Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Language: Distinctions without differences

I launched a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#"Please use Indian English" asking for specific guidance on how to conform to the standards for Indian English, there being no guidelines for how to do so. I was dogged, some said annoying; some said trolling. I was given Trinidadian English as an analog. There are all of nine articles marked in their talk pages as being in Trinidadian English. Certainly the two-island state has a distinctive patois, but it's not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. Ask a Trini. I am willing to bet that British English would be the recommended standard for an encyclopedia article. My suggestion here is not a perennial request to standardize spelling, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Enforce American or British spelling, but a request to discuss why it is appropriate to make the distinction among twenty-one varieties of English when there are basically only two standards for expository English writing: with or without Oxford spelling, with or without the Oxford comma. Where numbers are concerned, there is already a standard: unless a number is part of a quotation, zeros should be grouped in threes and the decimal point is a full stop (period). Wherever this topic is discussed, an assertion is made that spelling may differ from both American English and British English and so may syntax. I haven't seen it. It just seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference. I am told that "Reality is more complex than that." It may be, but I am a simple person. I would like someone to explain to me how the entreaties to use one of twenty-one varieties of English without any instructions for how to do so are valuable to the encyclopedia. Rhadow (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no actionable proposal. What would conforming to the standards for Indian English actually mean? Please link to three articles and quote examples of inappropriate text along with the replacement text that would be recommended. My take on the problem is that WP:ENGVAR is fine for settling disagreements about spelling (color/colour, organize/organise) and date formats (mdy/dmy) but is not useful for a disagreement about text. I see text like "In the year 1998 such and such happened" where it would be standard at enwiki for the underlined "the year" to be deleted. More examples are needed to define what is proposed. A guideline that says "conform to Indian English" is useless without guidance about what that means. By the way, it is not a good idea to describe identifiable editors as dogged/annoying/trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like I misunderstood the OP. At the other discussion (link above) I somehow got the impression that a couple of people wanted "use X English" to mean more than "use date formats and spelling appropriate for X". It might be best to acknowledge that wikignomes expand templates and categories to fill all possibilities and I don't think anyone has ever explained what "use X English" means beyond what I mentioned, namely color/colour, -ize/-ise and mdy/dmy dates. My guess is that people don't feel comfortable putting {{Use British English}} on an article about an Indian topic, so {{Use Indian English}} was created. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your example of numbers is in fact one of the distinguishing features of Indian English, where lakh (1,00,000) and crore (1,00,00,000) are used rather than million (1,000,000). I do agree that if these templates are used there should be some accompanying instructions, and that 21 different varieties seems like overkill. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Okay, then. I have a proposal that think would pass muster by SMcCandlish. Their analysis at Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using style guides#Style guides from around the anglosphere is a great start. The section MOS:ENGVAR should be expanded slightly to recognize all twenty-one dialects of English. A search for WP:Indian English takes you there in any case, implicitly suggesting that the English language tree has two trunks, after which the specific branch you choose is relatively insignificant. In that way, we would not offend the proponents of a tag for every regional dialect. I suggest that for every dialect we construct a short guide whose model sounds like this:

Trinidadian English is a dialect of English stemming originally from British English, enriched by native, Spanish, and French influences. In spoken form, it is a rich patois. For encyclopedia articles, formal language rules apply. In the absence of a published style guide as exists for American, Canadian and U.K. lects, a British style guide, for example Hart's Rules, is a reference for WP editors. The nation uses the metric system, therefore metric units are preferred, with conversions to other units as appropriate. The spelling standard is Oxford Spelling (wp:EngvarB), although American spellings are common.

When twenty-one such paragraphs are published, it will become quite clear that the number is too high. In time then, the disused templates will become candidates for deletion. In my opinion, a gradual reduction in dialect templates is a better trend than the creation of a plethora. Any move to simplify the MOS and its templates in Wikipedia is a long-term plus.

A draft paragraph for Indian English follows. I searched for a style guide and did not find one, therefore the guidance is eerily similar to Trinidadian English.

Indian English is a dialect of English stemming originally from British English, enriched by native influences. In spoken form, it can vary substantially from its origin, including frequent use of the present continuous tense. For encyclopedia articles, formal language rules apply. In the absence of a published style guide as exists for American, Canadian and U.K. lects, a British style guide, for example Hart's Rules, is a reference for WP editors. The spelling standard is Oxford Spelling (wp:EngvarB). The nation uses the metric system, therefore metric units are preferred, but imperial measures (e.g. acres and miles) are common and conversions should be provided. India uses a numbering system including the crore and lakh which require a nonstandard grouping of zeros in large numbers. When quoting or paraphrasing, these terms are fine, although an editor is entreated to convert or explain these numbers for readers unfamiliar with the units.

That's my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

We should be aiming to maximise the mutual intelligibility of the different varieties of English. Many of the differences are due to minor spelling, and these are no problem. But the use of regional vocabulary is a problem. Lakh and crore are a problem for the other readers. We will benefit from a paragraph explaining how the variety is to be used on Wikipedia, as the page in article space often covers colloquial use, and not what would be expected for a formal correct wr4iting. So perhaps for each variety we also need a list of problematic words that may need linking or in-text explanation. We also need to increase the quality of writing, and just because many Indian writers doe not know how to use capital letters or punctuation does not make that correct Indian English. I support the idea of saying what things should have conversions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

This seems a lot like instructional WP:CREEP. There's established practice that exists at the respective WikiProjects already. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

