Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

NOTESSAY

Hey all.

There is really no place that I have found that makes it clear really clear that Wikipedia articles are not like essays that a student might do for school in which they make an argument. (do you remember the 5 part format -- Intro/thesis statement, three arguments or chunks of evidence, conclusion/restatement of thesis?) I deal all the time with folks who want to add essay-like content and make arguments in Wikipedia. NOTESSAY comes kind of close to discussing this, but not really. I think a new item 4, after "personal essay", something like this? (very rough first draft)

4. Scholarly essay. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly essays. Such essays are written in dialogue with scholarship and cite sources, but they are written in order to make an argument, and they attempt to persuade the reader to accept the argument. People spend their grade school, high school, and college educations writing essays, but that is not what we do in Wikipedia.  The genre here is encyclopedia article. We summarize accepted knowledge. We describe. See WP:TIGER and the related section below, WP:SOAPBOX.

That is no where said in our policies and guidelines, that I have been able to find. It is kind of covered in SYN but SYN is a bit different. This is about the genre. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You are onto something and may be discussed. However your description of essays is not without fault. I suspect it is US-centric. Essaays are not only for argument/debate; they also may be for discovery. That said, I do agree that with the promotion of wikipedia as school assignment, I see more and more articles written in "student's style", and a shortcut to an advice would be handy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy! Please keep in mind that "personal essay" is #3 - that is more of the "thought experiment"/discovery thing, I think you have in mind? Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that I was it it, I see that NOTESSAY and paratitle "Personal essays" are a bit misleading. I would suggest to rename "Personal essays" into "Personal opinions" (according to the actual text of the paragraph) and retarget NOTESSAY to the new section proposed. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I support this. (In fact it's along the RFA style of 'thought it was one already'!) — fortunavelut luna 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• To understand what an essay is, please see our own article on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, a substantial encyclopedia article is expected to be an essay, i.e. a work of prose about a particular topic. WP:NOTESSAY says fairly clearly that what we don't want is "feelings" or "personal opinions". That's already covered by WP:NPOV and WP:OR so the section here is redundant and should be removed. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Articles" about academics

I run into the problem constantly, that articles about faculty members get treated by the faculty member, their department administrators, and many editors here, like a typical faculty profile page. Many of these folks even link to "their" Wikipedia page on "their" actual faculty webpage.

In my view these faculty articles are perfect conceptual trainwrecks of people mistaking WP for a personal webhost (NOTWEBHOST/NOTCV), like it is a place to record news about themselves (NOTNEWS) including of course their latest book that is coming out in a few months, and every article they ever published, and a vehicle for promotion (PROMO).

So with respect to this policy (!) here is the conceptual compare/contrast question about

a) a faculty profile page at a university website and

b) a legit WP encyclopedia article about a faculty person.

1. What is the difference (there is no need to mention that the WP article needs to pass N or that the WP articles needs to have sources and needs to be free of puffery, etc. This is trivial.)
2. How are they the same

Can we articulate any meaningful conceptual difference? I don't believe we can. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably academics are familiar with encyclopedias and thus with what encyclopedia articles look like. It shouldn't be too hard to explain to them that WP:NOTCV applies when an article looks more like a "faculty webpage" or a résumé than an encyclopedia article. Deor (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not helpful. Please do answer the questions above. What is the difference, conceptually? How are they the same? Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As you say, I think item 1 is obvious: reliable, independent sources talking about the person in-depth such that notability is established. That won't show up in a CV. What won't show up in a WP page are "character references" and information about the person or his activities which have not been published by reliable sources.

What might be the same: A list of publications which he has authored or been involved in, per WP:SELFPUB. A list of worked at-places might be reasonable. A list of fields of interest. Important contributions to his field of interest. (Hopefully, these are WP:RSd per BLP, but we might reasonably accept more WP:SELFPUB as long as the publication occurs-first elsewhere per WP:OR/WP:V.) There might be some other things here and there. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

At least one difference is: whereas a university webpage is bound to have a a full list of publications and patents and presentations by the academic, our pages should only include key papers. (although we should fully document all books they wrote completely or edited). The full list is CV-type material, but unimportant for the long-term. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So far, no sharp differences content-wise except the WP article should not include the full list of articles published. On that, please note that there is a very old argument in WP about that. There are people who vehemently believe a full publication list should be included, and if it gets too long it should become a separate bibliography page. (See the language here and here and here which say nothing about "selection" but rather flatly say "books or other works created by the subject of the article" and the like) Pinging User:DGG as I believe he has been part of the arguments over this in the past. Also interested in his take on the OP. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please also be aware that per WP:NPROF there are lots of people who believe that GNG is not relevant to notability for academics. We cannot even say anything like "multiple independent reliable sources" or much of anything about independently sourced content for articles like this. This is part of why we are in a situation where as far as I can see, there is no conceptual difference between a normal university faculty page and a WP article about the person. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

First, there is no need to meet the GNG. This is one case where the guideline is unambiguous that the standard is not in addition to the GNG, but an alternative. The GNG is of course relevant if the person is also known for something other than academic importance--if they are for example a member of a legislature. It is undecided if the GNG can be used as an alternative for the academic work, or whether it is altogether irrelevant to that aspect of notability. The question arises when someone who doe not meet WP:PROF nonetheless has received writeups in the press--the most frequent example is young people whose accomplishments may be impressive for their age, but not meeting the WP:PROF requirements;another example whose interesting sounding medical idea is picked by the press but not the profession. AfD decisions here have gone both ways for fairly similar cases. (I'd tend to look also at NOT ADVOCACY for these, to remove promotional articles--promotions do not have to be commercial)

Second, the basic requirement is that their work be influential. This can be shown by prizes, appointments etc. as provided in WP:PROF , but the basic way academics are influential and recognized as authorities is by being cited. This is the rule the profession uses--nothing much counts for promotion except well-cited publications in good journals or books by major academic publishers. In science and other fields where notability is by journal articles, the most cited journal articles are what show notability. It is not the h value--any number of mediocre publications does not bring notability, and that's what h measures. Eugene Garfield who invented the method in the 1960s thought of it primarily for biomedicine, and considered the key level to be articles with 100 citations or more. The number depends on the field, and is best thought of as the citation density--the number of citations per article. In the physical sciences and mathematics the key value is lower than 100--in chemistry it is probably around 60, in math lower. There are all sorts of special cases: multiple authorship, self-citation, high counts from review articles that do not represent original research, etc. It is possible to actually determine this objectively by comparison with people widely recognized as highly notable--for example, by the other criteria. In the articles, we usually list only the 4 or 5 most important papers, which are normally the most highly cited, or the most highly cited recent work. The rest can be found in the CV. This is different from what we do for filmographies and the like, partially because we have an objective standard for importance. We usually pay attention only to papers in peer-reviewed journals, not conference presentation, except in those fields of engineering where peer-reviewed conference papers are considered of equal or greater importance.

For people in the humanities and history and any other field where books are the method of publication the reviews of the books are as important a the citations. All books from academic presses are exhaustively peer-reviewed before publication, and 2 or 3 books is the general standard. They will always be reviewed, and the number of citations depends on the field but is inherently low, because the citation density of books is much less than articles because of their much more substantial nature. It's normal for someone in these field for us to include a list of all the books authored or edited but not any book chapters, journal articles , or other publications, none of which counts all that much. (note that all this needs to be interpreted different before about 1950--certainly before 1900-- and in esoteric fields and non-Western traditions.)

There's a simple shortcut we should use, but is still not a formal criterion. Anyone holding a full professorship in a major research university will invariable meet the requirements for influence by publications. The reason is that we use the same standard they do. We should trust the interpretation of a tenure committee in such a university much mroe than what we can do here.

The difference between an academic CV and an encyclopedia article is that an academic CV lists everything-- every committee, every guest lecture, every conference talk, every interview. encyclopedia articles do not do this. The difference between an encyclopedia article and a press release is the an encyclopedia article list the education and positions in chronological order giving specifics of dates, and gives specific publication data and links, letting the journal articles or books speak for themselves, while a press release focuses on the latest position, is often vague about dates, often is sloppy about exact references to the publications, and describe in enthusiastic language what a great advance their work is, and why they are important to major world problems. (That's actually a distinguishing characteristic nature of press releases in all fields of endeavor). DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As with all writing, the key aspect that shapes the tone and content is the intended audience. A faculty profile is targeted for students and other professors to learn primarily about the professor's professional career. It generally will have a limited length, compared with a biography. It will focus on professional accomplishments, possibly with a greater emphasis on more recent ones, and usually will downplay any criticism or controversy, if it is mentioned at all. A biography takes a more complete view of its subject, covering personal as well as professional history. This can include numerous details about the subject's life, hobbies, and personal views, unrelated to the person's career.

At an individual sentence level, assuming a neutrally-written faculty profile, there probably won't be much difference: a sentence written in a profile could well appear within a biography. But a biography will encompass a greater scope and accordingly will have a greater length, as it is targeted at a broader audience with a more general interest in all aspects of the subject's life. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the time people have taken to reply, but nothing here is helpful to guide the admin of a professor who was told to buff up/update the professor's article. I have seen no concrete differences between a faculty web page (the question was not asking about the difference between a WP article and a CV - that difference is obvious). Where there is controversy that is an obvious difference but is a rare situation. And Isaacl hell no - WP articles are not places to list all kinds of trivia like someone's hobbies. for pete's sake.

