Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

WP:NOTNEWS

We need a clarification to this policy. Editors, intentionally or otherwise, repeatedly represent this policy as meaning that we shouldn't include a recent event that has been reported in a reliable newspaper. The policy clearly refers to original or routine reporting. We need a caveat here that indicates that disputes over whether information covered in a reliable source that happens to be a newspaper should make reference to WP:DUE, not WP:NOTNEWS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Also to WP:RECENTISM, which is the more specific argument that something recent is being given undue weight. --Aquillion (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read the second part of Wikipedia is not a newspaper, specifically that we look to include information related to enduring coverage. Just because something is widely reported in the news, that may not be information that is part of enduring coverage of a topic and thus not appropriate to include. So NOTNEWS fully does cover that , alongside RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 16:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Masem The issue you are pointing out, as Aquillion correctly noted, is WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM (the latter of which is a subset of WP:DUE). The way you are seemingly misdescribing WP:NOTNEWS is exactly what I'm referring to here. People hear the first line, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper," and think "Whelp, that means we can't include what's in a newspaper because then we're emulating a newspaper." Wrong!!!

NotNews has four categories: 1) original reporting, 2) naming of otherwise non-notable individuals, 3) celebrity tabloid information, and 4) routine reporting. None of these categories addresses breaking news (WP:BREAKING is the applicable policy there) or whether or not something has received so-called "enduring coverage" (WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE.

In fact, the disclaimer I am suggesting should be directly targeted at comments like the above (not to single you out, but this illustrates the frustrating misunderstanding I think surrounds this policy) to clarify how NOTNEWS should and should not be cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You have completely misdescribed #2 as while it touches on notability, the crucial factor is that we simply aren't just doing news reports, but look to do enduring coverage. #2 is very much about breaking news reports that we generally do not include unless we know that that likely will have enduring coverage to a topic. Atop that, there's also the recentism factor - that while something may appear to be enduring, that maybe there's also long-term aspects to consider and wait out like opinions and analysis, and DUE factors, to see what actually are majority opinions and viewpoints. --Masem (t) 18:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Masem, WP:BREAKING is a separate policy about due weight. #2 of WP:NOTNEWS refers to routine reporting, and specifically cites traffic reports, celebrity sightings, and other clearly non-eventful events. Yet I have seen WP:NOTNEWS claimed as a reason to exclude: 1) details around death of a nationally known celebrity; 2) controversies embroiling a politician; 3) negative press stories. Almost always, these claims misrepresent what NOTNEWS is about, when these editors are instead (like you are above) making arguments grounded in WP:DUE, WP:BREAKING, or WP:RECENTISM. The examples in #2 of NOTNEWS clearly demonstrate the differences here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the text of NOTNEWS#2, I will highlight the key words: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project. All three aspects you have issue with are exactly the type of thing that falls into that bolded aspect, if they have just broken in the news cycle, particularly if related to a BLP/BDP. If we find they have relevance to enduring coverage, then inclusion would make sense. And yes, there is overlap with UNDUE and RECENTISM here, but NOTNEWS is quite appropriate to claim issue in this area as well. Remember, look at the intent and context of a policy, not the exact wording of it. Just because the examples in NOTNEWS#2 do not cover those situations doesn't mean it doesn't apply. You have to take in the whole of what the intent of NOTNEWS is about. --Masem (t) 20:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The 'not news' section has been a source of controversy and confusion for years. Look at the perennial debates that fill the archives of this talk page: editors have been re-fighting the same NOTNEWS battles since the day it was written. It's a bad policy that doesn't help anybody, and it should be deleted. Everything of any value attributed to NOTNEWS can be achieved with any number of other policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CANTFIX, etc. There are too many cases where someone deleted something they shouldn't have, misusing NOTNEWS as an excuse. There are no examples of routine coverage of sports or celebrities that are excluded soley on the basis of NOTNEWS: if they don't violate WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, they're fine. NOTNEWS is redundant. Nothing is being justifiably excluded that doesn't also violate one of the other core policies. Deleting NOTNEWS would not open any floodgates of crap content. It would just force us to cite sound reasons that don't instigate lame, repetitive debates.

If we can't get rid of it entirely, it should be demoted from policy to a guideline or an essay, so that it's clear that it is merely a derivation of other policies, not a policy in of itself.

The only thing of use it does is if someone hypothetically argued that we should rush to include dubious facts by giving a weak source more credibility than we normally would because we have to keep up with current events, we could cite NOTNEWS as a reason why we don't have to do that. But that's a hypothetical strawman that we don't need to have a policy to deal with, per WP:BEANS, and because the essay There is no deadline is sufficient to explain why.

Same goes for WP:CRYSTAL, btw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No other content policy covers the aspects of NOTNEWS related to that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. None of the policies stated block the coverage of routine events such as individual non-championship sport games which are widely covered in RSes but considered routine reporting. (UNDUE only covers viewpoints, not facts as it is under NPOV). There's a lot of editors that do not really write encyclopedically well, and we end up with tons of articles that are in proseline format that are clear violations of NOTNEWS but because these editors wanted to document every fact that happened to a topic on a daily basis. That's not how you write an encyclopedia article. --Masem (t) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does: The the Due and undue weight section of the NPOV policy page has a sub-section WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Boom! Bob's yr uncle.

You can't cite any specific examples of bad content that would be allowed if NOTNEWS was deleted. NOTNEWS is a corollary derived from other policies, but it's a badly written corollary that fails to accurately expound on the policies it's derived from. As a corollary it should only be a guideline, at best, and even then if it didn't exist we'd get the same results, without all the talk page disputes over what the hell it is trying to say.

