Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VP/P)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

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

« Older discussions, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

We need changes to the 'further reading section' on articles[edit]

Many articles use further reading sections with links to different pages and this is pretty much the same as the WP:External links and it becomes a headache to decide which link goes where. It also looks like a mess sometimes on the article with all these sections. it could even confuse the readers.

What I propose is this: If the recommended further reading section cites to a book or an article, or essay or website or whatever, but no link exists, then we can put it in further reading. But if it is a linked work, not counting a preview, then they should be made to go in external links.

Otherwise we have too many sections with links, when they can all be put together if there is a link, and previews don't count. If the full material is there, then the link can just go in external links section but only provided it's the full material.

Proposed--Taeyebar 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI the current guideline for further reading sections is at WP:FURTHER, and is quite minimal. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Someguy1221 for pointing it out. It is indeed short. What do you propose we do?--Taeyebar 17:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I would say that the section is too long. If I could be bothered I would be able to edit it down to half the size or less without losing anything important. Most other policies and guidelines could do with even more culling of unimportant waffle. Having said that I would support the merging of "further reading" and "external links". Both sections perform the same function, and there is no need to distinguish between further reading available online and that which is not. (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Can other users comment also here please?--Taeyebar 22:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the further reading section because it attracts way too much link spam. Personally, I would support keeping only highly relevant and well cited books/peer reviewed papers as part of further reading and exclude everything else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to definitely remove one of the two sections you should first rename "Further reading" into "Further information", or something similar. But that is not what excites me much. I am more interested on another change, which can be seen in the German Wiki, i.e. the moving of "References" section to the very bottom of the page, sot that the sequence will be:

  • See also
  • Bibliography
  • Further information (or Further reading + External links)
  • Commons, Sister project and Portal templates, and any other template
  • References (Notes)

The reason for this reshuffling is quite self-explanatory. Carlotm (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I slightly share the concern. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really support re-shuffling. I just think if 'further reading' has linked articles/websites/e-books then we can just put them in external links, because it's essentially the same thing.--Taeyebar 18:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But they are not always "linked articles/websites/e-books", so you'll still have FR sections in some articles. @Lemongirl942:, in my experience the linkspam is always in External links, not Further reading. But getting rid of one section or the other is not going to stop the spam. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to ignore an important point that the "External links section should be kept to a minimum". A couple of links is OK, but I've seen articles with more than 30 External Links, one of which I edited down to ten or so. Why change something that works? For example, an obscure article named Hanny's_Voorwerp that I've edited has 3 External links and 7 Further Reading links, many of which are internal Wiki links. What is accomplished by moving these 7 FR links? If an editor sees messy links in FR then tidy or update them. As mentioned above, it's the links themselves that cause the spam, not the section itself. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember where I heard this recommendation, but I've generally treated 'Further Reading' contents as being potential references in that they either extend the article content or articulate the content in a usefully different fashion. If, in fact, a 'Further Reading' item were used as a reference, it should be removed from that section. I've very seldom added to 'External Links' and would generally consider such to be not suitable for use as references, though they would also extend the article's content space. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Further reading, which has some more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment[edit]

If this is just a query about under what circumstances biased sources can be used, it's been answered. If it's a request to rewrite policy, we are unlikely to abandon WP:NPOV, to accommodate the wishes of a single editor; if we are going to make a change that fundamental, it would require a Request for Comment publicised site-wide, and also need the consent of the Wikimedia Foundation since it would mean rewriting the Founding principles. If anyone does want to push for a topic ban on the OP, the place for that is AN or ANI, not here. Keeping this discussion open is serving no useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

I'd like to ask for clarification what the following means:

Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

If a user is advocating his personal point of view by populating various articles with useful, properly sourced and accurate content then is it something that she should be punished for? Furthermore, please take into account the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias - en:WP:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