Here are some concrete examples (the first three have recent issues; the last three are just random):

• Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz (autobiographical, still getting, um, polished, but even when that is done, it will look like a faculty webpage)
• Martinus Richter (faculty webpage actually links to the German WP article, of which this was initially a translation)
• Matthias Hentze (his admin is currently trying to update this)
• Ruedi Aebersold
• William R. Brinkley
• David F. Dinges

Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked us to assume that notability, etc. were already taken care of. Obviously, anything contained within an article has to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. This does mean that if someone's hobbies have garnered notable attention, they can be covered. (Claude Shannon, for example, is known to be a juggler.) If not, then they won't.

Yes, it's difficult to provide guidance, because a neutrally-written faculty profile can certainly be a stub biography. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if discussing the different natures of a faculty profile vs. a biography isn't helping you with your objectives. I was hoping that the discussion might help prompt any interested contributors to discern some greater differences that would help you. I'm sorry if it hasn't been any assistance. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Isaac i am sorry for being snappish. I think the community consensus on this is probably that there is almost no difference. I appreciate you providing input. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this thread posted here without reference to Jytdog's previous discussion on the same topic. I'm not sure there's a different answer forthcoming from posting the same issue on a different page, and to be frank I don't think your argument has improved with age. Of the handful of examples with "recent issues", in one case you appear to have reverted neutrally worded and easily verifiable updates to a BLP on the grounds that the person who made those edits acknowledges a COI.

In any event, the simplest explanation for the similarities you say you observe is that readers come to both Wikipedia articles about academics and to faculty pages looking for similar information, i.e. their place of work, their career history and affiliations, and their research or scholarly activities and how they fit into their broader academic field. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Opabinia regalis. This had nothing to do, whatsoever, with notability. The question asked explicitly assumes that status quo of PROFN and does not question it. The misrepresentation is noted. What you appear to be saying is that a WP page about an academic who meets PROFN is, appropriately, basically same as a typical faculty web page and that for academics to use WP as a professional webhost (like your average academic uses their faculty webpage, which tend not to be ridiculously promotional) is just fine. Thanks for providing your input. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

I've started a number of pages on historians (User:K.e.coffman#Historians), so my comments apply most to those in humanities. In my mind, the requirements for an encyclopedic article are two-fold:

1. The lead establishes why the person is significant in the field: i.e. major research; notable publications; awards that are significant and well known, etc.
2. The bulk of the article consists of 3rd party analysis of the subject's work.

The difference between the uni profile / CV and an encyclopedia article is that the former generally does not include Part 2 (3rd party analysis). Compare: Wendy Lower, faculty profile and Wendy Lower.

Does this help? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a dead on, to the point answer. That is not how most articles about academics are written, and would provide a significant difference between a faculty webpage and a WP article about the person. Thanks! I am interested to hear people's responses to this. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

NCORP

Just providing a notification here that we are gathering proposals for an RfC to raise NCORP standards at the Talk page of that guideline; see here. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new section under "Not a Newspaper: Not real-time news reaction, commentary, and analysis

Based on a lot of issues over articles over the past 2+ years, I think we need to add a new case under Not a Newspaper to specifically discourage/prevent editors from focusing too much on the the reactions, commentary, and analysis that flood the news after/during a current controversial event.

This needs to be clear that this is not the same as covering notable, breaking events, as there are times we cover these less controversial topics well (such as disasters). We do not want to discourage editors from that, but we do want to avoid trying to rush to include the endless parade of talking heads throwing their opinions in the ring, particularly if the event is the type that generates a lot of talk and controversy. Trying to cover the analysis and commentary in real-time while such events are going on can be problematic and does not reflect the fact that we rather have topics discussed in this manner after a long time has passed from the conclusion of the event so that we have a better judgement of how to apply UNDUE and the like. This might be days, weeks, or months after the event has happened, but this is how we'd approach any event that already occurred in the past. We should not be letting the availability of volumes of talking-head opinions in the immediate wake of our event coverage drive how that article is written in the short term. This is essentially hitting on WP:RECENTISM as well as elements of WP:DEADLINE. Of course, if it is the news commentary that affects the actual event, documenting that as part of the controversy should be done. We want editors to document a controversy, but go no further than that until they have enough sources far enough removed to figure out that picture. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

+ ten zillion. We are not part of the blogosphere! Just the facts please. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly support this. I've made it clear I hate "reaction" sections on major event pages. I'd take this a step further and recommend a proposal to the MOS that reactions of (1) the head of state where the event occurred and (2) the regional leader (mayor, governor, etc.) are the only two notable ones by default. Others like NAACP (e.g., with Ferguson) or GLAAD (e.g., with Orlando) might be notable if major outlets report on it. Political candidates are generally not (the media reports a hard sneeze from them usually). Platitudes are not either. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

While "Reactions" sections to major events is definitely one area that I think this needs to cover, it does go beyond that too. A prime example of problem articles that this would influence is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; I don't edit this but there's seemingly a NPOV/N or BLP/N issue about it once a week because editors are rushing to add in talking-head commentary and putting aside actual, important reactions (like those actually involved in situation). It is very easy to use the endless stream of 24/7 news channels to support any viewpoint one wants, whereas weat this point should be aiming to only identify factual events in the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is a huge issue, but I've yet to see Wikipedia combat it well, except for occasional cases. The WP:RSBREAKING guideline already tackles "current event[s] in real time" and recentism. I don't think addressing it at this policy page will help much, but trying is an option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this- should help separate the cruft from the actual topic, and provide a policy with which to deal with it. — fortunavelut luna 09:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested shift of focus: In coverage of anything, not only the very most currtentest events, opinions, hypotheses and speculations are encyclopedic only if they have major impact or significant overage. Therefore the subject discussed here is a special case of WP:DUE. Of course, it may be reasonable to elaborate on it in the context of WP:NOT in this generic form, i.e., WP:NOTPUNDITFORUM: Not a collection of opinions of everybody about everything. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have seen, not in exactly these words but in intent, that per UNDUE, if there are many published opinions about something (typically from the press that are part of our RS collective) who are otherwise uninvolved that per UNDUE we should be including those, to a point where the opinions/stances of those actually involved with the controversial event are then considered FRINGE views and not be included. Which is not documenting the controversy. UNDUE has a perfectly fine place, when the dust has settled and we're trying to write how something will be seen externally in the long-term, but we need language similar to what I or Staszek Lem are suggesting to avoid UNDUE being used in the short term. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There're a couple reasons I'm a little leery of this. One is... well, we're here to serve the readers. The most readers are often most interested in an event soon after it happens. Something happens, people go to Wikipedia to learn about it. They do. I don't see the advantage of not serving these people. Maybe it's necessary, if y'all say so and can demonstrate it, OK. But acknowledge that there's a cost.

(And IMO stuff like "I've made it clear I hate 'reaction' sections on major event pages" demonstrates little beyond people's personal interests in what they like to read, which, so what? Then skip it. If there's a demonstration that this stuff is inherently low-quality -- we get it wrong too often, or whatever, and this is essentially structural to the event being recent -- that's differnt of course.

Could we see some specific examples of articles or other material that is problematic? Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Right and what WP should do it is give the facts of the matter. That is how we best serve readers. To the extent we provide important player's perspectives, that should have less WEIGHT than the actual facts. Otherwise we just become an extension of the blogosphere and whatever battles are being waged out there, get pulled in here, which becomes just a tremendous waste of time for every body. The proposal helps us all avoid that. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote above is my general approach in all the subjects I edit in. But you asked for an example - I have been working on Charlie Gard case and have been advocating there that we keep all the furore in the blogosphere at a minimum and give the most WEIGHT to what was wrong with the baby and what actually happened in the various court cases. People have been wanting to replay the arguments in social media and to even interweave them. Some of it has crept in despite my efforts but hey this a community project so one has to compromise. In my view we serve readers as I said above, by presenting the facts of the matter cleanly, and sketching interpretations separately. We don't get into the weeds of rehearsing those battles here per WP:Beware of tigers. Since i have offered this as an example, I will post there that I have done this. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of the most recent examples involve anything that has touched the last election and Trump-related articles. A very specific example is James Comey. Among other issues one specific point of concern was inclusion of other opinioned reasons of why Comey was let go from office in May 2017 that was different from what the official dismissal memo said. Now, considering how many moving parts there are on the election/Russia interference story, the dust over that and anyone involved, particularly Comey, hasn't settled, so we don't know how to see this situation properly from a longevity viewpoint. In an encyclopedic perfect world, we'd have noted only what the dismissal memo specifically said, and that the dismissal was seen as controversial, at least until a point in time where these events are a thing of the past, but instead, there's inclusion of several theories from RSes (so not in violation of any other content policy) that bloat it out, and written in a manner to be critical of the dismissal (and of Trump by that nature). At one point, one editor argued that the dismissal memo wasn't important because we can't trust that was the reason for dismissal. Editors like these are playing games with policy and the near-endless supply of Trump-critical opinions and analyses to maintain a certain viewpoint on articles, which may or may not be appropriate, we just can't tell right now. It is far better to avoid giving any more detail beyond what is the verified truth and possibly not appear complete, as that state then can be expanded on once we have the correct long-term view of the situation; rather than trying to crap a selective choice of opinion or analysis into an article while the situation is still happening. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is certainly an issue. But degree-of-relevance is also relevant to this. :-) Per the framework at WP:Relevance, "reaction to" is one step removed from coverage directly of the topic, with greater selectivity required. While this issue may arise more with current news, coverage of reaction is a common way to tilt an article (a wp:npov issue). Also I'm not so sure that it's an issue for wp:not; it's probably more of an issue for wp:npov and our missing relevance guideline, and missing infusion of wp:coatrack principles into policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point about NPOV and coatrack but a lot of this has to do with what people see WP as being for. In my view a lot of the problems addressed by the proposal are actually related to the SOAPBOX part of the policy, but addressing this under NOTNEWS in a subsection like WP:NOTBLOGOSPHERE or yes WP:NOTPUNDITFORUM would be immensely helpful to add clarity to help keep everyone on-mission. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

