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  
Shortcuts:
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, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.


Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus[edit]

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talkedits) 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talkedits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was Snow closed as rejected. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Threshold for Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Title shortened from "Reduce the threshold to qualify for Autopatrolled rights to 25 articles created" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After a discussion at WT:Autopatrolled I propose that the requirement for gaining Autopatrolled rights following requests at WP:PERM be lowered from 50 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created to 25 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created (or, at the least, somewhere in the range of 20–30 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created). The revised text at WP:Autopatrolled would thus read:

A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages [at the discretion of the granting administrator]†.

† Note: The bracketed text in italics is a suggested addition of mine, but can be considered separate from the proposal of lowering the article creation threshold for Autopatrolled rights.

The purpose of this proposal is two-fold:

  1. To help reduce the workload on our WP:NPP and our WP:Page Curation crews, who shouldn't be wasting time on having to "review" new articles created by experienced (and presumably "trusted") mid-level editors.
  2. To allow our experienced mid-level editors the opportunity to be granted Autopatrolled user rights, rights which should not be reserved for our "super content creators" (i.e. who have created 50+ articles – a difficult number for most volunteer editors, even mid-level ones, to achieve).

Background[edit]

Currently, there are three ways editors obtain Autopatrolled user rights (and I'm essentially requoting Admin WereSpielChequers below, from this discussion):

  1. Some admins, probably at New pages patrol will come across newish editors who have clearly grasped notability and referencing and just appoint them as Autopatrolled.
  2. Some editors get nominated or are nominated for this user right (at WP:PERM/A).
  3. Editors request Autopatrolled rights themselves at WP:PERM/A.

Originally, the required threshold for route #3 was 75 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created(!), a seemingly high threshold, indeed.

In early 2011, a discussion was launched here – Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles – to lower the original 75 article created threshold. While there was no firm consensus at that time what the article creation threshold level should be reduced to, there appears to have been no opposition to lowering the article creation threshold level at that time, and a figure 20–25 articles created was often mentioned as a desirable level. With no firm consensus for an exact number of articles created for the threshold, WhatamIdoing reduced the level to 50 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created in the text at WP:Autopatrolled as a reasonable compromise.

Based on more recent discussions – at WT:Autopatrolled (with a somewhat related discussion, here) – I am again proposing a reduction in the threshold to be granted Autopatrolled rights, this time making the threshold 25 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created (or, somewhere in the 20–30 article creation range).

I have collected some data ahead of this proposal, mostly from the Top 5,000 article creators as listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count (other data is hard to come by, as a result of the halting of data collection (e.g. this) by Bots over time...), focusing on the article counts in the 'Non-redirects' column, and found at total of 218 editors in that list that have created 20–49 (non-redirect) articles – of that total, approximately 12% already have Autopatrolled user rights(!). (More details on this data I collected can be found here, and can be pasted over to this topic, upon request...).

Bottom line: I am seeing no major problems with lowering the article creation threshold at WP:Autopatrolled to 25 articles (and, indeed, a significant percentage of these editors already have Autopatrolled rights), and the editors who have already weighed in on this proposal have been supportive.

Please indicate your support, opposition, or other thoughts on this proposal, below. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Support - I've thought, ever since I became familiar with what the autopatrolled user right grants, that 50 was a bit high. I think 25-30 valid articles would suffice. The proposed number is enough for a good intentioned editor to learn what is and is not appropriate. Those with bad intentions or the want to sneak an article with an inappropriate topic or content into the encyclopedia are not likely to take the time to create 25-ish valid articles and request the permission, this would take a tremendous amount of effort. We have other means in place (e.g. copyright bots, users glancing at pages that have already been patrolled on the list, reaching it through a tag applied through another method, or just a user stumbling across it, etc.) to prevent "bad" articles/content from existing for very long. The only thing this user right really does is very slightly lighten the load at New-page patrolling; I don't think inappropriate content is likely to last that much longer even if the user creating it has the right.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reducing to 25 new articles. By the time an editor has created around 25 new articles, I feel that they would be experienced enough to have their articles autopatrolled. Admins can always remove the user right if necessary. Nakon 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree 25 new articles instead of 50 is reasonable. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I was unaware of this requirement. 50 is very high if we are to set a one-size-fits-all threshold. That means a user who has created 5 FAs and 44 GAs does not qualify. I also think the language should be changed significantly. 50 "valid" articles? What is a "valid" article? I would say without any guidance that a "valid" article implies little more than one that either was looked at and not marked for deletion under any process, or would not have reasonably qualified for deletion if it had been looked at. In other words, the "valid" standard means to me that a user who created [whatever X number we set] poor and even problematic articles, but on notable topics – that require for example, refimprove tags or similar – would qualify for the autopatroller flag. I propose instead:
  • "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 25 valid articles (not including redirects or disambiguation pages), with at least the 10 most recently created not reasonably needing maintenance tags or other new pages patroller attention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think having "none of the 10 most recently created articles having 'maintenance tags' (e.g. {{Refimprove}})" may be too high a standard. As I said recently in a discussion at WT:RfA (I think), I will sometime "self-tag" articles with {{Refimprove}} or {{Primary source}} because it's not always easy finding sources for every article topic (e.g. train station articles is one example that I can think of where sourcing is often hard to come by), and I'm not sure an editor should not be granted Autopatrolled status just for that kind of thing... I think I'd be more comfortable with wording that doesn't mention a "specific number of articles" without "tags".
    However, it's for this kind of thing as to why I suggested adding the "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" wording, as it would give Admins the discretion to not grant Autopatrolled even to editors with 25 "valid" articles if the granting Admin was worried about an editor "gaming the system" or creating a series of "sloppy" (but perhaps still technically "valid") articles just to "hat collect" for Autopatrolled rights. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: You're addressing an extreme rarity and one that would not even be within the spirit of the language. The point is that if a person who seeks the autopatroller flag has been creating articles that need patrolling (by third-parties), why should we give them a right that allows them to bypass that very patrolling? It's almost a syllogism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with "none of the 10 most recently created articles having maintenance tags" is that we have some aggressive new-page patrollers who believe that it's their duty to make sure that every single article begins its life with their special way of "encouraging" the editor to improve the article. This is particularly true if you start a page and save it before you're finished creating a perfect article. Did you save the page for the sole purpose of looking up the category that you wanted to place it in? Boom: you win a maintenance tag. Did you "only" add one stellar source in the first version of the article? I'm sure someone will be along any second now to add {{one source}}. Are you writing about a technical or mathematical subject? You can expect a maintenance tag to complain about that. The bottom line is that "getting a maintenance tag" and "needing patrolling" are unrelated. "Needing patrolling" means "needed a CSD tag", not "'needed' a tag telling you to do what you were about to do anyway". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support since it doesn't take 50 articles to demonstrate decent writing skills and a grasp of the policies. That said, perhaps the number should be left at 50 for self-nomination. This would give administrators a clear green light for adding the user-right to those who demonstrate competence in this area, while ensuring that those who want it for purposes other than reducing the "new page patrol" workload will have to work for it a bit longer. If someone else doesn't notice good quality work by the time the count gets that high, maybe there is a reason. Etamni | ✉   04:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal as written is to drop the level to 25 valid articles for "self-nominators" specifically. Those otherwise nominated for (or granted) Autopatrolled rights are already effectively held to a standard lower than 50 valid articles. Leaving it at 50 for self-nominators defeats the purpose of this proposal and guts it. The fact is, 25 created articles is enough evidence for Admins to quickly look through them and determine if self-nominators have demonstrated the skill necessary to be granted Autoreviewer rights or not. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion was intended to mean that we could also consider amending the written guideline to formally allow admins to grant the right at 25 new articles, but still leave the self-nomination criteria at 50. The reason for this is that some new users might expect to be approved as soon as they have written 25 articles and self-nominate, but some of their early work might not have been up to the standards that are expected. This could leave the reviewing admin with an insufficient number of examples to review, and lead to hurt feelings when the admin refuses the request. If the self-nomination requires 50 new articles, there would likely be enough good work for the admin to review, even if the earliest examples were sub-par. In fact, admins aren't likely to look at the earliest examples if the editor's later work show that the editor now understands and applies the applicable guidelines. By requiring 50 new articles for self-nomination, the chance of driving away editors who apply too soon is reduced. Regardless of whether this version is considered or not, my vote was still a support vote for this proposal. Etamni | ✉   10:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the support. But I just want to reiterate that what you are suggesting would defeat the entire purpose of the proposal – the current "50 new (valid) article" requirement is specifically for those who self-nominate at WP:PERM. But to your concerns, I would encourage you to look through the data analysis I posted up at WereSpielChequers' Talk page – the gist was that the vast majority of editors I looked at with 20 or more created articles were long-time trusted editors, at least half of whom already had other user rights such as Reviewer and Rollback, and who IMO should not be forced to create 50 articles (which is a seriously high hurdle for most volunteer editors to clear) to ask for Autopatrolled rights. I think one way to satisfy your concerns would be to add the "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" part to the sentence above... But I think the type of concern you are worried about would be a very, very small percentage of PERM requests, and I think the Admins there could quickly catch on to anyone trying to "game the system". Thus, I'm not totally sure "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" language is even necessary (i.e. adding might be redundant)... But further refinements to the exact wording above can certainly be considered, if not here then at WT:Autopatrolled. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In reality, we "formally allow" admins to "grant this right at their discretion to trusted users who regularly create articles and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". That's the actual rule; the "50 valid articles" is merely a suggestion. (The "at the discretion of the granting administrator" language is unnecessary, because it's already present in the actual rule, which is the sentence immediately before the optional suggestion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, you're right – I noticed that when I made the change to "25" valid articles. Face-wink.svg --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: It'll be coming up on one month since I originally suggested this change at WT:Autopatrolled next week. In that time, there has so far been no objections to this proposal. Thus, it is very likely I am going to take the initiative and change the number from 50 to 25 valid articles at WP:Autopatrolled, probably late next week. Nonetheless, any other comments here (or at WT:Autopatrolled) are welcome in the meantime. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This shaves a good portion of the load on new page patrollers while only introducing slight risk. I would support bring the bar even lower, maybe to 15 articles, although hat collecting may be a bigger problem at that point. This also prevents obviously trusted users' articles from being immediately tagged for speedy deletion by trigger-happy patrollers. Esquivalience t 03:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Speaking from experience, I've been a member of the site for just over seven months, and in that time I've created 15 articles. 3 of which (hopefully soon to be 4) I have single-handedly got up to FL, 1 of which (hopefully soon to be 2) I have single-handedly got up to GA, and only 1 article I've made has been deleted, for reasons I now clearly understand. Yet, despite all stated above, I have to create 35 more articles to even apply for autopatrolled rights to take some of the load of the new page patrollers. I more than agree with you, and the above user, that the bar should be lowered, perhaps to 20-25 or even less articles. Azealia911 talk 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's unlikely that an editor who has created 25 valid (i.e., undeleted/unlikely to be deleted) articles is going to start creating CSD-able material. The main (some would say "sole") purpose of patrolling is to find pages that require speedy deletion. We have had very little trouble with autopatrolled editors. This is a low risk and a potentially significant benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Implemented With no opposition to this proposal either here, or at WT:Autopatrolled, in over a month, I have gone ahead and changed the suggested standard for Autopatrolled to "...the prior creation of 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages." I have made no other changes, except to the number of articles itself, as any further changes would likely require more discussion. Thanks again to all who participated in this discussion! --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?[edit]