Also, a proseline might not be how you write an encyclopedia article, but it's how you write an encyclopedia timeline, or list. Proselines aren't inherently against policy; they're simply crudely written and need MOS improvements to be good quality. They are excellent raw material to be improved upon, eventually becoming good encyclopedic content, per editing policy. And events in a proseline that are insignificant can be deleted per WP:PROPORTION, with no need to rely on NOTNEWS to justify it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't cover routine coverage, which for example, would include pretty much every major sporting event, every day on the stock market, etc. news that is covered by multiple sources every single day. No other policy covers the aspect of avoiding routine coverage and avoiding the level of day-to-day detail that newspapers and news programs go into because that falls specifically into what WP is not. It fits exactly in here, and it has only become an issue because of the increased amount of news out there that we need more editors to learn to filter of what's actually appropriate and enduring for inclusion on WP. Yes, there are some overlaps with other policies and guidelines, like BLP (the case I know this was raised from was including initial finders related to a BLP death that strongly suggest a specific mode of death but which hasn't been verified by a coroner - both NOTNEWS and BLP cover this but from different angles), but this type of overlap is common for many of WP's policies in the first place. --Masem (t) 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

And can you think of a reason why we don't want routine coverage and the day-to-day detail we find in newspapers? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Becuase that is not a function of an encyclopedia. It would also increase the systematic bias towards Western-regional and English-speaking-based topics over other ones. Further, we have a sister project for those that want to do more news-based coverage, Wikinews. --Masem (t) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"We are not a newspaper" is a meaningless slogan that is bandied about on talk pages, often by partisan editors, to say that coverage events that is likely to be contained in newspapers is insignificant, usually as an effort to censor pages.

I agree NOTNEWS makes sense as applied to routine reporting. It would never be appropriate, for example, to include blotter information in a page, weather, or celebrity sightings. I would not advocate for basic, routine coverage to become a regular part of Wiki pages.

However, whether something has enduring significance and is suitable for inclusion is far more complex matter and should always be addressed with reference to policies meant to capture that complexity. WP:NOTNEWS is an empty refrain, again, whose lack of clarity is exploited by agenda-driven editors seeking to tamp down controversies at political or other pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. 'Because that is not a function of an encyclopedia'? Talk about begging the question. Just another bombastic way of repeating the slogan without explaining anything. If nobody can say why this policy is needed, all the more reason to get rid of it. Systemic bias is the purview of NPOV, UNDUE, PROPORTION. We don't need NOTNEWS for that. The sister project thing is just... seriously? Wikipedia does not exclude things because another project is doing it. Nobody deletes quotes from articles because Wikiquote exists, or forbids explaining what a word means because Wiktionary exists. And anyway, Wikinews doesn't even attempt to include day to day events, routine coverage, sports results, weather forecasts, any of that. So even if what Wikinews does or doesn't do was relevant, it doesn't do routine.

The only solid, clear rationale against routine newspaper content is that it is not significant enough in the context of a typical Wikipedia article. It's too trivial, too minor. Which is just another way of saying it's out of proportion, and we have a clear policy on that: WP:PROPORTION. That leaves no essential role for NOTNEWS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh but there is, it serves a political purpose and does so well. Not so much the body of the policy (most people don't read polices closely, and fewer still openmindedly), but the shortcut WP:NOTNEWS.

So, there are a lot of editors who don't think we should have articles on recent events, except fairly rarely. Maybe they're right, or more likely there's no "right" or "wrong" about that and it's matter of opinion.

But there's no rule against that. There's nothing written down. And if you go to WP:AFD and say "Delete, it's a recent event and my considered opinion is that we should cover those only rarely", you will of course get shouted down and possibly insulted: "Well who cares about your opinion. Show me a rule that somebody wrote down sometime or go home". That's silly, but that's how AfD pretty much works.

So what to do? No rule to cite! Ah but there is a rule called WP:NOTNEWSPAPER -- and it's a policy. It has little to say about covering recent events and what it does say amounts to "do what you think best". BUT WAIT. It has another shortcut: WP:NOTNEWS. (The "NEWS" here is just shorthand for "NEWSPAPER", but never mind that; we've got our weapon).

So, "Delete, it's news and must be deleted per policy WP:NOTNEWS"... well now we're cooking. Here you are citing a policy! You're a serious person! Other editors are going to be like "Delete per above, we have to follow policy".

It's possible that this isn't a bad thing overall. I don't know and neither do you. Better would be have a policy WP:NOT_EPHEMERA which address the issue of ephemera in general with room to stretch out and give examples and explore some subtleties. But you could never get that passed -- you can't get anything significant passed. But a lot of editors do feel that we shouldn't cover recent events. They're not nothing, their voices are legit. So we have this kludgey situation. But then a lot of the Wikipedia is held together with duct tape.

Anyway, these discussions are useful and fun but just don't expect to get anything changed. By a fluke of history we have a shortcut called WP:NOTNEWS, and we always will, and its used to indicate that we have a policy against coverage of recent events even tho we actually don't, and it always will be. Forget it, Jake. It's Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"...is exploited by agenda-driven editors seeking to tamp down controversies at political or other pages." (from Wikieditor19920 above) -- a huge problem on WP is the rush to try to include every controversial aspect that comes up about a topic before time gives us the better knowledge and experience to know how to write it - whether that's within a few days or months from the event in question. Tons of issues at AN/ANI/ARBCOM are related to editors rushing in to try to capture controversies as they happen based on news reports instead of waiting to see how more academic sources document them. That's one reason why we don't want WP to emulate a newspaper. Editors need to have more clarity about writing towards the 10-year view rather than the moment, which is where we differ from a newspaper; we are not try to report but summarize topics.

Another factor is that is back to the systematic bias that I addressed already, that already weighs in favor of Western and English-based topics. It also weights against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media, as well as historical topics where there is no more coverage coming. That is, NOTNEWS also serves to try to help make sure that we're treating all topics with the same idea of enduring notability and level of coverage, and while newer topics still get the benefit of having more sources available to work from, we don't want to change the approach of how we are trying to summarize them for the purposes of an encyclopedia compared to older topics. That means that we do include up to the minute news but only when that is the type of information that would be relevant if we had only started writing about the topic 10-20-50 years down the road.

(And I will point out there was a relatively recent RFC on NOTNEWS about 3-4 years ago that had no consensus to either strength or weaken its position within WP). --Masem (t) 13:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

1) WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we include whatever reliable sources say about a subject, even if it's controversial or negative. This is the heart of encyclopedic neutrality. Much more noxious to the encyclopedia than the editors who "rush to include controversial information" are the editors who selectively attempt to keep such information out based on personal biases, politics, and agendas.