While reactions are one step removed and are secondary sources, what is at issue is short-term reactions, even by journalists and analysts that have studied the situation in depth but still speaking their opinion without considering the long-term. We want the long-term secondary coverage, once the matter has settled down to gauge opinions, but not while it is at a fevered pitch. The reason that it is suggested here at NOT is that it covers several different content issues. Some of this is NPOV issues, but there are, for example, the case of "reactions to major disaster" sections that certainly are neutral but when it is just a list of condolences, its not appropriate content, so falls under NOT. I also see this analagous to being not a newspaper, we're also not a talking-heads 24/7 news station ala CNN, FOX, or CNBC, which has news coverage but in a far different matter from a typical newspapre and also far from what an encyclopedia should be .--MASEM (t) 21:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Good points by both Jytdog and Masem. I'm always leery of provisions that overlap with other policies or try to fix a problem in the wrong place but I think that you are in essence saying (or led me to) that the issue is so much bigger in areas covered in wp:not (e.g. "not a newspaper") that it would be good to cover it here. Agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Proposed language - I want to hash this out first here, but I do think we need to have then a full RFC about this since it is a core concept policy and going to link in a non-policy page (RECENTISM) which some might balk at.

  Real-time news reactions, commentary and analysis While 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, 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 but not comment on it until the dust from the controversy has long since settled.