Title shortened from "How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Brought back original section title, for precision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't shorten section titles in talk pages by just chopping off some words. Undesirable refactoring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Shortened again, as breaking TOC & overloading edit summaries Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that is a circumstantial approach: the treatment of the topic warrants it being defined properly in the section title. Find consensus on a short version of the section title before implementing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion continued at WT:VPP#Bad heading --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There's been a very very slow edit war issue at Revenge of the Nerds (a movie produced in 1984), involving a scene where a male character tricks a female character into having sex with him by disguising himself as her current boyfriend, and she doesn't learn this until after that fact. Now, in today's society, where we place strong emphasis on consent and woman's rights, this clearly would be considered sexual assault or similar, but at the time this film was produced - in a period where the idea of "free love" was still popular - no one would have batted an eye, and laughed at the comedy. In the article, the issue has been whether to treat the scene within the plot summary in modern terms, calling it as sexual assault or similar, or to handle the situation as at the time the work was produced and simply say that she was tricked.

I can see this being an issue on other topic areas as moral and ethics of the mainstream culture change, so the broader question is that when writing on a topic that is "historical" (done and completed in the past), do we apply modern moral and ethics aspects in describing acts and attitudes that would be taken negatively today, or stay to the morals/ethics that were in place at that time? My gut says the latter , based on our handling of censorship, in that we don't ignore or attempt to wave away how society worked at earlier times if those attitudes are very contrary to society's attitudes today. However, this seems like a point for more discussion that can affect WP at large. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In the specific case of this film, I think it clear that when describing the plot we should relate "just the facts" without shoehorning the words "sexually assaults her by tricking..." into the synopsis. If RS have commented on that part of the storyline, discussing it as a rape scene, that can go in the article but in the Reception section. Is that the general consensus at that article?
With regard to the more general question, is this not the approach we already take? Consider the article on pederasty: in many cases this would count as paedophilia in modern mores. However the article describes it factually. Though it should not condone, there is no need to condemn. BethNaught (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes on the first point: I was about to add that my question in no way precludes adding more recent sources that describe the scene as assault in the article's section on the film's reception; just whether that should be carried into the plain plot description or not. Past discussions on the article agree to avoid shoehorning in the sexual assault aspect but we keep getting random IP and editors that put it back in, and I'm wondering if in the broader scope can codify something like this to establish why we keep it that way. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask whether our article needs to mention that particular scene in the first place. It's a fairly minor plot element that could easily be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Just reflect the sources. It isn't usually that difficult and I do not understand why this is a potential policy issue. If it was once described as A but is now described as B, and assuming both sources are otherwise reliable, then show both and perhaps include an explicit date attribution rather than just relying on the citation. It is not our role to pick/choose between them - some things, such as value judgements, have to be left to the reader. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that as with most films that aren't thought provoking, they don't get a detailed plot summary in any reliable source, but this scene stands out today and has been commented in secondary sources published in recent years that calls the scene out as a sexual assault. So we have no sources (beyond the primary work itself) against the weight of the secondary sources that are more recent. And it seems wrong to give these sources that weight when it wasn't an issue before. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Don't those modern secondaries even, say, (paraphrase) "this was used to be considered A but now is B"? If not, then they may not even be reliable because they're not approaching the subject "in the round". Tbh, and with no knowledge of the subject, this looks like a possible candidate for the US-centric feminist studies agenda and that is often dodgy territory, filled more with op-eds and confirmation bias than true academia. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You can see some of the sources that have been used to try to justify this addition from this diff [1]. I have yet had a chance to look at the ones available to see if they comment on what the situation was at the time of the film, but I would certainly agree that if they do say "Then it was X, now it is Y", that's more justification for keeping the plot summary as "then", and making sure to address the "now" as post-release reception/analysis within the article. It is not a point to ignore if RSes today are calling it something far more extreme than it was originally, but we should be placing that in a proper perspective within the article. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It was removed for a more general statement at one point [2], but it was added back in to shoehorn the assault angle [3]. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very happy at the way the original question is worded ("...in today's society, where we place strong emphasis on consent and woman's rights, this clearly would be considered sexual assault or similar ...). I'm pretty sure that in real life this would have been considered rape (by that or another name), then as now. I see the difference more in attitudes to fictional representations of such actions, just as extreme violence, homicide, illegal acts by law enforcers, etc. are regularly portrayed in a positive light, where such actions would not be tolerated in real life. I agree, though, that it is not generally Wikipedia's job to make moral or legal classifications of such fictional acts (as opposed to reporting on critics' judgements). We don't, and shouldn't make such classifications in the synopsis of The Miller's Tale, either. I think this distinction is also relevant to the more general question. --Boson (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not meant to phrase it to sound that way, and you're right in that assessment. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
How about a "Controversies" section?
For a well-known extreme example of this issue, compare with how changing mores are handled in Lewis Carroll. His hobbies included photographing nude prepubescent girls (normally posed outside, with parental permission and often presence). Today he and the parents would be locked up and the girls would be seized by child-protective services. Back then, it was considered entirely normal by everybody involved. Choor monster (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(tangent) We need fewer "controversies" sections, not more. A controversy is an "action of disputing or contending one with another" (per OED) or an "argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something" (per Merriam-Webster). Far too many "blog X or commentator Y said this about Z" are classified as controversies on Wikipedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And this really isn't a "controversy" in that there's an active thing going on, just that it is a point of contention that is used to show how that film and others like it from that period had several issues (as judged by today's standards). Definitely a paragraph for an existing "reception" section but no need for a controversy section. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a controversy when individuals still believe today that the phrase, "tricked into having sex", wouldn't be considered rape in 1984. And that part of the movie was cringe-worthy to audiences at the time. But most important here is the fact that when one googles "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Rape" there are multiple hits about the topic. Not including it within the Wikipedia article just makes Wikipedia appear dated and behind on the issue.MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Google hit #1's site terms start out with "Birth.Movies.Death. makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the Content."[4] That's not what we call a "reliable source". It only gets worse from there with the "sources" that make a fuss about this "technically" being a rape in 2015, when it was merely a plot device in a 1984 comedy. This is simply ridiculous. Doc talk 08:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Rape was used as a plot point. This is a huge problem that John Hughes choice to do over and over and over again in teen movies no less. You may consider rape ridiculous, but I guarantee it isn't. Rape is a pervasive problem in the world and should not be ignored as you seem so intent on doing. Movies with rape scenes like these have only caused more individuals getting raped. This laissez–faire attitude needs to go and the least Wikipedia can do is acknowledge these facts. See add'l Google search: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is questioning that since that film (and others like it), the behavior they demonstrate does not resonate well with modern moral standards and the new seriousness to which we take issues like rape; this should be discussed in the reception of the film in the article. But in terms of describing the word, in no way are the attitudes of the characters on screen react as if this is a serious crime, but instead as a prank and a plot point. (To that end, that's why the issue now is highlighted). In this case, recognizing that the film did not make a major issue on this being a crime is a remnant of very loose sexual attitudes at the time. As such, to avoid POV-ness, we should not be trying to push the point that what happened was was a crime in the plot summary of the film when the film did not treat it as such, those easily should be discussing that in the reception. (Consider, for example, in many many many action films that the hero kills henchmen left and right - what would be real life murder and manslaughter changes - but ignored for the fiction of the work) --MASEM (t) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
1984 was not a time of "very loose sexual attitudes." This was a time when everyone was becoming very aware of HIV/AIDS. The fact is that plot point in "Revenge of the Nerds" is rape. This "prank" involves the raping of a woman. What happened here is a crime. The bigger crime would be to not acknowledge that it was rape. Is Wikipedia now promoting rape culture by misleading our readers about the truth. I'll even go one further, if internet blogs were around in 1984, this plot point would have been a much bigger known issue at the time of the release of this movie. FYI - I would also have no problem calling the hero a murderer because that's exactly what it is. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is a work of fiction, so the "truth" is only what is on the big screen, which is why it is important to frame it as it is presented and taking into account the lack of opinions on this at the time of the film's release. Applying moral judgement to a work when that moral judgement is not present in the work is a violation of NPOV. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For me the question is not what the attitudes were at the time of society in general, but that of Hollywood and of the target audience of the movie, and how those compare to Hollywood and of the comparable target audience of the movie today. I actually wonder whether those attitudes have changed, but that is my speculation and not suitable for a Wikipedia article unless a RS has written about it. For NPOV in specifically in the plot discussion, I would suggest not using sexual assault (violation of NPOV toward seriousness) or trick (violation of NPOV away from seriousness) but rather as stark down the middle as possible (NPOV) such as "X posed as Y to have sex with Z. Z discovered this after the sex and was angry at X." or some such without labeling what happened. Then any RS commentary belongs in a Reception section. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem of this strange plot device is compounded with the "was angry at X" part because in the film, Betty's anger at being deceived lasts only a few seconds before she "forgives" Louis... for being so good in bed. This cannot be considered a "rape", especially when viewing it in the lens of the culture of the time. Films such as Losin' It, Porky's, Fraternity Vacation, e.g. ad nauseum, attest to the decidedly different attitudes towards sex in the early 1980's in mainstream film comedies. It was a different time, and is in the genre of a "sex comedy". It is a terrible plot device that the viewer must suspend disbelief for. It makes no sense that she wouldn't know that it wasn't Stan (a man she'd been dating for some time) until Louis pulled the mask off, only then to discover that he was actually better than Stan. It's not supposed to make sense: it's an '80's comedy. We can't rightfully call that scene a "rape" in the context in which it is presented. Doc talk 07:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to an earlier comment: One of the problems with talking about rape is that there is a distinction between rape and Legal Rape™. Some editors adhere to the plain-English definition; others are more concerned about the narrower legal definitions. "Tricked into having sex" still isn't legally rape in some places or under some circumstances. If editors want to include a reference to this, then it might make sense to link directly to Rape by impersonation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The general question[edit]