2) WP:NOTNEWS as articulated here falsely gives the impression that high-quality newspapers are a problematic source. With most internationally known papers, such as NYT, WP, LA Times, WSJ, a full-page article should typically be sufficient to satisfy DUE and warrants inclusion. The vague notion that "academic sources" are even remotely an adequate substitute just doesn't jive with reality. A politician could be embroiled in a scandal, but scholars will not rush to start publishing journal articles about it. The major newspapers will, and those can be used as sources for short, factual additions.

3) Another factor is that is back to the systematic bias that I addressed already, that already weighs in favor of Western and English-based topics.

I view this is as a weak point as it relates to newspapers for two reasons. First, use of any English-language sources will result in some measure of this "bias." Second, this can be counteracted by using sources that are more cosmopolitan (NYT, etc.).

4) It also weights against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media, as well as historical topics where there is no more coverage coming. Again, this is just how the world works. Academic sources introduce their own bias.

5) There are always valid concerns about due weight, but as I said earlier, WP:NOTNEWS is the wrong policy to address them. NOTNEWS should be narrowly targeted at routine reporting. Not, routine as in "Well, the New York Times is always criticizing (my preferred congressional candidate), so therefore this newest controversy is routine!" This nonsense is regularly espoused by experienced editors who know better but, like i noted, exploit the lack of clarity in this policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem, everything you say is reasonable. The problem is, everything you say is your personal opinion. Maybe your beliefs are great, maybe not. A lot of people agree with them. A lot of people don't. I mostly don't, for instance. Because for one thing the Wikipedia is not an academic publication. It just isn't. Maybe it should be. But it isn't. It covers a really wide range of info. That's fine in my opinion. Others may disagree. But there is no consensus that either of us is right. That is why there's no formal rule about the issue, and "do as you all think best" is the operative guidance it looks like.

re "It also weighs against academic topics that aren't covered by mainstream media"... good Lord, so what??? Why would anyone think that's bad? Academics don't consult encyclopedias. High school students and random civilians do. "we are not trying to report but summarize topics"... these are not related; nobody is advocating 50,000-word articles about any subject; of course we summarize. By the same token, of course we report topics. We should! In my personal opinion (and others). Within reason of course, which is a matter for case-by-case discussion just as is notability or whether a source is reliable etc.

"as well [weighing against] historical topics where there is no more coverage coming". What? We don't achieve balance by denying or erasing information that we do have, you know. That would be odd.

Hey, but it is fine to argue at an AfD "I just think we should be stricter about covering recent events like this, so Delete". Reasonable opinion! It's just that its annoying if you say WP:NOTNEWS has any bearing on the question. It would kind of like me being like "Well, we have the policy WP:CENSORED. As you can tell simply by reading the link title, we are a censored publication" or whatever." Maybe I'd do it myself if I could get away with it. But it'd be annoying and make people claw the draperies, is all, and with good reason. And that's why we're here and will be again next year I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

(This to Wikieditor) "WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we include whatever reliable sources say about a subject, even if it's controversial or negative." That is absolutely not true. PUBLICFIGURE says that - in contrast to someone that is a private individual - we are less likely to surpress information that may be negative reported in RSes about a public figure. On point #2, I've never seen the notion that because of NOTNEWS, that newspaper articles should be dismissed for quality sourcing -- save for MEDRS and NCORP aspects (for good reasons). No wording of NOTNEWS even suggests this, and unless you can point to where this is happening regularly, this is an unfounded concern.

You're missing the point about #3 - even using more "cosmopolitan sources" like the NYT, an excessive coverage of news favors Western and English-based sources. Enduring topics happen in Asia, Africa, and South America in addition to North America, Europe, and Australia, and we fully allow foreign language sources, but usually we get those filtered from sources looking at events at the longer term such as academic sources. Same with #4 - simply consider the number of sources available to talk about something like Watergate (at the time it happened) compared to the Jan 6 Capitol attacks. We only have as much as we have on Watergate now in comparable size (across several articles) to the Jan 6 attacks due to numerous volumes written since then, not from what was published in the days and weeks of the event. That's the issue that we should be trying to consider how to summarize present topics with the same eye that we have covered topics from the past - NOTNEWS helps on that aspect to focus editors on enduring parts of a topic rather than the day-to-day.

(To Herostaratus) The point I'm making is that if we did not encourage editors to think about writing for the long-term view of a topic and what is enduring parts of that topic, rather than writing as if we're a newspaper covering the day to day, we will be creating articles on present topics that stand out in clear inbalance to those from historic periods, and belie how must encyclopedia (those that came before us and what we started as) are written. Case in point: look at how excessively detailed to the day that our cover of COVID-19 is for any given country or region. Now, I can agree that as a temporary state of capturing events while the pandemic was happening, that's a reasonable stopgap, but X years from now, when COVID is eradicated and a thing of the past, that level of detail - a result of ignoring NOTNEWS - is simply not appropriate. I would expect in time that editors will come back to apply the principles of NOTNEWS to write those timelines better as narrative summaries (maybe with broad timelines of key critical events like institutions of country-wide lockdowns). But this still comes down that we need to drive editors away from writing articles like this is a newspaper or even just a day by day timeline, and to think about writing this as educational content - the goal of the WMF. We're not here to provide news, we're here to summarize it, and that's the importance of having this as a content policy. --Masem (t) 04:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:NOTNEWS may well be the most abused link in Wikipedia discussions. The simple fact is that Wikipedia contains numerous excellent and informative articles about every major significant news event in the last 20-1/2 years because the four restrictions listed do not in any way, shape or form prevent the creation of such articles. It is rare when a serious attempt at writing an article includes original "on the scene" reporting by Wikipedia editors, or extensive tabloid gossip, or discussion of utterly routine events, or "who's who" type coverage. Wikipedia editors are writing articles about major historic events, and are collating and curating evolving accounts by reliable sources over time, and the Wikipedia articles that emerge from this process are exceptionally valuable. The ongoing urge by a handful of editors to cite "NOTNEWS" to attempt to impede the creation of such articles is severely misplaced and is the result of a complete misinterpretation of policies and guidelines. It is tedious. As for Wikinews, that is a failed project that should be put out of its misery. It highlights articles like "United States Indo-Pacific Commander meets with Philippine senior officials for 70th anniversary of Mutual Defense Treaty" as if that drivel represents screaming headlines worldwide. Anyone who recommends that site should be forced to spend one full hour reading its recent coverage so that they can appreciate just how bad it is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 is exactly correct, and this is the exactly point I've been making here. I'm glad others see it too.