By 'this' i mean the draft proposal above. Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:CREEP, also note that Wikipedia is built for the readers and standardisation must be avoided if it is detrimental to the readers. Regards. << FR 14:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I could not agree more with FR. Hanging one of twenty-one tags specifying the dialect of English complicates the work of an editor. That itself is WP:CREEP. As described in the MOS, two are sufficient. Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't, and it isn't creep. Your sarcasm and ignorance just highlights the shallowness of your 'grievance'. I doubt anyone will try to engage with you on this topic now, after seeing your comment which borders on trolling. Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• It is common courtesy to post the link to this discussion at the page where you first posted your musings and where, through a long series of patient corrections by others, you acquired the knowledge which you have so glibly posted above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The 42 templates of the 21 regional varieties of English (which include Irish-, Scottish-, Jamaican-, American-, South African-, Australian-, New Zealand-, British-, Singapore-, and many others) appear in at least 300,000 WP articles. That system has worked for at least 12 years. Why should I even read anything written by someone with little knowledge of the underlying issues, whose motivations, as exhibited in his posts seem to be based on a fixed idea that there are only two varieties of the English language, British- and American-? What are the chances of something like this receiving WP-wide approval? Why should I waste my time? See Radhow's earlier efforts at: Talk:Asa Wright Nature Centre and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#"Please use Indian English" Note, especially Guettarda's insightful remarks about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That alone raises the prospects of endless discussions here where people are talking past each other. The above exchange with FR is a good example. . Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment All of the criticisms are fair enough. It strikes me that there are three options with respect to language tags: (1) the status quo, twenty-one identified varieties, none of which have a clearly defined distinction for the purposes of article editing between, say, Jamaican English and Trinidadian English, leaving the editor in a no-guidance situation, (2) and not much different, to allow the number of {use xxx English} templates to grow, each supporting another small variation on the language (adding {use Barbadian English} even if it is a matter of national pride, for example), or (3) to limit the number of templates to those lects for which there is style guide and dictionary to which an editor can refer.

My question was genuine and proposal respectfully submitted. I am mystified by the number of negative responses, "ass," "little knowledge," "trolling," and "bumbling, random, musings." I just don't hear any other suggestions on how to improve the situation. Rhadow (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, your history thus far has been one of ignoring in any conversation anything that is inconvenient for your theory. The half a dozen linguistics references on Indian English I posted, earlier, you dismissed by suggesting that the term register applies to only spoken language. See here, not to mention that four or five of those references were not about registers at all. (See also OED: register: Linguistics. In language: a variety or level of usage, esp. as determined by social context and characterized by the range of vocabulary, pronunciation, syntax, etc., used by a speaker or writer in particular circumstances.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The existence of a style guide is not a prerequisite for the existence of a style in any variety of English. Nor are style guides comprehensive. In written American English for example, "likely" is now used as an adverb in fairly formal settings (e.g. "According to the National Weather Service, the hurricane will likely make landfall in the vicinity of XYZ, Florida." I haven't checked, but most likely this is not mentioned in style guides; at least if didn't use to be. If a WP article says, "This article is written in American English," it doesn't mean that any contributor needs to look up a style guide and write in the manner of a native speaker of AmE. All it means is that certain lexical or syntactical or stylistic features are acceptable in AmE, which speakers of other Englishes will not commonly employ in their own speech or writing, though they will very likely understand them. Such features should be respected in such an article, as long as they are not wildly confusing to others.

It is important to note that there are higher level features of any English that lie beyond the pale of any style guide. Would you like Americans to alter the sentence patterns of any BrE speaker editing an AmE tagged article, even though nothing he has written violates the Chicago Manual of Style? I think you are misinterpreting what "This article uses Indian English" means. It doesn't mean that you will need to pick up a hypothetical Mumbai manual of style, and write Indian English in the manner of an Indian. It doesn't even mean that the patterns that might seem peculiar to you will necessarily be mentioned in that Indian style guide. Yet is is undeniable that there is such a thing as Indian English, that a Martin Amis cannot write in the style of a Salman Rushdie. A hundred years ago, the Fowler Brothers, in The King's English were bemoaning the use of American expressions introduced by Kipling (who had written his Jungle Books in Brattleboro, Vermont). In those days there weren't style any guides for American English. These days no BrE style guide will be so prescriptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any change. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors will continue editing using English that is recognisable as English everywhere, but with the occasional mistake due to their unawareness of differences. Those who know and care about the different varieties will correct things where necessary. That's the process that has worked well for many years, so why change anything? If the proposer of this change can't distinguish between standard Indian English and errors then that's fine - just let someone else fix it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We actually need to scrap almost all of this "write in [X] English" stuff. For WP purposes, there are really only three standards, Commonwealth English, American English, and (kinda-sorta) Canadian English. All the dialects besides US and Canadian are essentially indistinguishable from British English in formal, written prose, with only minor local variation (mostly loanwords from other proximal languages, variety in slang and informalisms, and spoken differences that don't show up in formal writing). But these same levels of variation exists between, say, Yorkshire and Devon English, and New York and California English; they are not of a national character at all.

  A template that says something like "Please write this article in Indian English" is an excuse, an invitation, to write informal, non-MOS:COMMONALITY-compliant "localese" full of colloquialisms, and we need to strongly discourage this.

  As for Canadian, the major publications for Canadian English, including at least four style guides, and several dictionaries, are not actually in agreement with each other. CanEng is actually in flux, and even varies considerably by region and by age group. This stuff will probably not solidify for at least another generation, though we can be sure of a few things like theatre and colour being more common, but some Americanisms like program also being in more frequent use, along with North American terminology like trunk/hood/curb versus British boot/bonnet/kerb, meanwhile DMY versus MDY dates have a bit of a lead.

