Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

RFC: New subsection under "Not a Newspaper" about commentary

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 is a proposal to add the following in WP:NOTNEWS, per the discussion above.

5. Real-time news reactions, commentary and analysisWhile Wikipedia can excel at the cooperative development of detailed articles on breaking events in near real-time, editors should keep such articles focused on facts and immediate impacts, and avoid including opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media or by others not directly connected to the event, despite the quantity of such sources that may be available. We seek to cover an event's permanence and, as there is no deadline to getting these articles right, editors should only include such commentary and analysis well after the event has ended so that we can evaluate the proper balance of long-term views of the event's significance. This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to document the controversy, not participate in it.

5. Real-time news reactions, commentary and analysis: Editors should keep content about breaking events focused on facts and immediate impacts, and avoid including opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media or by others not directly connected to the event, despite the quantity of such sources that may be available. We seek to cover an event's permanence and, as there is no deadline to getting these articles right, editors should only include such commentary and analysis well after the event has ended so that we can evaluate the proper balance of long-term views of the event's significance. This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to document the controversy, not participate in it.

-- Proposed by Masem above, posted here by Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC) (note, changed first sentence, which is distracting and not necessary. Have notified everyone who !voted or commented so far Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

!votes

• Strong Oppose. This proposal would inhibit development of articles on recent events through over-broad language. It, would starve articles of important and necessary context available, sometimes in abundance, in reliable sources. Thus it would run smack against WP:UNDUE, which requires that viewpoints contained in reliable sources be fairly represented.

The discussion above indicates very clearly that there is no burning need for this policy change. Few articles have been presented as poster boys for the supposed ills represented by this proposal, and indeed the ones that have been cited, such as Dismissal of James Comey, would actually be hurt by this proposal and turned into stunted articles without a fair representation of viewpoints. Whether we like it or not, some articles are indeed characterized by media furors, and the furors, as with Comey, need to be represented in the article to be consistent with policy.

It also emerged in the discussion that this proposal is aimed to a large extent at "reaction" articles that the advocates of this proposal don't like very much in the first place. I don't always like them either. But this would not affect notability rules at all. The proposal suggests that there be a time test, including commentary only after an event has ended, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to make such an arbitrary stricture and it would hobble articles that are being created and expanded. A simply terrible idea and I do indeed hope that one of the proponents above is correct when they say that it has "zero chance" of being enacted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Neutral Not sure if this is a good start, but in my opinion it does not go far enough. We need to stop writing articles on late-breaking news while is is still breaking. Coretheapple talks about inhibiting development of articles on recent events as if that was a bad thing. Actually, articles on recent events are where we are most likely to publish incorrect information and where we are most likely to get into knock-down-drag-out fights. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Modified 14:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• support per WP:Beware of tigers and the very spirit of WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in the spirit of WP:RECENTISM. Deor (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support although no one is going to adhere to it. If Wikipedians aren't wasting time editing about fandom they're writing about stuff in the news, which is irresponsible. I support any measure that puts a cooling-off period on what we produce. More articles ≠ better articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Every single statement in the proposed text is correct. If implementing it would mean that it would trim some articles, then they are articles that are not encyclopedically written, but collectively edited blog or op-ed pages masquerading as them. They're also our primary productivity drain, hotbeds of circular PoV pushing and inter-editor fighting. I have no objection to some copyediting of the proposal, but substantively it's dead-on. "I glanced through [example article] and learned things I didn't know" is in no way sufficient justification (given in the Discussion section below); the same would be true for any violation of virtually any WP:NOT point (most obviously, WP:NOT#HOWTO). We're not here to provide all available facts (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), much less various subjective extrapolations from them, even when those aren't WP:NOR failures which they so often are; doing so leads directly into the WP:UNDUE morass that so many of our current-events articles wallow in. Isaacl's point below is also crucial: articles with this problem only ever get cleaned up if they're "hot" topics that attract broad and longterm editorial attention; most articles with recitations of "talking head" spin in them do not get such attention, and remain with non-encyclopedic material, often for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  I'm still in support of the revised version; it makes the same points in a little less wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support because hopefully this will make WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFDs easier to deal with by giving a clear basis in policy for what is and isn't acceptable content under NOTNEWS. It wouldn't outright prohibit the articles behind TRUMPSCANDALAFDs, but it would provide clearer guidance as to when an article is or isn't following NOTNEWS, which would make those discussions clearer as to whether something is eligible for deletion under WP:DEL14. Clarity in this matter is much needed, especially given the pace of the current US political news cycle. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note, I still support: I understand this is primarily about content, but content does play into AfD. This would help clarify what content is considered outside the bounds of acceptable for Wikipedia, and conversely help clarify what is acceptable. That helps with both talk page discussions and AfD (per TNT/BLP/DEL14). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in general terms, this could help cut down on the number of conflicts related to American and other partisan political issues especially.  Sandstein  08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's a rule for having a rule's sake. WP:CREEP and all that. Existing guidance is already sufficient to make it clear that this is not acceptable practice, and adding a new redundant rule doesn't actually stop people from writing bad articles, neither does creating a new rule enable people to correct that bad writing. If it's useless and redundant, there's no need for it. --Jayron32 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What P&G exist to establish this as unacceptable? The closest we have directly addressing this is WP:Recentism, and that's not even a guideline. Currently there is nothing in WP P&G that says anything against the practice of adding talking-head commentary from RSes in the short term once an event is deemed notable. Maybe its there in a larger read of all P&G put together, but if thats the only way it is obvious, then that's more reason to have explicit policy against it. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  There's nothing here that WP:UNDUE doesn't allow us to fix. To quote "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement..." No where in current policy are you prevented from improving articles by removing unnecessary detail. --Jayron32 13:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  and indeed this proposal would sanction removal of detail, period, which I think actually weakens/conflicts with WP:UNDUE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• oppose - encyclopedias are to put events into context and the opinions and commentary place the events in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.108 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support anything that helps people move towards enforcing NOTNEWS. —Kusma (t·c) 12:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I fully expect this change to be disregarded by the small but vocal clique who insist that Wikipedia needs to be among the first to document every event, but it at least gives a formal mechanism by which minor political debates and celebrity fancruft can be removed and if necessary their authors sanctioned. ‑ Iridescent 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although some editors may not like it, Wikipedia has a popular role as a news collator. Breaking issues typically attract 50K – 100K readers per day. Presumably, readers come here because they find a balanced, considered presentation of the facts as they are known at the time, without the excesses of the tabloid media. Put simply, some editors are trying to solve a problem that does not exist! WWGB (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Have you actually read the proposal? We're not voting to stop collating news, we're voting on whether to stop giving opinions on the news. ‑ Iridescent 12:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• (The proposal has been amended ) basically for the first half of the first sentence, it's unneeded blowing some mythical Wikipedia horn - we don't excel at this, we barely make it through - and we can't really know if we excelled until long into the future - and we fail in less profile matters - and fail from moment to moment -- so I think these words of false encouragement and boasting will be quite damaging to the project. By the time you have gotten through the boastful throat clearing of the first sentence, you've lost almost everyone to a melee of recentism, opinion breaking, "news". Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This can be changed, but really, when we are talking non-controversial, news-worthy events, I've personally found we excel at this. Its when an event brings/invites controversy that the problems start. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was going to add to my last sentence, but you responded, what I was going to add this ". . . literally and figuratively partial ". It's just not excel(lent) - it's rather more likely its just left in whatever, state, when people move to the next breaking sensation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • If you want to suggest a rewording, that's completely fine. Could be as simple as eliminating that first phrase, and start at "Editors should keep articles on breaking events in near real-time focused on..." --MASEM (t) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Sure, yes. 'We are excellent breaking news aggregators' is inimical to several goals of the projects, including NOTNEWS, itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
          • The primary reason I had included that is that I remembered that the WMF themselves wrote something in praise of how we are able to build up stories on breaking events to generate quality content, about 5-6 years ago. But I agree keeping it out might be better in the long run. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, I sense some irony in beginning this with an opinion, WMF's or not, but since it's there in the proposal and I don't share it, can't get past it, and think it will be more damaging to the encyclopedia project - land here - it's kind-of like - its not a 'clean bill', as they say. (Besides, I am not blaming you, just fyi). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This comes in the package of writing articles about contemporary events. If we write about them as they take place, then we must also write about the reception that they have and the opinions that they generate, also as they take place. If we are to refrain from those until the event is long over, then we should also write the articles at such point to begin with. Note that, once the event is over, the article may need to be rewritten if some further news rendered it obsolete (that's why we have the template {{update}}), but that's not always the case. Many times, "Event X" articles are composed by a "Main event X1" that kickstarts the whole thing, "smaller event X2" that takes place as a consequence, and sometimes those grow into a new "event Y" with its own consequences. And yet, the opinion pieces are largely focused on the X1 event itself, and later events do not render such opinions obsolete. For example: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Trump announces it on June 1, and on June 2 some people start writing their opinions. Do those opinions get outdated and useless in the light of the further reactions that take place on June 3 and later? Would the article be inaccurate if the president of Foo voices his opinion 6 months afterwards, and at that point none of us longer cared and nobody included it? Hardly. In fact, had we refrained from writing that article and waited a pair of years, the reactions would likely still be from the time when the event and its aftermath were taking place, and it wouldn't be much different as it is now. Cambalachero (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not the case that these opinions done in the short term become outdated, more that it is difficult to know how to apply UNDUE to the weight of all viewpoints in the short-term. At this point, relative to the Paris Agreement, we have 20/20 hindsight of how to dissect opinions to apply UNDUE properly. But not 3 days out from it. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • After three days we can have a sense as to how opinion is shaping up at that point in time. Lacking crystal balls, we can't forecast what it will be three weeks, months or years hence. Also I think editors are capable of distinguishing between blog posts and news analysis by a Pulitzer Price winning New York Times columnist. This proposal makes no such distinction, just tosses them all out. Coretheapple (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, it may be difficult, but as I said, it all comes in the package. We may not know, right now, with a event still taking place, which opinions will end up being the mainstream ones and which ones will not. We do not know many things. How will the event continue? Which will be the consequences? A leader has said something harsh: will he take action, or is it just empty bravado? Which of all those related news will become noteworthy and influence the main event, or even become a news event of its own? Which ones will be inconsequential and forgotten in a couple of days? As with all those other issues, the UNDUE issue would have to be dealt with as things go on and with some educated guesses. For example, the opinion of a renowned and respected author is more likely to be the one that will turn out to be the mainstream one, and so a safe bet. Cambalachero (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need for such an overly-broad prohibition on article content. Existing rules and procedures for consensus are more than sufficient to determine the appropriateness of article content. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Reiterate my oppose for the updated proposal. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instruction creep. Editors who say such things are irrelevant seem to have no trouble getting what they want without it. In any case, nothing makes them especially irrelevant. There's no difference between the news today and a hundred years from now, except our editors' attention is on it, and we need to let them work. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC) (the minor text revision to the proposal does not affect my response)
• Oppose per Gamaliel. There are some places where the proposal could come in handy, but I suspect that there are more where it would hurt good articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. To quote SMcCandlish: "Every single statement in the proposed text is correct." So many of our policies are geared towards minimizing disruption. Anyone who's been involved in breaking news articles, especially political articles, must admit this proposal would greatly minimize disruption. As far as "cost", I can't see any; we don't score points for being early but for being factual and accurate. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The proposal smacks of previous advocacy that Wikipedia “unskew" reliable sources because everyone knows they are biased against American extremists and adopts language that advocates that schools, rather than teaching science, should “teach the controversy.” MarkBernstein (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this proposal would not affect what's included in our articles – only when it's included. Since the end result is the same I don't see how it either skews or "unskews" (aside from the rare cases where our breaking news reporting becomes part of the story.) Can you elaborate? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The goalposts for what is "recent" is be invoked as long as there is substantial interest in the article and its consequences. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support - particularly when such news is political, published in the political section of a biased news source, or it is obvious sensationalism of the bait & click generation. I wouldn't object to adding that, within the first five days of a breaking story, it should first be included in Wikisource and Wikinews, and shall not be included in mainspace until...(see the conditions stated in this RfC). ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support and furthermore, I would want to "retroactively" enforce this, such that very recent news events which already have articles can be speedily moved into draft space. I'm okay with having this stuff in draft space, but mainspace articles such as Dismissal of James Comey really should go the way of the dodo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like a lot of the "breaking news" type stuff (I particularly despise the excessive Reactions to [event]... articles. But this proposal would surely create more problems/ambiguity than it would save: it is redundant to WP:DUE and existing WP:NOT provisions. I especially dislike the "others not directly connected to the event" prong: this equates media pundits, for example, with respected scholars, and would appear to prohibit Wikipedia from noting comments by such academics and other experts. This is unwise in the extreme; such people often provide significant and encyclopedic information that is exactly the kind of thing we should provide. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

To add to my earlier comment, let me give an example of how this proposal would cause negative consequences. Imagine that a coup attempt occurs in a central African nation. Editors create a new article on the coup. Three days after the coup, two respected scholars of modern African politics are interviewed on the coup; they comment on its causes and the historical backdrop in the nation (for example, an earlier coup, or rising tension), and give some informed speculation on future possible paths for the nation. Under this proposal, none of the the scholars' comments can be mentioned or cited. That is an absurd result. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As I envision it, in this example, comments from the scholars (assuming they are known experts in the area) about the causes and the historical backdrop are completely in line for inclusion - that's all hindsight. Their comments on where its going would be of question, at the short term. If that's an issue with the suggested language, it can be fixed, because I do feel that is a necessary distinction. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This distinction is not clear. Are you saying that you interpret "opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis" to only cover forward-looking speculation? Because that is certainly not made clear by the text of the proposal — plenty of editors (including me) would classify the scholars' comments on causes and context, whether backward-looking, present-looking, or forward-looking, as "opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis." My point is that causes and context are frequently highly contested, yet necessary for a full understanding of a subject. The solution is not to "ban opinions in the short term" but to follow existing policies, such as WP:DUE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