• I suck at policy language so feel free to adjust/amend/rewrite, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Question People commenting so far seem to have a certain type of Wikipedia editing in mind. Can anyone give some examples of Wikipedia article which was developed in this undesirable way? I can only imagine instances of good editing with news, like for example with various crisis situations and updates on politics to match the developing narratives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  It's not the worst, but recently there's been July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing of which about 50% of the post-lead text is a "reactions" section. It used to be a lot worse, but there's some dedicated editors who kill it when they see it. There's been a habit of expanding stubs on current events by putting every publicly available reaction from every famous person or national government one can find. If it doesn't happen as much its because people are actively removing it (as they should). But I think the OP is looking for policy guidance to give some meat to their work. --Jayron32 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  Reaction sections like Jayron describes is one aspect, but the larger issue, as I've tried to identify above, currently exists with nearly every article around Trump and the last election relating to the possibility of Russia's involvement. There are very few established facts on the case - though clearly a timeline of events we can document and which we should document - but editors in these articles seem invested to make sure the media's stance (which is currently hostile to Trump, in broad terms) is included. We should be asking, once the matter is settled, in any resolution, would we be including all the current media's stance and opinions and analysis? To counterpoint, imagine the Watergate scandal being written in real-time compared to what we have now. Properly, this has a "role of the media" section to emphasize how the talking-heads at the time made this a big media thing, but in the long-term context, it's not outline all the opinions but the roles that had. The few reactions are from the major world players at the time, and thus appropriately summarized. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am unsure what to think. The content is not obviously bad or good to me. For an issue I cared about then I might want to see this content, especially if there is little other information on the topic. The reactions in the Lahore case demonstrate that people in positions of authority cared about the issue, which I would not realize otherwise. For US political reactions sometimes dumb items in the media still somehow direct large sums of labor, money, and other resources so I also am not sure that we should discourage this behavior. I also do not feel sure that we should have this - I definitely see why Wikipedia does not need this content. Perhaps I am unhappy both with leaving it and removing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• That is a darn good first draft. I suggest changing the last sentence to "This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to describe the controversy, summarizing high quality sources; we do not participate in the controversy." Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure on that change. I have seen people argue that if the NYTimes or BBC or other high-quality RS opine on something it should be included, and that's what we should be avoiding in the short-term coverage. Obviously a retrospective on the event by the NYTimes is extremely valuable. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• How about "This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to describe the controversy, summarizing high quality sources reporting, not commenting on, the events; we do not participate in the controversy." ? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone pinged EEng? I know he interested in a restriction like this. Personally, as long as "this talking head says the shooting is racial [1], while Yakkety XIV says this sudden bankruptcy is an industry wake-up call [35]" is kept to a minimum, I am opposed to attempts to restrict the recent addition of events to Wikipedia. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  This is not an attempt to curb current events, NEVENT remains the core guideline to judge that. This is simply to prevent articles on current events from going too far into the weeds of opinions and analysis in the short-term, focusing on non-contested facts that are part of the event, and waiting to include the more analytical considerations well after the event has settled down. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think we need to distinguish between "talking heads" and "blogosphere" and the reaction to notable events by notable persons. Also we need to recognize that the mode of transmission of those opinions and reactions today are frequently tweets. Even the Pope tweets. We all know you-know-who does. What used to be press releases and men in suits sitting in front of flags is now the same people twittering in their pajamas. Their doing so almost always results in pickup in reliable sources. Also NOTNEWS should not be used as a bludgeon to prevent notable events from receiving proper coverage simply because they are recent. I'm more concerned with the articles that seem to crop up after every major news event, thrusting nobodies like Richard Matt into prominence when they deserve to be promptly forgotten. Matt is a low-life who busted out of prison, whereas Charlie Gard, op cit, was the center of global controversy that received extensive coverage. We don't want NOTNEWS to mean "nothing recent please," and it can be misinterpreted as that sometimes. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Actually, part of this is avoiding the inclusion of short-term reactions that people that have nothing to do with the event, at least while the event is going on, even if those people are notable. Or at least distinguish between the volume and influence of such reactions (which are fine if they affect the situation in the short-term), and exactly what they say. Taking the Gard case, there are some cases of proper reaction inclusion under this idea, and some that are not. The first para of "Political and public policy" is good, describing how those tweets (particularly Pope's and Trump's) influenced the situation and larger reaction. And to understand how they did, the contents do need to be mentioned (plus, they were actually talking actions to be taken, rather than just offering condolenses). But at the same time, Pence's comment isn't needed since it is just condolences, and has no clear impact on the situation. One needs to think how the article will be five years from now, if all those positions will be relevant. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • In fact Pence did more than just offer condolences but made a political statement, which was indeed quite consequential from the standpoint of the political impact of the case. As for five-year impact, that's a tricky question. Re Pence, will he be president in five years? Will single-payer (the subject of his comment) still be consequential? If either is the case, it will be relevant. Which raises another issue: relevant to whom? To a taxi driver or a researcher or student? Do we pretend to be arbiters of what might possibly be relevant to unknown audiences in five years? That's not currently in this policy, but if you wish to add language to that effect, feel free. Getting back to this particular possible policy change, I guess my concern is that this may be a cure for which there is no disease. If there are specific articles in which this policy change would have come in handy, had it existed, I would like to know which articles and the impact this would have. The Comey article is one example but I think more would be useful. Coretheapple (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• As another example, here is a case of where we really shouldn't have an article because while the story may be notable, it is pretty much all about talking heads, right now, and that is Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (tl;dr version: google employee releases internal memo critical of Google's diversity-driven hiring practices, ends up being leaked, guy is fired, analysts from both sides are fighting over this). There's not much "news" to the story yet, but it's gained more than a wealth of secondary sources speaking about the issues. But this is all short term elements - we shouldn't really be covering this part of the story, outside of noting that the memo's release sparked further controversy in the ongoing culture war. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  I nominated it for deletion, but I have a strong suspicion it will survive on formal grounds, rather on its encyclopedic merits. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  That's an example of NOTNEWS, for sure. I'm not seeing how this addition to the policy that is being proposed would be necessary to deal with this article. Seems to me that it's amply dealt with in the policy as currently written. Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  You'd think, but look at the AFD currently. Far too many keeps claiming that coverage of it is there. There is extensive coverage but the bulk of that coverage is people throwing their opinions into the ring about the nature of the memo, and not so much about the event. If we had this bit for NOT, then we'd delete that article (or at least merge to a larger topic), and not go into all the reactions until it was determined down the road that it was actually a significant event and look at the analysis of that from the long-term perspective. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT already are more than sufficient to blow an article like that out of the water. But the language being proposed here would not just impact (ineffectually in my view) on AfD discussions but on the articles themselves, adversely, hampering their development by giving ammunition to people who don't like the subject matter. I would suggest that if AfDs are your concern, the place to have this discussion is WP:EVENT, the notability guideline for news events. That's already pretty strong, and should already be sufficient to deal with this Google article and others, But do keep in mind that WP:RAPID works against deletion of articles on recent events. So the policy change being discussed here may fail to help with AfDs and only work against the articles after they actually exist, and may do real harm to articles that are legitimately kept. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'll have to respectfully disagree here. Using the Google memo AFD, if you do not consider this, editors are reasonably arguing that NEVENT does not apply (that is, that the article meets NEVENT and should be kept), namely because there is significant secondary coverage of it. But the type of coverage that it is being generated is all short-term analysis and everyone trying to get their voice out there in putting this in the context of the larger culture war. If we all recognized that this was short-term analysis that was far too soon to cover encyclopedicly, then the article would be stripped of most of the response commentary, and the article's inappropriateness would be obvious per NEVENT. Perhaps that if this were to be added here, NEVENT would also need proper updating to remind editors that a news event that generates a lot of short-term commentary is not necessary an appropriate topic would also help. There's a combination of several issues at play here. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  There is such passion to keep in such situations, even ones amply covered by the policy and WP:EVENT now, that it's hard for me to envision this policy change having much impact. (Not that it would have much practical impact but I think there would have to be major changes in WP:EVENT, not just updating, if this change were enacted.) Far more troubling to me is the possible impact on exiting articles. I'd like to see some examples of articles that are not currently at AfD, that exist now, that this policy change would impact, and what that impact would be. For instance, James Comey has been mentioned and I would be interested to know what would happen to that article if this policy change were implemented. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  There were two cases in Comey that I know would be touched on by this. First was his dismissal as the media speculated on reasons for his removal beyond what the official dismissal notification said. They're making guesses, and given that Comey's still tied to the ongoing situation over the Russian interference in the election, we're still waiting for dust to settle, so we shouldn't be including those third-party comments yet. Second was how much of a role Comey played in the election. It is necessary to identify the factual actions that he did, but to guess at how much weight they had by analysts (some saying he cost Clinton the election) is too much at this time, for the same reasons above - we're still in the stage where the election investigation is ongoing. This would not gut much from the existing article, just avoid commentary on situations that aren't resolved. If/when the election mess is figured out, we can then see what analysts say then to include back into here. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Well I guess I'd have to know what specifically would be imperiled. Looking at the Comey article I'm not seeing anything terrible. You know, I !voted against that Google article and I still feel it is best as a merge, but I don't feel the "keeps" are totally out of whack. I did feel the Richard Matt "keep" !voters were way off base (I initiated that AfD) but in retrospect, I'm not so sure. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  It's only a few places: in the lede we have "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election."; some of the last para of "Release of information about the investigation", the latter half of the "Dismissal of James Comey", and now I see someone went and created Dismissal of James Comey. (That latter one I think is more a direct NOT#NEWS/ PROSELINE problem , trying to detail every minute timeline event. Even our articles on famous and well-documented battled in WWII don't go into that much minutiae). But focusing just on Comey's article, we're talking all of about 5% of it , at most, certainly not gutting it. Maybe Comey's not the best example of a problematic article but it shows the elements we should be avoiding in the short-term. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Hard for me to judge in the abstract but those are significant points. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if exactly what was intended but related enough: I'd like to see something about in this addressing "breaking news". I started an essay a bit ago at WP:HOLDYOURHORSES/WP:DJTG about avoiding breaking news since they are often wrong. Not sure how to work it in here but thought I'd mention it. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • For that, we already have the base "Not a newspaper" ("Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories"), and application of WP:NEVENT to wait long enough to make sure a story is legit (collaborating accounts) before determining notability and making a standalone article. This concept is related but not quite the same issue (here, it is usually the news event is validated to have happened, but because everyone and their brother is opining about it in the short term, that's where we need to avoid the talking-heads analysis until the situation has settled down). --MASEM (t) 13:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• If there are not other refinements offered to the proposed language this seems ripe to pose as an RfC. Are there any other suggested tweaks to Masem's draft above? Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• More as a counterexample of what this language should be encouraging is the current state of the 2017 Unite the Right rally (permlink to current). There is a reaction section, but it is limited to key players, and notably the reaction to Trump's comment that many high level officials feel didn't go far enough. There is very few comments from non-gov't officials (read: the media) despite the fact that there's well over 1000s of opinion pieces issued on how this event reflects many issues today - eg we are avoiding the talkings-heads part despite the abundance of such availability. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's actually a very good example of the perils of this suggested policy change, and demonstrates for me why it is not a good idea. Compare that version with the current version of that article. If we're going to brand anyone other than "key players" as "talking heads," the outcome would be what you see in the version you cite -- an unnecessarily short, in fact grotesquely stunted article that is pretty much unusable for persons interested in learning about the subject matter. Yes there is indeed an "abundance" of so-called "talking heads" available because it is a "yuge" controversy. We mustn't set ourselves up as clairvoyants who will say "oh no, these are 'talking heads' who won't matter in five years." Truncating reaction sections as suggested would in fact present a very serious WP:UNDUE problem by failing to fairly and fully present all major viewpoints reflected in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it still applies (note when I made that comment, that was before more things happened as a result). Keep in mind that the goal of the proposed language is to avoid inclusion of near-term talking head analysis that is just there for the debate points, not actually part of the news. Nearly all the reactions/responses in the current Rally articles are ones that created further news coverage (and in turn created more reactions and coverage) that are completely appropriate: Trump's response and the fallout from that, the various online sites denying the use by the rallying groups + others, the statue removals, and the vigils. These are all things that are not real-time analysis without any impact, but actual news associated with it. Of the current section, only three are of the type of "talking heads" , that being Public Opinion, Religious Response, and Academic Responses, and those are very tame compared to what they could be if we included all the post-event talking head analysis that wasn't related the other reactions that happened. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• There's no question, however, that this rule change would have hampered development of that article. I suggest that for clarity's sake that you provide an example of an article that is already "aged" and contains excessive quantities of what you describe as "talking heads" or other bad stuff that would not be there if this policy change was implemented. I've asked at least once before and no such exxamples have been produced. If there are no such examples then this goes back to what I was saying about this proposal being a cure for which there is no disease, as well as being not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Again, disagree. First, there's no WP:DEADLINE, and because we are not news (with or without this), we have no requirement to be up to date. Considering the biggest reaction that had impact was Trump's initial statement, it didn't need to be include until it started this criticism of it, and then it would have been appropriate to include.
• A key part of this is to discourage the creation of articles (or sections of existing articles) like Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack (which is at AFD at the moment). Or if we are going to have them, they need to be better curated like what we have at Boston Marathon bombing (distilling to principle involved people/groups and actions that really mean something rather than just words). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• But that's the problem: not being "up to date" can and often does skew the contents of an article so that it is not neutral. I see your point re reaction articles, but I am more interested in seeing whether there are articles apart from that which contain content that would be affected by this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's nearly always premature inclusion of talking-head commentary before understanding its role in the larger picture that causes the neutrality problems. An article that does suffer from this is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as the investigation is still ongoing, having all these intermediate reactions from individuals or groups not involved doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be correct to say that you want Wikipedia to be a newspaper without the controversy of analysis that cannot be a considered opinion without the passage of time?  Why do you want newspaper-style coverage on events in an encyclopedia without the perspective of time?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, as we shouldn't even be covering stories like a newspaper in the first place. The ideal, but completely impractical way, to write about an event is to wait fully until the dust settles and only then write the event article from the perspective of an encyclopedia; this avoids issues with proseline updates, we have been sense of what perspectives are appropriate per WEIGHT, and we can figure out how to present the event in a larger world context, and have a better sense of event's notability. But we can't stop editors from making articles on events moments after they happen despite NOT#NEWS. So if that's going to be the case, then editors need to stick to core facts (which should include statements and comments from those directly involved) and avoid the talking-head analysis that has no immediate effect. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Then perhaps what's needed is a change to WP:GNG and/or WP:EVENT. not a change in this policy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's been tried, it doesn't work. You can't prevent editors from making articles, and NEVENT was crafted to try to stem that tide, and trying to push editors to employ Wikinews has generally failed. So we do have to live with editors making articles on breaking events, but we can make sure that they stay on the focus on the factual aspects of the events rather than to shoehorn in reactions and responses, which at times can be done in a POV-ish manner depending on the event. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Masem I reckon it is ripe to try an RfC? The discussion between the two of you is not going to resolve. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Is there a positive viewpoint to state why we are suddenly allowing breaking-news articles, beyond "our admins can't be bothered to move breaking-news articles to draftspace"?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just events. Why do we allow articles on an escaped convict when the escape itself is the subject of an article? That's how the AfD discussions turn out. But don't forget that this problem will not, repeat not' be addressed by this proposed policy change. Instead its sweeping language could be used as a blunt instrument to curtail the development of articles on significant issues of lasting importance. I still have yet to see produced here any examples of articles that have spun out of control with horrible, unnecessary "commentary" and "talking heads." Where are they? There should be at least 10-15 good examples of such articles before we wield a blunt instrument like this. Coretheapple (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there is an entirely separate problem of people rushing to create articles that fail to meet the immediate needs of NEVENTS or fail BLP1E/BLPCRIME and a whole host of other things. Editors have tried to stem those, its very difficult because people read the GNG and think "widely-covered news story" equates to notable. Part of this is a lack of admins handling AFD to pay attention to that distinction here.
• This proposal is not trying to address that. It is addressing, where there has been evidence of a notable event, to make sure to keep the initial article focused on facts and not talking-head analysis while the event is ongoing. The biggest place is any breaking news that gathers a "Reactions" section that is a per-country list. This has been considered before [1] and as noted there this does point to a category where such reaction articles have been created Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks. But it does affect articles in other ways. Dismissal of James Comey is the type of article that seems far too narrow and overly focused on one specific event because talking heads have made it such a point. (Not that the dismissal doesn't belong somewhere in WP, but it makes much sense to describe it in context of Comey and/or the investigation of the election). If a year from now that dismissal is considered a key event, then full expansion of that separate article makes sense. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

*The Comey article is probably a pretty good example of how a policy change like this is good or bad as indicated by the way you are defining it. Yes, it is too long, in part because it shows the entire text of relevant documents. And it does have a "clear the notebook" technique of publishing everything in reliable sources. Now the controversy is over and I look at that article but I'm not seeing any area that requires massive cuts. If one removed what you call "talking heads," you remove an important aspect of the article, which was indeed the furor.