  That is arguably enough to support Canadian English templates. We also know that American English forked sharply from the rest by the 1830; this is very well documented in great detail. We don't have any data like this at all establishing something like Belizean or South African English as syntactically and orthographically distinct enough from "British" (general Commonwealth) English to support retaining templates for them (much less creating more of them and bloating MoS with dubious lectures on how to write them "correctly"!). We only have silly templates for Indian and Scottish and Jamaican and so on English because of inappropriate nationalistic sentiment. Most of these should simply be redirected to {{Use Commonwealth English}}.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You write, "A template that says something like "Please write this article in Indian English" is an excuse, an invitation, to write informal, non-MOS:COMMONALITY-compliant "localese" full of colloquialisms, and we need to strongly discourage this."

I am afraid I have to disagree. An encyclopedia article written in Indian English will contain no greater proportion of Indian English slang than will a British English article of British slang. Why would Indians write in localese and the British not? Consider journalism. Some Indian English newspapers have seen continuous publication since the mid-19th century. The Statesman (founded as Friend of India in 1818), The Pioneer (established 1865), The Hindu (founded 1878), or The Times of India (founded 1838) have their in-house style guides (though the TOI has not been paying much attention to it lately). See an editorial in The Hindu belaboring the details in the announcement of their new style guide in 2017. Regardless of what these style guides say, it is undeniable that newspaper English has been read in India for a very long time.

English, moreover, has been taught in schools and colleges in India ever since the Anglicists got the better of the Orentalists in the debate on public instruction in India in the 1830s. (See Company rule in India#Education) Throughout the 20th century, all major British publishers of English language and literature books, published simultaneously in India. All had India divisions. In many, whether Oxford, Blackie, Longmans, or Macmillan, the trio of Indian cities, "Bombay, Calcutta, Madras" appeared emblazoned in the copyright page. In fact, I just looked at a 1937 copy of J. W. Mackail's translation of Virgil's Aneid. On the copyright page it says, "Macmillan and Co. Limited, London, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Melbourne." It is only below that it says, "New York, Chicago, ... Toronto." Whether in 1937, or today (see The Delhi University BA Hons syllabus in English), the people who have bought these books in India have been Indians, by the thousands. But, after 180 years of public instruction in English, the variety of English favored in India has diverged from British English, and there is no holding it back, especially as India ramps up economically, and literacy increases slowly to full. (There is a caveat: economic development in India, and literacy as well, is uneven. That means among Indian editors you will get those who write very well along with others who write poorly, whose writing has to be corrected.)

The language templates on Wikipedia allude to the higher order differences in the written languages (e.g. AmE's greater preference for the subjunctive ("He advised that I not go tonight" vs BrE's "He advised that I should/must not go tonight.") or Indian English's greater preference for languorous descriptions. The differences between encyclopedic Indian English and encyclopedic British English, are not one of ordinary syntax but of higher order style. The differences are there, but, among the educated people of both countries, they are ones of frequencies of certain constructions, callocations, and registers in the corpus of the writing.

Finally, there is a practical matter. The majority of Indians contributing to Wikipedia do so in India-related articles. For a topic such as train stations, they are the ones who have the proximity to occasionally spur their interest into expanding the stubs. If you either ignore their variety of English or pronounce it to be a part of a nebulous Commonwealth English—but at the same time exclude the Queen's English from that same Queen's Commonwealth—then there is the likelihood that you may turn some of these people off. (See Salman Rushdie's essay, Commonwealth literature does not exist from the mid-1980s.) Without them, who will bell the cats of Indian topics with expository or descriptive prose? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeat: In formal, written English, there is no codifiable difference between Indian, South African, New Zealand, Trinidadian, Irish, Belizean, etc., English, that distinguishes them from British. There's a provable, obvious reason for this: lack of style guides for them that establish any alleged differences. Writers in all these places depend on British style guides, especially New Hart's Rules. Australian English is the one variant of Commonwealth English most likely to start to fork at the formal-writing level, but there are only two non-trivial style guides for it: one published very infrequently by the Australian government, widely excoriated, and ignored by almost everyone (including Australian civil servants), and an edition of the Cambridge style guide for British English that is almost identical word-for-word other than the addition of some Australian colloqualisms.