Masem other editors have pointed out the misuse of NOTNEWS as well. And you are correct that no wording of WP:NOTNEWS prohibits use of high-quality newspapers, yet it is used to emphasize that false point. Again, others have observed this as well. You are free to investigate yourself; I wouldn't have arbitrarily decided to make these points if I hadn't seen NOTNEWS abused so frequently.

This whole notion of "Western bias" emerging from the use of news sources is so abstract it's almost irrelevant, and another example of WP:NOTNEWS being a policy that tries to bite off more than it can too. Any English-language source can introduce "Western bias."

While claiming that WP:NOTNEWS does not denigrate high-quality news sources, you are still continually repeating points that would seem to dismiss high-quality news sources.

We're not here to provide news, we're here to summarize it, and that's the importance of having this as a content policy. This refrain is exactly the problem. "Providing news," as in original reporting, is already covered by WP:OR. Citing an newspaper article, for example from the NYT, about a political candidate, and including a short factual addition into an article is indeed summarizing. Almost every aspect of WP:NOTNEWS is already better addressed by another policy.

I really think the solution here is to include a specific disclaimer that NOTNEWS is not meant to address discussions over weight or recentism, if we retain it as a policy at all. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS does not prevent the creations of articles on newsworthy events nor should we change that, but we tend to have a problem that editors jump the gun in creating articles on breaking news without having sufficient knowledge that comes with time if these are really notable events, or magnifying the important of minor events that better fit in context of larger articles (overall, we tend to have a problem with editors wanting to create new articles on content rather than find better homes in larger comprehensive topics, but that's a separate matter) What might quality as a news story across multiple papers may end up being simply a sentence summary in a larger topic when all is said and done, while other events are immediately apparent that they are going to be notable. And that's where we need more awareness not to rush off to create articles but give it a day or a week to see if it really is notable, or if breaking news is really enduring to including - concepts that only NOTNEWS covers via policy.

The claim that NOTNEWS is used to exclude newspaper sources including high quality ones, but there's no evidence that I see of this. That seems rather unfounded. I can see that NOTNEWS is being used to included breaking information from high quality newspaper sources, but that's not speaking to the RSness of the newspaper sources to begin with. Further, adding a bit of information from every news article published in a RS to a topic, when that topic appears in the news on a near daily basis, is not summarizing, but acting as a news report. Encyclopedic articles are simply not that detailed because we write to the long-term picture, not short term, a point only covered by NOTNEWS.

The bias aspect is simply the fact that if you include the volume of information available from reliable sources, topics that are favored by English-speaking, Western related newspaper/media sources (which heavily focus on politics, sports, and celebrities/entertainment from the Western culture) are clearly in abundance compared to more academic and educational topics, as well as topics from other non-Western cultures. As per WP:BIAS that doesn't mean we don't write about these Western topics nor ignore the sources that support them, but its why we try to avoid acting like a newspaper and avoid editing articles that look like running news stories, because that will give excessive weight to these topics in their overall coverage compared to the other topic areas. We're still going to have far more information on these topics (eg politics of the US compared to the politics of Ethopia) simply due to the volume of sources, but NOTNEWS helps to try to normalize the treatment by avoiding the excessive coverage that can come from routine and news-style reporting from newspapers, and instead focus editors to consider broader summarizes that can include newspaper coverage. That's one way we work against the external systematic biases out there.

The key point is that we want people writing about, say, an event that happened last week, to think about how a reader 20 or 50 years from now will read that from an encyclopedia point of view, and make sure we are staying consist to the same degree with how we are writing about topics from the same 20 to 50 years in our past. And these are factors only covered by NOTNEWS and not any other policy. --Masem (t) 19:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors have pointed out that WP:NOTNEWS is an abused policy. Why do you keep summarily rejecting this proposition, despite multiple editors independently reaching the same conclusion? It is very frustrating when someone responds to concerns with WP:IDHT. Let me provide a few examples, again, of where WP:NOTNEWS is misused. You claim that WP:NOTNEWS is the only policy that covers such instances, but earlier you claimed that NOTNEWS simply overlaps with these policies. Which is it?

• A) A politician makes a comment, speech, or statement that provokes a backlash after it is perceived as racist/homophobic/anti-semitic. It receives coverage from high-quality, national papers who report on the statement and public reaction. Multiple editors cite WP:NOTNEWS as a reason not to include any mention of it, on the basis that it would be "regurgitating the news" to do so.
• B) A famous actor dies of a drug overdose. Multiple national newspapers report on the nature of their death and that it is being investigated as such. Editors cite WP:NOTNEWS because it is too "newsy" and claim it cannot be included.
• C) A prominent government official is accused of sexual assault. The accuser is not yet publicly named, but calls for the official to resign grow and the official issues a public denial. The biggest paper in the state reports on the allegations and describes it as a scandal. Editors argue against inclusion, claiming WP:NOTNEWS.

In each of these issues, WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, or WP:NPOV almost require inclusion, with the possible exception of B) as far as NPOV. Of course, there could be arguments against inclusion, but those would better be made along the lines of WP:BREAKING, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. The reason it is better for editors to cite these latter three policies is because it facilitates a more robust discussion. WP:NOTNEWS implies that we should not use news sources, something you claim it doesn't while also arguing that we shouldn't use news sources as often as we do (indicating the precise problem we're dealing with here). NOTNEWS seems to cut off conversation by simply dismissing news coverage as automatically not noteworthy, when a deeper analysis is required. That is the problem with this policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In each of those 3 cases, you are looking at the event in the days right after it happened. What if, for some reason, you came across that topic 5 years after those events happened, saw that they weren't documented, and proceeded to consider if they were worth adding?