My main point of concern is the potential abuse of WP:NOTADVOCATE for the purpose of censorship (and in effect advocacy!). Another thing is, does it matter what is the personal opinion of a user when judging if her content is appropriate? I need a clarification on how it should be applied. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If your contributions always tilt to the extreme side of a point of view and never to the middle ground, then you have a problem. That doesn't mean you always need to write about both extremes, but that your contributions should not excessively tilt towards one of the extremes. The difference is a matter of balance and balance can be delicate and subjective. That's why it is a somewhat vaguely described, so that it can be judged on a case by case basis. In general WP:DUCKTEST applies. If someone can't go touching an article without putting his bias into it in some form, then said person might have a WP:NOTADVOCATE problem. if it is not that obvious, then we should probably discuss, ask a person to change his behavior/step away and eventually possibly topic ban, but at least it's a case that requires more inspection than just calling someone a biased editor (CSD vs. AfD). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. Could you be more precise? I don't understand your clarification - it's not operational for me. 2. ad hominem: [1] --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@Asterixf2: Please understand that in English, you does not always implies a specific person; See also Generic_you. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The way this should be applied is that when you edit Wikipedia, you should do so with the purpose of improving the project, not advocating a position. If you are worried that someone is going to use WP:NOTADVOCATE against you as a form of censorship, then it's likely that you are violating WP:NOTADVOCATE, because most of those who are here primarily for the purpose of improving the project don't have cause to worry about this. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. Thank you for comment, but please don't make it personal (iirc, it's our first interaction). This is a general question not question about me. 2. You have not answered any question explicitly. I ask this questions, because I think that too many people have to worry about this, especially on other wikis than en. What is abuse of this rule and what is not? --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've not answered anything more specific because you haven't asked anything more specifically answerable. Abuse of this rule is a situation where the community consensus deems it abusive, and non-abuse is the converse. That's how thing on Wikipedia generally work with few exceptions. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@TheDJ: I find your insertion of comment about 'general you' in the middle of thread breaking its natural structure and order inappropriate. For reply, see: [2] --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
CONTEXT: It appears that Asterixf2 is currently blockedrecently had a block expire[3] on Polish Wikipedia, related to this issue. I know nothing of the details of what happened there.
@Alsee: I am not blocked and I wasn't complaining about blocks here. [4] In my opinion, those toxic attacks are inappropriate. Thank you for separating this comment from the rest of your reply. IIRC this is our first interaction. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Asterixf2, I corrected my comment. Alsee (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Alsee: How have you verified if it was related to the issue I am raising here? You say you know nothing specific about this. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2, an ideal editor will present balanced coverage of a topic. In practice it is not unusual for an editor to mostly present their favored-side while challenging problem-edits by the opposite side, and for other editor(s) to take the opposite role. This is generally acceptable, so long as the editor is adding proper content and removing improper content, helping to bring the article closer to the ideal version. The question of whether an editor is adding proper content depends upon the totality of other policies. Your complaints about "censorship" (here and elsewhere) suggest to me that your block may have been justified. It is not "censorship" for the community to decide that someone's edits are not improving the article. There are many policy reasons that content may be removed from an article. It is not "censorship" to remove original research, to remove content that is poorly sourced, to removed biased content content that gives undue weight to one side of an issue, or for other reasons.
English Wikipedia has a policy WP:NOTCENSORED, but it means that content (and images) are not to be removed merely because some people find them personally offensive for sexual, religious, or similar reasons. It does not apply to removal of content that is biased or violated other policies. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading this from your sandbox Asterix, I think you may not get on well here on wikipedia in the long term given current policies and practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your presuppositions and reasons are correct, but your conclusion isn't absurd. However, I would appreciate more focus on the main issue raised by me in this post. This is not a place for dispute resolution or discussions focused mainly on an individual case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Well given the only real question you posed was "If a user is advocating his personal point of view by populating various articles with useful, properly sourced and accurate content then is it something that she should be punished for?" the answer is most of the time no. The issue is that ADVOCATES (as wikipedia defines them) do not actually do that. They go from article to article inserting material that seeks to skew the articles towards a more favourable viewpoint (of their position). The material they insert may be properly sourced (or not) but almost always violates WP:UNDUE in that it seeks to over-emphasise the validity and/or acceptance of their point of view. They are advocating for a specific slant. This is most obviously visible in the politics, fringe and pseudoscience areas, but crops up almost everywhere. There is one obviously agenda-driven editor who has been continuously rebuffed in articles that differ from their personal POV, and has gone to the extreme of trying to dispute the policy underlying the rationales for their rejected edits. Now if an editor who has a particular POV notices an article within their interest that misrepresents or could be improved, and does so taking into account all the relevant policies, they are unlikely to be accused of advocacy just because their edits are in sync with their personal viewpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This is another comment confirming that this particular kind of advocacy that I was asking about is welcome. I have asked two questions explicitly. Also please note that articles are not meant to be perfect, and there is no such thing as article that is objectively perfectly balanced and two options are possible (a) removals to 'balance' (b) additions to 'balance'. Shouldn't (b) be preferred most of the time? It seems, that some imbalance should always be tolerated to allow development. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"There is one obviously" - is this about me? IIRC, this is our first interaction. Actually, I am very satisfied with the outcomes of my past edits and discussions on english wikipedia. Thumb up icon.svg --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No I was not referring to you, and assuming the second question is "does it matter what is the personal opinion of a user when judging if her content is appropriate?" the answer is 'It depends on context, material and the editor" which will be of little help to you. In some situations the personal opinion is very important (Neo-nazi's editing about Hitler, Third Reich, Nazi-era Germany etc) in others its negligible (wrestling fans editing about wrestling). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Why the personal opinion of neo-nazis would be important in judging their content? Does it imply that it would be a recommended advice to editors to ask about personal beliefs of other editors so that they can make more accurate (or more biased?) judgements about the content? Promoting such rules creates incentives for people to not expose their personal beliefs to avoid discrimination or harassment. I am not sure if it has a positive role in building open community. Your general answer without more precise criteria is not very clarifying as you have noticed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that 'advocacy' shouldn't be a part of this policy as it could be easily abused. The intention is to disallow (1) 'propaganda' understood as adding editorial bias not only properly sourced bias (WP:NPOV in other words) and (2) violations of WP:UNDUE, a section of npov, rendering "not advocate" part of the policy redundant. Furthermore, it's clearly not true that "advocacy of any kind" is not allowed. SMirC-coffeebreak.svg --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Our policies are pretty well thought out, and we have a lot of experience applying them to various situations. This discussion looks like a case of someone wanting to change our policies to allow them to do certain things that they have been prevented from doing, all without any discussion about what, exactly, they want to do that the current policies do not allow. I think the answer here is clear: no, you can't have a pony. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Your misleading guesswork introduces bias into the discussion and no real arguments. In my opinion, this is a very important issue. Please see Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, WP:AGF and WP:POLL. IIRC, this is our first interaction. Asterixf2 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get a pony, and you don't get to limit the discussion so as to avoid criticism of your behavior. And your repetition of the phrase "this is our first interaction" is just strange. Is there some sort of problem you keep having with your interactions with other Wikipedia editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Sigh, took me awhile to work out what the point of this was. this page goes some way towards explaining the motivation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
1. @Only in death: I don't remember this discussion very well and I don't see a point in reading it now (waste of time), because my motivation for this post is completely independent of my activity from about 7 months ago that you are pointing to. However, I do remember that among legitimate edits and concerns there was one issue for which I was rightly blocked for 5 days.
2. @Guy Macon: I don't care if this phrase seems strange to you. Purpose of this is to avoid wrong assumption that you know me. I also couldn't care less about your criticism, because I find it nonconstructive.
3. @Guy Macon and Only in death: You may consider starting a new post in an appropriate venue if you want to advance your Stop hand nuvola orange.svg ad hominem position. However, please be aware that it may constitute a WP:HARASSMENT. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
As with many English Wikipedia policies, the statement is about content, not editors or their intent. Article text must not be written in the style of advocacy, such as in an editorial or opinion essay. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from other problems that you have not addressed, in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions "merits of your OPINIONS", "if you WANT". As I see it, this is a 'catch-all policy'. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what problems you are referring to; I am responding to your original post, and the answer to your question is clear from my comment: editor intent does not determine if a given passage is written in the style of an advocacy piece. I understand this is contrary to your opinion; nonetheless, as truly knowing what another person intends is problematic, English Wikipedia policies generally focus on the text of editors' contributions. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
"I understand this is contrary to your opinion" is wrong - it seems that we agree. Please also note that you are talking about your interpretation of what this policy should mean (or how it should be interpreted) regardless of its letter. The point of this post is to discuss if its letter is confusing or wrong. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
You said "in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions"; I said that this policy is about content, namely writing style. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from other problems that you have not addressed, in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions "merits of your OPINIONS", "if you WANT". --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your quote disagrees with what I've said. isaacl (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to follow this whole thing, and I still can't tell what the heck you're complaining about. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: My aim was to discuss how other editors understand this policy and whether its letter is aligned with its perceived role. My main concern is the potential of abuse of this policy in its current confusing form by editors that are disturbing wiki-process (for example by attempts to suppress points of view). For instance, I have pointed out that WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE are sufficient to handle legitimate cases. I focused my post on clarification to make sure that I understand this policy correctly before discussing changes (if at all).
In my opinion, each point of view in an article should look like written by their best advocates - present best evidence and best arguments while maintaining neutrality by avoiding editorial bias (distortion of sources) and giving due weight.
The discussion was derailed by ad hominem statements (poisoning the well). I think that those editors should first carefully build their case and only then raise such concerns in an appropriate venue if justified. Instead, they had hastily posted accusations and only after that they proceeded to search for and verify evidence with the intent to confirm their guesswork (see confirmation bias and sampling bias).
Furthermore, it's clear to me that editors abusing this policy would not support my position. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Given the behavior described here[5] and the behavior on this page, I propose that we ask for a topic ban preventing Asterixf2 from making any edit about fringe theories, broadly construed.