Title shortened from "The general question of historical behavior and changing standards" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific case mentioned above is quite interesting, but I would like to discuss the general question. At one time, large numbers of people had no problem with owning slaves. Today it is generally considered to be a bad thing. At one time, blasphemy was considered on of the worst behaviors possible. Now we call it "The Internet". :) I fully expect that in the future society will look upon the currently acceptable practice of commenting on someone being sent to prison with a joke about prison rape as being unacceptable behavior, just as the attitudes of society have recently changed about jokes involving rape by deception. Without getting into the specifics of the examples above, my general question is this:

How should we handle pages about behavior that happened under different societal standards than we hold today?

There will almost always be modern sources condemning practices that used to be acceptable, but sources that condemn practices that used to be acceptable while mentioning that they used to be acceptable are far rarer, and sources that specifically mention that what was once unacceptable is now acceptable are rarer still. This means that simply following the weight of the sources could give a false impression as to whether the people mentioned in articles about the past (some of whom are still alive, thus raising BLP concerns) violated societal norms at the time the behavior occurred. How should we handle this? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a more succinct way to phrase what I was getting at --MASEM (t) 02:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
From an editor's POV, I have often found that in historical articles, even BIO articles. Things like the name of Lovecraft's cat, for example, wasn't a problem. Tesla was at the very least, a "social" anti-Semite. Catholics taught Jews killed Jesus until 1962.At their respective times, those were "acceptable" things. Conversely, single mothers, children out of wedlock and homosexuality were things that were "unacceptable" and not a big a deal now. So first of all, it goes both ways.
Historical transposition (which is judging history by modern standards) is a major scholarly no-no, by the way, which is what we risk falling into by not framing these things properly. Therefore, shouldn't it be necessary from an info perspective to give the historical context? We don't seem to have a problem with that on articles that chart the development of a country, an idea, or an institution, so why should it be any different for a person? Yes, it comes across as "apologetic", but again, we see it that way because of historical transposition (which we should not be doing). MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan: Can you provide any published guidelines (from academic sources) on the best practices for addressing "historical transposition"? It seems to me we could build on these to create a WP Guideline for dealing with this issue here. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Or, I could just see what's out there myself. :-P ... Find sources: "historical transposition" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
WOOF! there are a lot of uses for that term that do not help here. It is going to take quite a bit of research to find appropriate best practices on this topic. If someone else starts the essay I will help where I can but I am in over my head on the initial research. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Koala Tea Of Mercy: I see that search term's a mess (maybe it is indeed specialized?), so I went backwards from a definition and found we have an article on this! See Presentism (literary and historical analysis). It's also related to Historian's fallacy. I'll try those as search bases. I also think we need a subsection for this, or a sandbox - this is going to be a sub-sub-thread otherwise, and a pain to navigate. MSJapan (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the situation that my above example is around. I agree we should figure out how to draft something like this into a guideline (not sure if we need policy necessarily). It does sound like there is the general agreement that we avoid presentism/historical transposition in presenting the "primary" aspect of the topic, but certainly not to avoid that in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.) --MASEM (t) 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan - re: historical transposition. Spot on. This is way below degree level stuff in UK schools and I am astonished that it is a theoretical issue here. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Having given this further thought, this really should be a component of NPOV, because doing this is exactly contrary to neutral presentation. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

re. "this really should be a component of NPOV": Added a section to WP:NPOV to that effect --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that solved that! It looks good, although the opening sentence is perhaps a bit passive. Now, does it need a policy shortcut, and if so, what should it be and how is that done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etamni (talkcontribs) 11:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to sign that. Thanks Sinebot! Etamni | ✉   11:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Created WP:PRESENTISM shortcut (with DAB hatnotes for WP:RECENTISM, a concept with a longer tradition in Wikipedia guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Which page?[edit]

And just like that, it was moved to another location by another editor. Etamni | ✉   12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI I've moved it to one of the sub-pages regarding it. The main page explains the high-level concepts, while the others go into specifics such as this case. Stickee (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Options
  1. At WP:NPOV policy
  2. At NPOV/FAQ page
  3. Other? (e.g. WP:NPOV tutorial?)
  • Prefer option #1: adding a question to make it fit the format of the FAQ page seems artificial; Also, policy should be clear about it (and it can't be really "derived" from guidance already present in the policy). The new section is short, not really questioned for its applicability, and explains the concept sufficiently to make it work. I don't oppose additional explanations (e.g. at the tutorial page), but think it belongs in the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • #3. I would say the preferred option is to spin it off into it's own essay page, similar to these ones. Stickee (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Following on from what Masem said ("should be treated descriptively not prescriptively") I've created a spinoff article (Wikipedia:Presentism) regarding it and placed the content there which can provide guidance and advice to editors. This is similar to many of the other NPOV-related articles, including WP:COATRACK and WP:CRIT. Stickee (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, this first assumes the text in its current form is acceptable at all, which hasn't been answered. Stickee (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the addition acceptable in the first place?[edit]

The text, as proposed by Francis Schonken, is as follows:

Presentism, judging historical events by current standards, should be avoided. Instead, explain –without undue weight– what reliable sources have said regarding changed standards with respect to the topic. Example: don't hush up the fact that Dvořák's 12th String Quartet was once nicknamed Negro, because of its perceived political incorrectness by today's standards, but find sources that explain when and why the former nickname was abandoned

Thoughts relating to it?

  • I'm not too happy with it. Doesn't explain how to talk about it if the sources don't say anything regard "changing standards". Also, as Masem said, we should "certainly not avoid [presentism] in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.)". Stickee (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "Doesn't explain how to talk about it if the sources don't say anything regard "changing standards"." – then talk about it according to WP:IMPARTIAL (i.e. don't mention changing standards if sources don't). That part was already covered by policy, didn't need a repeat in the new section
    • Re. "we should "certainly not avoid [presentism] in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.)"" – that is of course addressed by the new proposed text "... explain ... what reliable sources have said regarding changed standards with respect to the topic." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Sometimes the sources don't talk about the changing standards with specific aspect to the work in question, though we as editors can clearly see that a more recent viewpoint has been taken because of standards that have changed. (eg I don't believe any of the sources in question on Revenge of the Nerds above necessarily talk about how the 1980s were a different time from today) I think we need some editorial allowance that rests on obvious perceptions of changed standards. Obviously when sourced it is much better for us per NOR, but this is not always possible and I can see some editors going "you can't show sources there were changed standards so we must obviously go with these sources" in the face of the obviousness of the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • That's however not for policy level: policy should create awareness of the presentism issue, and cannot allow to add personal thoughts for which there is no WP:V, and/or draw in sources that are not directly related to the subject of the article (the WP:NOR aspect). The proposed "change" in the policy is that it allows greater weight for sources that say something about it, while in general such sources are rare, as explained above; and adding an encouragement to go look for such sources even if they're hard to find. For me a tutorial is the right place to give more guidance on how to tackle such issues in various practical settings, but introducing the topic at policy level, without contradicting other core content policy, is imho a first important step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • FYI this 2009 source gives some background on changing perceptions regarding Revenge of the Nerds and similar films. Yes, I think "I don't believe any of the sources ... on Revenge of the Nerds ... talk about how the 1980s were a different time from today" is too easy: when it's a notable shift in perception/standards/... (in a way that Wikipedia should talk about it) then there's usually a source to be found. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)My concern is based on extrapolation to an extreme that I believe can happen with an entrenched viewpoint. Taking Revenge of the Nerds again, if in the hypothetical case, the only way that the scene is question is discussed is from recent sources presented it in the light of modern morals without any comment on that the 1980s were a different time: I can see entrenched editors going "Look, this is the only way that scene is described in sources, we must present as such", while common sense of just being aware of the film's presentation and general understanding of views at that time are counter that, but not documented. (For Revenge, however, there are sources that place the time period in context, which you pointed out while I was writing this reply; I'm just giving the hypothetical extreme). I think this current text captures most of the issues, and as policy and/or guideline it should be treated descriptively not prescriptively, but I can still see the potential edit war come from this, and just wonder can try to make sure the extreme case ID'd above is not evoked by the language. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I stand by "create awareness" at policy level, & elaborate practical issues in tutorials, essays, guidelines, etc. I don't really work with hypothetical examples when proposing policy text (either there is an issue that can be demonstrated, or we should not elaborate on it in policy), but I can see your point: however for that point no policy addition is necessary. If old sources say a film is good and new sources say a film is bad (without any source noticing the difference in appreciation can be linked to a change in moral standards), then say "source X from 19xx says the firm is good, source Y from 20xx says the film is bad" (and let the reader connect the dots per WP:NPOV). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also a NOR issue here. We can't say that societal views have changed without sources that note the fact. There could well be disagreement between editors as to whether standards have changed over time. As an example... I don't think people back in the 80s viewed what was depicted in the scene in RotN any differently than people do today. Our views on the scene haven't changed, what has changed is the amount of advocacy from the womens rights movement about scenes like that... I am reminded of an quip I read in the early 80s, about the rise of gay advocacy... it went something along the lines of "the love that once dared not speak its name - now won't shut up!" This quip tells us nothing about societal changes in attitude (whether gays were more or less accepted in the 80s compared to an earlier time) ... what it does tell us is that there was a shift in the amount of advocacy. While once gays hid away in the closet, they were now (in the 80s) coming out and taking pride... and advocating about gay issues. I think a similar rise in advocacy has occurred on many social issues. I don't think societies views on things have changed all that much since the 80s... it's more that we are more outspoken about those things today than we were back then.
Now, others may disagree with my take on all that... which is fine... I only raise it to make a broader point. I don't have a source to support anything I just said. I think my view is correct, but I have no support for my view. so... I could not add any of what I just said to an article... doing so would be an NOR violation. the same applies to contrary opinions that are not supported by sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't find this to be a very helpful concept. While we shouldn't judge historical events by current standards, we also shouldn't judge current events by current standards, or historical events by historical standards. We shouldn't judge at all. I think it's easier and more effective to simply view the examples that have been raised through the broader lens of WP:NPOV. If we are writing in a neutrally descriptive manner, the issue of whether cultural norms have changed is not relevant, because our writing shouldn't rely on implicit cultural norms.--Trystan (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this proposal is unhelpful. Ultimately we follow the sources. If the reliable sources judge the events by today's standards then the article will have to reflect that. The proposal also refers to "political incorrectness", a vague and contested concept. Neljack (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Presentism essay[edit]