I'd also add that WP:CRYSTAL already covers this: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Does this proposal seek to change this longstanding policy? Neutrality^talk 20:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I would say that it is not just forward-thinking but "current-thinking" analysis that this should address, meaning that CRYSTAL isn't enough. Analysts trying to slot what a news event impacts at the more immediate time-frame is part of the problem. That goes to the DUE issue: given any news event, there will be a difference between how it is seen (and thus how DUE applies) the days/weeks after it happens, a year after it happens, and 10 years after it happens. There might not be much change, there might be a lot; it's crystal-balling to predict. What we can say is that the longer after the event you wait, the more DUE will settle into a form that will have no significant changes over time. So it is more about avoid DUE until a more stagnant picture of what the varied opinions can be made. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I was a heavy editor on the Boston Marathon bombings page discussed below. Our page was the best, most comprehensive, source of info allalong. This proposed rule will be used by critics of current events pages to badger, sanction, and disrupt the creation of good pages by interested editors. Don't like to work in a high speed collabertive environment - come back to the page in a few weeks and edit it. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would consider the process on the Boston Marathon bombings one of the best examples of a rapidly developing article in real time. In part because most of the content was factual and not about opinions or reactions. There was very little "talking heads" about that article during that week, and the development of that article would not have changed if this proposal was in place. So this is no way to attempt to prevent that working collab. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Way too much editor attention and energy is wasted on chasing the news. We could avoid many edit wars, AfD debates and personal attacks if we had simple guidelines to limit the coverage of ongoing events to the essential facts and cut on commentary. That includes not creating knee-jerk article whenever some trumped-up^{[pun intended]} "shocking news" makes headlines. Newspapers need to sell subscriptions, TV channels need to sell ad space, and Wikipedia doesn't need to sell any of its precious electrons. This proposal may yet be amended to avoid the kind of issues that Neutrality points out, however some guidance advising restraint is way overdue. — JFG ^talk 19:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - mostly because it's a badly written and badly defined statement which will cause more trouble (I'm not necessarily opposed to the sentiment behind it). What does "well after the event has ended" mean? That right there by itself will cause countless edit wars, AN/I reports and general stupidity on the talk page. If you want this changed, you need to write a better proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I also concur with Coretheapple above that 1) there's actually no pressing need for this change and 2) that whatever the merits of the proposal itself, the support for it appears in large part to be motivated by political axe-grinding and grievances rather than a desire to improve the project.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The language in this proposal is so vague and ambiguous as to be useless. What is "immediate impacts"? What is "the short term"? What does it mean to "cover an event's permanence"? (That latter phrase makes no grammatical sense). Neutrality^talk 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose although I support in principle. But the reality is that Wikipedia is treated as a news source for interested people looking for reliable information regarding breaking events. Until this fundamental point is addressed, band-aids to the policy will not change anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have been often impressed at how quickly editors have reflected coverage of breaking news, and while that is not my area of interest, I don't think that should stop. The proposal doesn't put limitations on the reporting of factual information, it tries to throttle back the often breathless regurgitation of instant analysis, which seems to be required by the major media, and they get away with it because they can update their nonsensical opinions 24 hours later, and pretend their earlier, uninformed analyses did not ever exists. Our inclusion of those premature attempts at analysis will simply help memorialize the idiocy, and we ought to avoid that. Start with facts, then include the reasoned analyses when the event is old enough that new facts aren't changing the landscape every few minutes. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A related point is that, in the real world, the general practice is to treat reportage that is close to an event in time (or other, more material connection) as if it is a primary source, and to do this more strongly the older the material is and thus the more time there is for non-hysterical, genuinely secondary analysis. This obviously has import for our WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NOR system. Half-baked "insta-analyses" from sources we usually consider secondary aren't really secondary, and become more and more primary as times goes on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "Opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media" should indeed be avoided for the many reasons described above, and even in the long-term it should be avoided unless it is described in reliable secondary sources, because an opinion piece or other pronouncement is merely a primary source regarding what the author thinks. Per WP:OR, "examples of primary sources include...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews...." So often at Wikipedia's political articles on current topics, there's an intense effort to present these primary sources without regard to the distinction between primary and secondary sources, and everyone's time is often wasted by arguing about how these primary sources should be balanced when actually they should rarely be used at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is instruction creep. I believe that WP handles breaking news tolerably well under existing policy and guidelines. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gamaliel, Volunteer Marek and Legacypac. Overbroad, vaguely worded, and a recipe for endless squabbling on ANI and talk page wikilawyering. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do understand that this is about commentary, and not facts, but I don't think the proposed new rule is necessary to deal with any problems in that area. As Carrite says, and I wrote below, we deal with recent events pretty well, and any disputes about commentary included in recent event articles can be ironed out the way every dispute is, by discussion on the talk page.
  The one suggestion I would make to those who believe that something more is called for, is to created a Recent events noticeboard to deal with the problems that arise, if they can't be solved on the talk page. This would extend the Wikipedia-normal consensus process in the same way that WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:ELN, WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:ORN do now in their areas. I think this is more consistent with the way things work here then simply banning something outright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia often does high-speed collaboration well. This would introduce a layer of confusion and would be used by some to remove material they didn't like. If too many talking heads have been added, the solution is to wait a few weeks then tighten things up. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Volunteer Marek who stated that this was badly written. My main concern is the confusing wording that seems to contradict policy and guidelines.

• Stick to Breaking news in the sub-heading, not Real-time news, I would also use "reports" instead of reactions. Both are grounded in Wikipedia content guidelines. Please avoid the use entirely or "analysis". This is really going to cause problems considering that WP:ANALYSIS is a policy short cut to Wikipedia:No original research that discusses secondary sources and how they contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. That would almost seem to look like contradicting a policy.

• The portion that reads; "Editors should keep content about breaking events focused on facts and immediate impacts, and avoid including opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media or by others not directly connected to the event, despite the quantity of such sources that may be available" again may be telling editors something different than our guidelines. Could it simply say; "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia". I would not link to Wikipedia:Recentism. If so, it should be referred to in-text as an essay as to not raise the importance of the opinions represented there. The portion about; "editors should only include such commentary and analysis well after the event has ended" is a contradicting the WP:IRS guideline of Breaking news to only require a day or two.

• The portion; "so that we can evaluate the proper balance of long-term views of the event's significance" sounds like we are linking one thing to another. Couldn't we just say that Notability is not temporary? Again, this is grounded in a guideline.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• On one hand, I do worry about excessive WP:REACTIONCRUFT, which we are seeing in abundance following high-profile, contentious political events. These sections seem to be unduly controversial and detract from the crucial need to get the basic facts of the matter right. On the other hand, I agree with Jayron32 (among others) that our existing WP:UNDUE policy - supplemented by WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK - seems to cover this issue adequately. On the whole, I think that we could apply existing policies more rigorously (maybe apply special talkpage notices to problematic subject areas?), rather than write new ones. GAB^gab 02:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Such a restriction is not needed, doesn't support Wikipedia's purpose, and is too broad. The "phrase "similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media" is very vague and would almost certainly cause endless arguments. Similarly, I don't know what would qualify as "real-time". I do agree with "We seek to cover an event's permanence and, as there is no deadline to getting these articles right". That's an argument for following our established content guidelines and allowing articles to evolve through collaborative editing without overly-restrictive prohibitions on content. - MrX 02:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as essentially unenforceable instruction creep. A better solution here is to kill WP:ITN completely and remove it from the main page of Wikipedia. Doing so would go a long way towards alleviating some of the problems that people are complaining about here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Gamaliel. There may be some merit to restricting certain types of content on breaking news events (e.g. extensive lists of victims, statements from world leaders not closely connected to the event, etc.). But this proposal would unduly restrict stuff like academic experts in a field relevant to the field commenting on the event (e.g. a climatologist commenting on a weather event). Existing policies and guidelines on undue coverage, verifiability, neutral point of view, etc. Should be used to judge what can and cannot be included, not this arbitrary proposal. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Yes, we have a problem with articles about recent events being flooded with commentary and reactions. Nonetheless, I believe that legislating against it is going to create more problems than it would solve. This might be a positive in articles about, for instance, terror attacks; where politicians trip over themselves trying to earn mileage from them. BUT for events such as elections, natural disasters, epidemics, and particularly announcements of policy, we cannot eliminate reactions without flagrantly violating NPOV. We are not a repository of primary information; we are an encyclopedia, and we must include analysis as well as documentation. In addition, I am concerned about the scope of this; I think it more than likely that such a rule will be abused to remove commentary in situations where it is entirely appropriate. This isn't even addressing the largest manifestation of recentism, which is the flood of articles on unimportant topics receiving temporary attention; if we want to fix our recentism problem, let's begin by getting rid of those. Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Ill-conceived, unhelpful and unworkable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per SMcC and Iri. Frankly, it doesn't go far enough - I'd fully support a ban on any recent events (within a month) getting coverage, but since I live in the real world and not a dream world, I'm willing to support anything that keeps our articles from looking like the opinion pages rather than an encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Here's the thing: I would support Ealdgyth's idea. I do not believe we have any compulsion to cover any and all recent events: and it's unfair to portray any opposition to this proposal as an obsession with breaking news. If we do break the news, though, we must do so in a neutral way: including any significant points of view in reliable secondary sources. NPOV is not optional. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Needless rule that only serves to hurt articles. The most notable commentary should be included and improved over time. Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support obvious consequence of WP:5P1, Wikipedia shouldn't be "text bulimic". --Vituzzu (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)'
• Oppose. "we want to document the controversy, not participate in it.". Yes, exactly. But we may need reliably sourced commentaries about an event to document a controversy. The proposal also seem to contradict WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose This would prevent the development of proper articles. We should of course not develop our own analysis, but we need to report analysis as well as bare facts. We do need to limit our coverage of the utterly trivial , including some of the Trump material mentioned, but this is way too broad. We cannot tell now what material will be of permanenet interest, but there's a better way of handling it, which is to delete the ephemeral once we have a longer perspective. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)`

• Oppose Any such issues are dealt with by editors already, under existing rules. Megaphone Duck (talk)
• Oppose – Editors wishing to add news five minutes after it breaks is annoying. Worse, some editors add news that hasn’t really yet occurred (e.g. a vote is scheduled for Wednesday, or a subpoena has been issued). Annoying as this is, such requested or actual additions are usually handled fairly quickly. Although it might be convenient to have a handy guideline to point to, there are times when it is obvious that new news will stand the test of time and should be added immediately, and often with some expert analysis/commentary. A broad restriction may be problematic. And, if too much is codified in the guidelines, we’ll have editors resorting to WP:IAR. Objective3000 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems to be an exercise in creating additional bureaucracy where it wont be helpful. A number of Opposes above have pointed out ways in which the benefits of this change do not outweigh the negatives. I suspect that this rule change would be ignored all over the place anyway, even if it was implemented, as it puts roadblocks in the way of content creation with not so obvious benefits. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't want Wikipedia to be a newspaper, you need a quality crystal ball on some topics to determine is permanence is going to occur. Esp. in post 1932 politics. If you want to enforce a rule, no AfD invoking notnews within a week of creation. If it is a minor thing, there will be other legitimate reasons to delete or nominate the article. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support unless I'm mis-reading, all this does is outlaw the ridiculous reactions sections whenever some tragedy strikes. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a collection of quotes from everybody who is, was or wants to be a world leader or celebrity. If you cannot write a paragraph of prose, backed up by reliable sources, about a reaction it should not be included anywhere. If you want to document every twitter utterance, Wikiquote is the place for you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  What we need is administrators to move breaking news articles to draftspace and salt mainspace for two weeks.  Once administrators actively support the policy that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can better deal with refining the line between an encyclopedia and a newspaper.  The current proposal is confounded with issues of the information available when news is breaking.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• The proposal is unclear and not thought out. In general, it is not always easy or clear what the relevant facts are to the story. Also, a fair bit of the time, the reaction to the "facts" are an important part of the story. Perhaps if the author of the proposal would pick two or three topics and then write a draft article on what they should be, instead of what they are, then we can evaluate the proposal seriously. I'll end with a quote I always like from E. H. Carr, What is History?:

The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use - these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation.

If one seriously wants to fix the mess of "breaking news" articles, then ban those articles altogether. Why should an "encyclopedia" have breaking news articles in the first place? But this will never happen, of course. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've wasted a good chunk of my life deleting these things and coming up with new ways to explain why they shouldn't come back. But they keep coming back! This time, I won't explain. Maybe that's the ticket. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose In the Discussion section the Unite the Right rally was brought up to represent the pros/cons of this proposed change and Jytdog said, "That is actually a great example of the kind of RECENTISM that this proposal is meant to address and the way people write in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with our mission to be an encyclopedia." Maseum said that in his opinion most of the commentaries are not appropriate for our encyclopedia. Anyone can take a look at our rally article for themselves. If you have no interest in commentary you need only to skip those sections. If you do have an interest in commentary, as I do, you can read them. But if they are gone, you have no choice. I work on these sorts of articles. If we are restricted from adding commentary when it becomes newsworthy to some later date, it will not get edited into our articles. Let's keep our articles suited for all of our readers, as best we can. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I see the merit in this, but the wording is poor and is quite vague. Jdcomix (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle, not that it matters, because editors will do what they will do. Personally, I agree with what the proposed new language says. All of the ooh, I'm going to hurry and create a new page about this thing! annoys me. But that's probably my problem. However, if we make this a part of a core policy, all it will accomplish is even more drah-mah. It won't be enforceable without editorial bloodshed. Everyone should take a look at WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Anything that reduces the cruft that inevitably appears on these articles when these events happen is good. I actually think our coverage of recent events is sub-optimal, we often end up with reaction sections drowning out the actual details of what happened. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support The "excluded" material is not information about the topic anyway, it is info about what editor-selected other people think about the topic and so is at least one step removed regarding relevance anyway. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - per Volunteer Marek, Jdcomix and others. The wording, despite being long-winded, is too imprecise to be helpful. I agree that there are a number of problems with recent events articles (which rarely get updated once the news-storm has moved on in my experience). Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I think this captures the difference between newspapers and encyclopedia. Might not be perfect, but definitely a step in the right direction. Renata (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is well-meaning, I'm sure, but terribly misguided. It is a fiction that fact and "opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis" can be successfully delineated when it comes to breaking news stories. The "by others not directly connected to the event" bit is particularly asinine, since eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and people directly connected with events are frequently too emotionally invested to see clearly. If this were a proposal to prohibit creation of articles about any event less than a week old, I'd support it enthusiastically. As long as we have such articles, however, they should be comprehensive, and that requires allowing them to be informed by context, sober perspective, and expertise as much as possible. By tolerating articles on very current events, we've already slipped out of our encyclopedia-creating role and decided to have a go at amateur journalism. If this proposal passes, we'll be functioning more like a tabloid than like anything remotely approaching a credible news outlet, let alone an encyclopedia. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just one thing that I saw here: We do want articles to be comprehensive in time, and we do want "sober perspective", but it is near impossible by definition to have "sober perspective" from anyone so close to the happening of an event. There is some length of time that it takes for an event to have settled down so that we can determine the "sober perspective" of it for the comprehensive article, but how long that time is may be days, weeks, or years, depending on the impact and controversy of the event. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The stricture on "commentary" is prone to the same kind of abuse as the current overly broad classification of "opinion pieces" as primary sources, which equates a carefully argued case for a controversial conclusion with unsupported "What I think is": both are "opinion pieces". Changes in the opposite direction are needed, like repealing the classification of (all) "opinion pieces" as primary sources. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nominator, S Philbrick, Iridescent, and JFG. They've all captured my longtime thoughts on the need to be consistent in separating news from encyclopedic content - no need to rehash what they've already stated. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "Opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis" by notable people of the time, even those not directly connected to the event, can be quite relevant to articles on historical events. This is more true, not less true, if the reactions or analysis reflect a very different perspective from later historians and scholars. Therefore it is wrong to assume that this sort of material is necessarily ephemeral in value. On the overall question of recentism, I think trying to prevent Wikipedia from covering current events in a timely manner would hurt rather than help those articles in the long run (provided of course that the articles do have long term notability). 27.34.105.186 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)— 27.34.105.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments expressed by Wnt, DGG, and InsertCleverPhraseHere, among others. Instruction creep; and of a sort that has a very high potential for editorial misuse. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a vaguely worded proposal that certainly has "high potential for editorial misuse" as WWGB states. Since many articles about recent events are about the controversies they generate, it is a bad idea to omit notable commentary. petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, not secondary sources; this proposed addition would go a bit of a way in enforcing our restrictions on the use of primary sources. It's long past time to stop adhering to this fringe theory that news reports about an ongoing or very recent event are secondary sources: you do realise, don't you, that you can't find a prominent historian who will treat a news report on that ongoing event as anything but a primary source for that event? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• support This stuff is padding when it is published, for the most part, and becomes padding when we repeat it. I also agree with Nyttend about the primary sourcing issue, but when it comes down to it, the responses to "can you comment on this?" are typically boilerplate and in any case are ephemeral in the extreme. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly there are trivial responses which should not be included. This is a question for care in editing, not for elimination. What people say concerning an event is part of the event. Political events in particular are more about hte interpretations of the various parties than about the underlying facts, if any. The importance and permeant notability is often what is said mat the time, . The perspective of that we will have in the future is important too, anda good reason for revisiting many political articles afterwards, but it is not reason to omit the perspective of the present. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This helps flesh out the idea that we avoid WP:RECENTISM, which is often a problem with some editors in controversial topics. This is all basically enshrined in the spirit of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. as it is, so the idea shouldn't be anything controversial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This kind of information is often interesting and helpful to the reader, and it's too hard to draw a clear line that won't filter out good material. Tamwin (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of news commentary RfC