These decisions are made at AN or ANI, not here, so this is just a straw poll. If there seems to be sufficient support, I will file a formal request at AN or ANI. It would be especially helpful if support votes contained diffs showing the behavior in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. The particular fringe theory being pushed here may be found here:[6] Asterixf2's attempt to add it to Entropic force is here:[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Your campaign to change the rules so that what your edits that were rejected would be allowed is not constructive, please realize that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again, this wasn't my goal. It was to discuss this policy and eventual changes. For example, as I see it, I have pointed out the redundancy in policy. The nature of redundancy is that its removal would not allow undesirable content but only limit abuse and confusion. I insist that you read the pledge you have signed User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Your proposal is misguided but I won't be surprised by some herd mentality :) This was a part of a series of edits in a controversial topic as it turned out and the issue was WP:RS - a controversial edit in controversial[9] section of controversial article. As far as this part is concerned, I was blocked for 5 days and it was 7 months ago and it was the only block on english wiki and at the time WP:DONTBITE definitely applied. Overall, I find the block duration appropriate. In my opinion, your behavior constitutes WP:HARASSment. I haven't added any such content since the block and wasn't planning to. I will not add any fringe for 12 months because I just don't care.
    << Removed Icon >> Please see Confirmation bias and Sampling bias. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I have removed your gratuitous use of an icon which, along with everything else above, is misguided. The one correct statement I see is that you will not add any fringe content. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, your comment is biased. Due to unfair and derogatory ad hominem pressure I wanted to remove any suspicions that it was my intention. In particular, it is not an acknowledgment that proposal was justified in a slightest degree. I have added clarification where the removed icon was. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