Just expanded WP:Presentism, with "step1/2/3" sections. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Question: add either the {{essay}} or the {{proposed}} template to the WP:Presentism page? I'd be inclined to choose the second. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The murderer Gesualdo[edit]

Currently the first paragraph of the lede of the article on Carlo Gesualdo reads:

Carlo Gesualdo (Venosa, 30 March 1566 – Gesualdo, 8 September 1613), also known as Gesualdo da Venosa (Gesualdo from Venosa), Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian nobleman, lutenist, murderer and composer of the late Renaissance era.

I'd like to review that in the context of the presentism topic, specifically the third of the four wikilinked qualifiers ("... murderer ...") which imho seems too much of a presentist slant. Ideas?

Note that the topic had been treated at Talk:Carlo Gesualdo#Hmm, but the current version of the article (no longer?) follows the apparent outcome of that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As a general point, murder has always been seen as a violation of the Ten Commandments in the Judeo-Christian world. So how is it presentist? Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, at least based on that article, at the time it was clear what happened was considered murder. There's a style issue listing "murderer" among other accomplishments but that's not a presentism issue. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, it was actually not considered murder at the time afaik (from the sources I read on it before Wikipedia existed), that's why I was so surprised by the presentist slant of the Wikipedia article. And the presentism seems to be able to convince a casual reader... Well indeed there's a problem here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
How do other sources put it? This 1926 book by Philip Heseltine is titled Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa, Musician and Murderer. Then there's "American Architect and Architecture - Volume 26 - Page 224 " In 1590 it was the scene of a tragic murder. On the 18th of May of that year, Carlo Gesualdo, the third Prince of Venosa and eighth Count of Consa, murdered hie wife in one of its rooms. The many inhabitants of the various floors were saved American Architect and Architecture - Volume 26 - Page 224 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yqUwAQAAIAAJ 1889 - In 1590 it was the scene of a tragic murder. On the 18th of May of that year, Carlo Gesualdo, the third Prince of Venosa and eighth Count of Consa, murdered hie wife in one of its rooms. The many inhabitants of the various floors were saved ... Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
In what time scale is 1889 closer to 1590 than to 2015? "Contemporary" is for instance the official report produced on 17 October 1590, the next day, which leaves no doubt the gruesome killing was done by Gesualdo. But "murderer" I don't think so (at the time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realise you meant contemporary sources. Just the one? Why would we assume that was the general opinion of murder at that time? Because that's what we should be talking about, not about what an official report says. At that time and in that area, are you saying that such a killing - by anyone- wouldn't be considered murder? Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"by anyone"? There being no separation of powers, a prince like Gesualdo had something to say about life and death of adulterers in the area where he reigned, also moral judgements about summary execution, torture and/or post mortem mutilation of criminals, personal involvement of the judge and executioner, etc. were somewhat different at the time I believe. That's at least how I heard the story "pre-Wikipedia" – seems about time to go looking for that version in reliable sources. Give me some time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is actually a fair question if what we have documented at that time period considered what happened as the crime of murder (the current article suggestions everything that points to that, but that's not necessarily evidence of that fact), or if such activity was "overlooked" in the manner given his position within the ruling class. (It would not be today, obviously). That said, this is also far enough back in time that we may not have any absolute assurance of how the events transpired to the general public, and in such cases, when we can only rely on modern sources, we might be forced to accept those. (Contrast that to the Revenge of the Nerds case as we can easily review the original work to know the intent there). --MASEM (t) 18:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reiterating from where I thought it useful to discuss this example here: is the new proposed guidance of WP:Presentism useful?

  1. Re. Doug Weller's general point ("murder has always been seen as a violation of the Ten Commandments in the Judeo-Christian world") – a no-no for WP:Presentism#Step 1 – avoid presentism from a Wikipedia editor's perspective: Ten commandments? I've never seen these mentioned in a discussion of Gesualdo's biography. Here's a Wikipedia editor deciding how the relative importance of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was appreciated in Gesualdo's time. You can discuss "Ten commandements" all you want, for Gesualdo's biography it is pure 100% loss of time: no reliable sources seem to frame it in this way, instead one gets "A Renaissance historian, though, might advise that the business of the murders has been blown out of proportion. On the moral spectrum of the time, it was nothing too extreme."[1] in a reliable source.
    So for the new essay score +1 I'd think.
  2. The "smoking gun", i.e. a reliable source that "analyses how the perception of a particular historical fact may have changed over time or may have been influenced by current moral standards" (as the newly proposed WP:Presentism#Step 3 – look for reliable sources that analyse changes in perception regarding the topic has it) I have not found (yet). Alex Ross' piece gives some onsets, like the one quoted above, "(The law could not touch him, ...",[1] and a somewhat diffuse warning against the speculation in the 1926 Gesualdo biography that had "murderer" in its title ("the book Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa, Musician and Murderer, a mixture of biography, analysis, and speculation"),[1] however the general idea remains something like "got away with murder", which for me is rather something reminiscent of O. J. Simpson than of Carlo Gesualdo. There's no coherent "analysis" of a changing perception regarding Gesualdo's acts in Ross' piece. I'll continue looking for more sources, but in the mean while there's no indication that "step 3" of the newly proposed guidance will lead to anything for Gesualdo's biographical article.
  3. WP:Presentism#Step 2 – be aware that descriptions in reliable sources may be influenced by presentism is hardly groundbreaking new guidance, it's more like "what one can do" if there's no reliable source with a separate analysis of changing perceptions regarding the topic, as contained in current guidance on the matter. By and large Gesualdo's Wikipedia biography complies: some finetunings are possible (e.g. a clearer distinction between established fact and possible speculation), so it's up to the previous point whether the new proposed guidance may make a distinctive mark in the Gesualdo example.

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think "murderer" is at all unreasonable. It was a huge and notorious scandal, known over all Europe. I see the entry on Venosa in the "Grove Dictionary of Art" says "Overlords included the celebrated composer and murderer Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa (1566–1613)....". The article certainly needs a better account and sourcing - can no one access Grove Music? I have removed some gossip and replaced the nonsense about "being a nobleman he was exempt from prosecution" - he had to make a rapid getaway to Venosa, where he was the ruler. If it had ever got to court, no doubt the issue of the crime of passion would have been relevant, but this is essentially a defence against a charge of murder, still valid in France, Texas etc, which does not stop the action being a murder. I can't see presentism is an issue here at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, a Wikipedian dispensing his own interpretation of the facts (21st century France and Texas???). Nobody seems worried whether crime passionel would have entered a defense in 16th century Naples, and I've seen no reliable source contending it would have. If you could stop making such extrapolations you'll probably see where the problem with the presentism issue lies.
    For clarity: "murderer" is the qualification used in a vast array of reliable sources, so it would be unreasonable not to use it in Wikipedia. That's not the point. The point is whether or not Wikipedia should enlighten 21st century readers about what it was about in the 16th century, and about finding reliable sources that cover that part of the story. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"En France, par exemple, il est une des formes d'homicide les moins sévèrement punis." says our French article, which is pretty poor. All this seems to be about your own OR views, and so not very interesting. Certainly the Gesualdo article should be improved, but I doubt it would change fundamentally. The works of John Webster and other English dramatists give vivid, if indirect, evidence of how such Italian behaviour was regarded. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, what does 21st century France have to do with 16th century Naples? Now I read "...the vicaria exonerated [Gesualdo] of any criminal act..."[1] (the vicaria being the council that wrote the official report the day after the killing, as mentioned above). In the 16th century: no crime, no murder, no "crime of passion" defense. Leaves to be mentioned that "he had to make a rapid getaway to Venosa" is, apparently, OR. I hope we're getting a bit closer to an appreciation of the presentism issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ William B. Ober, M.D. "Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa: Murder, Madrigals, and Masochism" in Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 7, July 1973, pp. 634–645

Republication of photos[edit]