Any linguist will tell you that classifications like "Pakistani English", "Zimbabwean English", etc., are linguistic terms for spoken language patterns, and that written English is primarily determined by publishing houses (i.e., by commerce). We know for a fact that major publishers are not producing customized national-level style guides, but defaulting to those put out by Oxford, Cambridge, and popular Commonwealth-wide news publishers like the BBC and the Economist Group. Asserting that, at an encyclopedic level of formality, Indian and Scottish and Hong Kong and British English are distinct enough for Wikipedia to codify rules regarding them is patent nationalism and original research.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be degenerating into the usual long windy broadsides, perhaps you could give us (tersely) your views on how the lakh & crore question fits with your position. Personally I don't see change as necessary. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Although I have stayed away from using crores and lakhs in India-related articles, except in direct quotations, I now favor using both crore/lakh and, in parenthesis, hundred thousand/ten million. I'm sure someone can write a convert template for these. As for SMcCandlish's blanket assertions which seem to be shifting from regarding only BrE, AmE, and (kinda-sorta) CanE as the differentiated models of English to now including Australian English; from considering the "Indian English" tag to warrant "non-MOS=COMMONALITY-compliant" "localese," to considering it to be identical, in written form, to BrE, all I can say is that Indian English is neither a differentiated variety (such as Australian English), nor is it identical, in its written form, to British English. In Schnieder's model of language evolution, stated in Schilk, Marco (2011), Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar, John Benjamins, pp. 9–, ISBN 90-272-0351-2, Indian English is well past stage 2, i.e. exonormative stabilization (OED exoˈnormative adj. Linguistics, of language standardization: drawing on foreign models of usage as a basis for the standard language.) Schilk, see page 11, restating more formally my intuition about Indian English, considers it to be at the beginning of stage 4, i.e. endonormative stabilization (OED: endonormative adj., Linguistics, of language standardization: drawing on native models of usage rather than on the standards for the language that are already established in other countries.) We can't, because of our fixed views, say "less than stage five is stage two." In other words, there is no need to tamper with the language-variety tags on Wikipedia. Codification in grammars and dictionaries does begin to take place later in Stage 4. PS There is early usage guide, Nihalani, Paroo; Tongue, Ray K.; Hosali, Priya; Crowther, Jonathan (2005), Indian And British English: A Handbook of Usage And Pronunciation, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-567313-5, but its examples are not based in the two corpora of Indian English (the Indian English section of the International Corpus of English (ICE) (see also: The ICE project) and the Kohlapur corpus). It is not considered comprehensive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, "you" was meant to be SMcCandlish! Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I started this discussion. Now I can see it will have no resolution. I concede that it is a matter of national pride that there is Samoan English. I shall editorialise about some articles, editorialize on the rest, and disregard the admonitions for anything more specific, because no one can enumerate what the differences are. Rhadow (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rhadow This is the problem with people such as you, or your cohorts, who appear here from time to time, attempting to force their simplistic ideas on others. When you find that the picture is muddier, that linguistic research more fine grained and comprehensive than what your prejudices (such as the doozy "Any linguist will tell you that classifications like "Pakistani English", "Zimbabwean English", etc., are linguistic terms for spoken language patterns, ...) have fossilized into, you quit, mumbling, "national pride," "no one can enumerate," soon after I have given you a modern linguistics take on spoken and written Indian English. It is not my job to make a precis of Schilk's book. That is for you to find out by delving. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"The problem with ... you ... [and] your simplistic ideas." When first we started this discussion, I asked for guidance in distinguishing twenty-one varieties of written, encyclopedic English and, if necessary, a style guide to help me do so. After several days of back and forth, it seems that the {{Use Indian English}} tag applies to quotes and there is a guide, Schilk. It would have been so much easier to say that at the outset rather than lectures of of endonormative stabilization. Many thanks. Rhadow (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I did refer you to seven fairly recent linguistics books on Indian English, which included Schilk. That was ten days ago. But you didn't seem interested. Perhaps the fault was mine: I should have given more guidance. I can't speak to all 21 varieties, but expect that they too have diverged to varying degrees from BrE. The terms endonormative stabilization etc are Schilk's, or rather used by linguists studying the evolution of languages. As you will see on page 9 of his book, there are five stages in the evolution resulting from settlers arriving in a new colonized land. He thinks Indian English is at the beginning of stage four. AmE and AusE are in stage five. I'll give you two examples from Schilk in a minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

He says on page 37, "Olivarria de Ersson & Shaw (2003) show, for example, that significant differences can be observed for the frequencies of the complementation patterns of pelt-verbs in Indian and British English (cf. Olivarria de Ersson & Shaw 2003:154). Specifically, they observed clear variety-specific tendencies in the verb-complementational patterns of the pelt-verbs PELT and SHOWER: while in British English one of the most frequent patterns is the complementation with a with-prepositional phrase, in Indian English there are strong tendencies to complement PELT with an at-prepositional phrase and SHOWER with an on-prepositional phrase (cf. Olivarria de Ersson & Shaw 2003:154)." Sure enough, when I did a quick search I found, "some miscreants pelted stones at the Railways' fastest train, damaging one of its windows." (see here) Note that the direct and indirect object switch in the IndE constructions. What does one do with such constructions on WP? If they are causing wild confusion, one could change them, but most people will understand what they mean. I would let them stand in IndE tagged articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

On page 38–39, he says, "Mukherjee & lIoffmann (2006) compiled a 31-million-word newspaper database for Indian English derived from the online archive of the Calcutta-based national newspaper The Statesman 21 They show that there are many verbs that Indian English users use in this pattern which are not admissible in the type-I pattern in British English, for example the verb GIFT: (10) He was forced to bring down Nabi in the danger zone after gifting him the ball. <The Statesman 2003-12-12> (11) Delay means serious risk of gifting Islamabad a talking point. <The Statesman 2002-10-26> (12) She said she wanted to gift him a dream. <The Statesman 2003-02-17>" Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan. Most people will understand what these sentences mean. I wouldn't add a "with" to such constructions in IndE tagged articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In American English, we have a saying, "Don't sell past the close," in other words, don't pursue an argument after you have already won. Tell me please whether these phrases are {{Indian English}} or just bad writing:

• "It [the station] halts for trains everyday"
• Starting a sentence with a digit.
• "Renigunta railway station is junction of tracks from 4 different directions to Renigunta:" (dispensing with a preposition, perhaps at, and the definite article the)
• "Present this station operates trains to Tenali and Secunderabad stations" (substitution of adjective for adverb)
• "... and has bus facility to the nearby city ..." (no indefinite article a or a plural noun -- and perhaps a substitution of "to" for "serving")

The atrocious constructions gifted (v) and gifting are an everyday occurrence where I live. I hear them every day. It grates on me as much as a request to dialog. Rhadow (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are obviously not examples of Indian English. As for gift(v), I don't think you understand. gift (v) is perfectly legitimate in AmE or BrE. For example: Nature gifted her with an ethereal voice (AmE/BrE), or "He gifted the money in memory of the tsunami victims." (BrE), only it doesn't take a ditransitive form (i.e. with both direct and indirect objiect) as it does in Indian English. In Indian English, "She gifted her brother an iPhone" (i.e. presented her brother with an iPhone) is legitimate construction. That you find it grating is your problem. This is about as far I will go in engaging you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's hypothesis about Indian English, its level of bifurcation, and what that might imply for Wikipedia is patent OR; it's opinion, an extrapolation from one single source (which has a much more limited context) to leap to conclusions that F&f favors. If it were actually true that Indian English were a solidified, codified dialect at the written level, we would see overwhelming evidence of this, in the form of Indian English dictionaries, Indian English style guides, and similar works, but nearly zero of them exist, and actually zero from reputable publishers. Meanwhile, the "British" (general Commonwealth) English works of this sort from Oxford, Cambridge, and other high-end British publishers are the standard English-language reference works among anglophones in India (and in Hong Kong, and insert 100+ other places).