On-going discussion[edit]

Posting of 'proposal' at the bottom is problematic. For the uninvolved observer it may suggest that it is a kind of summary or conclusion to the discussion which is not the case (ad hominem) and the discussion is on-going. Even if the accusations were correct it would not prove me wrong. See poisoning the well and Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2016 (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.

Naming a person's children in their biography[edit]

For biographies of people with children, it's common not to identify their children by name unless they too are notable. I wanted to advise another editor to do this, but I couldn't find the relevant policy. Would this be something I ought to recommend for the MoS on biographies, or is there a current policy or guideline about this topic? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

People name their kids on personal biographies all the time. As long as info about children isn't excessive, I don't see any problems with this unless its about criminals or other controversial figures.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some general guidance about this aspect - in biographies of living persons - can be found at WP:BLPNAME. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. Some of the Mormon women whose pages I'm editing have had a lot of children. Is it better encyclopedic style to say "Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner and her husband had ten children together" rather than naming them all? I'm just trying to figure out if there are good reasons to either identify all the children or not. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If they are mentioned in reliable sources, then you may as well list them. I expect that her own children would normally be an important part of a woman's life, and that she would talk about them her self. So it is fair enough to mention the names. But please don't add too much detail if these children are still living! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
On the other side of the coin, editorial discretion is both allowed and expected at Wikipedia. The fact that some bit of information is verifiable does not mean that Wikipedia is required to include it. Editors are encouraged to make editorial decisions about which information should and should not be included, being cognizant of other policies and guidelines such as WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and the like. Verifiability is a necessary but not of itself a sufficient condition for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Now, if two editors disagree about whether some verifiable information should or should not be included, that's what the talk page, and WP:RFC and WP:DR is for. But WP:V should never be a valid argument for inclusion. The lack of verifiability is only a valid argument against including some information, but the converse is not a sufficient argument for inclusion. Merely being verifiable is never enough. --Jayron32 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
In re "her own children would normally be an important part of a woman's life": Historically true, of course, but taking this as a rule results in sexist outcomes. (And who says that children are usually unimportant to their fathers?) Even when the woman is notable purely for technical and scientific achievements, women's family members get a lot more attention than men's. This isn't Wikipedia's fault; it's unusual to find a reliable source that writes in-depth about a married female CEO without including some variant of "Her husband is supportive of her professional life". But we should think twice about adopting a source's cultural biases about the proper role of women (and perpetuate the stereotype of men as usually being bad fathers) when we would not include the same information in a BLP about a man. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
My quoted statement was in response to Rachel Helps' writing about Mormon women. It does not preclude children of men from being included. The information just has to be sourced appropriately, preferably from non-primary public sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I took part in a discussion about such a case [10], and the closer made a reasonable ruling (against my personal preference, my instinct is not to name non-notable children). If the sources are decent, it´s up to editorial consensus. We can name names, or go with "X has Y children" or some variant thereof. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
An RfC just last September at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP made the evenhanded conclusion under the title NAMES & DATES OF BIRTH OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN ARTICLE

The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The thrust of the RfC involved celebrities' children who are personally named by the parents or their representatives in major media. The consensus is that the names and birth dates of, for example, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's children have been released not only with parental permission but on the covers of magazines with combined circulation in the millions, so that it is both futile and whitewashing not to include them. This is by any definition public knowledge that the parents want to have out there. Same with Beyonce and Jay-Z's child, Prince William and Kate Middleton's, and even lesser-known celebrities such as Brian Austin Green and Megan Fox's, to name just a smattering. It's basic biographical information found in book biographies and in such WP:RS sources as
Conversely, when the parents keep their minor children's name private, guidelines dictate that we do as well — hence, no names for the children of Ginnifer Goodwin and Josh Dallas, even though, as Jayron rightly notes, the names may be verifiable by primary-source birth certificates or other sources. If the parents don't want the names out there, we honor that. If the parents do want the names out there, we honor that, too.
This is settled RfC consensus, though any editor, of course, may open a new RfC, with proper notification to concerned parties. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thanks for the clarifications! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
IMO "celebrities" are a different case, because a person who is "famous for being famous" is a bit like royalty – everything that's know about you is "part of" your notability. I'd also put "religious" bios in the same category, because religion is supposed to be about how you live your real life. But for a business, technical, or scientific bio, it feels irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree: For a business, technical, or scientific bio it would rarely come up that the subject or his/her representative would make a big media announcement. In fact, it would probably come up only if the business, technical, or scientific person also happened to be a celebrity! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Implementation of WP:NCGN[edit]

