Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 28 September 2014 (→‎An important point seems to be being missed here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF 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 the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.



Guideline for terminology on immigrants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus would appear to be against the implementation of this proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a while writing a project page, then discovered that I was supposed to submit this here first — which I'm happy to do, since, while I tried quite hard to replicate the structure and tone of other proposals, I also don't know what I'm doing.

Below is what I've written, for your feedback. Thanks!

Proposal

This is a proposed guideline for use of terminology to refer to people who live in a legal jurisdiction without legal authorization. It is intended to supplant another, earlier proposed naming guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration), because (a) both that proposed guideline and the ensuing discussion are too long & unwieldy to be easily engaged with, and (b) that proposed guideline is now eight years old and has been abandoned. This guideline will, however, at times lift language from the earlier guideline.

The proposal is to strongly recommend against using the term "illegal immigrant(s)" in favor of other terms, except in direct quotations, and against using the term "illegal alien(s)" except in direct quotations or in legal terminology.

Scope

A Google search for pages including the term "illegal immigrant" on English Wikipedia comes up with 454 results, the majority of which appear to be Wikipedia articles that use of the term "illegal immigrant" outside of direct quotes in the main text — including at least two articles with the term in their page names: Illegal immigrant population of the United States and Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States.

A search for the term "illegal alien" comes up with 453 results, but most uses outside of direct quotes seem to be in the context of legal terminology, and there are no articles with the term in their page names where the term is not being used as a direct quote.

This proposal would apply to the use of the term "illegal immigrant(s)," but not to the term "illegal immigration," which is used much more widely and is less objectionable (see below). It would also apply to use of the term "illegal alien," other than in legal terminology, where the term (while perhaps still offensive) has specific legal meaning. In both cases, the proposal would not apply to direct quotations.

Suggested replacements include "undocumented immigrant(s)" (especially in the U.S. context), "unauthorized immigrant(s)," and "irregular (im)migrant(s)."

Rationale

Overall argument

I believe that the term isn't reconcilable with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ("opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" and "prefer nonjudgmental language"), and its "words to watch" guideline ("strive to eliminate expressions that are... disparaging... or that endorse a particular point of view").

Act vs. person

The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" have been criticized as derogatory towards immigrants, because they apply the term "illegal" to a person in their entirety, rather than to a specific act. Hence why "illegal immigration" is not being included in this proposed guideline: it refers to the criminal act itself, which is illegal, and thus is a fair and NPOV description.

Widespread criticism of the terms

Views & norms on these terms have shifted in the eight years since the earlier proposed naming guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration) was written, and are building towards a consensus against use of the term.

  • The AP Stylebook was edited in April 2013 to recommend against use of the terms: "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. ... Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented."[1]
  • USA Today stopped using the terms in April 2013 as well: "The term illegal immigration is acceptable, but do not label people as illegal immigrants, except in direct quotes. ... Avoid using the word alien to refer to immigrants, except in quoted matter or official government designations."[2]
  • Numerous other journalistic entities have stopped using the terms as well.[3][4][5][6][7] (See here for an article on the overall trend in the U.S. news media.)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court, beginning with the case Arizona v. United States, discontinued the use of the term "illegal immigrant(s)" in its rulings in favor of more neutral terminology.[8] Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's only Latino/a Justice, has explicitly spoken out against use of criminalizing language in reference to immigrants.[9]
  • While most discussion of the term has been in the U.S., there has been debate about it in Britain as well.[12]

The use of the term is still under debate, and it's hardly a matter of consensus — but the very fact that the use of the term is under such debate, and that the debate has been cast in such political terms, is a clear indication that the term can't be considered to be NPOV.

Disputes on Wikipedia

The fact that the term has been so widely argued about already on Wikipedia is also a clear sign that it isn't a neutral term. See especially Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (immigration), Talk:Illegal immigrant, Talk:Illegal immigration, Talk:Illegal immigrant population of the United States, Talk:Anchor baby, and Talk:Illegal alien, among others.

Thus, in addition to the rationales already listed, this guideline would also ensure that we wouldn't need to keep rehashing this same argument, on many different Wikipedia talk pages, over & over again — there would be a clear guideline that could be pointed to in the case of disagreement.