Thus I think it underlines the point I made earlier about this proposal running up against WP:UNDUE, When you have a controversy characterized by a media furor, the media furor ("talking heads") is part of the story, and removal skews the article in a manner not allowed by UNDUE. And again, who are we to say what will be of interest in five or ten years? Only in five or ten years will we know that. If we are writing about something that happened five or ten years ago, it is a different story. Then we can judge if WP:PERSISTENCE is applicable. (Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.) That's from the notability guideline but I think its reasoning is applicable here. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree that the event is actually "over" - while his dismissal is now a few months old, the investigation is still ongoing, so what exact role in that is in question. Say the investigation completes, Comey not considered under any part of the gov't evaluation, and a year from them, academics and analysts, without pressure of time to press, come to conclusion that Comey's dismissal was not in any way a factor. In other words, the furor made by the media over it was over nothing. Should we still have an article that long, considering BLP , etc? This is the type of situation we get into when people flood news articles with media commentary as to make them seem more important before the more proper measure of time. And it's great we have WP:PERSISTENCE but that's a guideline (and not content for that matter) and gets trampled on at AFD. Since this is a broad situation and not just related to events (though frequently will happen most with those), we need policy-level strength to warn editors to not rely too heavily on media analysis and op-eds in the wake of breaking news but consider them well-after the fact. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the Comey affair could be a big nothing, but right now it isn't. It could also help take down the Trump presidency. Do you have a crystal ball? I don't. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• And to that end, that's where we should err on WP:DEADLINE and not try to include it before we actually know the situation. Stick to the facts of the story which aren't going to change, but editors shouldn't be trying to do analysis summary at this point. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• This has zero chance of passing, but badly needs to be done. We need to stop acting like a newspaper and start acting like an encyclopedia. We should limit all breaking news articles to a template that says "Wikipedia does not cover breaking news until it is at least 30 days old. Here is a link to Wikinews for those who want more current information." Then we need to nuke the "in the news" section on the front page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hear hear!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• as discussion on the actual proposal stalled a while ago, I have posed the RfC below. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I opposed below because there is nothing special about this situation. I would support abolishing WP:NOTNEWS in its entirety. It is a confused policy that only makes a difference when it is misapplied, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. You can rule out many reactions based on simple criteria of relevance, and one of the main ones is simply how removed it is from the event. Video of somebody getting run over is one step removed from the event, so should be of the highest importance to include, yet there are all too many shrinking violets afraid of providing "too much detail". A police officer who saw the event, transcribed talking to a reporter, is two steps. An op-ed writer, commenting about a politician's speech he saw on TV, based on what the politician heard from the news media ... well, that's more removed, less relevant. I don't claim I have an automatic article writing machine with this, but I think this is a useful way of thinking: our job is to dive to the source, and sometimes we can shift details that are five steps removed to principals who are three or four steps removed, at least, rather than the article about the event itself. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Froglich reverts

I reverted two edits from this article that appear suspicious, along with two redirects. [2] [3] [4] Could someone with more experience on this page review my reverts? Objective3000 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts are correct. The language used is highly suspect, though there is a ring of truth of something we should be aware of, but we'd need deeper discussion to determine inclusion. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's a "ring of truth" that "we should be aware of", then how about we improve the "highly suspect" language instead? I formulated the now-reverted piece, and am here for the deeper discussion.--Froglich (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A principle oft-repeated at WP:V is that we want "verifyability, not truth". If there is no reliable source that are challenging that a narrative may be presented, we can't cover that, per WP:V, per WP:NOR. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the word "verifiable" means "able to be shown to be true" (c.f. veritas) The purpose of the maxim "Verifiability not truth" is that being true is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for information to be included. The information included has to go beyond merely being true, it needs to be able to be shown to be true. Mere assertions of truth are insufficient. If something false happens to be printed outside of Wikipedia, we are not obligated to repeat it merely because it was written down somewhere else. Truth is still a necessary precondition for verifiability. The purpose of the maxim is to remind people that they have to back up their assertions of factuality and that assertions of truth are insufficient without evidence. It isn't to say that truth is irrelevant, and that all that matters is citing some source, especially if it can be shown that the source is wrong. Froglich's addition is rightly reverted here; not merely because of its combative tone, but also because it's entirely redundant with well-established principles. --Jayron32 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I will add that there are proper questions of "blind acceptance of truth" or "refusal to consider critical viewpoints not considered in RSes" and to what extend WP should do this, but that is a much deeper and difficult set of questions to answer and can't just go into NOT without that discussion. I will agree that there are places on WP where editors have "circled the wagons" around what the RS says and only what the RS say, without willing to entertain the larger picture that can be shown, but only if one extend one's view past core RSes into the opinions and attributed statements from less-reliable ones (still can't treat these as facts). However, we have to be careful that is applied right as allowing that approach may benefit some areas where there has been a very narrow view would also allow any random conspiracy theory to get in as well, so there's a very difficult balance to get, again requiring much larger discussion before cementing in policy. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's why speaking in the source's voice is relevant, and that Wikipedia reflects mainstream consensus on a topic. Presenting a fringe theory as "Here's a fringe theory that has been widely discounted, but is commented on enough to bear repeating here" which is fine and "Here's a fringe theory which could also be true" which is not fine. --Jayron32 13:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in text?

In the section on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" we have the sentence, "...Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." Isn't that sentence missing an "not" after the word "should"? Because otherwise this implies that the articles on works of fiction, etc. should contain the entire work, which I don't think is what is intended here. I would have fixed this myself as it seems like an obvious error but I have been wrong too many times in the past and this is a high-profile page. Please advise. thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read the whole paragraph, beginning Wikipedia articles should not be: (1) Summary-only descriptions of works..., it seems plain enough that the current wording conveys the meaning intended: Noyster (talk), 22:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The current text is fine. It is saying that if there is a book about basket weaving, for example, then an article on the book should contain more than a summary of the book's contents. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I see why the OP was a bit confused by the text, and I tried to patch it up a bit [5]. I think that bullet could be tightened by combining the first bit (" fiction and art") and the second bit ("non-fiction, such as a documentary, research book or paper, religious text, or the like"), but I somehow don't feel like taking that on. EEng 22:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did the thing. (I await the inevitable reversion.) --Izno (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the thing, and look! Not even revert! Well done, I say. KDS4444 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I could revert if that would make anyone feel more at home. EEng 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:EW you already did. :D --Izno (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Now, now, you boys! Go on home afore I spanks (thanks??) y' both!  :-) KDS4444 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the original wording under discussion, and much prefer the compressed version I see now. The "... articles on works of non-fiction, including ..." verbiage was only added because the then-extant text was only but quite explicitly addressing fiction, the WP writing about which was in that era atrocious; the mood was not then conducive to removing a clear "do not write about creative works this way" instruction, only to adding "also don't do it with non-fiction". Glad to see the redundancy pruned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Is there an organised anti-WP:SOAPBOX effort/group out there?

Since Wikipedia is (one of) the world's most consulted website-references that 'anyone can edit', that makes it a prime target for anyone seeking to WP:SOAPBOX-'broadcast' it. I've seen this a lot in my ~13 years here, but have seen little done to counter it.

And always it's the same behaviour pattern repeating: those WP:PUSHing a claim, since reason nor evidence is on their side, will engage in all the worst 'tactics', and drown any discussion in sophist-distraction... often answered point-by-point by well-intended contributors (whose demonstrations of evidence are often just ignored), but the result is always a too-long-to-read mess (and this itself has become a soapbox-er disuasion-confusion-muddle 'tactic'). Admins involved in any conflict this generates tend to balk at this and not dig down through all the distraction to the central issue, resulting in a judgement that actually aids the soapbox-ers, and I've seen this same thing happening time and time again.