• To Coretheapple's point, when a topic is the subject of media furor, we can document that there was a media furor and document briefly the key points of why it was that, because being a furor in the media is part of the factual news. It's endless analysis off those points that is problematic. A clear example is President's Trumps comments on the Unite the Right rally situation. His statement caused a media furor. It is appropriate to document that some groups found his statements troubling, that Trump/others responded back to them, and there was further furor in response to those. But in constrast, I have seen comments that have called that situation a turning point in Trump's presidency due to all the negative reaction, which is just talking-head stuff at this point and should be excluded. Basically, one has to judge if the media furor is part of the story or not, and avoid it in the short-term if it is. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything in Unite the Right Rally that is there now and would go if this policy chance were enacted? Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Much (not all) of the content in "Political responses", "Religious responses", "Academic responses", "Defenses of Trump" and "Public opinion" are unnecessary per this and likely should be reduced/merged into a section, and much of the finer details (but not outright removal) of "President Trump's statements" should be trimmed down, though this section absolutely needs to stay. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe that would be a good thing. I think not. I glanced through the article and learned things I didn't know, and I've been following that controversy. See, I think that's what Wikipedia is for, which is to be helpful to readers, be they casual browsers or academic researchers. In fact, to be frank, I didn't see a single thing that cried out to be cut. Maybe it's just me. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that WP is not news. It's far too soon to the event to be having an encyclopedia article try to dissect it. We have to ask if the article was frozen in that state today, would it be appropriate in 5-10 years, and the answer should obviously be no due to the short-term talking-head analysis that is included. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles are not frozen in some deep freeze for five to ten years. We're not clairvoyants and we have no way to determine whether what is in an article now will stand the test of time. Over time, it will be edited. There's the cure for the non-existent disease addressed by this proposal. Right now the community wants an article on the controversy (or seems to as there has been no AfD; feel free to nominate it), the editors of the article want it in its present form at the present time, and a quick read indicates that they seem to be right in their approach. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not an AFD issue; the bulk of the article is clearly an event that meets NEVENT. But it is an issue that is perpetuating the weakening of NOT#NEWS, particularly when one argues as you are that "no one is complaining about it". The problem with these reaction sections and approaches is far too pervasive on WP to select one article to be the test bed for it. And while it can be argued that policy and guidelines should follow practice, this is where there needs to be a corrective measure to help enforce NOT#NEWS that this type of coverage in articles weaken. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Masem, per my comments above, while this isn't directly an AfD issue, it does relate to AfD because of WP:DEL14. While primarily a content policy for articles if adapted, it would also have the side benefit of clarifying part of what the NOTNEWS standard was. This would have a benefit at AfDs in both directions: something that didn't fail this would be easier to keep and not end up no consensus, and also easier to tell when something was completely out of bounds in terms of content and thus eligible for deletion under DEL!4 and WHATISTOBEDONE. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

True, there may be some element of this that could stretch back to NEVENT. Just because something gets a bunch of talking heads to comment on it (passing the apparent bar of the GNG and NEVENT), if that ends up making the article more about the immediate commentary than the event itself, that might be reason to delete or merge. (Eg, to me, there's something off that we have a whole article on the dismissal of Comey given that it is part of the larger issue, but that's not the only example). But since NEVENT is guideline, I'd wait to see if this is agreed to be added to policy, and then approach NEVENT with some language to that degree. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Masem you engaged Core a ton up above. Coretheapple has made it clear that they are committed to adding commentary, and that position is not going to change. You are of course free to continue engaging here, but if you do, this discussion section will become an endless tangle that no one will read per tldr. And neither of you are saying anything new. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Masem was discussing this calmly and factually, and avoiding ad hominems such as you threw around in the "noticeboard" section. My sense is that this might not be going down to a SNOW rejection if he were leading the discussion for advocates, though I could be wrong. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Geez, thanks Jytdog, a hard one. One the one hand, I am sympathetic to the view that because we are not a newspaper, we should be extremely leery about articles on breaking news stories, as, since we are an encyclopedia, it's not our primary function. On the other hand, it may be time that we recognize that the general public frequently uses us as a trusted source of information about breaking news, and our articles are often included in news aggregators about those stories. The other thing is that we actually do breaking news pretty damn well, since there's a massive give-and-take between editors that more or less forces articles to be both comprehensive and neutral -- that's something that traditional media does not have (or if they do it's on a much smaller scale, and the editor or publisher has the final word). I myself have used Wikipedia articles to sort out the wheat from the chaff for an incident where the media coverage is confused. I could not possibly read all the sources that had been taken into account by various Wikipedia editors in shaping the article, and the result was something that was very informative and balanced.
  So, the bottom line is: I'm just not sure. I'm going to have to follow the discussion here and see what people say before I make up my mind on this one. Sorry, Jytdog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You can thank Masem, who really proposed this. :) But this bit is not about facts, but commentary/spin/talking heads. Different things. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that English Wikipedia handles news pretty well. For really big stories, yes, a lot of editors get involved, and after massive amounts of time and energy invested, a more neutral version of the text can get hammered out, with a large opportunity cost. But for the many other smaller news stories, there are editors who will insert commentary-of-the-day quotes into articles, and without the same army of people to resolve the undue weight question, it's hard to ensure that proper balance is maintained. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken we would be so much further ahead with encyclopedic content if we would all be more diligent in rerouting the news over to Wikinews instead of keeping it in the encyclopedia. Can we use the redirect feature for that? Jimbo is even ramping things up in that same direction with a new Wikitribune site which will include paid journalists and volunteers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Wikitribune will not be connected to Wikipedia in any way, and as for Wikinews - I contributed to it some back in the day, but I really don't think it ever reached the number of contributors which would make it viable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Bringing this point on UNDUE out of the !votes (see JAyron32's !vote). It's argued that UNDUE allows us to remove excess detail. I would counter (semi-related to Coretheapple's point) that some see the absence of the talking-heads analysis of a breaking news topic as not following UNDUE as that analysis makes up a large part of the immediate news coverage (influenced by the sheer volume of news due to cable 24/7 news, op-eds, etc.) This is the point where we need to put our foot down to distinguish WP's goal as an encyclopedia from what the newspapers and cable news' goals are. UNDUE should be applied at the long-term , not at the short term. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, we seem to be in agreement that this proposal undermines UNDUE by not making it applicable to articles on recent events, which by definition are always short-term. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Re "it may be time that we recognize that the general public frequently uses us as a trusted source of information about breaking news", why? Why "recognize" it instead of putting a stop to it? We are a terrible source of information about breaking news, and the general public are fools if they use us as a trusted source of information about breaking news. I say that we should have a three-day waiting period on any breaking news. Let the general public go to Wikinews for the latest, then come back here a few days later to get an carefully researched encyclopedic treatment of the event in question.

Consider our article on the Boston Marathon bombing. Our article was created on 19:31, 15 April 2013 and looked like this:[1]

four and a half hours later later, at 23:59, 15 April 2013, the article had gone through eight hundred and ninty-seven revisions, and looked like this: [2] (After 3 days, it looked like this: [3])

I challenge anyone here to make a case that an article that is going through three revisions per minute is a "trusted source of information". The fact that whatever random version was posted in the last 30 seconds before they checked is assumed by the press as if it were accurate -- which then gets re-used by other sources and then used as a source on Wikipedia -- makes the problem worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good example --- for drawing exactly the opposite conclusion! What source could be more reliable than one getting revised so often and viewed by so many eyes? Hell, didn't the New York Times recently lay off some of the world's last copy editors? [4] "Our goal with these changes is to still have more than one set of eyes on a story, but not three or four" -- that's a direct quote from someone at one of the most trusted papers. They aspire to have precisely two sets of eyes on a story, we have 897!!! There is a reason why Google News chooses to feature our articles: it's because we can do a better job than for-profit media.

Even more fundamentally: every article goes through a stub stage. It doesn't spring from Jove's forehead in full armor. We should not be ashamed of this. We present our offerings, good or bad, complete or just starting, with pleasure that we have people doing something. And we do not have any reason to disparage our news junkies who scrape the world's newspapers to keep up with a topic, as best as it is known, whether the details take five hours or five years to come out in full. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Guy, you can't look at the state of our article without any context at all. To determine if our article was in good shape or not, you'd have to compare it to what the mass media was reporting at the same time. What was the state of The New York Times or the Boston Globe or CNN at those exact times when you cite our article? I'm willing to bet that our article had more information, better sourced, than any of those outlets did at the same point in time, because it was "going through three revisions per minute", which is exactly the process I referred to above of give-and-take, insertion and correction, biasing and unbiasing which the Wikipedia methodology allows, and which the mainstream media does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the articles that are forgotten, lying there neglected, not updated, that frequently harbor the most problems. The general principle is that the more eyes are on an article the better it is going to be. That's why we have RfCs. Highlly trafficked articles on recent events might tend to be a bit long but tend to provide a good picture of the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The general principle that the more eyes are on an article the better it is going to be does not apply to any version that has was edited 20 seconds ago and will be changed in 20 seconds. later, yes, we arrive at a good article. During the churn, no. the only "eyes on the problem" are whoever is first to finish typing and hit the save button. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think you've fallen victim to a trivial fallacy. The fact that edits are going through so quickly does not mean that the reading and revision was that slow. Many editors will have read part or all of the article in a slow, deliberate manner before finding some point to correct or expound upon. The editing process itself probably involves an edit conflict, but that just means you copy your version of the text and reclick on the Edit section in your history tab. It surely doesn't mean you have to retype everything you want to put in in the 30 seconds! So despite the fast pace of editing, the edits should be good. Either they are proofreading, or else they are valuable new material; while I could wish for all new material, I think articles of the type you linked pretty clearly have more revision than addition to remain so small. So I stand by my claim that there are many eyes on the text. True, not all 900 person-edit sessions actually read it -- however, the text was good enough that several times as many people looked at the article and didn't bother to change anything or write complaints on the talk page, so I'll stick with the figure as a fair guess at the order of magnitude of proofreading going on. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're one of those who thinks that this proposal will cut down on the number of disputes and fights in American Politics era you're not thinking it through. It will do the opposite. The statement is vaguely worded and open to interpretation, which means it's open to WP:GAMEing. And then there will be people who fight the game-ing. And then there will be people who will fight the fighting of game-ing. Etc. With this in place you can look forward to countless idiotic arguments about what constitutes "well after the event has ended", what is the difference between commentary and "just the facts", and what constitutes an event with significant and lasting notability. Basically take your typical nasty AfD, add in some WP:AE drama, filter it through the mobhouse that is AN/I and you'll get roughly what this proposal - as worded - will do to article talk pages in American politics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek Your comment in the !votes section about motivations of people supporting this, is unwise at best and you should probably reconsider that. I respect your experience working on just the kind of articles where this would be relevant, so your feedback is important to me at least. Surely you see some define-able difference between facts and commentary? Or do you not? if you do see a difference, how would you define it? Thx Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Mr Ernie, User:Legacypac, and User:WWGB please pardon, but each of your !votes above appear to be based on a perception that the proposal concerns facts, but what it addresses is only commentary - all the talking head/blogosphere stuff that is used to fill the 24-hour news cycle. Would you please confirm you are aware of this? Sorry to bug you. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the proposal several days back, and again when I voted, as well as all comments and votes. I believe this proposal will be misused to inhibit proper article building on breaking news type topics. WP:NOTNEWS is often misrepresented to support all kimds of POV pushers. It's fine for Wikipedia to quickly reflect RS in an ongoing situation. Some reactions are notable (this often gets out of hand-say international reactions of support on a terrist attack) but this proposal is too broad to address the small issues we have. It will be used in a disruptive way, I'm sure. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you understand that this is limited to being about commentary. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

But the obvious problem with that is that the core wikipedia policy is WP:V. Who gets to decide what is "fact" and what is "commentary"? This will cause endless edit wars. Indeed, I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen somebody revert somebody with (in their mind a perfectly reasonable edit summary) "that's just your own opinion". I mean, keep in mind that we had ArbCom cases about whether .99999999999999999999... = 1 or not. Whether the actual solution to the Monty Hall problem is the actual solution. We have people running around Wikipedia who think that solutions to math problems are "commentary". It's gonna be x46.543 times worse on political articles. This just isn't going to work. We ALREADY have policies which address this issue. WP:RS and WP:V. What we need to do is get better at observing these policies that we already have, rather than making up some new, vague and confusing stuff to fuel all the battlegrounds and edit wars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are explicitly and sternly restricted by WP:SELFPUB and cable television talking heads are also frowned upon already. We don't need this rule to deal with such text. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I understood this was strictly referring to commentary. But again, I believe this will not have an impact as to improving what the fundamental problem actually is. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am a fan of us covering recent events as I often turn to WP to get my news. I am unclear how this change will support us covering recent events better? I find the official positions of countries regarding major events to be interesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have a question. What is meant by "editors should only include such commentary and analysis well after the event has ended." Does this mean a few days, a few weeks, or a few months? Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I had the same question. Also:

What is a "breaking event"? What does "breaking" mean in that context?