Worse yet for the fantasy that Indian English is a formal written dialect, we know for a fact that Indian English varies regionally more than any other alleged "national dialect", due to the strong influence of radically different indigenous languages (most of which are the first languages of the majority of anglophones in India), which are often not even in the same language families, and which thus produce radically different influences on the "flavor" of local English around India.

In short, do not confuse either a) well-documented trends in spoken English usage in India, or b) undocumented but observable trends in Indian journalism, blogging, and other informal writing in English, with something very, very different: c) formal, academic English as used in encyclopedia writing. What's going on here is a sore confusion and commingling of Indian pride and "Indian English is real" sentiment (which is correct with regard to spoken usage, though there is not one, consistent dialect, but a broad continuum, probably better thought of as Hindi English, etc., by languages of influence), versus what we need to actually focus on here: is there a codified, standardized Indian English that differs enough from British and other Englishes that we need to have huge, gloating banner templates about it? The answer to the latter question is obviously "no". There's simply no evidence in favor of such a notion. The sources that would demonstrate it (high-quality reference works on using formal Indian English) simply do not exist. Tellingly, the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary have a more prosaic take on the matter [1], and have sum up Indian English as about 70 words (loan words) common in Indian English to include in the online OED. By this measure, New Mexican English has at least as strong a claim to "banner advertising" on Wikipedia, since even more regionally distinct words (from Spanish and from Native American languages) are found in that regional dialect. Similar stories will be found for Australian English and for every variety of African English, and Hong Kong and Sinaporean English, and all the Caribbean Englishes. They all have one really important thing in common with Indian English: they are vernaculars, and do not exist as defined, separate formal written Englishes codified as a rule-set by any reliable sources.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You state, "Tellingly, the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary have a more prosaic take on the matter [2], and have sum up Indian English as about 70 words (loan words) common in Indian English to include in the online OED." In fact, that OED blog is referring to the latest addition of 70 IndE words to the 900 that already are in the dictionary." It is true that some of the 900 are archaic even in Indian English, but many such as "tiffin," "out-of-station," "needful," are not. There are others such as the expression, "on the anvil," that are not listed in the OED's list of IndE words, but are considered to be chiefly South Asian usage. (See OED on-line entry: on (also upon) the anvil: being dealt with or considered; in preparation, in hand. Now chiefly S. Asian. The OED-online lists ten examples, beginning in 1645, including: 1818 Byron Let. 28 June (1976) VI. 56 "I shall positively offer my next year to Longman—& I have lots upon the anvil," and ending with: 1986 Sunday (Calcutta) 22 June 49/3 A new Rs 400-crore debenture issue was reportedly on the anvil. (for Johnbod's reading pleasure. :)) 2005 Asian Age 28 Sept. 13/2 "Important initiatives to support the growth of the sector have already been taken by the policy makers and we believe several more are on the anvil." There are others such as "walk the talk," which are reaching a level of frequency in usage in IndE that they will very likely be inducted into the OED in the near future. Please note that words become archaic in one English but don't in others. "Torch," for example, preserves its original meaning in AmE, but in BrE has come to mean what is flashlight (in AmE). In other words, BrE no longer has any mandate on deciding what words are archaic and what are not in the world Englishes. Anyway, it was fun talking about these things. I doubt there will be a resolution on this topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

More OR and point-missing. Southwestern American English has at least as many loan words from Spanish, but it wouldn't matter anyway: the point is that having a bunch of loan words in common parlance doesn't make for a written, formal dialect that WP is required to treat with templates, because few of those words are ever used in encyclopedic writing (and would be explained in situ if they were). You're assuming that the appearance of a word or phrase in a dialect is especially significant, but it's not. For example, "needful" is also Northwestern American English (with no influence from India on its use); there's nothing especially Indian about it. "On the anvil" (which isn't Indian English, but simply lingering more in South Asia than in other dialects) isn't any more evidentiary of a marked dialect fork between written, formal British and Indian English than any other random colloquial phrase, like "fair dinkum" (Australian), "on the lash" (Irish), "slap chips" (South African), etc. This kind of variation exists down to the rather local subnational level, yet we are never going to have a "This article is written in New England English" or "This article is written in Philadelphia English" template. If we don't need one for either of those, then we don't need one for Indian. The only reason to want one is nationalistic sentiment. You cannot actually draw the kinds of conclusions you want to from the available data.

There's probably more distinction between the everyday English of Scotland and that of England than between the Queen's English and Indian English (because Scottish English is actually an amalgam of English and Scots, a closely related derivative of Anglo-Saxon, plus Gaelic loans, and going back to emergence of Middle English, while Indian English is mostly much later England-English with inconsistent loanwords from Indian languages). But we don't need templates for Scottish English, either. Encyclopedic Scottish English isn't reliably distinguishable from that written by someone from London, or Melbourne or (as a native speaker) New Delhi.