Is there any place contributors could go to seek the advice/administration help of those who are familiar with this trend? If there isn't, perhaps create one, a task force perhaps? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: Can you give an example of a problem case? I fail to recognize the situation you are describing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am presently involved in around the elimination of a 'persecution by atheists' category: with 'state atheism', it is an exclusively apologist/anti-atheist concept (not to be found in any history textbook or non-apologist reference), but a few would like to use Wikipedia to make it seem a real, widely-accepted 'thing'. Another example: I spent ten years helping to battle a single contributor (and their mostly off-wiki 'help') who tried to lead readers to believe that Paris' suburbs-alienation problems didn't exist (and that 'Paris' was the size of an entire state, which is akin to someone trying to tell readers that Hoboken is in New York City). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: I understand what you are trying to do. I am not aware of any policies or essays about this type of activity. I am not sure how anyone should respond or control this, but if I entered this space, I would probably start by giving the activity a name, writing an essay about it, then soliciting comments.

I understand the example that you are giving, and hear you say that there is no particular name or definition for the concept described by the category. I think what you are saying is that Wikipedia editors identify some nameless concept, identify instances where they imagine that nameless concept applies, then do original research to group them into categories in a way that no scholar has ever done. I confirm that this happens. Although I cannot immediately pull examples, I feel like this has been done both in ways that people like and in ways that are inappropriate. I am not sure how the line should be drawn between them.

Perhaps in addition to a definition/essay, we could compile a casebook. I am starting to hear more wiki editors talk about collecting cases as a prerequisite for having conversations, so that the cases can be a running log of what discussions happened before. I am not sure what to think. Where do you think this conversation should go? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply, @Bluerasberry:. I have no idea where it should go (but somewhere where it would get lots of 'veteran' attention, for sure), but already your idea makes for the most progress I've seen on this, ever. Perhaps if you (or I) would like to start a 'scratch' casebook page somewhere, we can add things to it until it finds a suitable 'home'. And if you can think of anyone who would like to join this discussion (who has had similar experiences/observations), perhaps let them know (and I can do the same). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: I definitely share this concern, and combating the "slow-editwar" and "civil-PoV" tactics of people intent on abusing WP as a promotion or advocacy platform has been a consistent aspect of my entire history at this project. I'm unaware of any kind of "task force" or whatever looking out for it, but there should be one. Over the long haul, it's going to be a more pervasive and subversive problem than vandalism. We do have the WP:NPOV/N and WP:NOR/N noticeboards, but this isn't really much in the way of centralized vigilance. I started a quasi-newsletter about it at User:SMcCandlish/On the Radar, but do not regularly edit it. It could be un-userspaced if others want to update it (into a casebook or whatever). It was inspired primarily by the revelation of organized tagteaming by agents of the government of Pakistan to warp our coverage of the country and its conflicts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too, @SMcCandlish: It's extremely odd that the world's most consulted website didn't have the foresight to predict that it might be abused in this way.

Your 'slow editwar' description is completely on the mark and the reason that such tactics often make it 'under the radar': (often overworked or 'seen it all' blaséed) Wikipedia admins tend to work not in the long-term, but the 'here and now', and when alerted to a problem they see a pages-long talk page (filled with most often sophist/unverifiable claims and accusations, and (claimer/accuser-ignored) answers to the same, they tend to balk, 'skim', and focus the 'most noisy' behaviour and forget the content altogether (and, should they try, the same 'points' in previous arguments will just repeat again (because 'new audience'... it's an explainable but irrational thing, and I'd digress to get into that). And such 'push' efforts often use all the hard-to-detect underhanded tactics in the book (namely WP:CANVASSing and WP:MEATPUPPETry): it takes an experienced (and still-interested) admin to see through all that.

Perhaps it would be more useful to start a conversation where it would get more attention, and there, I'm sure the examples (thus further attention) would accumulate more quickly... and maybe even become a project (alert-board) in itself. ThePromenader ✎ ✓ 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally concur on all of that. As WP transitions (sometimes painfully) into a new organizational lifecycle stage, and has simultaneously become of of the top-5 most used websites in the world, and perhaps the no. 1 source for general information, intent to abuse it as a promotional or advocacy platform will necessarily, inevitably increase, as will the sophistication of the efforts to do so. I'm strongly reminded of the lax and "not getting it yet" attitude of system administrators about computer security, back in the early 1990s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You made a few case-specific suggestions, but do you know of anywhere where this might get an even wider attention? I'm not so sure how to manoevre this as certain topics even on this page get loads of attention and others don't. But that might be tl;dr and 'selective skimming' in action, another 'naturally-occuring' bane of long-term Wikipedia contribution. ThePromenader ✎ ✓ 09:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: perhaps a simple WP:RfC as others have done here? ThePromenader ✎ ✓ 09:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this. I concur that a task force on this issue would be an excellent idea.

We have a serious problem with edit wars on certain "orphan" articles where all the editors with enough knowledge of the topic to recognize those edits are just plain wrong are too busy working on their priority "pet" articles to vigorously defend against such edit wars. The result is that those orphan articles tend to get captured by editors who are either ignorant or just plain nuts, and those orphan articles become a wasteland full of inaccurate garbage. Then any editor who does possess a deep knowledge of those subjects takes one look at those articles and decides they don't want to get involved. Which is one reason for why experts are fleeing Wikipedia like crazy. We need to develop better procedures for protecting against such takeovers of orphan articles by bad editors.

Examples of this phenomenon would be the naming wars over the articles Police power (United States constitutional law) (which should be moved back to "police power") and two-lane expressway (which should be moved back to "two-lane freeway"). If you read the talk pages, you'll see editors making silly arguments from ignorance that would draw hearty laughter from anyone with an informed understanding of constitutional law or transportation law. If I actually gave a damn about those articles, I would have taken the editors involved to ArbCom and requested strong sanctions like indefinite bans or suspensions to teach them to not waste other editors' time with such frivolous bad faith arguments. But I didn't bother, because there are too many other articles that I care more strongly about improving, like Law of the United States; the ArbCom process is now far too complex and time-consuming; and I have too many other demands on my time as a practicing attorney. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If you need diffs ThePromenader, don a flame retardent suit and head over to whatever article you can find about the 2016 presidential election or wherever else you can find that is rooted in political, racist or religious bias and motivated by obvious advocacies, intended or otherwise. There's a bumper crop beginning with the 2008 US presidential election right up to the 2016 election and all associated articles. I imagine the Brexit campaign has plenty to choose from as well. Common sense is not so common anymore, and the same can be said for NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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)
• 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, August 28, 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)

Discussion

• 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:[6]

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: [7] (After 3 days, it looked like this: [8])

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? [9] "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 [10] 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 [11] 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)

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)

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)

Argument from authority

Above, I criticized the misuse of opinion pieces that have not been recognized by any secondary sources, but rather are merely primary sources proving that the writer has expressed the opinion in question. Of these misuses of primary sources, I think the most egregious are when we do not describe any distinctive rationale in the opinion pieces, but rather we simply state the conclusion as an argument from authority, so that we are basically treating the matter like a vote by picking out notable voters who we think are most significant. This is a horrible way to write a Wikipedia article, especially about a current or recent event. Moreover, why favor academics over others? If a newspaper sees fit to publish a thoughtful op-ed by a longtime seasoned columnist, why should we omit that in favor of someone with tenure at Harvard? This whole kind of debate is currently happening at the Joe Arpaio BLP, but it happens all the time at other articles too. It's a collosal waste of time, and persistence usually wins. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The problems arise when the determination for inclusion/exclusion of opinions/commentary is based on the number of editors who support it/reject it rather than what PAGs recommend, particularly when local consensus is involved. When/if an RfC is called, the result is subject to the closer's POV. There appears to be a mistaken but prevalent belief that when the same or similar opinions are published in multiple RS (including biased ones), such statements of opinion automatically become statements of fact which can then be stated as fact in Wiki voice without inline text attribution; the latter of which is noncompliant with one or more of the following policies: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and the MOS guideline WP:LABEL. The bold or bully editors that participate in such discussions typically get their way. I think the prevailing policy in those situations is WP:IAR which is further encouraged by Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means. It speaks volumes for subjectivity, tendentious editing and disruption. The real question is, does it help to change current PAGs that are already being ignored? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly, exactly exactly what went on in the events described in the topic I opened just above: not only are those 'selective opinion' (presented as 'widely accepted fact')-ers ignoring all the rules (or applying even these selectively), they're trying to get anyone persistantly promoting WP:V (their 'opposition') topic-banned. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, why favor academics over others? If a newspaper sees fit to publish a thoughtful op-ed by a longtime seasoned columnist, why should we omit that in favor of someone with tenure at Harvard? Because the person with tenure at Harvard has proven many times over that they know what they're talking about. Longtime seasoned columnists have only proven that people like to listen to them. Given a few facts about human psychology, or even just a few facts about the fake news phenomenon, I think it should be obvious that "people like to listen to them" doesn't convey even the slightest authority. Indeed, it usually seems to suggest quite the opposite. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well...if, IF the academic doesn't harbor a bias or strong political preference I would agree that the academic would have the edge. However, if we're talking about a Pulitzer winning journalist, and/or one who is known for their journalistic integrity, I think it's a toss-up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If the columnist also has tenure at Harvard, or a Nobel, that would be fine. And everyone has opinions. Whether they have biases is another matter. Strong political opinions do not necessarily prove bias. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If newspapers devote columns to whichever columnists they think readers like to read regardless of the columnists' intelligence and sagacity, then presumably those same newspapers publish news reports about current events that merely tell readers what they want to hear regardless of the facts. So why should we treat any newspaper as a reliable source? Instead we can just use information and opinions from the personal websites of tenured university professors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: if, IF the academic doesn't harbor a bias or strong political preference I would agree that the academic would have the edge. I (and anyone who is an expert at anything) couldn't possibly disagree with that more strongly. Biases certainly exist within experts, but the notion that they can nullify expertise is extremely spurious and easy to disprove (creationist doctors disprove it every day). Here's an example: I absolutely loooooove LISP and I honestly, truly believe it is one of, if not the best programming language ever developed. It writes, compiles and often runs faster than any other language (the last depends on your compiler and chip architecture), it's amazingly recursive and seems tailor made for any sort of AI code, machine code (there are computers for whom the actual machine code is LISP, something no other high-level language can claim) and a large number of other tasks. I could not possibly be more biased in favor of LISP.