Subject shortened from "Republication of photos published without authorization of copyright holder, i.e., fair use v. invasion of privacy issues" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Does Wiki have a policy for fair use of photos republished which were published without consent of the copyright holder? I haven't found any discussion of this on WP. There appears to be some dispute in the U.S. whether this is covered by fair use of a copyright, or whether the issue of invasion of privacy is a separate issue. For example, we might find that photos hacked from a celebrities private phone or email are news worthy, but either not a fair use for republishing, and/or an invasion of privacy. They could be separate legal issues. In any event, I submit that WP should exceed legal requirements, and not haggle about them.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The first issue of course being to what extent unauthorized publication changes the copyright holder's rights. I guess it probably does not, which would imply we should treat it as any copyrighted material. Whether the mere unauthorized publication already makes the photos sufficiently newsworthy to make fair use warranted would be tricky (and probably differs on case by case situation - e.g. a presidential candidate snorting cocaine may be different from a child actor making homework; where the news relevance of the latter is unlikely to warrant republication -- NB both fictitious cases). Since that brings up interpretation of whether it is fair use it would already make it tricky, and that does not even start talking about privacy issues. Altogether I would say that we should not touch such material, not even with a 10 foot pole. But I think this would already be covered under copyright guidelines anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Some good analysis of case law is here [10]. But that said, for WP's purpose, we have WP:NFCC#4 - material that is first published by the person that is not considered the copyright holder is not allowed on WP. As a separate point, we'd also not allow copyright images of living persons this way per WP:NFCC#1 atop that, as well as WP:BLP would come into play (photos that were clearly meant to be candid would be eliminated per this.). --MASEM (t) 19:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
One right of a copyright holder is the right of first publication. Considering that photography, writing, or music is an art form, the holder of the copyright has the right to publish, or not publish. The question then comes what happens when something is leaked and published? By republishing we could well be violating copyright. I don't see that the issue of invasion of privacy vs. fair use has been resolved in a U.S. court. It could be found that the publication is a fair use, but an invasion of privacy. Assuming that the republication could be considered a fair use, I don't see a policy on republishing photos that may be an invasion of privacy. If so, a policy may need to be created. Understand that there may be a dispute on who holds the copyright. How does one prove to hold the copyright on a selfie? The fact that there could be a legal dispute on who the actual copyright holder is should be considered. If the first publication was not by a RS, that should factor in the decision as well.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