Lastly, no one said anything about "mandates". Despite all I've said, you continue to approach this from a national-pride and nationalism perspective. Your "BrE no longer has any mandate on deciding ..." stuff is a straw man (and provably wrong anyay, since Britsh reference works on English are the go-to reference works on the language also in India, Australia, South Africa, etc.). No amount of observation of colloquial talk is ever going to change that. The only thing that will change is major publishers in India putting out competing reference works, and them diverging from British/Commonwealth English, and doing so consistently. Whether you understand it or not there's an all-important gulf between colloquial Indian English dialect (which is well-attested) versus an utter lack of any evidence that such a dialect exists as a formal, written dialect the way American English does. India has had no Noah Webster (or any modern organization serving a similar orthography-forking role).

I'm not likely to respond again, because this side discussion has turned utterly circular, and no amount of handwaving is ever going to wave away the fact that there are no reliable sources establishing Indian English as a distinct variety of written, formal-register English. The best anyone can muster is observation that it exists as a spoken dialect continuum, and that (like all varieties of English down to a local level), in written form it can optionally invoke various colloquialisms that won't be understood by outsiders. Nothing unusual about this. Nothing Wikipedia needs to make special allowances for.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldest unchanged redirects

What is the longest a redirect has not been edited. For example: the redirect from Tomato ketchup to Ketchup has not been edited since 2004. Are there any more redirects that have not been edited since 2003, 2002, or even 2001? Mstrojny (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles has some very old article names that might have some very old redirects. WilliamAlston dates to February 2001 .. it's been edited since then but the redirect is the same as it was originally. -- GreenC 22:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The oldest unedited one I can find is Mariner8 from late February 2002. —Cryptic 23:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I went to the article to see where it was then, compared to where it is now. Alas, however.... Britmax (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm. There's actually a bunch with the same timestamp, to the second - at least User:Amillar/todo, Boardsports, CRC32, Capatalism, Charlamaine, Charlemaine, Charlimagne, Charlimaine, Cimbri/Waid, Clothes, Draupni, EthicalNaturalism, Fetishes, Fiber-optics, Fibre-optics, HEMTT, Homeomorphic, I.O.C., I.O.C, ICFTU, Innamorato, IsoImage, Junkfood, Lamberghini, Lebesgue-integrable, Mariner8, Maupassant, NPNF, Nucleosynthetic, OneTimePads, Oralloy, Pelegainisim, Polypeptide, Prosperpina, Provincetown, SHIRBRIG, Sacher-Masoch, SetTheory/OldVersion, Toscana, UNFCCC, UNMIBH, Underclothing, Weregeld, and Witan. Likely artifacts of a conversion script, or maybe bad data, as history that old tends to be. —Cryptic 23:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's possible redirect pages were not a part of MediaWiki until February 25, 2002 -- seeing a similar big bang oldest date, no redirect pages older than February 25, 2002. Prior to that they seemed to leave a wikilink of where one should browse to. This is like archaeology. -- GreenC 23:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC, Britmax, and Cryptic: The February 2002 thing is due to what has been called the ""great oops", which is explained here (search for "This was my fault"). Graham87 14:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh.. it's like an event horizon beyond which the true age can't be determined. -- GreenC 15:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you update the date parameter of template messages?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Daty Wikidata Editor alpha release

Hi everyone,

I am Pellegrino Prevete, aka Ogoorcs and I am proud to officially announce the alpha version (Q2122918) release of Daty (Daty (Q60949478)), the native Wikidata editor I proposed at the Ideathon of itWikiCon 2018 (Q43527331), which aims to hugely simplify Wikidata UX for new and old advanced users.

During this first development month, as hoped, Daty has found approvals outside of wiki communities, too: the GNOME (Q44316) project has in fact accepted to host it on its development platform and the software has already been published on Flathub (Q43089335), the free software GNU/Linux app store in Flatpak (Q22661286) format.

Unfortunately I was not able to pack all planned features in this first release, although I hope that, trying it, you will agree that the work done has been adequate.

Set up sound foundations for the program was where it took longer than expected, i.e. make it work on all supported platforms and on all screen format factors. In fact at the time of writing Daty is one of the few responsive GTK (Q189464) applications and the only cross-platform one.

To calm down the potential storm of people fearing for vandalisms caused by a simpler editor, I must warn you that until an adequate revert tool for mass edits made with the program will be made available, Daty will browse the database *read-only*. At this time already it has been made so (not specifically in Daty) that only registered users will be able to edit entities.

Download

Installer links are available for Microsoft Windows (64 bit) and GNU/Linux (all architectures).

You can read a more complete changelog on my blog; bug reports can be sent on the issues page.

Note for GNU/Linux users

If you use a Flathub-integrating distribution (Linux Mint, Endless OS and others), you can directly install the software from your graphical package manager. If your distribution preinstalls GNOME and GNOME Software (Q15968880), you will just need to open the *Activities* screen and search for "Daty", as seen in this picture.

In any case you can install flatpak on your distribution by visiting this page or follow the distro specific installation istructions on the Daty homepage.

If you already installed a previous flatpak of the software, I advice you to wait for the update of tomorrow (build already scheduled), because of a last-minute bug in the configuration directory permission settings which has been corrected this morning.

Note for Ubuntu users

Since at this time Ubuntu has decided to support by default only the Snap (Q22908866) package format, you will not directly find the program in the software center. If there are enough requests though, I will make a snap version of Daty.

In any case deb (Q305976) packages will be made available in due time.

Note for Mac users

The software works on Mac, but since I do not own one I could not create the executable file. Again, if there are enough requests, we can find a way to solve this.

Thanks

First of all I want to thank Wikimedia CH for trusting the idea; without them Daty would still be a mockup this day. I hope that the global community, as the Italian one already did at the ItWikiCon Ideathon, will see the impact and the usefulness of a native editor, to please advanced users and greet new ones.