Dear editors,
I have a question about the implentation of this WP. Does the rule (order of languages listed in the lede) also count for historical entities, and specifically administrative provinces of former empires, whose soil later became part of independant nations? E.g. on the Tiflis Governorate a province of the Russian Empire; should Georgian be listed ahead of Russian simply because the letter "G" shows up earlier in the alphabet than the letter "R" or "O"? This "alphabetic rule" is what NCGN, as far as I can see, stands for, but it seems to be solely meant for geographical locations/cities/towns, and waters (e.g. Gulf of Finland, Constantinople/Istanbul, etc.), and not for historical administrative provinces/territories, hence my question. Thanks much in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the following two sentences in that guideline "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions." and " Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages" I do not see anywhere that there is an exception carved out for historical place names vs. currently used place names. --Jayron32 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Thanks much for your response. I'd like to ask now if someone could help me with reasoning this matter directly related to it. What do people think, taking this WP in account, for example, about the listing of the three languages in the lede of the Erivan Khanate? The Erivan Khanate was a Persian-ruled and established administrative province of the Persian Empire, where Persian was the official language, as it was in the rest of the realm. Furthermore, a large amount of the populations province spoke Azerbaijani, while the territory that constituted the province, became much later part (in 1991) of the Republic of Armenia, and had a small Armenian minority as well. As of a day ago, suddenly, this was changed by two users who kept insisting that the Armenian transliteration should be listed in front (even though it was not Armenian-ruled, nor was Armenian the official language, nor was it an administrative territory of Armenia) and solely basing their argument on WP:NCGN. As a result, the Armenian transliteration of a Persian province was put in front, while the Persian transliteration was put last. And that, even though as I stipulated once before, the latter was the official language used in the administrative province. Just like it was in the rest of the realm.
Would anyone here be willing, taking this little amount of information into account, to explain what the flaws here are regardless of which side, and additionally (and perhaps most importantly), if the implementation of WP:NCGN is justified here, e.g. to warrant this changed order of languages in the lede? Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the first sentence I quoted "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus" is a guidance to BOTH of you. I can see arguments from both sides, as the article states the territory "corresponds to most of present-day central Armenia". I have no direct opinion as to whether that is sufficient or not, but neither side in this dispute has a clear advantage based on any particular argument. You're not going to be able to short circuit a lengthy discussion by claiming that the other side is wrong because of policy. Policy says talk it out, ask for outside help, and achieve consensus. Try WP:DR for some suggestions for first steps. --Jayron32 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) This appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I opened a discussion regarding this at the talk page of the article in question, why didn't you participate? As for your suggestions here, I must reiterate that you are completely disregarding the most important element to NCGN when it comes to alternate foreign languages and that is relevancy. NCGN must apply when it's merely relevant to a certain group of people, and in this case that would be the Armenians, Azeris, and Persians (See: WP:NCGN #2 "Relevant foreign names..."). To say that one foreign language is more relevant than the other when it comes to a certain territory, whether past or present, would be to fall into POV OR territory. Your mere understanding of NCGN is that the people or country who conquered or governed this particular piece of territory must take precedence over everyone else. But that's just your opinion. We must only deal with the relevancy of this piece of territory to all peoples that have been affected by it (i.e. Armenians, Azeris). Therefore, to avoid nationalists arguing "but it's more sacred to us Persians than it is for you guys! We go first!" argument, we place them alphabetically and hence, it's more neutral that way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32: My argument is to leave it neutral, his is to take national precedence over others. To keep it neutral, we must have it alphabetical, as NCGN suggests. All this "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!" nonsense is just POV pushing in the most classic sense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Étienne: Except that his argument from his perspective is that he's trying to keep it neutral, and that yours is to take ethnic precedence over others. It works both ways equally. To say that isn't to say he's more right than you, and that isn't also to say that you are more right than him. I've made not statement about that. But you can't claim "My perspective is correct because reasons" and then say "His is wrong because reasons" as though that's sufficient. From an outside perspective, neither side is particularly better in this case. Also, he's never made any such arguments as you've ascribed to him. You've invented a strawman by stating "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!", since he never made that statement. It is unbecoming to use such tactics. Instead, simply state your rationale for your preferred version on the talk page, allow him to state his rationale for his preferred version on the talk page, and then go through one of the suggestions at WP:DR to solicit outside comments and get an uninvolved consensus. It may take weeks to do so, but there is no deadline. It's better to take the time to get it right, whatever "right" is, than to simply edit war and get blocked. So I'll give you the same advice I gave him: I have no knowledge as to which side is correct, both arguments look valid, so take the time to seek outside input. Policy does not say you get to be "right" any more than it gets to say he is, and the only way forward here is to let others contribute to achieve consensus. --Jayron32 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wow. Due to your continuous assumption of bad faith towards other users (e.g. "Your mere understanding of NCGN is that the people or country who conquered or governed this particular piece of territory must take precedence over everyone else."), you unfortunately utterly fail (or refuse) to realize and acknowledge the verifiable fact that the province had an official language, and was an administrative territory of a larger realm. That was my main merit. I don't care whether Mongols governed the area, Persians, Kosovars, or Papua New Guineans. I'm simply questioning/looking into a matter that anyone else could and possibly would question as well. The fact that you say "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!", meant as a reference to my words, only reflects your stance towards other users, which is, unfortunately, completely ridden by bad faith and POV.
I was simply just genuinely curious about this WP and its implentation. If the WP backs it up, and/or the majority want it that way, then I obviously have no objections against it. Jeez. Some e-people are simply just way too salty. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Louis, your justification to set Armenian and Azerbaijani aside was that it was "not Armenian ruled", which translates to Persians ruled/conquered it. I didn't just guess your stance, you said it yourself. And just because a certain piece of territory had some official language doesn't mean that that alternate name should take precedence over others. We're merely arguing whether the Erivan Khanate was relevant to Armenians, Azeris, and Persians. And it was. So per NCGN guidelines, we place them alphabetically to avoid these kinds of debates. There's nothing in NCGN that suggests that the official language of this or that territory must take precedence. It's really that simple. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this is not the correct venue to discuss the merits of one version of an article or another. The ONLY correct place to discuss this is on the article talk page. You wanted to know the policy guidance on this matter. You've been told what that guidance is. I will restate the policy guidance on this one last time:
  1. Party A makes a defense of their position on the article talk page, and does so without making any mention of any other person, merely the rationale for why they think their version is correct. They are absolutely not to make any comments about the motivations, internal thought processes, or even the behavior, of ANY other editor at all. Just state the reasons why their text is better. This is absolutely nonnegotiable policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states in no uncertain terms in the first sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor" You are not even to mention the other person, or even acknowledge they exist as a person. Just say why you think your preferred version is correct, and that's it.
  2. Party B does the same.
  3. One or either party chooses one of the methods described at WP:DR to invite uninvolved editors to come and mediate the dispute and help achieve consensus.
  4. After consensus is achieved and clear, we write the article to match consensus, and everyone walks away and leaves it alone.
You're both going down an unproductive path, and neither one looks particularly good. If either or both of you continues this way, one or both is likely to be blocked for bad behavior, and all of Wikipedia loses, because we lose the opportunity to enact the correct result because the person who supported it chose to be a dick about it. No one wants that, so lets get it right by doing what I just told you to do. Now, the ball is in your court. Either do the right thing and get this fixed, or keep personally attacking each other, and get blocked. It makes no difference to me which you do, but only one choice makes Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron for handling this. I agree with you. I knew this wasn't the forum to solve this matter, that is why I mentioned WP:FORUMSHOPPING when I first commented here. I had opened up a section at the talk page awhile ago, and I suggested several times already that LouisAragon comment there, instead of policy forums and users' talk pages. I'm always open for discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution in edit comment of origin of translated articles[edit]