What is an "immediate impact"? What time span is encompassed by "immediate"?

What is meant by "others not connected with the event"?

What is meant by "participate" in the controversy? What does that mean?

Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what "is", "is". What does "mean" mean? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends upon how much you want to see this enacted.If you are going to belittle serious questions, the answer is that you've already given up. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• responding to folks above.

Events happen. Events end. There are facts about those events. They get reported.

Commentary happens. Commentary is different from facts. This is not complicated.

With the 24 hour news cycle looking for grist to mill, there are mountains of non-blog news sources with commentary - that discusses what events "mean" as they are happening or offering opinions about the events, and yet more RS discussing how people are reacting to those opinions or putative meanings, and yet more with reactions to those reactions.

Tons of commentary from people whose only job is to be part of the commentariat, in RS. The 24 news cycle needs grist to fill time.

Those who are saying that "this is handled by V and UNDUE" are wrong. It isn't a question of V, as RS actually report on the commentary. It isn't a question of UNDUE, since WEIGHT is determined by sources, and as stated, there are plenty of RS.

It is a question of what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. Hence the proposal.

Very open to ways to tighten or improve it. Would be open to be more clear about what kind of commentary and from whom would be OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. <Gandy furrows her brow and crosses her eyes because she does not understand what on earth Jytdog is talking about.> Except that as a matter of fact events do happen and they end too. There must be someone else here that can explain this better? Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, Charlottesville happened. I went to google and searched ""CNN news charlotsville". In my search results here were the first 5 results:

• Gary Cohn: WH 'must do better' condemning hate groups - CNNPolitics
• Charlottesville car crash suspect 'has extreme values' - CNN - CNN.com
• Trump voter says Charlottesville was a setup - CNN Video - CNN.com
• Charlottesville white nationalist rally: What we know - CNN - CNN.com
• These Trump supporters think Charlottesville was a false flag - CNN.com

I look at those and ask "which of these is most likely to be simply reporting facts?" I chose link #4, " Charlottesville white nationalist rally: What we know - CNN - CNN.com". If somebody would choose a different one, I can only wonder about their judgement. But the other four, are obviously going to be commentary. (although #2 might have some facts on the driver) Somebody giving their opinion about what happened. CNN as really the founder of the 24 news cycle, excels at churning out these "reports" on what talking head X says about Y - to fill up time. see CNN effect.

So I clicked on #4, and where did that take me? I was gobsmacked. It took me here (i just archived it) where the headline as of now is "Virginia governor on white nationalists: They should leave America" ( Facepalm). But if one scrolls down a bit one gets to the sections about facts starting at the section called "What happened" where CNN provides the facts of what happened.

What is unclear here? Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors managed to get Unite the Right Rally into reasonable shape. That being so, what are we doing here? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The above was offered as an illustration of sources that describe news, and sources that give commentary. I hadn't even looked at the article.

Now that you bring it up, it is ridiculous that the talking head section of that article is longer than the section describing what actually happened. That is actually a great example of the kind of RECENTISM that this proposal is meant to address and the way people write in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with our mission to be an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no section devoted to cable TV talking heads. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not devoted to cable TV talking heads. That is not what i said. I won't be responding to you further here. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You said "talking head section of the article." There is no need to blow your stack, but feel free to do so if that is your choice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a talking heads section either. Jytdog, I understand the difference between commentary about an event and a description of the event. What I don't understand is how long one would expect to wait before adding commentary. Would a few days be reasonable? Longer than that would make it hard to find RS since after a few days one finds the results that you found when you googled CNN: talking head opinions from journalists. The people that some/many of us would like to hear from have already had their say about the event. I hope that we can continue with this conversation since I frequently work on articles such as the Charlottesville article and it's pretty easy for me to imagine endless hassles about what "recent" means. Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: makes a great point here. The first source is often the best source; then it is followed by imperfect echoes whose goal in life is to drown it out. I know of one partial antidote to this - the Google News search, sorted by date. But in a shot across the bow, the company recently screwed with that, making it a Javascripted thing that seems more questionable, though you can get through to an advanced search. But paging around looking for the timeline of articles about something can get you short-term banned (well, you supposedly can regain access with their captcha nonsense, but is a pole part of a street sign? All I get is demands for more and more...) And in any case the news organizations have caught on and it seems like they have ways of retroactively getting their spam into the early search results, not to mention links that are nothing about the story, etc. Anyway --- if people here can recommend more and better ways for editors to get a reliable dated list of the news stories that came out, so that they can do the searches later on, they can take some of the time pressure off those looking to write good articles about events. I don't think they should use that to then demand they be out of date, but if editors simply knew they had some fallback options, it might make their approach a tad more laid back at the beginning. Not that I know if that would be a good thing... but I know me knowing about more options would be a good thing. ;) Wnt (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well perhaps... As for me it seems that we'd be trying to fix something that's not broken. Using the above rally article that Jytdog commented on saying that this change in policy is intended to get rid of most of the commentary in the article -- I don't want to get rid of it, I like it. I see our encyclopedia as a marriage between the old-time book encyclopedias and library research that any of us that are old enough used in high school and college and today's way of spreading news -- computer news which almost always includes commentary by the people in the news. As for some sort of proper length of time before adding commentary, why? It would not improve the article to initially omit commentary and it would make my work harder if I had to wait a certain amount of time before adding it. Since I'm not being paid for what I do here but rather do it because it brings me joy, I enjoy doing my editing while the incident is unfolding rather than wait till later when I'd need to do searches. Again looking at the Unite the Right rally article, one can judge for themselves the quality of the article keeping in mind that if they have no interest in the commentary sections there is nothing that says they must read them. But if they're not there, people like me who like them will be cheated. (As an aside, women are under-represented on Wikipedia and I'll bet that this issue would not need discussion if they represented editors to the same degree that men do.) Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: Just to expand upon one of your points: we go to great lengths to get original newspaper sourcing in historical articles, and Newspapers.com serves a valuable service in providing just that kind of material. Not just for facts but for so-called "commentary," such as notable columnists, that has been vilified by some of the commenters here as "talking heads." (They don't mean actual talking heads in the accepted use of the phrase, the people talking on CNN/Fox "panels," but are distorting the term to the point of causing confusion.) One other point that needs to be underlined is that despite the strenuous lengths by some here to insist that "facts" would not be affected by this proposal, I have no doubt whatsoever that they absolutely will. Indeed, in one article that was recently updated, lengthy, factual articles in the Washington Post and The Atlantic- the latter consisting of groundbreaking original reporting - were attacked as "gossip" and as "bloviation." The fact is that some editors just don't like certain articles and want to get them deleted, and failing that they try to keep the articles at stub level. Thus, as others have mentioned, the likelihood of this policy change being misused in bad faith is incredibly high. Volunteer Marek is correct that NOTNEWS is already widely misused. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

that you all cannot even see that over half that article is commentary, shows how far gone Wikipedia is. That article is gone to the dogs of the blogosphere; it isn't an encyclopedia article anymore. It is just a blog page. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what article you're referring to here, champ. What I can say is that the Charlottesville article is a darn good piece of work and that your description of it has no relation to reality. Ditto the one I referred to directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Coretheapple: The Unite the Right rally article is a very special case. The problem is that this particular protest has been followed by a wave of official corporate censorship and celebrity cyberbullying never before seen. We're seeing DNS servers suddenly turn into judges over the content of the sites on them -- at least, some of the sites on them -- we're seeing celebrities calling for outing of random marchers at a rally, we're seeing people fired. I honestly think there is a chance that before this is over we're going to see some 20 year old idiot white supremacist kid who has been fired and turned against by his family and all he knows, standing on the edge of a high bridge while the entire Internet, even the local TV reporters and cable news, are baying for his blood and yelling Go For It! I don't know what to call this phenomenon. So I've been cramming bits of this reaction into the Daily Stormer page lately, and there's a wider range of topics at the rally page, but the fact is all of this has to split into a new article. But as I said at Talk:The Daily Stormer, I think we're all a bit unsure where to put it, thinking the secondary sources may come out and come up with names and definitions for this phenomenon we can use to name and organize the relevant articles. But this is a unique case that shouldn't be used to guide general policy. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article includes the reaction of the Beverly Hills City Council. Would have been a tragedy to exclude that. Lots of tweets and posts by various politicians. Core! WHAT ABOUT THE POPE???!?? WHY DOES IT NOT SAY WHAT THE POPE SAID??!! Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, I disagree with you Wnt in the sense that this is actually an excellent example of the mischief this policy change would cause. The rally itself is but a minor part of a massive controversy that played out in multiple fora. It is the controversy that is nexus of the article. As well it should be. To take the position that, oh let's twiddle our thumbs and leave it to our kids to write about the "commentary" resulting from the rally - that's an extremist view and in my opinion completely daft. Coretheapple (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

BUT THE POPE!!! WHAT ABOUT THE POPE????? Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

But it does have Beverly Hills! i mean, that is where HOLLYWOOD is. Hey - why do we not have the reaction of quentin tarantino and coen brothers??! I mean they are the experts on violence in american culture. What is wrong with you people? AND WE DON"T HAVE THE POPE!!!!! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And hey, W Magazine wrote that Obamas' tweet about Charlotteville is now the most liked tweet, like ever. I mean he beat out ariana grande for the most liked tweet ever. That is HUGE. Why is that not in the article??? And WHY IS THE POPE NOT MENTIONED??? Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I think there's a question of relevance here again -- but relevance is directional. We see this kind of problem a lot in non-news contexts: how often do you read an article about Medusa or unicorns and it has a little section in the end where someone who totally does not work for Arseplay lets us know that the Arseplay video game includes a unicorn that gets frozen by something with a medusa-like gaze! The Medusa is relevant to Arseplay but Arseplay is not relevant to the Medusa! Because the issue you describe seems the same as this to me, and this has nothing to do with "news", the fix should have nothing to do with "news". Tarantino's opinion is only relevant to the rally if it is so broadly disseminated that sources say it changed how we think about the rally. In other words, it must affect the rally, or its participants and other involved parties, otherwise it is not relevant. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The way this argument goes, there is no question of "relevance." The "argument" is, IT'S THE POPE. And if we have some random congressman's tweet, why the hell do we not have Obama's? Once one starts going down the road to this kind of section, there is no end to it and no way to sort out "relevance". It is just blogosphere land where whatever editor has an agenda pushes that into the article and all they have to say it is MOST LIKED TWEEET EVER, or IT"S THE POPE. It is the blogosphere, not Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It doesn't matter who the principal is. It matters what the effect is.

For example, suppose there is an earthquake in North Korea. Donald Trump, like other dignitaries, dutifully reads a five minute statement expressing compassionate sentiments but no particular political action such as relaxing sanctions. That is of doubtful relevance since it has no effect. But if a minor cabinet official just quickly tweets "(malicious snicker)" and Kim Jung Il goes ballistic, ranting about earthquake machines and how his country will rain down nuclear hellfire on America, then it absolutely is relevant. It's all about whether you need to know that information to know what happened regarding the earthquake in Korea. Not how important the speaker is. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting principle, absolutely not applied in the "commentary" section of Rally article. Go look at it. Along with the Extremely Not Impactful Beverly City Council's statement, you have many random politicians whose tweets are already forgotten, a couple of videos that went kind of viral, 4 random academic's musings. Oh and the Extremely Not Impactful "logo by artist Mike Mitchell". There is boatloads of meaningless trivia/talking headness/bloviation there. And what about the MOST LIKED TWEET EVER? Doesn't "liking" a tweet mean that it was "impactful"? Doesn't it? and really WHAT ABOUT THE POPE? I mean the NEW YORK TIMES wrote about WHAT THE POPE SAIDTWEETED. THE POPE. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

and what kills me, is that perhaps the biggest actual impact of Charlottesville that we can see today, is the way that the subsequent events in Boston and San Francisco have gone down - this enormous counter-reaction to Charlottesville, in all of the complication of that, and the perhaps blunting of what Spencer and his ilk saw as their time of ascendency - they came out strutting in Charlottesville and have been shocked out of their freaky little bubbles by the world's reaction to them. They appear to have crawled back under their rocks for now, as far as I can see. And the article says nothing about this big picture stuff. The actual important stuff. But hey we have content about grads from Liberty University wanting to return their diplomas and stuff about a logo designer. BUT NOTHING ABOUT THE POPE!!!! Which is really important, apparently. Because, ITS THE POPE. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've made your point about how terrible that article is and how the sky is falling. Coretheapple (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