I'd have thought that WP:BLP policy would prohibit the use of "photos hacked from a celebrities private phone or email", regardless of copyright issues. Using hacked personal images hardly seems compatible with the requirement that biographical material must take into consideration "regard for the subject's privacy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For us on WP it does - NFCC#4 requires that the publication has to be with the approval of the copyright holder. So if the only way something was published was without this approval, it is not usable on WP. This exceeds copyright law as it stands presently. And I would say BLP even supercedes that, making images that were clearly not taken in public places of living persons and first published without authorization as completely inallowable, period. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
And what if the issue of the legal copyright holder is disputed? If A gives his camera to B, and B takes a picture of A, who owns the copyright? How does A prove he/she holds the copyright to a selfie? WP can publish something that has a disputed copyright holder and wind up in court. Many editors on WP have an agenda which can cloud their judgment about such issues. I think a clearer policy is needed to avoid problems related to copyright and/or invasion of privacy. If the issue of the copyright holder is ambiguous, caution should dictate that the photo not be published on WP. That policy should be more clearly stated to avoid problems.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
B taking a picture with A's camera keeps the copyright with B. (This was determined by the case of that monkey taking a photo of themselves with a cameraman's camera, see [11]); the person doing the shot is the one that is making the artist expression copyright covers. And you'll notice WP was at the center of that one. I will agree that if there is clear dispute of copyright we should avoid it; we just had a case about a photo of the group N.W.A. that we have removed the photo given the dispute over the copyright. However, in terms of policy, its probably best to handle case by case, allowing disputes to be resolved at WP:NFCR or elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of who the legal copyright holder is goes beyond merely authorship. From the article you cited:
"However, the law in the UK is not quite as straightforward, as the author doesn’t necessarily own the copyright.
For instance, in the film industry the cameraman filming the actors on screen, despite being the “author” of the recording, does not own the copyright of the film. It comes down to who provided the creative effort or significant arrangements. In the case of movies it would be the director or the producer, although often it is ultimately the people who put the money into the project.
It is the amount of effort, arrangement or creative input that is made, which determines copyright."[12]
I believe this is the same in the U.S. Also, there are issues of works for hire or employment, where the photographer/author releases the copyright by contract. That release could also be considered a gift, like if B takes a candid/casual picture with A's camera. The point is that the issue isn't black and white. It is subject to interpretation by common law judges, and could easily lead to legal problems for WP. You are proving the point why a policy is needed to err on the side of privacy.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In the case of a commercial film, under US law, there would pretty much always be a written contract with each creative employee making the production company the owners of all copyrights involved, either on a work-made-for-hire basis or as an assignment as a condition of employment. This would mean that it would in effect be a purchase of the copyright, not a gift. If some small film had no such contracts I am not sure who would be considered the "author" for copyright purposes. I suspect that it would be considered a joint work of quite a few people, the camera operator, the director, and probably the actors, and a derivative work of the separately copyrighted script, which would belong to the script writer(s). But in practice no professional or even semi-pro film would allow this kind of tangle when a contract spelling out the copyright is easy to craft -- I even own a book giving sample contrasts for such cases for use by people who don't want to hire a lawyer. Remember that a copyright can always be transferred by written contract or deed (under US law all transfers must be written). DES (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am thinking specifically of personal photos or recordings. The work could simply be a hacked photo with the authorship or copyright disputed, or be more complicated: A buys the camera, film, and pays for development. A asks B to take a photo. After A has the film processed, A shares the photo with B but keeps the negatives. B then claims copyright, or someone acquires the photo through B claiming copyright, and publishes the photo. (In the digital age, there frequently is no longer film and negatives, but digital enhancement and editing might occur) Then there is fight over who had the copyright originally. Copyright becomes a legal conclusion, and not a fact. The problem with WP is that we have editors who will claim the disputed copyright is a "fact", and not a legal conclusion made by a court. There is a danger here. The policy should be when a work is subject to disputed claims of copyright, especially if not first published by a RS, the work should not be published or removed.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I forget where I read it, but I am pretty sure that in the case where A is actual copyright owner, B publishes and claims they are the copyright owner, and we as WP use B's work in an otherwise fair use manner without knowing about the situation with A, that we/WP are not at fault for any wrongdoing that A may have towards B, as long as once this situation is made aware to us, we take the proper steps to re-attribute to A instead of B, or anything else that may be an option. Excellent case in point that just came up: there was a photo of the group NWA we had been using that had been redistributed previously by certain agencies acting as if they had permission but for all purposes they did not as proven out in court when the photographer later sued them and won/settled (but with legally asserting he was the copyright owner). When that photographer told us on WP about this, we reviewed the situation to verify this, and then removed the photo since all claims about the bad copyright were proven out. We didn't have any legal obligation to remove under the normal fair use defense, though at the point the photographer said that was his photo that he sells, that hit NFCC#2 (respecting commercial opportunity) and we removed it because of that. This is why we do ask for as much source information as possible and presume non-free for images unless clearly proven otherwise so that we are keeping our nose clean. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, legal conclusions about copyright will change based upon slightly different facts. We might have a problem with WP editors being at fault or in collaboration with other parties looking to profit from some scandal somehow. If the issue is invasion of privacy, the damage is more than just changing the attribution of the copyright holder on the photo. (Think of the phone hacks of Jennifer Lawrence and others). Invasion of privacy is tort, which means potential legal liability in many jurisdictions and countries. Edit warring over the issue might result in repeated republications each carrying liability. The policy should be clearer. Essentially, the copyright needs to be verifiable, which is a core WP pillar.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's put one thing that is absolutely clear: if someone uploaded an image that clearly was meant as a private/candid image and there's no evidence that, for example, it may be self-uploaded image of the uploader themselves or that the uploader had any ability to take that photo, we'd deleted it straight away under BLP concerns, not copyright (even though that itself is another reason to delete). But again, we do require good-faith assumption of copyright claims and prior publication otherwise; we do find cases where there's obvious falsehoods and deal with those as necessary. This is not spelled out word for word in policy, but is captured by NFCC for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem relates back to RS. If something is first published in a non-RS, a sleazy tabloid or website, why is WP republishing at all? Why assume good-faith copyright claims to a disreputable source? WP standards need to be higher than base legal requirements to avoid errors. The policy should reflect that as well and not simply be an unwritten rule which some editors will ignore.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, granted we have nothing explicitly related to "images taken from non/weak-RS or tabloid sites", though I would say in practice we do not allow these and when they are found they are challenged and removed as appropriate. I would be open though to adding language to WP:IUP and/or WP:NFC that alludes to images taken from websites that do not have a reputation of respect for privacy or copyright should not be used on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for these. WP:IUP is a bit mushy, " A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community". What does "snached" mean? That it is acceptable to steal photos from celebrities and post them on WP? WP:NFC is clear that leaked content should not be republished on WP, but needs stronger language on the issue of disputed copyright, "In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally "leaked" and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia." This results in circular arguments about who holds the copyright, which until a court decides the issue is a legal conclusion and not a fact. This needs to be broadened to exclude content from dubious sources. If the publisher is not considered respectable, the presumption should be against republication.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, "snatched" is a slang-ish term but it doesn't mean stolen in the context, just taken without knowledge (but as the phrase notes, when you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy). I did change that to a less-slangy phrase. As for NFC, it's a case-by-case because we do have to remember that sometimes legal challenges are not always legit. If a person attempts to sue another claiming they own copyright on a work when in reality the sued person truly owns the copyright and the suer is simply bitter, and we on WP are reasonably assured that the copyright owner is not lying, then we'd unlikely remove the image just because its copyright is challenged. Remember that we can only do as good as what is readily visible to us, using tools like Google Image Search and the like to try to verify such claims. We know we likely have accepted NFC that are erronously copyrighted, but the way our processes and our disclaimers are arranged, we are is little legal trouble as long as there's a route to remove those with legit challenges. (This goes back to the NFCC#4 - we only accept material that has been previously published as this makes us one-step removed from a copyright violation if that publication was in fact illegal as long as we react appropriate once known. We don't allow NFCC of unpublished material in any way so that we do not become the copyright violators) --MASEM (t) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So if a Pulitzer prize winning journalist wrote in a peer acclaimed work that a particular photo was a private photo never intended for publication which was "borrowed" and then sold to a tabloid, WP should accept that evidence of a false claim of copyright and delete the photo? Not everyone chooses to sue over such issues, but it doesn't change who the actual copyright holder is.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the one place that while I think the idea is between-the-lines at IUP it is not spelled out: the claim of a tabloid on a copyrighted image is going to be one of huge question because tabloids are very very rarely RSes to begin with and many employ questionable practices when it comes to attribution, etc. If we can only verify that the image came from the tabloid, there must be very very strong reason to have to use that image, otherwise we'd likely delete it, with or without knowing if this was a stolen photo. On the other hand, if a respectable news source like Time or NYTimes did the same, we'd probably need to become aware of the copyright issue before we'd remove it. But there are things that we simply can't know unless we are told about it. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The case I am referring to the copyright was claimed by a tabloid, but then other possibly more respected publication REPUBLISHED the content based upon fair use, NOT based upon their claim of copyright. My direct question remains, does WP accept the reporting of a Pulitzer prize winning journalist that a tabloid first published the content without holding the copyright? Is that sufficient?Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, it is going to be case by case. Based on this [13] (in which the rightful copyright owners won a suit against a 3rd party publication that used a fair use defense to publish the photos that they got from a paparazzi), the legal case will still be evaluated as a fair use test. In the case of the publication, they failed all 4 tests of the fair use system (which the above link nicely describes). WP would never allow use of these images under the conditions that that publication got them (from a wedding that was known to be private, of identifyable people, from a questionable source, and only to show that there was a wedding, so BLP and NFCC violations all over the place). But I cannot say that if WP found itself using images that someone else illegally published before the copyright owner could that we'd automatically remove it, assuming that NFCC and BLP are met. An illegally published image may end up being the subject of commentary, and so while the original publication was wrong, it may be within NFCC to use that image here snce we can meet the tests for educational use, portion of work used (we require reduced image sizes), and impact on market ; the commercial use aspect depends on exactly the nature of the work so that will be case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So regarding this photo, copyright claimed by the National Inquirer June 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart#/media/File:Donna_Rice_and_Gary_Hart.jpg Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) Does that photo belong on WP because it is interesting to the public, or do copyright and privacy issues prevail? Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talkcontribs) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In considering the discussion here, the fact that the photo itself is critically notable (that it ended Hart's campaign), means that our use of it would likely fall under fair use (educationally talking about it ending the campaign, the commercial impact of the photo was long ago completed due to ending Hart's campaign, we aren't using the full size image), even if the photo was illegally published in the first place. That said, I do think the photo violates NFCC#8 in that while the existence of the photo is important to Hart's campaign article, it adds nothing that we can't say in text ("A photo of Hart with Rice led to the end of Hart's campaign.") But its removal would not be predicated on the copyright issue because of the fact that the photo costed a political career. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Factually, it didn't end his campaign. He was forced to suspend the campaign in May 1987 by the Washington Post. It was not because of the Donna Rice photo which was published the following month. Rather than being educational, it is more properly categorized as misinformation: it is being used on WP to promote something which is factually incorrect. Matt Bai wrote about this in his recent book, "All The Truth Is Out".Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if the story has changed about the photo, it still remains an artifact tied to the end of his campaign, so the potential for the education use remains there. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the story hasn't changed about the photo. It does represent a collective false memory encouraged by some involved in the news coverage at the time: "Years later, most Americans who lived through the scandal would recall, erroneously, that the iconic photo had ended Hart's candidacy. The truth was that it didn't appear until weeks after the fact and had nothing to do with Hart's aborted campaign" Mat Bai, "All The Truth Is Out" pg. 164. If the purpose is to educate, it might be far better for WP to report that Hart left the 1988 campaign because all of the women in his life were being harassed by media reporters, that he reportedly was followed to the house of a woman in D.C. after giving the Democratic Party's response to Ronald Reagan's weekly radio address Dec. 20, 1986 and had his picture taken there (months before he announced his second run for president), and that Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post intended to publish that story if Hart remained in the campaign. (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 473-4.) If the purpose is to educate readers, we should expect to see that on Hart's WP page. It isn't there. Nor did that photo cause Hart to cease leading Jesse Jackson in national polls 2-1 and everyone else in the field by 4-1 immediately after suspending his campaign in May 1987 (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 721), or after he returned to the race in December 1987. (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 810) The photo may be considered an artifact tied to media coverage of his campaign, but it certainly didn't end his campaign. Using the photo to promote that myth is simply disinformation or propaganda, not education.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And what of privacy and BLP?Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The BLP/privacy aspect appears moot because this looks like a photo take in a public space (a marina or dock of some type, and google searching doesn't establish where); we'd need stronger evidence this was a private location since it is out of doors. It also is the fact they are posed for picture as opposed to something candid or taken with a mega-zoom lens that also implies they knew this photo was being taken. So again, we would not immediately delete on the sole basis of violating BLP. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
BLP has a presumption in favor of privacy and avoiding prolonging victimization. Why then presume that a stolen photograph was taken in a public place? Are all docks and marinas public places? What difference does it make if the image is published as the result of a telephoto lens or a stolen photograph? How did that change Donna Rice's expectation of privacy when she spontaneously jumped in Hart's lap? Should Rice have fairly known that this photo would get stolen and her reputation tarnished as a result? A presumption of privacy and avoiding prolonging victimization should weigh heavily in the policy and its application.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If the Hart photo publication ended at the National Inquirer, even if the impact of that photo affected his presidential run, I would agree we'd use more caution because likely the photo would not be so iconic. But it was published over and over and over again in mainstream sources, and through that it entered the national view as an iconic photo, even if the photo's origins were illegal (w/ NI claiming copyright). For us, as educational work, we're looking at the photo as its value as representing that iconic status (even if in actuality it wasn't the photo that did Hart in), and put weight on using that within fair use relative to the damage that was done by the NI. (Remember, it is NI that certainly committed the certain copyright theft by claiming copyright; every other reuse is a question of whether fair use applies or not in the reuse of the photo now published).
As for privacy, we have to judge as best we can from the circumstances around this picture as outside ID'ing Hart and Rice, I can't find when this was reportedly taken and where. Most docks and wharfs are public, and the fact there's a boat in the bg of the shot doesn't suggest it is it offlimits. They are both posing as opposed to a shot taken candidly. But let's also consider that BLP is meant to be used to prevent damage by WP to living persons. At this point in time, there is no way that our republishing of the photo is going to change the damage and situation regarding Hart from about 20 years ago. If a currently running candidate had the same situation today,, where such a photo came out and with all factors being equal (apparently public space, posed shot, photo stolen, etc.) but the situation had not been fully explored by the press, we definitely would take caution on that. Here, there's no need - what's done is done. Our use of this photo is not impacting either Hart's or Rice's present privacy beyond what has already happened. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
To add one more thing, even if the photo is now known to not have ended his campaign, the fact that there was a point in time that that photo was tied to that aspect makes it a historically relevant image. Obviously, in the article on Hart's campaign (the other place where the photo is being used), it should be be documented as such.
That said, reviewing both images uses, I am nominating that for deletion under NFCC#8/NFCC#1. But I don't think we can argue at this time, so far away from the event and personal affects already done, that BLP or the like applies. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
WP privacy policy is beyond if "republishing of the photo is going to change the damage and situation". The policy is to not continue victimization. By continuing to publish a dubious photo is WP continuing victimization? Does that somehow help either Hart or Rice in their present pursuits? As regard to the photo itself, could anyone in the background have taken this photo through the pier pilings? If not, the photo should be considered private.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever damage to their reputation was done long long ago, and its still historically important that while we can remove the picture, you cannot remove the fact that this picture existed and the situation between the two existed. It has been the subject of many many many sources, and the situation has been proven out. In addition: considering that we absolutely cannot deny that Hart and Rice had been together based on how many times this has been established in sources, this photo does no further compromising beyond that: it's not a lewd shot, they are in perfectly acceptable poses, etc. The only thing that the photo had been taken for was this proved (at that time) the two were together, which later was corroborated. This is not continued victimization when it has been long documented, and its information easily found from other sites than WP. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's do two steps back. There is a single case where a stolen photo was republished many times, including in main stream news, and that photo has entered the public consciousness. This seems like a fairly extreme case. Perhaps this photo may be admissible, perhaps not under fair use criteria. But I hope everyone agrees that this case is extremely rare, if not unique
This case is unique in that allegations of CIA involvement were made and published. It is now rare (today) in that it involved old style film and negatives which proved Donna Rice's copyright claim. Modern cases will be harder to prove due to digital photography not leaving such proof.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal in the discussion was much broader; i.e. that any stolen photo even published in a single (borderline) reliable source would be admissible under fair use (put in extreme words). So it appears that we are now arguing that an extreme case that may 'just' justify fair use is an argument for a blanket guideline allowing much more dodgy cases in without further discussion. Does not sound like a food idea to me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree the broad situation is something that has to be treated case by case, and, except for considering the reliability of a source (like the National Inquirer) went evaluating questionable claims of copyright, this is all reflected in policy already with the appropriate amount of consensus-based input and IAR as needed. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is that we need better policy related to accepting photos for republication from dubious sources. The alleged copyright from the Enquirer was never disclosed when the photo was accepted. Someone appears to have just ass/u/me-d that the photo was first published in a RS. Then once it is established a photo was first published improperly then what? Does WP just follow rely on a questionable fair use defense, or does WP follow a higher standard for the encylopedia?Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have just added language to IUP in legal considerations that when dealing with sources of unreliable or dubious nature that copyright claims are not always up to snuff. But it still ends that we can't force a rule and can only deal case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. If you are not the victim, you cannot speak for her.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming a very different question on specifically BLP, and this is the wrong venue for that. But I will stress - that financial and privacy damage was well and done by the point that WP was around, much less the inclusion of that photo (uploaded in 2011). It is very very difficult to argue there's a BLP violation from that photo. I'd recommend you ask specifically on this photo at WP:BLP/N if you feel that it is a BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
From the start, I have noted that there is also a privacy issue to republishing a photo which was published without the copyright holder's consent. That privacy aspect may affect fair use, but it would also remain as an additional legal and moral issue. I have posted the issue on WP:BLP/N as advised.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Cramer does not state that Rice owns any copyright - only that she possesses negatives, and that she regretted letting her friend have the photos. Getty Images, as the stock photo agent, administers copyright, which appears to be with AP at this point, as no legal actions contesting copyright appear in sources. Thus - no legal claim of stolen copyright exists. Collect (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is Intellectual property. What Cramer wrote is clear. Cramer wrote that "picture" was Rice's property, and the "photo" had been lent to her friend. He notes that the National Inquirer had claimed copyright from the photo. We are therefore on notice of competing claims to copyright. It is possible that Rice eventually sold or assigned her interest to another party. Collect's source for his claim that the copyright is now held by the AP is the Miami Herald, which has quite a contentious history in this matter. Quite possibly the Herald is simply obfuscating its well documented role in the photo being sold to the Enquirer from contested reporting in 1987 following publication of Matt Bai's recent work on the topic. It was the Herald that refused to pay for the photo in the first place, which resulted in Rice's friend selling it to the National Enquirer. As predicted, Collect is proving my point why a policy is needed regarding private photos being sold to disreputable publications. We do have editors who, for whatever reasons, will want to make unwarranted assumptions regarding privacy and copyright to avoid addressing WP policies regarding fair use and the privacy presumption of BLP. More clarity is needed in the policy for this.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Expert-subject[edit]