In Case A - if that speech and the criticism had only a day or two in the news and then never came up again and never affected the person's career otherwise, adding it would clearly be UNDUE. But if that directly impacted the career, or continued to linger on the person's career for several months or ongoing, then yes, we'd clearly want to document that once we knew that was the case. That's where NOTNEWS comes in on the short term - we are looking for what is enduring factors about coverage of a topic, not the topic du jour that may disappear the next day. There is so much news coverage due to 24/7 cable and web that these news outlets can overestimate the apparent importance of a trivial matter, whereas we are looking at how that matter in the long-term time scale.

I will come back to Case B, though if it is known that a person died of a drug overdose by coronor's reports, there's no reason not to include that. NOTNEWS has no say of not including that as soon as it is reported. That's the part about NOTNEWS saying that we can be current and in alignment with BLP/BDP.

Case C: BLP (alongside PUBLICFIGURE) dominates here: accusations of sexual misconduct that do not yet have legal review are serious and we should avoid giving credence to. But as with Case A if there is a clear career-impacting aspect to it, then we should start to document that. This is an area that we should defer to time to make sure if the accusations are found to have merit or not, and then determine if they are worth documenting and to what weight to give it. A good case example was the accusations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson which in the short term caused temporarily holds on his current shows while the network investigated. They found nothing actionable in the accusations and life went on. That's covered all in 2 short paragraphs on the bio page. Obviously for a case like Weinstein where they were ultimately found guilty, of course we're going to have tons more, but that's all a predicated factor on waiting out for the news to actually resolve by both BLP and NOTNEWS.

You are still mistaken that DUE/PUBLICFIGURE/NPOV as a whole suggest requiring the inclusion of any of these cases - they only suggest together that its not appropriate to worry about privacy issues related to public people and possibly negative information, in contrast to figures that aren't publicly known where we need to be far more cautious. No policy states that just because some information is published that we have to include it, and in fact its policy that we don't aim to include all published information about a topic as our goal is to summarize that. NOTNEWS is there to set that part of that summary should be considering smoothing out a topic over time and not worrying about its day-to-day happenings in most cases.

And you keep claiming NOTNEWS is being abused but you're not providing evidence of that. You're just pointing to hypotheticals. It doesn't help without actual examples to back that to know what is going on.

That brings me back to Case B, as I know that's specifically based on the immediate concerns after the death of Michael K. Williams (as I saw the discussion you were involved with related to this at WP:BLP/N#Michael K. Williams). As a reminder: when it was reported he died, the news reports said they found his body in his home and that the death was being investigated as a drug overdose. Now, maybe you had a slip of writing in your Case B above (and as best I can tell presently), but his death has yet to be ruled a drug overdose, so we definitely cannot start from that position from neither a NOTNEWS or BLP basis, even though that's the leading presumption by investigators as well as the press. But whether in the short term (the few weeks it would take to deduce it) we should include whether his death was a drug overdose or not prior to the official cause is a mixed bag, and one that I don't think NOTNEWS nor BLP fully prevents due to PUBLICFIGURE but does urge caution. One the cause of death is known, NOTNEWS is no longer in the picture (it says to report it), and so that's just urging caution in the short term. That's why it's important to know what context you think NOTNEWS is being abused or misused. I have seen isolated cases of it, but this is not one of those; holding off that information is reasonably appropriate knowing that actual fact is expected real soon. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to take an extraordinarily exclusionary view of material in Wikipedia--one not reflected in practice. It is also not for editors to second-guess a substantial amount of reliable source coverage, as you seem to suggest WP:DUE makes reference to coverage in reliable sources, not the subjective opinions of editors as to the import of an event. A few other problems:

• "Privacy" is a red herring when we are dealing with material covered in mainstream sources. It's out the window. That is not the combined purpose of NPOV/PUBLICFIGURE/DUE.
• None of my analogies are meant to be specific to a real Wiki dispute.
• You reference "legal credence" regarding sexual assault accusations in C). What? This is a made-up, non-existent standard. The relevant standard is WP:DUE, which is not, as you suggest, based on editor opinions; it is based, objectively, on treatment and coverage in reliable sources.

There is a fundamental problem here. Each time I point out an inconsistency or vague aspect of a policy, the answer is more vagueness and more inconsistencies. We really need to keep these to the fundamental points.

1) What is the purpose of NOTNEWS?

2) Is it being used consistent with that purpose?

3) Is it redundant or superfluous with other policy (do we need it?)

4) Are revisions necessary to make the policy clearer?

If we can pin the discussion to these four points, I think we'd be more able to make progress. However, I really think you need to review DUE, PUBLICFIGURE, and NPOV if you disagree with me on A-C. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Privacy is still a huge matter even if something is widely reported in numerous reliable sources. That is an essence of BLP. We purposely put ourselves better than the typical media in respecting how we cover living people. We are not out here to attack livings persons, which nearly all 3 of your cases puts us in that position, without having more context if this is a significant factor in the person's live. That's the big factor here: day-to-day events are not what we want editors to focus on in articles - we want editors to consider how events balance across the entirety of a topic, and a minor flareup of coverage that ends up going nowhere is something we should not be including, per our goal as an encyclopedia, which is a reason NOTNEWS exists. We don't want editors writing articles as newspaper coverage, but as academic, encyclopedic summaries, and that's just not a factor covered simply in any single other policy. (Some policies touch on this subject like DUE and BLP but they do not fully replicate this aspect; also, DUE applies only to inclusion of different opinions, not to factual information, that's why its on the NPOV page). A thing to keep in mind around all policies and guidelines are that they are not meant as rules to be enforced to the rule, but to be handled in the spirit of how they are written, so its important to understand why NOTNEWS exists and where it currently stands within the communicate (again, pointing to the recent RFC that says its current level of enforcement - neither weaker nor stronger - has consensus).