All I have to say to you is THE POPE.Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Or should we say; there is absolutely no valid reason to remove a quote from the Pope for Pete's sake. Or should we say A tweet by the Pope is "trash"? THE POPE???!!! WHY IS THE POPE NOT MENTIONED IN THE RALLY ARTICLE??!!?!?!? WE NEED MORE POPE TWEETS - BECAUSE... ITS THE POPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing one can say, to a person who makes this kind of "argument". And it is this kind of ... "argument" that embraces the waves of tweets and facebook posts peristaltingly pulsing through the intestinal tract of social media .... leading to shit articles in WP. IT IS THE POPE. For pete's sake. indeed. Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying you are done, but you continue posting. People understand the point, but they disagree. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think people are dealing with the deadeye emptiness of the argument that they are supporting, or with the cesspool that this argument inevitably drives content down into. There is no answer to ITS THE POPE. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer for you is to take a break from the project, as you seem to be having a meltdown. As I recall you had a couple of breaks that were supposed to be indefinite, and weren't voluntary. Your posts aren't being constructive and about half of the ones above are over the top and detached from reality. If you can't calmly and rationally discuss this policy change then you should take your own advice and desist. Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to go to this kind of nastiness over a rhetorical excess. And he has a point that I haven't taken my competing nostrum to that article to try it out. I don't deny that there are a lot of articles that badly fail the who-affects-who criterion I'm suggesting. I probably ought to write an essay to see if that catches on, but as a rule the essays I write are almost always forgotten, even by me. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to be nasty with Jytdog, but am making a practical suggestion as his all-caps shouting of "pope" makes no sense. Searching my memory, I recall that in Charlie Gard case there was some mention of the Pope tweeting in support of Gard. But that received wide publicity. No one ever suggested that raw tweets be linked. So shouting IT'S THE POPE is sort of... strange. Maybe there was a valid point in there, but I couldn't hear it over the shouting. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to "search your memory" Core - I provided diffs and quotes above. Just search with your eyes above for green text - the only green text on this page.Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec with below) He's not that far off. I mean, a source like [5] summarizes negative world reaction to the Charlottesville rally. A secondary source generally saying "there is negative reaction" and then listing a handful of reasons for the reaction actually passes my who-affects-who test, because those reasons actually make up the statement that the rally received negative reaction. And they mention the Pope's vaguely worded tweet. So I can't be counted on to leave the Pope unmentioned in such a reaction section. That said, there is a difference between writing a sentence that mentions various parties reacting negatively because a secondary source lists them as the heavy hitters, and personally picking out the Pope because I happen to like him. This is a distinction different from but parallel to the WP:GNG policy -- a commentator is worth mentioning if secondary sources unrelated to the commentator think he is an important part of the overall story. I would not necessarily think the inverse is true though, if you can show he had a significant effect by some other means. As for all-caps, well, it's a little annoying, but not as annoying as the people who keep leaving out the blank line between this and the "arbitrary break" that seems anything but arbitrary and used to have a more meaningful header on it. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

To come back to the Unity the Right situation and all its fallout, there's a good hypothetical exercise I recommend giving thought to. Imagine that that even happened twenty years ago (random number), all other facets happened as they did, the same sourcing exists as it does, but effectively, the extend of coverage ended basically a month after the event (eg about where we are today). No one decided to write the WP article for that case until now. Would we have written the same article in this hypothetical situation as we have currently? Judging by other historical events of the last part of the 20th century , no we wouldn't. When we are writing these articles from a established historical perspective, the immediate reactions are generally not included. Now this goes back to comments above from Wnt and Coretheapple, and here's where there's a distinction, in that in what we have now, we're making the presumption that all these events (reactions to the car ramming attack) are going to have significant consequences and hence why we're including them now, but that's basically applying crystal-ball analysis, which we shouldn't do either. That's where there is this big disconnect on our articles on breaking news, and what we actually have done in the past for historically significant events. That's why I proposed this, is that we're losing quality control on what these articles will be like in the future, just because we can stuff them full of commentary in the present. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I disagree. At this point the fallout is significant and spreading. If something stops it, that is an important historical event we should keep track of, and if nothing does, even more so. The other thing is, I don't see any reason why the articles on past events couldn't keep getting expanded. I mean, there are orders of magnitude (by which I mean, at least 100 times, perhaps a lot more) more fallout and reactions from something like the Hindenburg disaster that would be highly desirable for us to have - I don't just mean Hindenburg disaster in popular culture offloads, but in terms of how it affected public perception of German technology, Nazi paranoia about saboteurs or whatever. Aside from the video game ads we run on the front page of Wikipedia every week, I can scarcely think of an article that I would look at and say "oh, that's complete, there's nothing more I want to know or tell people about it." As for quality control, I scarcely worry -- 80% of quality control is POV-pushing anyway. Nobody really knows the truth; the question is, do we keep a link to it? Wnt (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Which begs the question: what do we expect, in the long-term, what an encyclopedic article on an historically significant event (and for clarity, lets say a very short-run event, nothing like the scope of WWII) should look like. If we use Encyclopedia Britannica as the template, then you can see some examples like the Kent State shootings, which does have a National Response section, but clearly edited to distill down relevant pieces that are important in the long term. The Watergate Scandal has no similar type of reaction section. Remember that our goal is to summarize topics, not be the only resource for readers. We should be skimming the very top-level of a long-term view, as Britannica has done, rather than try to be the ultimate news source. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: No, he was explicitly referring to Charlie Gard case, not the Unite the Right Rally article, and he included a link to its discussion page. This section contains a quote from Pope Francis that apparently is too much for him to bear. Perhaps you can examine its usage in the article and determine whether it relates to your comment above at 16:19. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: We could just as profitably speculate on what our approach should be if it turns out that this rally is more of a watershed event than it currently is, and there are aspects of it, little appreciated now, that are underemphasized in the article. We have no way of knowing. If we approach every article as if it is a flash-in-the-pan, then we will have a mass of stubs and undeveloped articles on events that are significant now and will be significant years hence. We will have failed readers who come to Wikipedia looking for articles on important topics, some recent. We already fail in many areas and provide excessive material on subjects of ultra-specialized interest, such as obscure sports teams and video games. To skimp on the United the Right rally and its aftermath, with all its consequences, strikes me as short-sighted. We can do that without dwelling on extraneous detail. Somebody mentioned the Beverly Hills City Council passing a resolution. I removed it, and no one has objected. If someone does, our preexisting policies and procedures are ample to deal with such differences of opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

People coming to Wikipedia looking for current event news are coming to the wrong place. That's why we have WP:NOT#NEWS. And I'm not saying that we'd not have an article on the Unite the Right, nor that within that article we'd omit a reaction section, just that we should be very careful of what to include in the short run. The event is notable, NEVENT is clearly met. What is unsure is how much of a legacy and impact it will have beyond this first month. To take a more concrete example, we have Ferguson unrest. The events are notable, but the article has a handful of problems related to NOT#NEWS (for example excessive proseline, and tryng to document every small event within it) but I'd argue that how much of its reaction section is relevant today per this proposal. There has been little direct impact on the larger picture in America, now that we're a few years out, though clearly it is one component of the larger culture/racial conflict that had been building before, and has continued to grow as to be a significant issue for groups like BLM (Which subsequently tied this to the Unite the Right stuff). What has been in the article in the immediate wake of the events is really not appropriate at this point?

Which leads to a new thought. Would you (or any other opposers) be more comfortable with language that says that such reaction sections should generally be avoided but sometimes are included, with the thought that over time such sections should be trimmed down to provide a more concise and lasting reaction section? In other words, language that does not prohibit the inclusion of short-term "talking head" analysis but strongly cautions judicious use if one feels them must be included in the short-term, but in the long run we expect such material to be more concise on the actual long-term impact, written from the 20/20 hindsight view? --MASEM (t) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I find comparisons to Britannica to be absurd. That ship has sailed - we already have a better resource! There is no policy banning WP:TOOGOOD or WP:TOOUSEFUL. What we have is WP:Summary style explaining how we can split up topics over and over again, deeper and deeper. We can keep shoveling in content and pulling out new articles like we were raising chickens. My position is that "Obscure details of obscure details are the gate to endless wonders." And despite the name, that awful and ever-misused NOT#NEWS thing tells us to treat news like everything else --- and keep digging! Wnt (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually we do have policy against what you propose: WP:IINFO. We don't consider the usefulness of material or the quality of material when it comes to deletion discussions either, we make sure the material meets core policy. A strong example is the Pokemon test. When WP started, we had articles on every Pokemon; its clearly useful information - to players of the games - and could be sourced to verified sources, but from a standpoint of an encyclopedia, the information was considered extraneous, and the Pokemon Test was developed to limit standalone articles to only those Pokemon that had more notability beyond just the game itself. The VG project continues this as we specificly avoid inclusion of game guide material - which readily could be made useful and of quality, but doesn't fit the goals of an encyclopedia. Trying to keep up with the news is also a goal that we should not be doing, which leading into my immediately reply to Coretheapple below... --MASEM (t) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: WP:IINFO is a classic example of the sort of blather WP:NOT is full of. It seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. I look at that and see it is about tables of random statistics without explanation - nothing at all to do with paragraphs about Pokemon. The "Pokemon test" seems very clearly to be WP:GNG, a well written guideline that does set a lower limit of article resolution. However, that said, I think that if you really went back through all the scholarly articles about the Hindenburg you could find hundreds of subtopics that would meet WP:GNG standards, i.e. that have been written about and debated by multiple independent reliable sources. Because it really is more notable and more of a part of history than Pokemon characters. Many modern news stories also could be split into multiple notable subtopics. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: No, I think you're providing a far, far too restrictive view of NOTNEWS when you say people are "coming to the wrong place." NOTNEWS specifically authorizes such articles, saying "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." No, Wikipedia is not a substitute for a newspaper but it has done I think a good job of reflecting significant recent events. Readers expect that, have every right to, and I'm just not seeing a dire emergency requiring a change in the way that is done. ICoretheapple (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a subtle but significant difference between including very recent information into existing articles and trying to keep up with the news. NOT#NEWS is not encouraging following the news slavishly. It urges care to make sure that we're providing encyclopedic hindsight of the news. Readers should not be coming here to look up a news event that is very recent and expect to find stable information (given that some fast-breaking stories see upwards of 5-6 edits per minute). When the story is done, then we're the right place to come, but we should not be trying one iota to cater to people coming to WP to find breaking news, because even our disclaimers discourage this. This might be a place where there is an insurmountable disconnect between sets of editors, those that see our current event coverage a good thing, and those that see it as very problematic, so and that purpose of definition might not be something that can be bridged without WMF guidance. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

But whether you or I like it or not, the articles exist and editors will update them. Wikipedia is fairly famous for reacting almost instantly to news events, such as the deaths of prominent people. Therefore our preferences are beside the point, and the question is whether the articles will develop rationally or whether there will be arbitrary roadblocks to their development, strictures that can and will be abused. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between updating facts, and updating with commentary, of which there is an endless supply in social media, and talking heads discussed in the 24 hours news media. This RFC is not about updating facts in breaking stories. (we have trouble keeping people in-scope, even here at the Talk page of NOT).

The problem with scope is as always is finding the middle. Where is the line between "anything the Pope tweets" and "choked"? And anybody who has made the ITS THE POPE argument has no standing to talk about "rational" anything. And in any case "rational development" is as bullshitty as "organic development". Both are fake. Article content is the product of negotiation among people, which should be based on policies and guidelines like NOT (what are we doing here?) and NPOV (what deserves weight, based on RS?). That negotiation can in turn be done brutally or well. Or of course, just blown off by yelling ITS THE POPE. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also something called "consensus," and the consensus in every article where the subject has arisen is contrary to the view you've been expressing in this area, on everything from the "POPE" to "talking heads." So now we are here, and, again, the consensus in this RfC is in SNOW territory. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

if you just count !votes now, it is around 30 oppose to around 20 supports. That is far from SNOW anything. The community is far from settled on how to handle this. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ITS THE POPE (which in case I need to spell it out, is a claim based on somebody's opinion that X is of course important, to the point where it is not even discuss-able.) It is an irrational, consensus-thwarting approach. You, Core, refused to even engage in a discussion about scope and referred to my effort to negotiate scope as an an utter waste of time. Because ITS THE POPE. (That section is Talk:Charlie_Gard_case/Archive_1#Proposals_for_structure for anybody who wants to read the whole thing, which was ugly. I had a part in that ugly.) Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I must have done quite a thwarting job, as the consensus went against you before I became involved in that article, beginning with your AfD nomination, which was SNOW keep and which you withdrew. I think the relevancy of that article is not whether one editor was editing against consensus and wasting people's time - but whether the extremely narrow view of NOTNEWS, as seen in that AfD and in the Charlie Gard talk page, would be fueled by this proposal. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am obviously still pretty exercised about what happened there. Again this proposal is about NOT - about what we do here, and what we don't do here - specifically with regard to commentary on events (not on the facts of those events). I remain hopeful that the community can arrive at some consensus (clearly not now, but eventually) about what kinds of commentary to include, and at what level of detail. Right now we really have no articulated consensus on this, and it makes things difficult for everybody. I am sure that Core found that interaction as unpleasant as I did. We had no policy grounding underneath us, to work on. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I looked up this controversy, and the article as it is now mentions the Pope in the lead - which might be excessive - but it definitely should mention him, because it cites the Washington Post article the day that Charlie Gard died [6] which prominently lists that his cause gathered support from Trump and the Pope. That's a secondary source describing the overall course of publicity surrounding the case and it sees fit to mention the Pope. Which is different, say, than if an editor interested in Catholicism ran through the church circulars and found an editorial relevant to the topic, and put it up, without any general source thinking it was relevant. Our articles, in general, should definitely reflect what secondary sources describing the overall topic find important; hence it should mention the Pope. Whether it has to use the precise quote or not may be debated a bit more, but again - if a secondary source about the whole event uses it, that's a pretty strong presumption we ought to also. I think some people make out as if using quotes is somehow super expensive, but I don't find it so - usually it takes little more space to exactly quote some words from a source, and it takes a whole hell of a lot less arguing about how to paraphrase what the source said "neutrally". I still agree with you though that the mere fact of the Pope being the Pope is not proof the content is relevant - though it is a fair clue it might be. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In my view, it was encyclopedic to say that the case was a public controversy that popes, presidents, and prime ministers commented on. That is what the article said for a long time -- with sources so that people could go read about all the detail.