I think being totally stuck unable to find sources for an article should be a valid reason to add {{Expert-subject}} to the top of that article. I think an expert in the article's subject is more likely to be able to find reliable sources for the article. That's why I added {{Expert-subject}} to Double circulatory system. It seems to be working. Dr. Nikhil P. Patil has convinced me at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Double circulatory system that maybe reliable sources can be found. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad heading[edit]

Topic not about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about the layout of this page moved to WT:VPP#Bad heading --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion continues here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Please could someone trim the very (the disruptively-) long heading, above, which is bloating both the ToC and edit summaries? My attempts to do so have been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Pigsonthewing is referring to: WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?... While that heading is long, I don't find it disruptively long. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar, see also above, short discussion directly under section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Having restored the above by revert I now restore FS's comment Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

He's now moved it to the top of this section, rendering the above nonsensical; and I have undone his hatting of my comment here (I'd told him earlier today to stop editing my comments). Now can someone fix the over-long heading above, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's annoying in the page history, less so in the TOC. Poor judgment, yes. The heading is not meant to be an opening sentence. Disruptive? I don't know, depends on your definition I suppose, but annoying and poor judgment should be enough to change a heading. Location of this thread is a separate question, but more significant misplacement of VP threads is widespread and generally ignored. ―Mandruss  19:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Then please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for change here, so in my opinion a change would be disruptive. Unless such a consensus emerges before then, we should let that thread archive and hope that this thread will have some beneficial effect on future headings. ―Mandruss  20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Images on phobia articles[edit]

Over-long title reduced from "Censorship policy and usage of phobia causing images on phobia articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion: The Wikipedia is not censored policy was never meant to cover the usage of phobia triggering images in phobia articles.

Or at least that is what i'm trying to get consensus for here. I'm starting this discussion after having to deal with a prolonged effort over the span of months (years at this point really) of certain users trying to insert an image into the trypophobia article that would trigger said phobia for any readers with it. The image is currently in the article for viewing. There was an RfC in the past in 2013 about the image, found here, but it was inconclusive. And the main argument that keeps being thrown around and used again and again in order to reinsert said image is that "Wikipedia is not censored".

I'm bringing this up as someone with trypophobia (where such images make me nauseous and I have thrown up before from them), to be blatant and open about the topic, and as someone who is aware of how image usage is done on other phobia articles in general. The article arachnophobia found an image to use that would not trigger any readers suffering from it, but is still informative and explanatory for the article subject. Similarly, we don't put any sort of flashing light image in the article on epilepsy or any similar neurological article so as not to trigger the results that a sufferer seeing such an image would cause.

So, I am trying to obtain a consensus here that the Wikipedia is not censored policy is not meant to cover images in articles that will have negative physiological effects on our readers. This issue has nothing to do with concerns of offense or moral propriety, but the actual health and safety of our readers. SilverserenC 00:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A more immediate solution: the caption in the photo that's currently there is not supported by a source, and without it the image's relevance is WP:OR.
My thoughts: WP:NOTCENSORED does cover photos that trigger phobias, but adding photos which trigger phobias in the articles about the phobias goes against WP:POINT. This is also one of those instances where WP:IAR can be applied to WP:NOTCENSORED. Phobias are not chosen beliefs (as is the case with images of Muhammad), and while we cannot reasonably accommodate all phobias or other involuntary reader handicaps, we can avoid going out of our way to make articles harder to read for them. Also, the subject is the phobia, not the trigger thereof.
Precedent: The Arachnophobia article does not contain any realistic images of spiders, but a stylized and symbolic representation of the phobia.
My suggestion: Articles on phobias do not need images which could trigger said phobias. Articles on the triggers themselves are still free to have (so cover Spiders with pictures of the lil bastards), but images in the phobia articles should represent the phobia in itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to propose a guideline or essay regarding providing least harm and least shock to readers in general. We do have WP:SHIT which is along these lines, but is limited to offensive material. That said, I am concerned some people will see this as being "over sensitive" in general. Might I suggest the focus be move away from triggers and phobias specifically and toward minimizing harm and undue shock or distress to readers? In addition to the Arachnophobia article, another example of this would be the image used in coulrophobia or, as you mentioned, avoiding flashing/strobing images. It might also be good to draft an WP:ESSAY first before jumping to guidelines, though I can see this as a piggyback off of WP:SHIT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that covers my point rather well. The article on spiders would obviously show spiders and readers would expect that. And, while there may be some expectation in readers that phobia articles would have images of the triggers, there is no need to do so, especially when the likelihood of readers of those articles being people suffering from those phobias is decently high. And said phobia articles, in any properly formatted one that there is a trigger subject article existent, would have a link to the trigger article in the first sentence or the lede. So if readers wish to see an image, they can knowingly click over to that trigger article. So, in the case of trypophobia, a link in the lede to the article on lotus seed (or Nelumbo) would be appropriate. As long as a proper reference for the info can be found, of course. SilverserenC 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I could have sworn we had a policy or guideline that was "the principle of least surprise", that at least at arrival on a page that we should not be showcasing an unexpected image near the top of the page; later in the body, once it is established what the topic is, that's different, but not as a lead or infobox image. Phobia articles would fall under this, I would agree. It's not censorship, just recognizing that showing am image of what someone might have uncontrolled fear of when they visit a page is a disservice to the reader. If they have that fear and they are reading the article in detail, the image later would be less a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the issue with the trypophobia article, for one, is that it's too short for there to be a "later in the body". So there's that to consider too. But, putting it under say a "Show" tab would work and the image in the article WAS under such a tab for some time, but then users kept removing it because apparently even a show tab is censorship. *shrugs* SilverserenC 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I would expect that the drive to include an image of, say, a spider on the arachnophobia page is to help break up walls of text when it gets long enough, so if there's a short article on a phobia (not readily exceeding one screen) there's really no need for an image and thus the situation is not there. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: are you thinking of WP:SURPRISE perhaps? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeaaah, but I think we had something in regards to images to, but it could be closely related to the !censored policy too. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: WP:LEADIMAGE has advice points #2 and #3 which is similar. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's probably where I recall it from. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"negative physiological effects" is too broad (going by talk page posts, you would think some readers have heart attacks when confronted by naked breasts or penises). Avoiding involuntary negative physiological effects on articles specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects might be acceptable. I went through List of phobias and none of the phobias that could be triggered through a computer screen (color, nudity, pornography) had pictures. --NeilN talk to me 00:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Another thought: WP:DICK probably applies to intentionally putting trigger images in the articles on phobias. Not just WP:Don't be a jerk, but WP:DICK. Putting it in there as a moment of stupidity is excusable, but it takes a rather trollish sumnabitch to say "let's put images that trigger phobias in the articles on said phobias" -- and I say this as someone who's been cracking euthanasia jokes throughout my uncle's cancer surgery. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What I would worry abut here is that barring images with a "negative physiological effect" could be exploited by some to reopen the Muhammad depictions debate. Tarc (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, like NeilN said above, it applying to "involuntary negative physiological effects on articles specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects" would avoid that. SilverserenC 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I support this with NeilN 's suggested limits. DES (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Per User:Vkil "There are plenty of images on WP that can cause physical and emotional responses, sometimes harmful ones. This is true throughout the internet. A survivor of Pol Pot's Killing Fields might suffer real harm upon seeing his photo, but we do not remove his photo to prevent this harm."
Yes there are lots of attempts to remove or hide images that someone finds disturbing. We need to be very careful about doing so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That not what I suggested. Any article containing that picture would not be specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects caused by the photo. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Next step?[edit]

There seems to be a consensus on the subject, though not one on what exactly needs to be done. What's the next step or method to making this more official? SilverserenC 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a next step but looking at that fear of holes article - I think I had greater understanding of the condition when I viewed the picture. So, perhaps collapse it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I have moved it under a Show template for now, along with a proper infobox for phobia articles. SilverserenC 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Before we start hidding classes of images we should have a RfC and get wider input. There needs to be clear consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, only you and CFCF are the only ones for inserting phobic stimuli into articles on phobias. Everyone else has is of a mind that not causing trouble for obvious target readers is not the same as censoring the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All I asked is for you to start a RfC and get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There was an RfC on the article which reached a consensus to collapse - there is nothing that prevents that consensus from being carried out for that article - The article is small and the picture is large - so collapse it, and move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not see this as much different than the situation of people being offended by seeing an image of Muhammad. User:Ian.thomson has stated that religion is a choice. Once one has developed a religion it is not something one can simply turn off. So I do not see it as that different from a phobia in that way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So, your contention is NOTCENCENSORED prevents article editors from collapsing it - they are forced to either not collapse it or remove it - they can't compromise? Your argument is much too fundamentalist - there is nothing wrong with collapsing tangential-but-maybe-helpful-information-to-some. The article is not about lotus blossoms - unlike say, an article about Muhammad is about Muhammad. Alanscottwalker (talk)
Just a layman, but I do not think "offense" is an involuntary biological reaction. --NeilN talk to me 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Taking offense is a involuntary biological reaction to a lot of stuff. A bad smell triggers offense. Disturbing images trigger offense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope you're not playing word games. A putrid smell will cause many people to gag. That's an involuntary biological reaction, there's no intellectual processing required. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The neurons in the alfactory gland process the smell molecules and transmit the signal to the brain for processing. The brain processes the signal and creates the reaction. The same process can occur with images. Per [14] "emotional pictures produced a powerful physiological reaction" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Doc James: I am religious, and have friends of a variety of religions (and lack thereof). There is a degree of choice, because if someone doesn't want to belong to a religion they generally at least quit believing in it or have some sort of conflict of faith. If one ceases to believe in a religion, they no longer belong to it. I've had friends and family who have different mental conditions. Many of them want to be without those conditions, but wanting does nothing. Believing they don't have those conditions only makes things worse. The comparison between religion and mental disorders grossly insults both groups, and is a possible sign that you should stay away from all religion and mental health topics, since you clearly don't understand the basics of either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This was closed as no consensus. That was a year ago. You are free to start another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There was a consensus. The consensus state for that article when that RfC closed was collapsed image. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, it was inconclusive but the discussion had halted. Regardless there is a new RfC now.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As I thought[edit]