Articles translated from other wikipedias should have an edit comment indicating this. I have seen a number of articles that simply have tags later put on the talk page to say that they are translations from another wikipedia version. The problem with this is that attribution is connected to one or several specific revisions of an article, not to the article subject. A later rewrite (which is really a completely new article on the subject) may no longer be a translation and shouldn't have a talk page tag saying so (as that would be a misattribution), but that leaves the previous revisions without the clear attribution they should have and would have had if the translator had bothered to use an edit comment.

I'm inclined to think that articles lacking an edit comment clearly attributing a translation to its original should be summarily deleted. The translator can always repost the article with proper attribution. --Hegvald (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct attribution can be made using the appropriate parameters of {{Translated page}}. --Boson (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The best way to supply missing copyright attribution is through a dummy edit. Coupling this with a talk page template is good, but the edit summary is much more direct attribution than the template, in compliance with our copyright licenses. I added model edit summaries at WP:TRANSLATE and at WP:COPYWITHIN earlier this year, and mentioned the dummy edit fix at the latter in WP:PATT, but it may be there should be a dedicated section, such as "Fixing missing attribution". While violations of copywithin technically fall under CSD G12, we do not in practice "summarily deleted" these types of copyvios. Supplying a missing edit summary through a dummy, especially when coupled with a talk page template (but I agree with you, not the other way around) is a suitable fix; it is "appropriate credit"; a "reasonable manner" of "providing ... credit" required by compatible CC By-SA licenses. Hegvald, if you want to see some fixes in application: 1, 2 and 3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandatory citation for every sentence in an article[edit]