The specific dispute there was getting into details and quoting commentary and tweets -- hell even Pence's tweet was being quoted when i walked away from that mess. In my view, that is not what we do here. NOT. And again, the argument was ITS THE POPE. Double argh. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a single editor supported your position on whether there should be a quote from Pope Francis, which you called "hot air" even it was covered in multiple reliable sources, including The Washington Post, and even though the Vatican issued a statement expressing solidarity and the Vatican hospital offered its services to the child. The discussion in question is here. The article will reflect that everything you hated is in the article. You were in the minority and against the consensus on virtually everything concerning that article from the very beginning, with your failed AfD, until you stomped out, and I really think you need to let it go. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the quality of your argument is clear to everyone reading this page.Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary for you to be so nasty? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re "which prominently lists that his cause gathered support from Trump and the Pope". Just to point out that 'he' didn't have a cause that either Francis or Trump could have supported, since 'he' was a baby. The whole case was partly about complex medical issues, and partly about whether the court should endorse his parent's or his doctors' judgement as to what the most humane and responsible outcome for him was. The remarks from Francis (those that I have seen) were anodyne, but well intentioned and neutral on that question, and they said nothing about the case except that Francis seems to be a humane person. The 'media frenzy' (particularly the one outside the UK) was a footnote to the story, it was not the story. Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Francis didn't offer detailed commentary on the case, but he offered his hospital to the child. It was the feeling of the editors in the article, not unreasonably I think, that a brief quote from Francis in a lengthy article would not be UNDUE or a violation of NOTNEWS. If it's still an issue I'm not aware of it. It is in the article, and no one has taken it to a noticeboard. That avenue is always open. We have NPOV/N if any editor feels that the Pope gets excessive attention in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been over to the article, personally I don't think the problem there is the inclusion/exclusion of Francis, Pence or whoever, rather context. Francis didn't offer his hospital that I know of, the Vatican hospital offered itself. However I believe I am correct that no one at the hospital had even inspected the child's tests results, nor published anything on this disease, therefore the likelihood of them being able to contribute anything useful was near zero, these doctors ultimately conceded this themselves I believe. The failure to record neutrally such cold objective medical information, and to seperate fact from 'whipped up' and misinformed comment (in the case of some US politicians, done for domestic political reasons), does a disservice to the reader IMO. If we accept that the ONLY index of relevance is the acreage of coverage, we effectively accept that all news stories are dictated by US papers, regardless of the subject matter (here a UK case), and regardless of what 'local' news is saying, or how factually wrong the US media is, this will happen since US news sources are more numerous. I do not see how coverage of a UK case is benefitting the reader if the article effectively becomes not about the C Gard case, but about the US media storm surrounding the case. I don't think this proposal would work, but am baffled that you don't see the difference between a complex medical story, with difficult legal and ethical ramifications, and the opinions of people with zero medical understanding effectively saying "wouldn't it be nice if we could cure him" (therefore "we should be allowed to try ANYTHING, even if it causes the child pain and it would, quite literally require a miracle for it to have even a small temporary benefit"). The most pertinent comment of all was made by the judge, effectively saying that unless someone has mastered the facts, their opinions are pointless. Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not expressing an opinion on the article one way or the other, but perhaps the issue is WP:WEIGHT, and if so that can be dealt with on the article talk page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

WP is fine slotting up to the second facts into articles where context is already clear. WP is generally good for creating new articles on breaking events where we know from similar examples there will clearly be context, such as natural disasters and elections and sports results. Where we suck , and by policy, where we should have no clear ability, is to try to guess context from a new event that is unlike others before it and try to extrapolate what that context will be from short-term opinions; I would even go so far to say that that's original research; long-term analysis and retrospectives provide us with a better way to navigate the shorter-term reactions. Example, right now, is whether the Unite the Right rally will be, as some journalists have postulated, the turning point in Trump's presidency, or if it will forgotten in a year, or if it just gets grouped into the culture way. There is no way that right now we can know this, so throwing in all the current/future analysis with the idea some will stick makes for a terrible and improper encyclopedia article. It's hard to stop people from doing this, and even adding this policy may only stop the more aggressive cases. Hence why the other alternative which is not so much to make it hard-to-enforce policy but a guiding policy for handling these types of articles so that the long-term state of the article is what we want, even if the short-term people are inclined to add all the reactions they can. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see where it matters what the long-term outcome of an incident such as the rally has to do with our reporting of it (not that I actually see a lot of "current/future analysis" in it anyway). What I want to know when I read the article is the opinion of people who are newsworthy, for example political figures, religious leaders, etc., as has been done in the article. I'm just fine with the article as it is. For you or people that hold your opinion on including recent opinions in our articles, it is easy enough to skip those parts. Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason to use long-term over short-term is that since we are support to summarize topics and not get into excessive detail, we can use the long-term writings as a much better means to guide the summary, avoid sources and opinions in the short term that may have jumped to conclusions or seem to make bigger deals out of some matters over others, and in general provide a more concise version of how the event was received with 20/20 hindsight, a stance more appropriate for an enecyclopedia than newspapers. More importantly when the topic is one that is controversial in a highly-charged area, since those tend to draw a lot more voices in the short term and makes it very difficult to distill down appropriately as an encyclopedia.

While it certainly is possible to simply ignore those sections, I've found that for more complex events (eg on the order of the Russian interference in the 2016 election) that to make the inclusion of short-term opinions flow in the narrative, they have to be inserted throughout the article, and not delegated to one section, making it difficult to just ignore them. Further, more related to the larger trend, WP editors that tend to work in breaking controversial events in the Western world seem to trend on the left on the political side, and have to frequently struggle with IP/SPA from right-leaning viewpoints that demand inclusion of material not supported by our RSes or removal of material, moreso since Trump's election for obvious reasons. Most of the time, the established editors are doing the right thing to keep fringe/unsupported views out, but this approach is not infallible and subject to our human tenancies. Infrequently, I have seen these editors "circle their wagons" to enforce a specific stance based on the short-term opinions and analysis they deem are the only "right" ones to include, even when other established editors try to suggest other options from valid RSes. That creates a POV slant in a news article that may over-emphasize certain events in the short term when their long-term influence may actually be trivial (eg Dismissal of James Comey is such a case as a separate stand-alone article). Asking editors to not include short-term views, focusing only on facts, and waiting until we have a better long-term view of these things helps to avoid these types of situations. It would also avoids the right-leaning IP/SPA issue, that if we're not putting in opinions or analysis in the short-term that come from the RSes, IP/SPA are not likely going to want to challenge their inclusion or force inclusion of their own favorable opinions/analysis.

A lot of this comes back to the fact that we have a project for those that actually want to write and read about breaking news, that being Wikinews, which if it was used more, would make it easier to create a demarcation between what en.wiki does as an encyclopedia , and what Wikinews does as crowd-sourced reporting. Hypothetically, when a topic has had sufficient time to "age" at Wikinews, then it can be brought into en.wiki; it could almost be seen as a much more visible draft space for working on news stories in their infancy. The problem is that no one wants to use Wikinews because search-wise, its far lower priority at Google than an en.wiki is, but it is only that way because no one uses it (the catch-22). A lot of the issues, not only with what I've proposed but NOT#NEWS in general is this split between those that want to keep en.wiki more pure as encyclopedia, and those that see news now a key part of it, despite the fact NOT#NEWS remains a core policy, and maybe that's the lynch pin to figure out how to actually resolve this situation is to have global survey of which way en.wiki should go and/or have the WMF provide its own guidance on that. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's get real about Wikinews. I frankly I don't see why anyone would use it for any purpose. I searched for "Charlie Gard" on Wikinews and there is nothing. I searched for the Unite the Right Rally and I got a smattering of spot news items like this one. Here is the best article I found on Hurricane Harvey. Compare all the scattering of articles on the hurricane to our Hurricane Harvey. So please, let's forget about Wikinews. This is where the public comes for articles on important recent events. They come here because they want to know what happened. Wikinews is pretty much superfluous and of limited value in providing well-rounded articles on recent events. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the catch-22. If we had the same people investing the time they write about current events here and instead putting it at Wikinews, we'd have the readership going there for their current news uptake; further since we can take content under license from Wikinews, it can serve as a public "draft" space for a potential en.wiki article. There is no reason that Wikinews cannot provide the same well-rounded articles, and in fact is better prepared for it because it doesn't have the weight of some of our content policies on it. There are (IMO) some mutually-exclusive goals of what en.wiki as an encyclopedia aims for and what Wikinews as a current events source aims for, making our current trend of how current events are being handled on en.wiki extremely problematic if we don't take steps now to turn it around. It's just getting people to go there instead of her is simply not happening, and I don't know if that can be turned around or not. If we have to accept that wikinews is failed, then we have to make sure news coverage here on en.wiki is in line with what an encyclopedia should be doing rather than a newspaper (again stressing how Encyclopedia Brittanica handles news events). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Three things.

1. This is back to the general topic of NOTNEWS, which is NOT what this RfC is about
2. People who do this news stuff, believe that it needs to be in the The Big Show that is WP.
3. If we are going to exclude news content from WP, it is going to take a major RfC with very strong consensus to re-affirm the NOTNEWS policy, and then admins and others will have to be willing to enforce that policy, even to the point of indefinitely blocking people who insist on adding News to Wikipedia. (then they will have no where to go, but Wikinews).

So Masem, if you really want to address NOTNEWS per se, please start an RfC about that. Please. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not about the core of NOTNEWS. There are issues with that that need to be handled separately. I said this elsewhere, but regardless of the current state of NOTNEWS, this proposal still is appropriate (and currently necessary) to remind editors that we shouldn't be dealing in the short-term analysis of a ongoing event per DEADLINE and RECENTISM. When one argues that editors are coming here for well-rounded articles and expect to see such reactions and analysis, they are coming to an encyclopedia for the wrong reasons. This type of content fits in fine at Wikinews, hence the emphasis on using that as a place to prep a more complete article while an event is in progress and then bring in that material to what we at en.wiki had covered once the event's complete and we can review the situation from an encyclopedic, no-deadline viewpoint rather than the rushed pace that Wikinews encourages. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the proposal. I am not sure what to do about that. What have you taken away from feedback so far, about how to refine this proposal so that it could perhaps express consensus? Is there even a consensus to express? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus to express: this RfC has failed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What is obvious from the RfC is that the community is deeply divided on how to handle commentary. Developing policy is not a win or lose game but a process of developing consensus; you are again displaying no CLUE. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh. That's self-serving spin. The !votes are against you, 36 to 24 at the present time, not divided. But more to the point, trying to extract some kind of meaning from this RfC, apart from rejecting this proposal, is futile. There is no common thread except that this proposal is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for again showing that you are turning this discussion into a battleground that is about "me"; and again showing that you understand nothing about WP:CONSENSUS,a fundamental policy in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is not "battleground" to contest your claim that there is no consensus, and I would like to observe that you responded with a personal attack when I did so ("you are again displaying no CLUE"), followed by another personal attack ("you understand nothing about WP:CONSENSUS,a fundamental policy in Wikipedia"). There is no need to get nasty when someone contradicts your claim about the level of consensus. The world will not end if your RfC does not succeed. I don't take your insults personally, and I think your block record speaks for itself, but I don't quite understand the level of vehemence. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Bored now. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Because you're really only here for your own entertainment? petrarchan47คุก 07:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Even with some of the opposes, there does seem to be a stronger agreement that there's something between NOT#NEWS/NEVENT that is broken and any fixes that my idea had need to first start there. Whether that means to have a more global poll at VPP or elsewhere to reassess if WP should be a newspaper, or to set up what has been suggested many times before, a X-day period before any breaking news article can be put to mainspace and with means to curate that, there's a couple approaches. But this discussion's shown the problem starts with how split the community seems to be on how to take NOT#NEWS and that must be remedied first. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My suspicion is that what's wrong with Wikipedia news is that some professionals are afraid it competes with them. If Britannica writers had gotten their acts together early on they could have streamed into Wikipedia and done a lot of deletions and weighed it down with a bunch of Citizendium-like policies until it died as a worthless experiment; unluckily for them, they didn't take it seriously enough. But there are a lot more news professionals and they have been much more organized in taking down Google as a news aggregator (especially in Europe). And, for whatever, reason, Wikinews is so infested with policies that people who try editing soon give up, and the site remains unused. Whether unintentionally or not, the effect of any effort to weigh down Wikipedia in policies would be the same. Explain to me why anyone would think that being out of date is a virtue? Wnt (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that there are editors on WP that also work for significant news organizations that are trying to prevent WP from covering news due to competition; there are much larger and more numerous entities out there like cable news, news satire, citizen journalism, etc. that they are likely more worried about that are eating into your finances. Speaking for myself, I know that's not my issue with this.

Also, no one is arguing that we can't be up to date; at least for myself, the issue is presuming false weight on news stories and coverage of them before enough time has passed to be able to write about the news topic in an encyclopedic manner. Taking Dismissal of James Comey as a questionable encyclopedic topic, we can still cover the dismissal in Comey's article (Comey being an encyclopedic topic) and be up to date; its why we need a whole separate article for it, when there has yet to be shown that this event has relevant long-term importance. What this RFC has show is a schism between two sets of editors, all based on how much enforcement of NOT#NEWS that we need. Hence why I think we need a broadly VPP poll to establish what NOT#NEWS really should be doing, and then we can come back to answer the questions raised here when that is firmed up. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing near a reason for doubting Dismissal of James Comey. Lots of secondary sources have reviewed the topic. It meets WP:GNG. It will always meet WP:GNG. We can have our cake and eat it too - provide summary style in James Comey, and have a detailed article about the dismissal. What conceivable reason could there be to blunt our coverage by trying to shoehorn that big article into a section about James Comey? And if you manage to find a way to merge the two without losing anything, what difference does it make then? I mean, either it's petty detail of where you go to read a paragraph, or else it's a needless destruction of information. And the common sense test is also pretty clear - if the ordinary American recognizes this specific topic (the dismissal) as a Major Controversy, that would imply we should have an article about it, even if things like GNG and secondary sources had never been conceived. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an effort to eliminate article like the Firing of James Comey is futile. This more limited proposal is failing. Not failing to get a consensus, it is failing, period. Why not move on? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Why are editors not using Wikinews for breaking news and events? ^{added for clarity 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)} Isn't that where it belongs rather than here disguised as encylopedic content? When the sensationalist headlines and potential for errors have diminished and the facts are verifiably accurate, then we have reason to believe that whatever is left standing is worthy of inclusion for its encylopedic value. At that point we create the article. I am not convinced that an encyclopedia needs to be making a mad dash to see who can create the most breaking news articles. I think it's borderline self-aggrandizing to think world populations are looking to WP for breaking news. Has anyone ever conducted a study involving page view stats to see if such articles are even getting the attention so many think they're getting? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Major media would be thrilled to get the readership Wikipedia pages get on current events.