@Ian.thomson:, @EvergreenFir:, @Masem:, @Alanscottwalker:, as I thought, one of the people I was referring to in my first post has reverted my Show image template, citing a violation of Wikipedia policy and they then stated on the talk page that it doesn't matter what the consensus is here because consensus can't violate policy. I assume they're referring to Wikipedia is not censored. This is the sort of editing i've been having to deal with. SilverserenC 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is rather clear here... I'll revert and invite them to this conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is not clear, discussion on an unrelated forum is irrelevant to the article, and there is far longer standing consensus for its inclusion. Note the talk page tags that have been present for many months now. To change this you will need to change policy! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • EvergreenFir your reversion was re-reverted. I have restored the show template. Perhaps we should write this up as a new guideline? DES (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but current policy (not guidelines) dictates images are not to be censored. Much effort was put into finding the least astonishing image that would accurately depict the purported conditions triggers. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you quote and link to policy that says, never, ever collapse anything? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The policy WP:IAR is there to say "you don't need to apply WP:NOTCENSORED when doing so involves trolling the readers." There is a difference between censoring articles to accommodate chosen beliefs and not taking an action that obviously is going to cause a significant portion of the target audience medical issues (even if those issues are psychosomatic, they're still medical issues). Going out of one's way to include triggers in articles on phobias is WP:DICKish and WP:POINTy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about trolling readers and the conditions isn't even recognized. Next should we get rid of images of navels because omphalophobia redirects there?(Thinking of another article, but the point is valid). See both WP:Censor and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:NOTCENSOR has been seen, see WP:REHASH and explain how inserting phobic stimuli into the article on the phobia itself does not go against WP:DBAJ. We are not here to decide which phobias are real, only note which ones are notable, and note what scientists have to say about it. You have yet to explain how not causing medical problems for obvious target audiences is the same as removing images of Muhammad or information on evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Then it would seem such a redirect would be covered under the same resolution that we determine for these images, whatever that resolution might be. That is, the images in the destination article are not the issue, the redirect is the issue. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with CFCF here. We have policies that we do not hide content. Some people find sexual images disturbing and yet we do not hide them on article about sex. Some people find images of Mohammad distrubing and we do not hid images about Mohommad. This image gives a clear explanation of what people who have the claimed condition of "trypophobia" are supposedly afraid of. Most people with this fear (if they exist) would have pictures turned off on the Internet as there would be an innumerable number of triggering images. I also have concerns that someone is playing a joke on us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to censoring the Muhammad article is insulting to anyone who suffers from mental health problems: Muslims choose to be offended, people with phobias do not choose their phobias. People who are offended by sexual images would not to looking up articles on sexual topics -- people who have involuntary conditions of any sort are very likely to come to articles on those conditions.
If the phobia doesn't exist, get the article deleted, or expand it with information on how it's a notable hoax. If you can't, it's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:DBAJ to say "we don't know if they even exist." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post states "Thousands of people claim to suffer trypophobia" and illustrate their article with pictures of the object in question [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And that is not reason enough to act as though people with that condition might exist, and might choose to read the article to learn more about their condition? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: Are you advocating adding images to the phobia articles (nudity, pornography, colors) I listed above? Or a seizure-triggering animation to epilepsy? --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This article on it also shows the picture of the object and states Trypophobia is not an official phobia recognized in scientific literature. The picture provides a great deal of information as nearly no one has heard about this "disease". What I am suggesting is here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Next_step.3F Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You're avoiding my question I think. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You have just not waited long enough. Appears this is a very controversial topic. As with people who have chromophobia they will have switched their monitors to black and white. We do provide a very colorful image in the navbox at the bottom of the page though which I see no problem with. A "seizure triggering animation" is not really notable enough for the epilepsy article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A seizure triggering animation is significantly more notable than a photo of an object with thirteen holes. --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly don't care if it's not listed in the DSM. Err on the side of caution here. Including the image can cause harm and that does not outweigh any benefit the image gives in terms of information (which honestly in this case is minimal). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If someone doesn't understand what "holes" means, I don't think adding a picture is going to help them understand what's going on ("Oh, is this article about a lotus?"). The picture in the Arachnophobia article at least depicts the phobia itself, and in a way that does not serve as a trigger for a panic attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There has already been discussion about the choice of image and it was done with a great deal of discretion – the lotus pod still contains its fruits. This is far less than be said when a reader googles the condition. We risk losing credibility by giving a non-existant condition so much consideration. It makes Wikipedia seem like a place for fringe and original theories. We have a hard enough time patrolling for this already without good-faith editors arguing against including valid information. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
NeilN There is a clear difference between a real phobia and a purported one. And for the readers that have phobias for those various things they should have their browsers configured to block them anyway. We can't change the entire interface of Wikipedia because one editor might not like blue or black. (Neither are these recognized phobias). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF: Doc James made no such qualifier. "We have policies that we do not hide content." Period. --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes we either show it or do not include it typically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"We risk losing credibility by giving a non-existant condition so much consideration" -- in other words, this is a waste of time, so we should give you your way. Haters gonna hate us anyway, and we're inherently not credible.
"We have a hard enough time patrolling for this already without good-faith editors arguing against including valid information" -- I think we both agree is a waste of time: spend it doing something productive instead of possibly causing people to have panic attacks.
"There is a clear difference between a real phobia and a purported one" -- Wikipedia's editors are not neurologists, psychologists, or otherwise qualified to make any distinction (and we don't care if an individual editor claims to be one of those things anymore). All we can do is repeat the sources, which say that there are thousands who claim to have it (and certainly seem to demonstrate it) -- enough for us to act as if it is as real as any other phobia. That the APA hasn't classified it yet is different from them saying "while phobias exist and have a variety of triggers, it is simply impossible for someone to have a phobia of assorted holes." Yes, WP:FRINGE theories should be kept out, but WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR would dictate that we don't apply WP:FRINGE to entirely plausible expressions of known facts (so long as they're sourced). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not how a phobia is classified as real. Neither is the way those sources classify this phobia normal procedure. Anyone who apparently has any reaction at all to the images is classified a "phobic", where is how the paragraph on visceral reactions comes into play. It is highly possible that the images provoke disgust on a visceral level, but this is not a phobia and neither is it classified as such within the scientific community. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In the specific article Trypophobia there is absolutely no need to show a image on the article that short that also may potentially set off a reader's fear, even if there's scientific debate if it is a real fear or not. Principle of least astonishment/surprise. And explaining that a series of irregular holes is what sets off the fear is something that doesn't illustration. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
by not showing the image we would be depriving readers of visual knowledge of what they are reading in the article,,,IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"People that suffer from trypophobia have their fears triggered by seeing irregular patterns of holes." What image is needed to understand that? --MASEM (t) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's not like the image is being removed. The reader still has the option to see it by clicking the Show tab. But we won't be causing negative involuntary physical effects on our readers when they don't expect it. SilverserenC 01:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed it for now. Clearly contentious enough to remove until consensus. CFCF - discussion on VP is wider than local consensus on articles. Discussion here applies to articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Support adding trigger warnings to images like the ones in the phobia articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trigger warnings. No encyclopedia should add trigger warnings. This is not Tumblr or a college campus "safe space" where millennials can cry to their parents about the patriarchy demanding they turn in their assignments on time. Besides, what do they actually trigger? I suffer from severe coulrophobia because of how evil clowns are, but seeing images of clowns only solidifies my anti-clown stance and fortifies my mission to rid the world of clowns. МандичкаYO 😜 09:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New RfC[edit]

Yes I hope we can get wider input on this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited drugs articles[edit]

Over-long title reduced from "Policy request regarding the detailing of the manufacturing methods in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

More useful and specific section title ,restored. DES (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion: This editor requests guidance regarding policy relating to the detailing of the manufacture of illegal drugs and further, any proscribed pharmaceutical drugs. Please see my rfc on Charas here , regards. Twobellst@lk 18:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction woould you like to apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed a problem as things illegal in some jurisdictions (such as gun possession) may be legal in others.
If we look at Wikipedia itself I would say that we should guard the fact that Wikipedia is not, and should not, be censored WP:censor. It may be that reporting on the manufacturing is undue but that is more a consensus than a policy issue. In any case if someone creates an article on "Specific of drugs manufacturing" that is sufficiently notable that it is not deleted, the information would not be undue there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on nutshell at WP:Notability[edit]

There is a proposal a to re-write the nutshell for WP:Notability, and the discussion would benefit from more participants. The stated intent is to better explain the existing guideline, not to change the guidance or notability standards. See: WT:Notability#Nutshell wording. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

SourceForge[edit]

Given SourceForge's history of adding advertising "malware" to downloads, should we blacklist it and send {{SourceForge}} for deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Some notable projects may still be using SF for their project's hosting, though could be providing clean downloads elsewhere. I would say that if this is not the case, then yes, the SF link should be removed and use the more official one, but I don't think we can readily blacklist SF. I wouldn't be against it, just that we should use caution in doing so. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose blacklisting, but nominating {{SourceForge}} for deletion seems like an excellent idea. Especially if we replace it with some sort of notice cautioning editors about why we think SF links should be avoided. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015[edit]

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike VTalk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)