishing a new criteria for speedy deletion for undeclared paid editing. Please consider participating. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"New York" is now New York (state)

Following an extensive and well-attended discussion, the article on the state of New York, formerly at "New York", has been moved to New York (state); the title, "New York", is now a disambiguation page for the state, the city, and the many other meanings of the name. Since links to either the city or the state can come up in a wide array of editing contexts, please note this in making links going forward. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)