• 350,000 views on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&action=info.
• 251,000 views on this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&action=info
• 6,000 plus views here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Harvey&action=info (became news yesterday or day before)

You can check the page information link on the left side of any page. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

1. A list of monuments and memorials is not a breaking event or breaking news. Such a list is clearly encyclopedic.
2. Unite the Right Rally was a planned event, not a breaking event or breaking news. All the breaking came during the event in the form of real-time news reactions, commentary and analysis per #5 of this RfC. Such articles should focus on facts and immediate impacts without the opinions, commentary and analysis of pundits and biased journalists who are doing spontaneous reporting before all the facts are even known, not to mention those who are working the rally to get a particular POV as part of their assignment. That is just propaganda journalism, and highly unencyclopedic. Incorrect information, and biased opinions that may be stated in a way that is noncompliant with NPOV, damages the integrity of the encyclopedia. WP is not a soapbox for advocacies or a sensationalist tabloid where one finds information that is not supported by actual facts.^{Atsme📞📧} 21:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Hurricane Harvey is a weather event that was predicted to be catastrophic ahead of time. It would be quite a stretch to think that the information included in WP would not be based on factual reporting, so again, a non-issue for this RfC. I will add that the page stats are impressive indeed. I looked at the stats for the breaking news political article Trump campaign-Russian meeting that was created in July 2017 as a breaking event/news, and its page view stats for August 2017 was an abysmal 2,842 compared to the page view stats of 13,514 for a fish article that was created in 2005, not to mention all the disruption the political/campaign article created. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The murder at the Unite the Right rally was breaking news and that's why those articles, the first two, got so many views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note - I broke this into a different section, since the RfC is not about whether there should be stories about breaking events at all. That is an entirely different conversation. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's part of the colloquy about the RfC, so I changed the header level. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is not separate - the RfC states: Editors should keep content about breaking events focused and the discussion is about NOTNEWS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No. The proposal is about commentary. It has nothing to do with whether there should coverage of recent events at all, which is what the OP of this subsection is about. It is a completely different point. Fine leaving it as a subsection but it is not relevant to the RfC question per se. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about...per se? Excuse me, but did you call this RfC or did Masem? Why have you suddenly decided what is or isn't applicable when others disagree with you? Please explain, and I would like for Masem to contribute here so we can get a better grip on what is actually being proposed. I read what the RfC is asking and I understand what "commentary" means - what I'm not understanding is your interpretation of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Atsme that the examples are not actually salient. Agree with Jytdog that the idea is off-topic for the RfC. Disagree with the lot of you that the heading level matters.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

^^^Now THAT is NPOV. 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• If people supporting this idea can't seem to define their terms, how do you expect people who are not won over? I'm still trying to figure out the references to cable TV "talking heads," which I see almost never mentioned in articles and yet has been mentioned here several times as a serious problem that needs addressing. Perhaps you need a long list of definitions so that you can explain the terminology and catchphrases that you are using, not to mention clarifying all the vagueness and hand-waving in your proposal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Let's say this comes to a consensus to include. What's to stop anyone from simply taking this to the village pump as "A local consensus trying to override the wider community consensus represented in all the policy and guideline pages this would effect"? Is there enough discussion for this proposal? Has the wording had enough input from others and rigorous discussion based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Could it be said that this is attempting to add wording that is conflicting and confusing. Could this just be too soon?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an RFC that has been advertised at CENT among other places (as a policy change, I never expected anything else for that type of broad announcement of the suggested addition). If there are valid conflicts with other policies, that might be something to work out before adding this. I know I wrote the basic proposal but even then, I knew it wasn't perfect writing and sought for better wording. I would rather prefer those that recognize that there's validity in the concept but problems in the wording to be offering improvements rather than dismissing the entire idea. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course, that's why I left as detailed an explanation of my objections as I could based on the policy and guidelines as I understand them. I hope it was a least helpful.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I edit conflicted with you, and was writing the same thing. This proposal is not going to get consensus; I haven't withdrawn it because I am interested to see if there is feedback that could allow a refined proposal to be crafted that could gain consensus. And yes, policy expresses the foundational community consensus; local consensus at an article or WikiProject cannot trump commmunity consensus expressed in policy. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. That makes good sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Kingsindian I loved your comment. Thanks for taking that time. I agree that articles about breaking news are not going away and the proposal is not about trying to get rid of them.

This proposal is an attempt to mitigate the that reality. That's all it is, really. If we cut off most of the talking head stuff, these articles ~should~ settle down some (?). User:Volunteer Marek strongly disagrees and I am bummed that they haven't circled back. But i would be interested to hear more from each of you about how to keep (whether it is possible to keep?) Wikipedia distinct from the blogosphere and talking-head-osphere .. to help people avoid actually doing things like quoting tweets in Wikipedia as though that is actually enduring, encyclopedic content.... or maybe you don't think so. Or can this be sharpened? Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I have said elsewhere, a large part of the Wikipedia userbase is addicted to breaking news articles (I myself started out in a serious way by working on a news article), so I don't see much hope in reining in the problem. In general I don't think this proposal will go anywhere, and banning the articles is out of the question. Another approach might be to start a Wikiproject aimed at labeling the talk pages of the articles in a certain way. Say: all articles which are primarily based on news reports close to the incident, and are laid out basically an an overview of the news coverage of the topic, could be labeled. In general, because Wikipedia governance is so chaotic and arbitrary, labeling approaches might be a way forward. They add useful information without outright proscribing certain practices. Other things which can be done as part of the Wikiproject to systematically go through these articles after, say, 6 months have passed, and trim or update the articles in a serious way. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I hear you on that stuff and that is kind of interesting but what got me jazzed about this proposal was trying to cut down on the commentary bloat and the battles over commentary. So you don't see a useful distinction we could draw between some kind of core commentary/meaning-making and non-core.... Masem waved at that with "focused on facts and immediate impacts, and avoid including opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media or by others not directly connected to the event" and it is clear that folks just not seeing it... Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What I do see from this RFC is that while editors all seem to agree that we're not a newspaper, there is a unsettling number that do not recognize the need to implement some type of change to break the pattern, and in fact think to improve because of logic above that seems to run "readers come here to expect to see high quality articles on news articles, so anything that prevents us from doing that is a bad thing". This just encourages people to ignore NOT#NEWS (much less what was suggested here). If editors truly believe we're not a newspaper, we cannot keep feeding the readership that comes here expecting us to be a newspaper, as that is not consistent with being an encyclopedia. This proposal may not be the only way to do that. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"[I]mplement some type of change to break the pattern". This reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street issue that we had for a while. That was controllable. Why is this different? It isn't the readers that are the issue. It is the editors. They just don't know any better. So guide them. Template the talk page of breaking news articles with clear warnings. That can also be done with the editing window. People think twice before editing if there's a big red warning with the threat of a block. I really agree with both the premise that our policies and rules do work and that change is inevitable. I don't see any harm in adding a line to the Not News section and hope to help in the discussion but I think we should center on just the editors, because we can control the writing, we can't control the reading.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog, @Masem and @Kingsindian - but think of this in practical terms. What would this proposal actually accomplish? It seems like the "pro" commentators, and even some of the "oppose" commentators are implicitly assuming that to change people's behavior all you need to do is to write a policy which forbids something or other. But it never works like that in reality. So what would happen?

Well, one argument made above was that it would "clarify" things on AfD (I'm a bit too lazy to search back for the exact meaning). But it really wouldn't. What is the problem at AfD (in particular why do these "breaking news" article tend to get kept)? And the answer is - lots of new accounts and sleeper socks show up and vote along IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEITLINES. These kind of accounts are not going to read policy. And if by some chance they read it, they won't pay heed to it. They'll do as new accounts and sleeper accounts have always done - IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT. "Clarification" is not going to do anything. Of course, AfDs are not votes and admins are suppose to take into account the arguments made and the extent to which they refer to policy. And sure, when there's 10, 12, 15 maybe 20 !votes an admin can look through them and weight their policy-relevant merits. But admins are human too and when there's an AfD with 30+ !votes (cuz new accounts etc showed up), it really ends up being a vote count in practice. So this proposal wouldn't change anything at AfD.

What would it do? Cause more arguments on talk pages. I've already explained why this would be so above so I'm not going to repeat myself again. But the thing is, we already have the policies which address the kinds of issue that are being addressed here - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. If we actually expected editors to follow these (and I am aware that the first and even the second one are subject to some ambiguity) that would solve most of the problems.

We should work on getting people to follow our existing policies first, not creating new policies. What's the point if they're gonna just be another convenient excuse to WP:GAME and WP:WIKILAWYER on talk pages? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT is the problem from what I've seen. It does not have any sense of time aspect, because it was written for all topics (most which are well done and over with compared to news). WEIGHT works great when the topic is of historical terms because there's no rapidly shifting set of viewpoints to worry about so determining what opinions are to be given the most weight works. In news topics, though, we're dealing with a rapidly shifting set of opinions that make a short-term analysis under WEIGHT very difficult - by the time you've done it, the pattern may have shifted again. You're also deal with today as part of the general bias towards modern technology, an endless supply of people ready to give opinions on anything, 24/7. If you even just counted sources, WEIGHT would urge to include the viewpoints because there is so much of them. WEIGHT is not written with breaking news pieces is mind, so the problem starts with trying to apply WEIGHT to breaking news. You might be able to in some cases, but from many angles, it seems all editors' time would be better spent keeping DEADLINE in mind, and once dust has settled, to then see where the current opinions stand and review WEIGHT at that point, where it works for most every other topic.

This is not meant to fix the NOT#NEWS problem. We're still going to have people create articles on minor events before its determined if they have notability per NEVENT. We're still going to have people argued for keeping such articles at AFD because "vast international coverage" despite what WP:N and WP:NEVENT says. There needs to be different approaches to handle this. This proposal starts from the assumption that we're stuck with NOT#NEWS being broken as it is, but that regardless of it being broken or not, we still shouldn't be trying to rapidly chase the moving target of what opinions are on an immediate event until we have better 20/20 hindsight. We'd still need this even if NOT#NEWS was fixed (eg notable attacks and disasters still draw huge Reaction sections). It is stressing that DEADLINE should be a guiding principle to make sure we get articles right, rather than out there fast, and it is effectively impossible to be "right" about assessing WEIGHT when new sources on an event are appearing every hour/day. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Prompted by the discussion in the section below this, there was another aspect why I had this idea: the issue of WP:Citogenesis. RSes - not necessarily our top-tier ones like BBC or NYtimes - frequently cite Wikipedia, despite this being a terrible idea and one we disclaim against. (And all the more reason to stress "we are not a newspaper nor should be treated as one". Those initial citations are usually easy to spot and ignore in sources, but in the current approaches of the media you'll find other sources basing stories on those that originally cited Wikipedia but without actually mentioning Wikipedia as the source. This can create an amplification effect of any potentially wrong information, or any specific biased viewpoint that may have been introduced by premature evaluation of WEIGHT. And this can happen quickly in terms of amplification (eg days to weeks). The factual mistakes are generally easy to catch before citogenesis happens: sources like the BBC or NYTimes very rarely put any weight on Wikipedia and instead on their own journalism, so if there's a factual disconnect, we stick to our top-tier RSes to quickly fix it. But the viewpoint one is different, in part because whether a source is top-tier or not, all opinions start to get weighed equally, and the influence of social media is significant on how fast a single opinion can grow. An inadvertent opinion that starts from Wikipedia has the potentially to be amplified many times over and have to be reflected that way in Wikipedia by WEIGHT arguments. That's where this type of approach and keeping that there is no deadline in mind helps significantly; if we wait until we have that clear picture of what the range of opinions are instead of trying to guess at it from the start, this potential citogenesis cannot happen. ---MASEM (t) 16:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I work on the sort of articles that you say are problematic and I've not seen any evidence of WP:Citogenesis at all. For example, off the top of my head 2012 Delhi gang rape, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and West African Ebola virus epidemic come to mind, articles that I worked on extensively and know forward and backwards and from top to bottom after spending countless hours reading sources. I never saw any evidence at all that we were being used as a source. What articles have you worked on that have suggested that we were being used as a source? Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is going to happen more when the issue is both controversial, likely involving politics or ideological debates, and where the topic is not as mainstream as major news. The latter part is important as this means that someone reporting on it may need information and background, but these details is not as prevalent as other major events, and thus they are likely going to turn to WP or other media sources to learn about that. When I was involved with the Gamergate controversy issues (which involved problems with the video game community which is far from mainstream news), I saw this happen several times, articles taking the specific stance that WP presented (including quoting our language at times) when then became used as more sources for the article. (Today, I'm staying far away from that area). Citogenesis can happen even without WP's help; I'd argue that the "transition" of Pepe the frog as a stupid meme to a white nationalist symbol pretty much rested with the media not bothering to learn the history of the meme until after some claimed it was white nationalist icon, but by then it was too late to stop it. Best I can recall (I don't work on the article but had seen it come up a few times in noticeboards) our en.wiki at least made it clear of its origins and avoided the potential citogensis. It's not going to happen on "big" stories like those you worked on, since it is very easy with almost no effort to learn of the background of those, so even the laziest of reporters should have no problem getting read up without resorting to WP. --13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the best that you can come up with are a couple of less-than-major-importance articles in this encyclopedia, including one that you now are "staying far away from," which suggests to me that it is not some of our best work. So IMO it would be best to not even consider this aspect when it comes to a change which will, at least for me, an editor who has spent many hours working on controversial/political articles (which as far as I can tell you have not), cause endless hours of grief and hassle. Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Citogenesis is a very minor reason for this proposal, the other issues related to RECENTISM, etc. are more of a critical problem. Citogensis is more a cautionary issue to be aware of that we can avoid. --16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not too minor to not be mentioned as an argument -- hence a reply. That's how discussion takes place. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single instance in which the foregoing has been a factor in any article on recent events. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting phenomenon and worth vigilance, but I don't see its relevance to this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Any argument or policy change based on the idea that Wikinews is a viable project should be discarded by the closers of this discussion. I wish Wikinews worked, but we have the evidence of the last 12 years that it does not. English Wikinews has 149 active editors, combine active editors for all other languages and it's not much more than that. We cannot make decisions about our policies or content based on the fantasy that editors and readers will one day flock to that project or imagine it is a viable alternative for content that is already here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I think the next step is a re-valuation of what NOT#NEWS means in light of the failure of Wikinews (and assuming that we aren't doing to anything in either direction about Wales' new non-WMF citizen journalism site). Do we accept that en.wiki is drawing in editors that rather focus on news and thus weaken/adjust NOT#NEWS to account, or do put our foot down in appropriate areas to strengthen enforcement of NOT#NEWS? I don't think the current situation of NOT#NEWS presence as a core policy, and the volume of edits related to current events, is going to be healthy for the project in the long-term, considering how much the last 2 years have shown, and we need a consensus-driven course correction here. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, this article popped up on my usual newsreads today: it is specific to the video game field but it captures the problem this proposal was meant to address, [7] in that that is often far too much reporting on the "outrage cycle" after a story breaks, and how in this reporter's case, they plan to focus only on the news item (and if its not appropriate for their site, not include it) rather that give weight to the outrage and any attempt to justify or condemn actions. We should be taking the same view, understanding that many things that happen are controversial, but whether that controversy is appropriate for inclusion should be something to review well after an event has occurred. Unfortunately editors are all to eager to try to include all bits of criticism (the outrage, even if it is coming from the press or politicians or analysts) and lose focus on the central story. It's not a 1-to-1 application here, but the concept this writer has is a model we should be keeping in mind for WP when considering longevity. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Moving toward close

I am pinging User:Dank here, and asking them to consider closing this early. It is clear to me that there is no consensus here, and I have seen Dank do closes in the past (the multiple policy failed proposals on paid editing back in 2013) where they provided thoughtful and useful closes that identified areas of agreement and disagreement that could be useful in the next steps of the consensus building process. Dank would you please consider? Also please leave the section on "next steps" below open, as that is where the commmunity is probing forward... if you don't want to or don't have bandwidth, fine by me.. thx. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I object to this. Your RfC has been open for only 11 days and the community clearly does not want to enact this change. The RfC participants have not agreed to end this early; there has been no discussion on that point whatsoever. If you wish to end this RfC and want someone to assess consensus (if any), then end it per WP:RFCEND - withdrawing it and posting a neutral, repeat neutral note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. An RfC initiator should not post a non-neutral note stating that someone should close it early, suggest what the closer should conclude (no consensus), and ping the editor who they want to close it. At 39 !votes against and 24 in favor, to say that there is "no consensus" is a stretch. I see it as a clear consensus that the community is not in favor of it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising and still depicting the process as though it is win/lose.