(Note at this point that my expertise in choosing programming languages is a minor and possibly even marginal one; a greater expert than I will almost certainly be even better than I at the following.)

But if you ask me for my advice on which language you should use to write a given program in, I will almost certainly not answer LISP. Because one of the necessary steps to developing expertise is the ability to recognize and account for one's bias. I understand that the advantages of LISP rarely balance out the disadvantages of using n uncommon and sometimes difficult-to-learn language that will leave the programmer dreaming in parentheses for years to come.

However, if we're talking about a Pulitzer winning journalist, and/or one who is known for their journalistic integrity, I think it's a toss-up. No. Again, not even close. A Pulitzer prize winning journalist writing an op-ed about how global warming is a hoax doesn't hold a candle in terms of credibility next to a recent grad with no real reputation in Climatology writing an op-ed about how global warming is real. Comparing the opinions and arguments of experts to those of even the best journalists show that this is an apples to oranges comparison.

@Anythingyouwant:If newspapers devote columns to whichever columnists they think readers like to read regardless of the columnists' intelligence and sagacity, then presumably those same newspapers publish news reports about current events that merely tell readers what they want to hear regardless of the facts. So why should we treat any newspaper as a reliable source? You may presume that all you want, but it is an absolutely atrocious line of reasoning that doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. For starters, it completely ignores the possibility that there is a consumer demand for accurate reporting; a possibility that does not exist with opinion pieces. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consumer demand for thoughtful, persuasive, insightful opinion pieces? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting to read these and consider points made in this Pew Research 2017 survey/analysis. Not saying it affirms or refutes all points, but it does stress that there's a public awareness (whichever side) that media tends to take sides. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What's most interesting to me is the rarely-stated fact (and yes, it is a fact) that the perception of bias and the reality of bias are completely different things. Look at all the WP:FRINGE articles that have been subjected to drive-by comments from IPs and SPAs about how biased they are, when the reality is that they tend to be about as neutral as one can be. The perception of bias in the media is not necessarily reflective of the reality of bias levels. Almost everyone will perceive a truly neutral news story that reflects very badly upon their ideology (of whatever sort; religion, political, social, etc) as being highly biased.

Also interesting to me; why does the political right's perception of bias in the media not extend to non-traditional media? We often see vitriolic condemnation of the "Lamestream media" from individuals who would never bat an eyelash at preposterous claims stemming from a blog post. This phenomenon exists on the left, don't get me wrong, and it's just as damaging. But it doesn't seem to be as widespread. Instead, this sort of double standard seems to be more focused on science than the news media with the political left in the US (anti-vaccination, AIDS denialism, alt-med and other such topics tend to be more prominent there). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind too that bias is in the eye of the beholder. There's been more than enough arguments across the board relating to NPOV between experienced editors if an article is biased or not. There is no absolute measurement of what "unbiased" is, its always a relative measurement; we'd just hope that most WPians would know what we try to aim for as "unbiased". --MASEM (t) 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I just said in my first paragraph of my previous comment. I'm not completely convinced that "unbiased" is a pipe dream, but I'm not going to argue tooth and nail that it's not, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps because academia is dependant on grants and news sites are dependant on ad revenue generated by bait & click. Follow the money. First-hand experience in publishing, tv journalism, and production for 30 years gives one a bit of insight. I was the one raising the money for public dissemination (public outreach, more often propaganda) for projects I initiated involving NOAA, USFW, BLM, USAC, and numerous other fed & state government agencies and academic co-ops, the latter being funded by govt. grants and private companies/advocacies to conduct the research. No doubt, there were good intentions, particularly by those of us out in the field but I can assure you that at the top, it's all about the money. What it all boils down to is survival of the fittest and what the end reader/viewer chooses to read/see, and research has proven that those choices are typically made based on one's own biases and beliefs. Without funding, an entity will no longer exist so human nature determines the best course of action. The trickle down result is that we now have scores of young and impressionable minds who were raised on the bait-click style of propaganda/outreach. All they know is bait-click journalism and many now believe that certain things should be free...including knowledge. Unfortunately, somebody still has to pay to make it & keep it free but what are we really getting in the long term and under whose terms will it be free? The line between fact and opinion has already become a gray area, and that is why we look to WP:CIR and WP:PAGs. It's the only way we'll be able to maintain the intended focus of this project as an encyclopedia and how it will be defined in the future. Page views are already being used to determine an articles "worth or value". Also notice that the examples used in that discussion were either directly or indirectly connected to "breaking events" but the problems arise when trying to distinguish the difference between fact and opinion, and that is where I see more work is needed for clarification. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point I made above. Nor does it really support your (implicit) claim that biased experts are less reliable than intelligent amateurs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, forgive me, but I think this is an argument you have made on several talk pages, unsuccessfully. It sounds like you are saying that bias must exist in certain entities because bias would help those entities thrive. But, IMHO, that’s a biased view. A reductio example would be that sabotaging your boss would increase your chances for promotion, therefore humans are more than likely to sabotage their bosses. The first part may be true; but this doesn’t mean that most people would ever consider this. An argument made in some quarters is that you can’t trust scientists or academe because they are paid. But, you don’t see these people saying you can’t trust firemen, because they are paid to put out fires and therefore must use arson to increase overtime. Reliable sources, by wiki-definition, partially means sources that don’t fall victim to meaningful bias. We already have an RSN board and think we’re reasonably good at filtering out biased sources. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS does in fact say that that an RS may have bias, but having bias doesn't disqualify it necessarily from being an RS; its how they handle that bias. We have disqualified Breitbart not because they lean heavily to the right, but in that leaning, they have taken several inappropriate journalistic steps that makes them unreliable. Daily Mail for the same. A bias source that keeps most of its opinions under "op-ed" headings while keeping objective in other reporting, doesn't commit journalism faux pas, and takes responsibility for misstatements with retractions/apologies, etc. will still be considered an RS. We should just be aware of the bias in any appropriate WEIGHT discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Objective3000 was referring to cases like Breitbart, where the bias is more important than adherence to the facts. Which is a level of bias that would be required in the sorts of disagreements we are discussing for it to matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, bias is everywhere. Reliable sources deal with it effectively. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

May I recommend the following articles: CPTC.edu and Live Science? I'm not quite sure why I keep hearing the same argument that my argument doesn't address the questions, and then I'm forced to break it down one by one. I just responded to ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants above re: his misinterpretation. Objective3000 it is your opinion that my argument has been unsuccessful; I disagree. I've planted seeds for future thought; therefore, I remain optimistic. You said when comparing scientists or academia to firemen, you don’t see these people saying you can’t trust firemen, because they are paid to put out fires and therefore must use arson to increase overtime. As I stated above, I'm a pragmatist which means I compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges simply because they're both fruit. As for misstatements with retractions/apologies in journalism, I have yet to see a retraction make the front page headline, so when days or even weeks have passed before the retraction is printed in tiny letters in an obscure place, the accussed is still remembered for the alleged deed, not the retraction. Surely you understand that concept and how such ignorant mistakes can damage reputations and make derogatory labels stick - the latter is what breaking news/events can do/has done. I suggest a closer dissection of the anatomy of my comments...oh, and look at the time stamp to make sure the comment wasn't made during Happy Hour.^{<the latter being Atsme📞📧} 18:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think that I was comparing apples to oranges, I think this is a manifestation of bias. Objective3000 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