Further, if you're assert NOTNEWS is a problem but then can't point to why it is a problem with a real example, its really hard to judge what has to be changed. The only thing I can judge on is based on your editing history which points to the issue with Williams' article as the only place that you have been very active where you think NOTNEWS is being misused - except as I've stated, its being used correctly and consistent alongside BLP. You're arguing a hypothetical problem that you otherwise don't have any other evidence for, which makes it really hard to see what might be wrong. Just claiming it is redundant without showing where these problems came up in past discussions isn't helpful to the discussion. That's the only reason I've brought up Williams was to try to have a hard case with some evidence to work from. --Masem (t) 02:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not an "attack" to include information that might be perceived as negative, as long as it is reliably sourced. Again, some vague notion of privacy is simply a non-factor if it is reported in the national news.

Again, you say make the sweeping, tautological statement "day-to-day events are not news." Who is arguing against this? What are "day to day" events though? Routine events are already covered by NOTNEWS. What about the scenarios in A-C? None of those are "day to day" events."

Perhaps the "spirit" of policies should be what guide, but the problem is no one has a singular idea of what those are, and almost none of what you conveyed about NOTNEWS is reflected in its wording. Plus, the precise wording of a policy is what editors rely on.

I don't want to use real-world cases and risk introducing those arguments into this discussion. I think the hypotheticals I've offered should be enough (indeed, those immediately seemed to prompt disagreement?). Other editors have pointed out problems with NOTNEWS, other than me.

In sum: NOTNEWS should not be a faux supplement to DUE, NPOV, and the like. We should clarify the section coving "routine" news, and ensure that NOTNEWS specifically notes that it is not meant to deprecate reliable news sources, and that editors looking to determine weight should instead look to the wording of DUE/NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Again, some vague notion of privacy is simply a non-factor if it is reported in the national news" is wrong. This is actually a key principle of BLP (see under "Presumption in favor of privacy" there). Just because information about a person is blabbed about every major news outlet doesn't mean it is appropriate for WP to include if it doesn't meet our BLP principles, becuase we put more value on privacy than the media does. If over time it turns out that is important and privacy matters no longer can be justified, then inclusion may be appropriate. That's a situation that applies to each the scenarios above and that all is based on enduring coverage, which is now back to why NOTNEWS exists - we aren't looking for the day-to-day, but the trends of coverage over time. This is more than just routine news, this is understanding that a blip of non-routine news that may be across all channels for a day or two but dies down the next day is likely not worthy of inclusion in WP in the long run. No other policy gets to this point - BLP makes it a point for BLPs like for BLP1E, but NOTNEWS applies across all topics. Again, NPOV/DUE are about opinions, not fact so they don't come into play related to factual information. --Masem (t) 06:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Brief replies about BLP

we put more value on privacy than the media does. You have to stop equating WP with journalism. One is not more respectful or less respectful than the others. The difference is that this organization doesn't send people out on the field to do fact-finding and interviews. We rely on reliable sources, news sources, to do that work. That's it. Is that more respect for privacy? Not really. It's that we serve fundamentally different purposes.

That said, "privacy" means something very specific. It means we don't publish non-public information. It means we don't spread titillating information not contained in highly reliable sources. It means we don't identify non-notable individuals by name if we don't have to. It absolutely, 100% does not mean we don't include information about someone's personal life if it has broken into the public sphere by way of reliable sources and reporting, including newspapers. WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Why are you insisting otherwise?

Again, back to "importance." WP:DUE measures weight in reliable sources. It explicitly disavows relying on individual editor's assessments of weight or importance. You are still repeating an interpretation of DUE and WEIGHT that is just not correct. NPOV/DUE are not about opinions, they are about all information entering into a BLP.

To the main point

NOTNEWS is problematic because of rule #2, which refers to "routine" coverage. "Routine" has a specific meaning. It means pre-arranged, pre-scheduled coverage of something. A sporting event, a celebrity appearance or sighting, a crime blotter. Routine reporting is light on details and covers basic summaries of events that are so frequent and insignificant that further depth is not warranted. Routine does not mean recurring. In other words, if the New York Times covers scandals regarding a particular public individual over several months, just because it seems recurring does not mean routine.

Second, NOTNEWS needs to clarify that it is not a sweeping depreciation of news sources; only certain, highly specific categories. High quality newspapers are a central source in Wikipedia, as other editors here have pointed out. Dismissing them with a sweeping hand is simply not appropriate. NOTNEWS as written really doesn't do anything except serve to create confusion and internal inconsistencies, and the fixes above can help alleviate that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely distancing WP from journalism - we work at a higher academic level, as we are a tertiary work, and while we expect sources from newspapers to be part of what makes up reliable sources, we are also enabled to be appropriately selective in choosing those sources to write in a summary-style, encyclopedic nature about a topic, not about the day-to-day coverage that a topic gets. And that particularly comes down to BLP where news sources cover BLP in excruciating detail that is far beyond what an encyclopedia's purpose is. It is why we put privacy of BLP far more weight than simply large amount of coverage, because sometimes, news sources in the rush to get to print get it wrong (even the NYTimes falters at points). We prefer to make sure that the stories are vetted over a length of time, the details confirmed, and all that. That's being respectful of privacy that's not a function of current news media today because they can simply issue redactions; we can't. NPOV is point of view - the entire policy including DUE is about how to cover different opinions that a topic may recieve based on weight of coverage of those opinion, and not at all related to factual content about a topic of which most of what's been discussed here would fall into.

Recurring news coverage is routine in today's 24/7 media. The word that you are looking for, and that is already established in NOTNEWS, is enduring; if a scandal continues to recieve ongoing coverage due to new information and events that change the nature of how the scandal is covered for months, that's pretty much a textbook definition of enduring and likely very apt to include. What we don't want are the things that flare up for a few days and then get no further mention at all. NOTNEWS is meant to smooth out how a topic is covered in time to ignore short term bumps in favor of long term trends as to properly summarize at the encyclopedic level. That may mean it will take a bit of time to distinguish between what is the start of a long-term trend from a short-term bump before inclusion, but there is also no deadline to get it right.