If you will review Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, you will see that it says there is no need for the RfC to run 30 days if the outcome is clear, and in this case it is clear that there is no consensus; there are reasonable arguments on the support and oppose sides, and while obviously there are more opposes, it is not SNOW anything, and has never been SNOW anything. There is a division in the community over this, and an even more profound one over NOTNEWS.

The question is how do we as a community move toward consensus. A careful close can help with that.

Dank will decide what they wish to do; it was an invitation.

But you should really stop responding to everything I write with Such Oh So Serious Objections like this. It is tedious and isn't moving anything toward any anything. Why you are so fixed on me, is something that you should wonder over. But enough of that. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, but I think it's too early for anyone wearing a closer's hat to get involved, and I don't know a lot about the conflict here. Also, reading the discussion, I don't see a path to consensus developing here any time soon. But thanks for the ping. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dank! Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Jytdog What's tiresome are your personal attacks, which speak to your own WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude toward this RfC. Yes this is an "oh so serious" matter, and it should be concluded the way RfC policy dictates, not the way you dictate. WP:RFCEND states specifically how RfCs are to close prior to 30 days, and that does not include posting a note in the RfC asking an editor of the RfC initiator's choice to close it, while suggesting what the closer should say. You don't get to select the closer, any more than you get to select who responds to your posts. I agree with Dank that it is far too early to close this RfC, unless of course you want to withdraw it in light of the negative response to it. No, it is not a SNOW situation but the response so far has been quite clear.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

again, bored and done. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but then you keep hounding people who disagree with you. People understand policy as well as you do, but they do not agree. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Next steps

Clearly there's no consensus either way on this RFC as stated, or even with some modifications. But as I've described above, I think there's a clear next steps to resolve the larger issue of the disconnect between current editing related to current events, and NOT#NEWS. This is all predicted on the fact that Wikinews is effectively a dead project, and that the option of having more editors use Wikinews is dead on arrival.

I am thinking the next step would be a straw poll at VPP to get an idea of where the broader consensus sits on how strong NOT#NEWS needs to be enforced. As a straw poll, I am thinking there are three options, which I'd present as (This is not the poll itself! Do not !vote on this!):

1. Fewer current events should be covered, requiring stronger enforcement of NOT#NEWS. If this is preferred, then we may require admins enforcing NOT#NEWS more aggressively (at NPP/AFD), strengthening NEVENT, and other similar changes.
2. No change at all is needed. Current policies and guidelines work to maintain the balance.
3. The current balance been NOT#NEWS and current event articles is close but needs some fine-tuning in appropriate policies/guidelines to be clear how we do this balance.
4. Allow more news/current events/weaken NOT#NEWS. IF this if preferred, this may need NOT#NEWS to be rewritten (perhaps eliminated?) to reflect this new approach, and adjustment of related policies.
5. Figure a way to restore interest in Wikinews, and enforce that. Yes, this may be a dead option, but should be presented as an option if in case there is overwhelming consensus we need to go that direction.
6. Others?

The goal of the straw poll is only to determine if there is a need for course correction here; a subsequent discussion can then be had based on the !voting results to determine the necessary policy/guideline changes and present those for RFC with the straw poll used to support the direction. However, I'd like to know of any reasonable "Others" to include in this poll to get all possible options at this point out on the table. Again, this is not the poll itself, it is only a discussion to get to the poll to make sure its fair and reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. Whether there is a consensus either way, or no consensus. will be determined by the closing administrator. I think it's clear that there is a consensus against this proposal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether it closes as failed or no consensus (I can't see it closing in favor), the disconnect related to the core NOT#NEWS policy is still evident and should be addressed, not as a means to get this proposal in but to handle the larger issue. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I assume by VPP you mean Village Pump/Policy? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:VPP. And all it would be is merely a straw poll only to determine if there needs to be policy/guideline changes either way on the larger NOT#NEWS picture. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also just thinking out loud here, and this idea would be very dependent on this suggested VPP poll (which I am waiting on closure of this to even set up), I'm thinking that we need a guidance article for writing about current events that is comparable to WP:Writing about fiction, in to offer guidance (not policy!) about how to approach breaking news topics. My read through the !votes above is that while enshrining the idea of blocking "talking heads" in policy is a problem, there is reasonable guidance on careful use of such analysis in the short-term and to review articles after time has past to distill down what may have been included in haste, among other concepts. This also may be to help encourage editors to use draft space for breaking news until NEVENT is clearly met, issues with sources (primary/secondary, dependent/independent), avoiding the long reaction sections in favor of condensed versions that highlight key ones, etc. A lot of how this would be written does depend on how the community has a whole sees the relationship between en.wiki as an encyclopedia vs current events, but nearly any way this pending poll would go down, this type of advice would be extremely helpful. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly given what I've seen above (and I'm not referring to you), I can only imagine what writing that MOS guide would turn into, and how it would be deployed and distorted in bad faith even more than this policy already is. I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. I don't think we need any more process, any more polls, any more bullshit over this. Let's just drop it, please, once this is over. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Like Core, I hope that this suggestion for a change in our guidelines is seen as an attempt to fix something that's not broken. I can understand where some of the editors here that feel that we have too much commentary, or as they call it "talking heads", are coming from and I think that they have only the best of intentions. But after 10 years of frequently editing on the very articles that have been used as poster children of poor articles, the Charlottsville article for example, IMO we do not need a more rigorous system of policing our editors. Some of us like the commentary of experts and notable people. I do. I love Wikipedia and my years of work here have given me no end of admiration and trust in my fellow editors. Even as an experienced editor my work is constantly improved upon and sometimes deleted outright. And I do the same to others. That's how this place works and it's working just fine IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the response to the RFC above enough is to say that a significant fraction of WP editors think how WP deals with breaking news is problematic. I don't think it is necessarily a feeling of "broken" but that some adjustment is needed. I've seen the shift in how we've dealt with breaking news, and around the time of the Boston Marathon bombing, it worked well. But my own feeling, and readily comments from the others above say that some believe this has gone too far.

Hence why step one is a straw poll to actually get an idea of where the community believes we stand here on news. If that shows a plurality of editors are fine with how news is approached, then so be it. I can't read that plurality from this RFC, and based on how many active threads there are at WP:AN/ANI, WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N, and WP:NPOV/N that frequently center on news, this is a problematic area and might need some type of course correction and guidance. There is zero harm in figuring that out. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe we can build from the ground up, by examples, more productively. I will ask folks -- what kind of "news" things do you see as not encyclopedic, if any? Even more concretely, what kinds of things have you removed, or foregone adding on the basis of "NOTNEWS"? Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 15 September 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.

Next step

Personally, I feel a guidance essay (or multiple competing guidance essays) would be an excellent step forward in resolving this issue. I didn't bring it up in my close above because it was proposed solely by the same editor who proposed the original text for the RfC, User:Masem, but I wanted to state my support for the idea here, outside my capacity as uninvolved interpreter of consensus. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

On a procedural level it is not impossible to include "next step" suggestions in a closure report. If there's too little connection to be found in the elaborate discussions, the closure report may contain a phrase like "next step suggestions should go in a new section", and then start that new section with the comment as above; appending the comment to a closed discussion seems less indicated (leaving other participants in doubt as to where the additional suggestion can be discussed).

On the content of the suggestion: yes, a proposed track starting from essay recommendations (→ possibly followed by filtered out workable "guideline" level guidance → eventual policy amendment summarizing the key points) seems a viable "way to go". Apart from being based on WP:DUE (already suggested in the close), the essay-level guidance could also take some underlying rationale from the WP:PRIMARY policy-level guidance (which, for instance, seems included in the suggestions of the next section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful procedural comment. I did read the section immediately below this one, but while it clearly bears upon the discussion above it is also tangential and not formally connected, so I didn't address it in the close. Guidance essays can be created by a single editor and do not require community input, so I'm not sure a new section about the content of such an essay is warranted here, although of course anyone is welcome to start one. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: uh-oh – seems always best to include a straightforward "where to go next" recommendation in a closure report, if you don't mind my saying so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the last part of the closure result (specifically identifying the divide of NOT#NEWS) as well as my intention late in this RFC that a straw poll would be a good idea (rather than trying to re-address this specific addition, immediately), I don't see a straw poll following on that as an issue. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. Nonetheless I'd recommend to focus less on the NOTNEWS policy for the time being. If it is so that Wikipedia would implicitly (or explicitly) "absorb" the sinking Wikinews, that might as well lead to less strong NOTNEWS policies. So maybe the best way forward is to develop practical guidance, which, upon success, and probably after a few rounds of finetuning, may lead to policy adjustments. Harping on the NOTNEWS policy also has the disadvantage that input from other policies in the developing guidance might fail. I'd still explore the WP:PRIMARY route for getting useful input. The "primary source" guidance is technical, and may seem impractical to present to current event new editors, yet I still think it is conceptually the most fitting, and making practical guidance partially based on it, which is easily understandable by newbie enthusiasts, is maybe the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to make guidance if we don't know what direction it should be in (status quo, or less, or more). That's the principle issue here: the community is clearly at an impasse of how we treat NOT#NEWS and as indicated by this close, what direction that is based on this specific RFC is impossible to judge. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Masem that a straw poll regarding NOTNEWS is not a bad idea. I got the impression reading the discussions on this page that the poll would go ahead once the closure was in place, and only regret that I didn't see broad support for any other concrete proposals to suggest for the poll. Agree with User:Francis Schonken that focussing overmuch on NOTNEWS in particular and policy-level guidance in general may lead to further lack of consensus, and a "bottom-up" approach (beginning with essays regarding what kind of reactions etc. are felt to be appropriate for what kind of breaking event articles and so forth) may give the community a better starting point. Even so, I don't see the straw poll as an undesirable or problematic followup to this RfC. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

True, the straw poll might show some directions. Anyway, just started WP:WACE as a sort of outline for possible future guidance. Feel free to edit it mercilessly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Images

The number if images seems to have proliferated. Can we remove them all, so the policy doesn't look like a humor page? Bright☀ 08:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits in question: 669694996 and 670637921 (crystal ball joke), 726247103 (cookbook joke), 733930443 and 733930443 (Speaker's Corner joke). Bright☀ 08:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly support removal. They make this look like an essay and are apt to make people not take it seriously.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Indifferent I think as long as the image clear at the thumbnail size as a visual mnemomic for the section, it is good. The crystal ball one, for example, is perfect. Others, not so much. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• There is only 3 images. I wouldn't call them proliferated. As for visual mnemonic, I doubt they are well-thought; they are just the best/beloved from Commons, rather than specifically designed. For a casual user the are useless for searching, and a habitual "wikilawyer" does not need them at all. Therefore I say nuke them out. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't they're that big of a problem. It's a long page, so it's not like there are that many of them, and a bit of levity doesn't hurt anyone. Also, there is a large "this is a policy" banner at the top, so people will know it's not an essay. Tamwin (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not against having images, but the ones currently used are not very good and add nothing to the page. I would remove. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• WP:IDGAF —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Remove these three images, but support having better / funnier images as replacements if they come up. The current set are just lame. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Commentary and condolences

We had an RFC about these which closed as consensus for this edit. I was just reverted apparently due to some AFD differing from the RFC's consensus result. An AFD (local consensus) doesn't get to override a widely discussed RFC. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The pertinent RFC asked if we should use news sources to create “lists of world leaders' responses to high profile terrorist attacks like this?” I think your edit is much broader than that, and would cover any reactions even within an already-existing Wikipedia article (and of course would also apply beyond “terrorist” attacks). Also, since that RFC has become rather stale, I would suggest you revert for that reason too. An additional reason for reverting is that the word “reaction” is extremely broad: if ISIS nukes us, could we not mention how the USA reacts (e.g. nuking Raqqa)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I lifted the phrasing I used directly out of the closing user's statement. Closers, as you know are required to close in accord with the discussion focus, regardless of the question in the RFC. I asked on this talk page a couple months ago and heard nothing from anyone about working on some phrasing. So, to your first concern, I think that's a closing-user question (I happen to agree that how it is phrased is fairly broad, but that's not mine to fix). As for staleness, I don't see how. It is old, but that does not make it stale intrinsically. (In other words, what do you mean by stale?) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The RFC closing statement is about a year and a half old. Here it is:

There is no consensus for the creation of a policy explicitly considering all responses from world leaders to be non-notable. In particular, concerns about the potential for such a policy to restrict editors from including coverage of unusual reactions or reactions that have an unusually large impact on policy have not been refuted by supporters. On the other hand, there is consensus to include a sentence at WP:NOTNEWS indicating that specific reactions and condolences generally do not qualify for inclusion. This alternative proposal effectively mitigates the concerns mentioned above, and many editors who voted oppose did indicate support for the idea that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And here is your proposed change to this policy:

Specific reactions to, and condolences for, events generally do not qualify for inclusion.

This language would apparently bar “coverage of unusual reactions”. I would at least want some language (verbatim from the RFC close) allowing such coverage to be included in your policy change, please. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, removed it: see above #RFC: New subsection under "Not a Newspaper" about commentary → no consensus in 2017 (kind of overrides the 2016 consensus per WP:CCC). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am apparently blind. Sigh. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Arguably, the RFC above was a much wider net than just "lists of reactions" (it was dealing with any type of talking head analysis), and that wider net had no consensus, while the previous discussion Izno points out in 2016 was more specific to just these types of lists. However, at the present time, I agree that there probably needs to be more specific RFC, and very much not run concurrently with the other discussion going on and which might hinge on how that ends up. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wording was too broad. We should and do include such reactions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about victim lists in tragedy articles

I invite anyone interested to participate in an RfC about WP:NOTMEMORIAL and whether or not we should list individual victims in tragedy articles. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. SkyWarrior 04:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)