Of course I have to thank the GNOME project, which accepted the project on its infrastructure, and its developers, volunteers and contributors, who saved me from many headaches this month and before. I think it is a really great community.

Ogoorcs (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy+paste information from Wikipedia to a book. Is that even legal?

I'm a Dutch Wikipedia contributor and a few weeks ago, I bought an English book (online, in The Netherlands). The book is called The History of French Toys Advertisements 1975 - 1989 and it also exists in a French version. It shows old French ads, with extra information on several brands/subjects. I noticed the texts are copied and pasted from Wikipedia into the book. The text about Playmobil is the same as this old version, but without the last part about movies and videogames. I noticed because the text seemed unfit (on corgi, there are 19 pages of text and just 2 pages with a total of 5 ads), I recognized a part of the Playmobil Wikipedia page and the author did not remove all the references (Quoting: "Currently available themes in US[12] and UK[13} official online stores") and file names. In text about other brands/subjects, there are also references which aren't deleted. Is this legal, to copy and paste from Wikipedia to a book, without even referring to Wikipedia? I do not have the French version, so I don't know if that book is similar. The English book does not seem to have an editor, just an autor. With kind regards, ABPMAB (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Yes, ABPMAB, it is perfectly okay for a book publisher to copy and paste Wikipedia text to a book, then sell it. What is prohibited under the Creative Commons license [3] is to do so without acknowledging the source of the material. When the work is claimed as one's own, that plagiarism. Elsewhere, right now, there is a discussion of a college professor who lifted WP material and published it as his own. He will likely get into a lot of trouble with his administration. Rhadow (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhadow: Like stated, there is no mentioning of Wikipedia in the book (nor from a possible mirror website). So this is illegal? I think this could be the reason it is self-published (at least, that is what it looks like). With kind regards, ABPMAB (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Hello, ABPMAB, the license includes the following text, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."

The book publisher MUST acknowledge the Creative Commons license and may not copyright the work as his or her own. Rhadow (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rhadow, the book says "© 2014 by Geoffrey Montfort. All rights reserved", "No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic of mechanical, including photocopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the author, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review.” (about what I think should be ...electronic or mechanical...) and “The purpose and content of this book are solely intented as a reference guide to toy reviews and publications in France. This book is no way attempts to infringe any copyright” (about what I think should be ...This book in no way...). It also says “Although the author and publisher have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information contained in this book, we assume no responsability for errors, inaccuracies, or any inconsistency herein. Any slights at people, places, or organisations are unintentional.” Nowhere it says it has a source other than the author and the publisher (whoever that may be, the book doesn't says who/what). To me, it seems like it is at least plagiarism. With kind regards, ABPMAB (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Hello, ABPMAB, pursuing a Creative Commons license breach is above my pay grade. Here is the other discusssion Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Plagiarism in an India-related source, published by a reliable publisher, involving copying verbatim from a WP article. Rhadow (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Claiming 'All rights reserved' on CC content is definitely a copyright issue. No amount of disclaimers shield that fact. A cease and desist letter would hopefully be enough to get them to stop publication. Who is supposed to send the letter I don't know. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: The letter can only be sent by one of the editors who added the specific text that is being misused; they own the copyright to their contributions. From Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, "Consequently, complaints about violations need to be made by a person who actually wrote part of the improperly republished material." -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

These unacknowledged reprinted articles can be such a problem for WP:CIRCULAR sourcing. I believe that User:Doc James has some experience with these letters, if you need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Offline wikipedia readers

hi I use kiwix xowa bzreader wikitaxi to read Wikipedia offline do another software to read Wikipedia offline Amirh123 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Database download#Offline Wikipedia readers mentions a few offline readers other than Kiwix, XOWA, BzReader and WikiTaxi. --Pipetricker (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism so bad there's no warning, or even evidence on the talk pages

I was curious to see what a certain Help Desk request was about, and I saw the vandalism here. One editor repeatedly vandalized, and yet there is a red link to the talk page. The same vandalism apparently took place with another name and, although that person was warned for other vandalism, there is no evidence of the worst offenses on the talk page. Shouldn't there be some evidence on the two talk pages?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Things that, to coin a phrase, "shock the conscience" are deleted totally from Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but if you go to the offender's talk page, you can't tell he/she was blocked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess, that was probably image vandalism from a compromised account. Something similar happened to Donald Trump's page over Thanksgiving weekend. Someone has a bunch of hacked passwords and is using those accounts to insert graphic porn on high profile pages. That was probably more of the same. The proper owner of the account had not edited with it since 2007. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Help Desk question said it was a photo of genitals. I'm just wondering how this situation should be mentioned on the talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article talk page? It shouldn't. We don't want to feed the troll. The user talk page for the compromised account? Perhaps the blocking admin should have created a talk page and put a block notice on it, but given that the editor had not edited since 2007 and then had only edited their own userspace, it's reasonable not to. If they log in and try to edit they'll learn they are blocked. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the already-created talk page, but the idea is to show anyone who happens to look at the already-created page that action was taken.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is typical to look at the contributions where there is more than one big pink box showing the fact that the account is blocked (and the reason). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Right. I should do that, then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see whether an account is blocked, look in Special:Preferences under Gadgets for an item called "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". That uses strikethrough text to make it easier to see that an account is currently blocked when you're reading a page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Need valid source(s) about Viva TV on IBC

I created Viva TV (IBC programming block) (now Draft:Viva TV (TV programming block)) in order to split off the thing about the former block broadcast on IBC from the Viva TV (Philippine TV channel) article (full-time linear TV channel launched in 2009). But since the new article don't cite any valid source, it's now moved to draft space. I'm looking for some reliable sources (especially news reports) about the block's launch and cancellation, in order to save the article from deletion, but Google searches yield no valid result. So I need some assistance from others.