And there's nowhere that NOTNEWS says that one cannot use newspapers for sources, and the claims that NOTNEWS is being used to sweep away newspapers as RSes hasn't been backed up with evidence. WP:RS is very clear newspapers are reliable sources. So unless there is evidence that NOTNEWS is being misused to require a change, that second point seems a unnecessary concern. --Masem (t) 13:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:ITN is doing a remarkably good job of following WP:NOTNEWS by running exactly the same blurbs every day for weeks at a time. For example, this week, it's been leading with Abdelaziz Bouteflika every day. Who he? Some seem to think that he's the new Mandela but our readers aren't buying it. They are all reading the stories which are actually in the news – earthquake, elections, Emmys, etc and we even have an erupting volcano! And what everyone really wants to read about is the sad end of Gabby Petito. But those stories are all in the news and so ITN won't touch them. Bravo. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I haven't followed the entire discussion, but I believe a link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects (WP:PROPORTION) somewhere under NOTNEWS would help users navigate between relevant policies. I disagree that WP:PROPORTION means there is no essential role for NOTNEWS, any more than WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V obviate WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, or WP:CRYSTAL respectively. They complement one another (what to do vs. what not to do), with the ultimate goal of maintaining neutrality and balance. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

I've seen Wales' e-mail in WP:NOTDEM. I always have been inspired by this principle. Are there sources or philosophies on concensus/majority rule/argumentation and why democracy is not an appropriate way to persue truth? Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Change wording that "Your user page is not yours"

My understanding was that self promotion was an issue when user pages appeared on Internet search engines and WIkipedia's search bar. Is this still the case?

• It is not clear how the user page rules links to the 5 pillars. In some ways it runs counter to them.
• Mental health - We have a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention . I still find it abhorrent that other users can edit a person's page to hurt. The fact that this happens implies that a person's page is somehow seen to be part of the person. If it is not offending, and is not visible to non- Editors then why let a person have their "safe space:, even if some make it look like Geocities on a bad day.
• Your user page" definition" is not consist

1. What wikipedia is not : "Your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self promotion."
2. User page is far softer in wording eg blatant self promotion rather than self promotion.
3. The user page is part of wikipedia physically and logically, but What wikipedia is not does match "our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and GFDL." The user still has rights, and the content does not belong to Wikipedia
4. "Your user page is not yours" is contradictory. But it should also be clear that it does not belong to any other editor. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Context

@Deor and Kire1975: this] is still a bit of an Easter Egg. The guideline is about context in general, not context just in the lead. Using this link (without clarifying its context!) could lead editors to believe that the things described as unacceptable are only unacceptable in the lead and could be okay in the article body. SpinningSpark 17:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I was just trying (in response to Kire1975's tag) to make the link go where the person who added it almost certainly intended it to go. If linking to somewhere else would be better, anyone is welcome to change the link. I'm not even sure what "events must be put into encyclopedic context" is supposed to mean here, exactly. Do you think WP:PCR would be a better target? Deor (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I realise you were only trying to respond to the {{clarify}} tag, but I think there is still a problem there. Either we should somehow make clear that the link refers only to the lead, but this guideline requires context to be considered for the whole article, or just remove the link as inappropriate (or else restore the clarify tag on the basis that we're not sure what on earth it is supposed to mean). PCR is addressing what should be included to give context, not what should not be included because it has no encyclopaedic context, so not really appropriate either. SpinningSpark 17:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence was added by User:Dhaluza in in this edit. It was a restoration of part of a reverted edit by the same user, where it is clearer why he linked specifically to material relating to the lead. Since Dhaluza hasn't edited here in a few months, we're not likely to get an explanation from him. Personally, I think the whole sentence about tone and context could be deleted without much loss; for one thing, it makes the "For example" that begins the next sentence read as somewhat of a non sequitur. Deor (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, take it out. It's confusing, partially irrelevant, and since it has been reverted once hardly seems to have consensus. SpinningSpark 23:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Strange logic to force censorship

What policy says Wikipedia is not censored. If persistent efforts to censor are not less frustrating then one comes across strange logic which is forcing censorship.

This edit summary of 'this edit dif', by the User:Vice regent, expert in WP rules discovers "..as per talk, there is no consensus to increase this section further..". Frankly I am not expert to have all Wikipedia rules on my finger tips, but my primary common sense is bemused and strongly doubting, this novel strange way to force censorship. The article under consideration is Islam in Finland See also talk page.

Simple question, is there any consensus not to increase content in any section despite having reliable source? ''no such consensus exists''

First of all asking any such consensus itself amounts to censorship. More over such consensus does not exist. Does just raising a discussion for not to increase content allows one to claim that ' We raised discussion so no more increase in content until a consensus is reached to increase the content!'

If such a license is to be given, most users can block all the unwanted content expansion on Wikipedia by just raising discussions on talk pages and claim wait don't increase content until consensus is reached. Are you getting what I am saying?

Now that I am not expert in citing Wikipedia rules on my finger tips like many of you others, please do help in making the appropriate sense prevail. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Ping: @Iraniangal777, 1Kwords, WikiDan61, Dominic Mayers, Pyrite Pro, Chongkian, Ifnord, and Tepkunset:

Is this even English? What I think it's asking is: can anything be blocked just by objection. The answer is no. In case of a dispute about content, WP:DR has ways to resolve that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: WP:NOTCENSORED refers to the fact that Wikipedia may contain material on topics that some users find offensive, such as material that is critical of certain religious or ethnic groups, or material that some find morally objectionable (such as discussions of sexual practices). We do not remove such material just because some users object to it. What you have described is not censorship, it is consensus-building in an effort to ensure that content conform to other Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, it's simple. Editors should not reject contents or sources because of the point of view expressed in them. Wikipedia must be neutral, but sources do not have to be neutral. What is important is that the content is relevant to the subject, WP:weight (relative to the subject) respected and the content presented in a neutral manner (if controversial it must be attributed) and all points of view that respect these rules included in a balanced manner. Also, the sources must be reliable (relative to the subject). This was a summary of relevant rules So, clearly censorship has no place in these rules. However, what is against the rule is to accuse another editor of doing censorship, especially when using the wrong venue. Here is not the place to do that. My understanding is that VR was only referring to WP:weight and questioned what sources can be considered representative of the subject in the evaluation of the weight. That's very important to maintain the quality and the right focus of every Wikipedia article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Yes you have put in brief & right way, my question in this discussion is limited to,