Snow close. Unanimous OPPOSE with multiple calls for snow. Per perennial proposals:
WP:PERENNIAL#Prohibit anonymous users from editing:

  • Reasons for previous rejection: A large portion of our good edits come from IP addresses;[1] positive experiences with initial IP edits lead users to create accounts who otherwise would not do so; software features disabling IPs from creating new articles or editing semiprotected ones are sufficient. According to Jimbo Wales, "what is commonly called 'anonymous' editing is not particularly anonymous ... and there are good reasons to want vandals on IP numbers instead of accounts". While about 97% of vandalism comes from anonymous users, about 76% or 82% of anonymous edits are intended to improve the encyclopedia. (Prohibiting IP edits would not eliminate 97% of all vandalism, because those inclined to vandalism could easily take the 10 seconds to register.) The ability of anyone to edit articles without registering is a Foundation issue.

WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything

  • Reasons for previous rejection: The policy is that material must be verifiable, that is, that it must be possible for someone to name a reliable source that supports it. Sourcing policies require inline citations only for four types of material, and there is no deadline for supplying these citations. Inline citations are not required for material everyone agrees is obvious. The editing policy requires editors to preserve appropriate, encyclopedic information, which often means adding citations to reliable sources for editors who did not name sources at the time the material was added. Increasing the requirements discourages new editors. Increasing the requirements mindlessly would destroy most of Wikipedia's content.

Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical): clpo13(talk) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The <ref> tag should be required to wrap a <ref> sentence </ref> and require that every sentence in an article is cited. If not automatically flag as uncited. Also require every user to create an account for edit. There, vandalism problem solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll make no comment on whether these would be appropriate changes, but I will note that they are both on the list of perennial proposals: Require inline citations for everything and Prohibit anonymous users from editing. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a bloody stupid idea. Eric Corbett 18:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Cite every word! 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Better yet, cite every letter, symbol and pixel. In serious terms, while I have no love for unsourced content we do typically leave lead sections unsourced, and we'd need a way to handle already existing unsourced content and very obvious claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As much of a stickler as I am for having citations, even I think this sounds unwarranted. Given the proposer's limited contribution history, I'm now trying to resist the urge to question their motives as well. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
[ Citation Needed ] <-- Note: you might wish to click on the three links in the previous "Citation Needed" instead of assuming that you know where the phrase links to... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Yo momma was salamander living on the sun.[2] Tell me again, how adding a <ref> tag to everything "solves" vandalism? Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - English, accessed April 2, 2008; Who Writes Wikipedia?. Aaron Swartz's Raw Thought; accessed July 13, 2010.
  2. ^ Yo daddy. The journal of Poop. v. 69, p. 666
Oppose per those who have already commented. Add to those the fact that it would cause proliferation of identical refs. Many (most) articles will have a paragraph with the reference at the end. This suggestion would require that ref to be applied to every sentence in the paragraph which would be a waste of both time and space. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, as Dragons Flight has aptly demonstrated, there is nothing magical about using ref tags that inherently makes the corresponding content more legitimate (only truthier). I think it's part of the typical confusion between "verifiable" (which is what our policy requires) and "verified" (which it does not), and the presence of a ref is meant to help a reader verify on their own when they review the source. Many articles would do just fine with cites at the end of paragraphs or even for entire sections. Honestly the manic way citations are handled in many articles (multiple footnotes glued on to individual words midsentence, or to every entry in a list all cited to the same source) is headache inducing and more about CYA in editwars than helping a reader or maintaining academic standards. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
"CYA"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
See CYA (that's what I had to do). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:SNOW, but we need clearer instructions about how to deal with challenged and likely-to-be-challenged content. I find "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" (WP:PROVEIT) quite vague when it does not discuss how "the material and the overall state of the article" figure in this and how much time we need to give. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 04:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as non-starter. Not biting the newbie, but they might wait another several years and several thousand edits before their next ambitious proposal. I would have done the SNOW close, but there are some unresolved tangential comments from others. ―Mandruss  07:10, 27 October 2016 (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.