Note that someone have suggested two YouTube clips (clip 1, clip 2) as sources (see also this revision and another revision), but I don't think these are valid ones for citation. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't spend much time here ... but is this the best place to put out this plea? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

All wikis and largest wikis?

best site to see all wikis and see largest wikis Amirh123 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You might want to view List of wikis. Killiondude (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Or:

• meta:Complete list of Wikimedia projects
• meta:List of Wikimedia projects by size
• Meta: All Wikipedias ordered by number of articles

--Pipetricker (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Google Talk to Books

I'd never seen or heard of Google Talk to Books. It seems pretty useful for Wikipedia purposes. It takes search to the next level, using AI to better find results that may not be in a keyword search. -- GreenC 15:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing. I'd not heard of this before and it looks like a practical application of AI to the exploitation of a complex corpus. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Should The Signpost be allowed to publish defamatory POVs?

A recent Signpost News and notes piece about Wikipedia being blocked in Venezuela was met with some criticism and concern about how it chose to described Venezuela and its people:

"In Venezuela, the country with the largest oil reserves in the world and where the population is starving and forced to eat garbage, access to Wikipedia has been blocked."

Several editors, including a former member of The Signpost writing staff and myself, pointed out its insulting tone and inaccurate generalization about the Venezuelan people as it does not apply to "the population", but rather allegedly only a portion. Another editor was quick to point, "Yes, some Venezuelans have been forced into that awful position but there are also plenty of Americans who dumpster dive because they have no other access to food." A correction by inserting 'some' would marginally help in clarifying intent.

The Signpost writers have since defended the piece as POV [4] and Wikipedia article policies and guidelines do not apply [5] [6]. In contrast, WP:LBL applies to all of Wikipedia and states:

"It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified."

The Signpost publishes its own content guideline which states, "Contributors should endeavor to avoid putting out material they know to be wrong or misleading." As The Signpost is published on Wikipedia in one of the namespaces, I would like to invite a community discussion about the limitations in which The Signpost may publish POV editorial. If an op-ed or editorial contains defamatory views, may the piece be published in The Signpost and therefore on Wikipedia? Are there limitations on the degree of severity such as racist views? Should the community be included in setting the content guidelines for The Signpost and respectively its enforcement? Mkdw ^talk 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As a note, I am simply using the recent issue to frame a larger (and hopefully productive) discussion about how to publish important news about Wikipedia while maintaining a reasonable degree of integrity. Mkdw ^talk 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: - I don't believe you can commit libel or defamation against a country. Additionally, unlike in an article where we edit intending facts, an opinion would already have broader exceptions as part of the definition of libel. That said, I do understand your point. I am however fairly willing to let the Signpost set its own content guidelines - the community doing it for them risks a) risking our own POV disruptions b) much more likely adding bureaucratic disruptions to a publication that already struggles to find sufficient volunteers. Complaints and the virtual equivalent of walking with our feet would seem the more viable approach Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Defamation is linked in WP:LBL and defined as, "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of, depending on the law of the country, an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation" [my underline]. In this case it is both a group of people and a nation but this is beside the point. The main question is whether The Signpost is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:LBL. I am not sure if I would be as willing to hand The Signpost an exemption to our defamation and harassment policy, such as WP:OUTING, for the sake of POV and writer retention. I also do not think a precedent of having a select group of editors above our policies is a good idea either. On the other hand, I do not like the idea of someone coming along and unilaterally deleting a story, like the current one exampled, using a policy-based argument. My hope would be for The Signpost to create a content guideline that complies with our site policies and enforce it without direct community involvement. In severe cases, such as racist views being published, the community through discussion and consensus would step in as a check and balance. Mkdw ^talk 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Mkdw. These are very strong words, especially for something that can be easily supported by reputable reliable sources. Whether or not the writing is POV, you're going too far in saying that writing something that (much to our mutual dismay, I am sure) meets our WP:RS standards (not to mention notability standards) is defamatory in any way. Tragic, yes. Defamatory, no. The Signpost can have a point of view; it's editorial, as opposed to encyclopedic. So are user pages, user talk pages, and almost all pages in Wikipedia space. There are plenty of points of view expressed in those places. I get that you find this disturbing, and that you didn't get the response you wanted. I think you're missing the mark, though. Risker (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer a +1 to Risker above. Calling this defamation is missing the mark. Even in more lax jurisdictions, this doesn't even come close. What you have is a legitimate disagreement with The Signpost's editorial policies, which is both okay and completely defensible. But to frame it as a legal issue ties you to a burden of persuasion, which is, I think higher than it needs to be. In short, should this be ameliorated? I think absolutely. Is it defamation? I think absolutely not. But I'm often wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to stop falling into the same trap that mainstraeam media does, which is editorializing on simple news items, and thus avoid POV. If it was an opinion/analysis piece, the language is fine, but not on what appears to be a legitimate news piece about the VZ situation and WP's coverage of it. There are better ways to give the same content ("where X% of the population lives in poverty", "where X% of the population have no access to a healthy diet"). --Masem (t) 01:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think that the comment was literally legal defamation, merely an ill-judged insertion of personal POV in a context where one wouldn't expect to find it, and where it isn't presented as such (rather, it's presented as a 'fact' which is obviously false if one reads it literally). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. And it's not so much defamation (against a country?) that bothers me, but a clearly unsupportable proposition. Even in a Signpost oped we expect not to be confronted with outlandish claims. It diminishes the news outlet more generally. But this appeared in "News and notes", which has traditionally been the front-page news reportage. Why could that weird proposition not have simply been modified after initial complaints on the talkpage? The adversarial, defensive tone of the people running the outlet doesn't say much for its future. Tony (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)