😂, oh ok. 🤣 Read the suggested articles, and hopefully you will arrive at a different conclusion. I'm done here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how I misinterpreted anything. I also don't see how those links help, except by adding snark (and I might point out that they would seem very ironic to anyone disagreeing with you, myself included). And again, I don't see how anything you said above support the implicit (yet necessary) conclusion that a well-educated and intelligent journalist is a better source of information than an acknowledged expert in the topic. I mean, that assertion is pretty much wrong by definition. Your earlier comments clearly stated that a good journalist is at least as qualified as an acknowledged expert, yet here you are in your most recent comment arguing that journalists can't be trusted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You consider my citing science and academia as "adding snark"? Yep, I'm done here. Cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither one of those links refutes anything anyone else has said. They don't even attempt to. (The ironic bit is that the second directly and intentionally refutes your earlier implications.) The first one looks like you suggesting that those arguing against you either don't know how to account for bias (which is a rather insulting suggestion), and the second looks like you suggesting that those arguing against you are only doing so due to their own biases. Both of those suggestions would be most generously considered snark, and less generously considered personal attacks. Now, I'm sure you didn't mean them as personal attacks, so I'm presuming snark. Also, neither one of those really constitutes citing science. And while the former is certainly citing some element of academia, I'm not sure that the Clover Park Technical College can really lay claim to making statements on behalf of academia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to throw a blanket of dispute over an entire discussion without supporting evidence. I've provided links to RS that clearly support my position despite the denials. Wikipedia also has an article on Funding bias and to that I add Liberal_bias_in_academia so happy editing, folks. My position remains unchanged. In fact, this Harvard study further analyzes media bias. If you accept the Harvard report (and many others) for media bias, and the multiple academic sources cited for academia bias, we don't need to further this discussion. Houston, we have a problem - whether we admit it or deny it - it's there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you pointed to proves anything of the sort. For example, the fact that RS give Trump's first 100 days a generally bad rating does not in any way indicate bias. It may just be true. 100% of RS claim that Texas is having serious flood problems. That does not mean they are all biased because they say the same thing. According to one study claiming bias, often cited on various talk pages, all major media outlets are biased against Trump. And, the data they used also suggested Fox News was biased against Trump. Which is a bit odd. Look, in order to show bias in any particular source, you have to show bias in that particular source. Broad generalizations don't make it. Objective3000 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've provided links to RS that clearly support my position despite the denials. I really don't see how either of those sources supports your position, except that the second source supports the position you took in the comment that included it. But that comment took a diametrically opposed position to your original comments. I agree with the claims of the last of these new links. Indeed, it matches pretty much exactly with my perception of media coverage of Trump. Of course, it's a huge leap to go from "negative media coverage" to "bias". Fox News was included in that study, mind. And CNN was the "worst offender" which is not at all surprising given Trump's frequent diatribes against CNN. The bias that shifts their coverage towards even more negativity might be more a result of a personal bias against a public figure who repeatedly and ignorantly attacks them, not a political bias against the right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, here we go again with more of the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There's nothing more I can do here. Cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've asked you four times to clarify something that you claim I'm not getting. You've refused to do so each and every time. Yet another editor has fundamentally agreed with almost every problem I've pointed out in your arguments. That's not IDHT, that's an abject failure to engage on your part. I think what's most obvious here is that you're more concerned about winning the argument than you are even ensuring that the other side understands what you're arguing. But here's where it really gets ironic: everyone can read this for themselves. Everyone can see that I've repeatedly asked you to clarify yourself and repeatedly explained exactly what I've taken from your arguments, only to be met with accusations of bad faith and a refusal to engage. In trying so hard to "win", you're forcing yourself to "lose" the argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTN

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.

---

There is no noticeboard for getting community input on content issues with regard to the NOT policy. Should there be? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I got a little confused by the suggested short cut. LOL! So my original suggestion might still apply. That looks like WP:Not News. But is just NOT Noticeboard. Would something like WP:NOTPN WP NOT Policy Noticeboard be slightly less confusing to people like me. ;).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we have recurring issues related to WP:NOT that need broader community input but which are not so-directly related that this page would best be used? If so, where are those issues? --Izno (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Offhand, I think this particular area is probably better handled on article talk where editors are more likely to understand a particular issue. And, the more forums we have, the more forum-shopping we are likely to have. But, I could be convinced otherwise. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion above was for a notice board specifically for disputes on articles about recent events (WP:REN), which I think may be the locus of any NOT disputes. I'm not sure a broader noticeboard is needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I sorta assumed that was what was meant. That would be better than a more general board. But I’m just concerned about overuse by some that have failed to convince on talk in controversial articles. Thing is, outside forums (in my limited experience) have not been useful in articles under discretionary sanctions. They tend to extend arguments, which are usually sent back to talk anyhow, which are usually inhabited by experienced editors. Which is to say they waste a rather large amount of editor time, and tend to chase away valuable editors.

(Oh and, if you want to create a WP:REN page, you’ll have to rename the rename page.:) Sorry, been a long day and I love irony) Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Since WP:NOT affects everything, everywhere on Wikipedia WP:CENT seems like a good place for any proposed changes to be listed. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I need convincing. All of the above seems to be about one particular objection to WP:NOT. But there are actually 11 "nots" in there and this is only one of them. In fact, based on personal experience, most violations of WP:NOT have to do with the other 10 nots and most of the time it's pretty straight forward. So I don't see a need for this. It'd be just another forum battleground warriors can go to WP:FORUMSHOP after failing to get support for their edits after WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ANI, WP:AE. It'd be like the "expansion pack" for the WP:GAME Wikipedia The Battleground.... oh but wait, Wikipedia is suppose to WP:NOT be that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, Volunteer Marek, that is dead on. My suggestion was not about current events at all, actually. (In my view NOTNEWS is mostly a dead letter in any case)

People come to WP all the time with mistaken notions of what Wikipedia is, and is not. We get pages about record labels where people build huge tables of record releases and artists on the label (a WP:NOTCATALOG issue); people who turn articles into instruction manuals (you know NOTMANUAL), people who turn pages into technical journal articles (WP:NOTJOURNAL). I was just having a disagreement with someone about whether it is appropriate to keep a list, to be updated quarterly from its SEC filings, of an investment company's stock holdings. I run into NOT issues all the time. It would be good to have a place to bring such issues, to get community input in light of the mission of WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek that this is likely to be yet another redundant venue for forum-shoppers. The SEC filings example cited above is a good example. That may or may not be an instance of excessive detail that is already covered by WP:DUE (articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.) and would be a proper subject of discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The issue is whether it is appropriate at all that we provide quarterly updates of a company's stock holdings. It is mission issue. it is not a question of sourcing per se. (i have no doubt that the SEC filing is an accurate representation of what they hold; and there are stock-tracking trade rags that could be used to justify DUE, since people write about it when companies change their holdings. It is a question of whether it is encyclopedic that we would do that here. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

DUE is not about sourcing, it is about emphasis. Suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT is based on weight in RS. It absolutely depends on sourcing. WP:CIR 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And once the sourcing barrier is crossed, then the question is, is this given undue emphasis? In the example you cite, I'm assuming the list of stock holdings is adequately sourced, so then the question is, is this list an overemphasis on one aspect of the issue. It's really quite simple, I'm surprised I have to spell it out. If it is a DUE question, there is an NPOV noticeboard for that kind of issue and this board being proposed here is not necessary.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure one can think about it that way, but that is really a different issue. Something can have tons of sources but not be appropriate for Wikipedia. It is obvious that you don't understand this policy or its purpose in defining what is encyclopedic and what is not. That is clear. I will not be responding further, as you cannot even see this. I don't know why you are even commenting here, as you don't understand the policy you are commenting on. NOT is policy, and the one that actually defines our mission here. Everything flows from the mission. Everything. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will construe from this exchange that you have no answer to the point that I and others have raised, which is that this proposed board is redundant. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And everyone else reading this takes away that you have no idea what you are talking about. By following me around this page and writing these clueless things, you really make yourself bad. You have no idea what you are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want responses that displease you, why did you start an RfC (which so far is going against you by a wide margin) and why are you proposing a new drama board? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have no clue. I don't feel like things are "against me". This is not about "winning". Really you do not understand Wikipedia, at all. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You're being incivil and insulting, which indicates to me that you are under stress. I don't take it personally. Feel free to continue in that vein. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And you are abusing a policy talk page to follow me around, posing groundless arguments to try to "win" some dispute in your head. Really - not responding to you any more. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I am sorry you are so bitter about all this. There is no need to get personal, but I guess that's your choice. When you post a policy change proposal you are going to get responses, and when you make statements that don't seem to make sense (like referring to "talking heads" in articles without talking heads) you are going to be questioned on it. Again, sorry for your obvious pain. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think there should not be a special noticeboard for WP:NOT. The reason is that, frankly, I think this policy is a mess. It is a grab bag of a whole bunch of things pasted together to look like a single policy solely by the literary expedient of expressing them all in the inverse, which makes it even harder to agree on what meaning, if any, these ideas have, many of which are poorly thought out and/or unnecessary anyway. To be sure, there are some things I like in the policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), but most of them could be transferred to some better place (like WP:NPOV). Wnt (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No and hell no. This page is about our mission which is defined positively at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That is what we actually do here. Many people fail to understand the mission and think we do things here that we don't and some are common enough that it worth saying, "we don't do X here". This policy is absolutely coherent. btw see negative theology - defining things by what they are not, as well as by what they are, is essential and old as dirt. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But what about redundancy? That was his point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 August 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.

If a school's name is changed by the school board (with no new name selected yet, nor with a date of name change determined yet), should that be mentioned in the article?

Please see Talk:Robert E. Lee High School (San Antonio) and the talk page history for a debate over whether including the fact the school's name will change as per school board order (even though the new name and the date on when the name will change are not yet determined) should be included in the article at this time (currently).

It is important because inexperienced Wikipedia editors attempting to update the article may possibly have their edits reverted, and we need to determine whether this should be done.

Please discuss the matter here: Talk:Robert E. Lee High School (San Antonio)

@John from Idegon: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)