'can anything be blocked just by objection?'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: No. The mere objection of one editor to the content addition of another editor is not the end of the story, it is just the beginning of a process. Editors disagree on content all the time, and there are a slew of processes at Wikipedia to resolve such disputes. But if you are going to cry "censorship" every time someone disagrees with one of your edits, rather than trying to discuss the issue calmly, you're going to find yourself very frustrated. In the specific case that brought you here, the process to consider is WP:BRD: you made a Bold edit that was then Reverted; your next step is to Discuss the edit to try to reach consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

'can anything be blocked just by objection?'

Here raised question is simply limited (Not more, not less). If the answer is clearly 'no' to above proposition then please help the other users in getting that much aspect (/point). Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not English. I have no idea what you try to say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we are not going to help the other user get the point. First of all, this is not the place to get policy policed, but more importantly, it is you who are not getting the point, not the other use. You have already been clearly told how to proceed in a disputed edit (WP:BRD) so continuing to demand action is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. SpinningSpark 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

'can anything be blocked just by objection?'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for your guidance. I am not the user who added the deleted content. I was concerned part of the edit summary leading to effective kind of censorship.

I could reach to an essay page Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" from link on one of users discussing above and that essay seems to be more appropriate so here after I shall work as per suggestions in that essay.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think this is an ongoing issue with certain users. If I say "this material is UNDUE, here are reliable sources that show it is UNDUE," they will accuse me of censorship. I think accusations of censorship should be dropped and arguments about WP:DUE weight need to be responded with counter-arguments that address WP:WEIGHT concerns.VR _talk 18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I support that. If a user clearly refers to WP:weight, it's inappropriate to speak of censorship. Also, Wikipedia does not censor, but it does not go in the opposite direction either. In Wikipedia, we use WP:weight relative to the subject, because otherwise its articles will become platforms for all kinds of valid or invalid campaigns of information and lose their focus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Shifting the goalposts: I came here to take feed back on single question 'can anything be blocked just by objection?' the (partial) reason which had been mentioned 'in the edit summary'. To which independent users answered 'no'. Then I came across pertinent essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". The rest of Wikisplaining is WP:UNDUE in this discussion and amounts to Shifting the goalposts. For me discussion at this place is over. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Yes, you asked a question, to which the simple, one-word answer is "no." But that is not an unqualified "no," and as users attempted to explain the qualifications of that answer, you apparently didn't like the qualifications. Sorry. You are free to disengage from this discussion, but as you move forward, and other users continue to disagree with your edits (as is inevitable for all Wikipedia editors), you must learn from this discussion that such disagreement is not censorship, and you don't get to ignore other editors simply because you feel they are censoring you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

So pl. let us move on to article talk page for rest of the discussion if any.

I have already discussed at article talk page how expectation of allotting fix percentage of content leads to content censorship. Any editor comes across any relevant content with reliable sources can add. Stalling such additions by fixing percentages and that to in one sided manner without consensus becomes matter of concern. Now if one does not have consensus for it and still behaving as if consensus exists and blocking addition of sourced information fails to generate adequate confidence.

Whether sourced information meets other criteria or not is another question, which can be discussed at the article talk page or other appropriate forums. When I have not questioned other points in this forum then one need not be unnecessarily defensive on other points at this forum.

With a statement I found central policy under stress, I sought clarification and feedback to the limited aspect concerning to this policy page. The rest of discussions can very well take place at article talk page or respective other forums. Did you people read Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" this essay seems to be balanced enough if I have agreed to that then is there really any scope for Moving the goalposts and Whataboutery and Wikisplaining?

Thanks you now agree to "..Yes, you asked a question, to which the simple, one-word answer is "no.".." and I already stated, for me discussion at this place is over as of now. So pl. let us move on to article talk page for rest of the discussion if any.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: The discussion at Talk:Islam in Finland, as well as the related discussion at WP:NPOV/N, was somewhat fruitless, as the differing opinions about how to assess undue weight were not being usefully resolved. Your opinion is that any information that has a reliable source is valid content, and some other editors agreed. My position was that the mere presence of reliable sources does not mean the information should be included because the inclusion gives undue weight to material that is not as widely covered in the available sources, and some other editors agreed with me. That is a disagreement. That is not censorship. I chose to disengage from that discussion because I did not feel that you and the others in the "keep it all" faction were willing to bend on the issue. Clearly, I was correct, because here you are again, still not bending on the issue. So, once again, I will disengage. You and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, and it is not worth the frustration to keep trying to convince you. Enjoy your time at Wikipedia; you and I will not be interacting again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"..The discussion at Talk:Islam in Finland, as well as the related discussion at WP:NPOV/N, was somewhat fruitless, as the differing opinions about how to assess undue weight were not being usefully resolved. .."

a) That means consensus is still far away, and you will need to discuss at relevant topics ant relevant forum only, and you do not have any other options but to have patience. (Pl. read again.)

b) Fixing specific percentages on article content and not allowing addition of relevant and sourced info (pl read every word again) would need Wikipedia wide consensus and that would be long term project. One can not expect any such consensus in matter of days/ weeks/ months or even years because it does not seem to be practical and logical proposition. If you feel you can achieve consensus in matter of days for such proposition put up proposal for Wikipedia wide RfC and prove the consensus.

This is a policy forum of limited topics, This is not right forum to keep repeating your points of what is due and what is not due. Article talk page is there and you will need to wait until more people join in the discussion over period of time, pl do have patience un til then. Until then you can not stall sourced and relevant information being added that would amount to censorship, and those points need to be discussed in detail at article talk page not here. Pl be patient and move on for discussions at article talk page and wait for more people to join in due course of time.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)