Thanks in advance for any & all thoughtful & constructive feedback. CircleAdrian (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Strong Oppose This is a binary POV issue. The terms the proposal seeks to ban are not neutral, but banning them is also not neutral. The proposal seeks to ban the words favored by one side of the immigration debate, while not banning any words used by the other, or even proposing what supposedly neutral language should replace the words. I have to oppose this attempt to enshrine as a guideline the position of one side of the debate. This is no different than if someone proposed a policy of banning references to someone being a "felon" because an action can only be considered a felony, not a person. Monty845 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar is bunk "Illegal immigrant" is a compound noun derived from the phrase "illegal immigration". By your reasoning, we'd have to stop using "wide receiver" and "shot putter", because the former are not generally wide, and the latter are rarely shot even when they deserve it. I'd say focus on the real argument, namely the claim that term is loaded. Paradoctor (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Naming conventions" are about article titles, and we don't normally write them to cover just a few pages. I think your best bet might be mentioning this in WP:Words to watch. (I agree that the grammar argument is weak. By that logic, "unauthorized immigrant" is also bad, because only actions can be "unauthorized", not people. Also, the term is applied to people in other contexts: China has illegal second children, India has a problem with illegal child brides, we have an article about an illegal plumber and it appears that illegal landlords are not unknown in the UK. I could go on, but the claim that only immigrants get called "illegal" is obviously false.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, thanks for the feedback. I took out the argument on grammar — y'all are right, it's weak (I mostly lifted it from the existing 2006 proposal, and that person was wrong about it too).
I do want to point out, though, that I do propose several "supposedly neutral" terms to replace these ones: "suggested replacements include 'undocumented immigrant(s)' (especially in the U.S. context), 'unauthorized immigrant(s),' and 'irregular (im)migrant(s).'" The term "undocumented immigrants" is the preferred term of most immigrant advocates, but "unauthorized immigrants" and "irregular migrants" are both terms that have been proposed as specifically neutral middle ground — the former in the U.S., the latter in Britain. The term "unauthorized" is probably best to suggest as a "neutral" middle ground, as it suggests wrongdoing but not permanent criminality. (See the argument of linguist Otto Santa Ana here.)
Yes, this is a normative issue, and I expected the "your proposal is POV" argument to come up — but honestly, I wrote this proposal because I found a usage of the term that was pretty clearly a POV edit by someone whose intent was to use the term "illegal alien" in a derogatory way, and I then looked to see what Wikipedia's policy on derogatory terminology is, but wasn't able to find one, which I have to say surprised me. If my proposal was a guideline against using the term "n****r" to describe African-Americans, couldn't you analogously argue that a guideline against its use would ban a word favored by one side of the "white supremacy debate," while not banning any words used by the other? And my point in outlining the shifting perspectives on use of the term among journalists (especially the AP Manual), rather than among immigrant advocates, was intended to demonstrate that it's not just a matter of one side (immigrant advocates) against another side (immigration restriction advocates) — it's a matter of wider public perception about the effect of the term. (And again, this is a guideline, not a "ban" — I'm not proposing any consequences or anything like that for anyone who uses the term, I'm just trying to write something that editors can point to when it gets used.)
WhatamIdoing: I think you're right that this is a words to watch issue rather than a naming convention — but I'm not sure how I would go about proposing this as a "word/term to watch"?
Thanks for your feedback, all. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, you first figure out if it could be added to an existing section. Then you post your proposed change to the wording on the talk page, people discuss it, and something about it is ultimately either added or it's not. The bias on that page is usually towards being as brief as possible, so keep that in mind when you think about possible changes.
Another option (which might be desirable regardless of the outcome of a WTW discussion) is to write an essay. That requires no "permission" or "consensus", and can be very useful for explaining more details or collecting lists of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it's a WP:MOS thing, and not a ban, as the style guides quoted indicate where possible there is serviceable neutral terminology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose... for one thing there is no need for the proposed gudeline. Terms like this are already covered in one of our core policies ... see WP:POVNAMING, section of our NPOV policy. We do not need yet another "style guide" that contradicts core policy (or worse, intentionally seeks to circumvent policy by saying "oh, this is just a style issue, and not within the scope of policy). If you don't like the policy, you can work to change the policy. But don't pretend that there isn't a policy. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an WP:MOS suggestion, I guess. Don't much care, and my inclination on these things is usually to let editors write as they like as long as the meaning is clear. Also, this Google Ngram shows "illegal immigrant" ahead of the other three combined and, if anything, gaining. So I guess I'm undermining my own vote. But it seems like the right thing to do. You know? "Illegal immigrant" is kind of insulting. It's not just insulting but sort of inflammatory. It frames the matter, at least in undertone, in a way that's not necessarily helpful to our readers understanding what's going on in the events under discussion. Which matters. Sure, we're supposed to follow preponderance of sources... but why? There's no reason for that. Yeah we have to use reliable sources for statements of fact. For style we can do whatever we want. So its OK with me if we get a little ahead of the curve here, since the curve seems to be bending toward less inflammatory language. If I'm reading this New York Times thingy correctly the curve is bending fast at the Times, for instance. Let's not be left behind the Grey Lady for goodness sakes. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- This proposal would align MOS more closely with both WP:NPOV and the majority of non-WP authorities on style, so it's a good idea. Reyk YO! 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again... no, it wouldn't. It would, in fact, contradict WP:NPOV. See the WP:POVNAMING section. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're claim that it contradicts is rather absurd -- NPOV exists to have the goal of neutrality and POVNAMING, says that in exceptional occasions a naming although non-neutral can be used, it does not say always choose the non-neutral, or always prefer the non-neutral, or blatantly ignore reliable style sources that show that there is a more neutral style for many uses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAMING explicitly states: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. The name "illegal immigrant" is certainly widely used in reliable sources (in fact, in the context of the USA, it is overwhelmingly the single most widely used name for someone who has entered the country illegally), and therefor, according to WP:POVNAMING it may be used. The rational behind POVNAMING is this: For us, as Wikipedians, to ignore what an overwhelming majority of sources call the subject makes us non-neutral... even when our actions are done with the intent to appear neutral. The way to actually be most neutral is to follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not following reliable sources; you are expressly NOT following the reliable sources on neutrality of style, you are following and introducing POV and selecting the irrelevant (because it does not address neutrality of style), or relying on the unreliable. As I said, "may" be needed on occasion according to POVNaming, so the proposal does not contradict it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I'm not ignoring the fact that a few style guides may say don't use "Illegal immigrant"... they are POV sources that express an opinion just like other sources... however, when assessing source usage they are outweighed by the literally hundreds of thousands of other reliable sources that actually do use the name "Illegal immigrant". We are not the one's ignoring the style guides... its the real world that is ignoring the style guides. We should be reflecting the real world. The style guides represent an extreme minority view (I would almost classify it as a Fringe view). It becomes non-neutral for Wikipeida to favor an extreme minority view (expressed by a few style guides) and non-neutral to ignore the reality of the majority view (indicated by what all those hundreds of thousands of other reliable sources use). Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The style guides don't say "don't use," they indicate where possible there is a more neutral style. They can't be outweighed by other sources that do not address the neutrality of use, so it's not the "real world" that is ignoring the style guides, it is you. Your position is nonsensical. It amounts to 'always pick loaded terms because they are common' , but we are writing a neutral encyclopedia, not sensationalistic yellow journalism nor pulp fiction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you miss the point of POVNAMING... it isn't about the neutrality of the name, its about our own neutrality, as Wikipedia editors. Names don't have to be neutral. Names like Boston massacre and Holy Roman Empire are not neutral... yet we use them anyway. Why? Because so many sources use them that it would be non-neutral for us to not do so as well. We would be substituting our own POV if we used anything else. As for my position, you have it backwards... it isn't "always pick loaded terms because they are common"... its "Always use the most common term, even if it happens to be appear loaded." That's true Neutrality. With true Neutrality we do not pass judgement on whether a name or term is "loaded" or not. We simply use what the majority of sources use. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "true neutrality", because you are not using sources for what they directly address. You are imposing your POV, by misusing sources for what they do not address, where they do not address the word usage. You can't do your original research and come to your own conclusion without introducing your POV. You just said it again, always pick the term that appears loaded because it is common, but we're not in the work of picking the apparent loaded term, quite the opposite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in your reasoning is that we don't start by always picking the loaded term... we start with picking the most common term (and it needs to be significantly more common). Whether that common term is "loaded" or not is irrelevant to the issue of commonality. About fifty years ago, I would have argued that we should use "Undocumented alien" - because that term was what was most commonly used in sources. Today the sources use "Illegal alien". If, next year, the majority of sources shift and use some less loaded term, I will argue just as strongly that we should change our usage to match the sources, and use that less loaded term. The policy is that Wikipedia uses the names that the the majority of sources use... even if those names seem "loaded" to us. If you don't like that policy, you can work to change it... but policy it is. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in your reasoning is that you start with original research, and we forbid original research because it introduces POV. If you don't like policy you can work to change it, but what you should never do is make a fetish of a small section of policy and not apply it in context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No... I start with an examination of source usage. That's called "sourced based research", not "original" research. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. You use your personal research to come to a claim not directly made by those sources concerning word usage. That's original research, entirely in support of your POV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, basically what Alanscottwalker says. Reyk YO! 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Herostratus: we should, in general, use the most common term when describing something, and Herostratus's research indicates that the most common term for someone who entered a country while bypassing its immigration controls is "illegal immigrant". --Carnildo (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let's not set up a conflict between different WP:MOS pages. Lots of sources use euphemisms such as "passed away", "sightless", etc., but per WP:EUPHEMISM, we use "died", "blind", etc. Why should we care that the euphemism "undocumented alien" is used by lots of sources? It's still a euphemism, a verbose softener for a clear and direct expression that causes no unnecessary offense. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support When the most common term in use is derogatory or condemnatory, we should look for a neutral equivalent. If we were in a period when the most common terms for people were "kike" or "nigger", would we use them? nor, doe we use the wood "crook", however well deserved and widespread. This is especially the case when the standard of current outside use is itself changing to more neutral language. The analogy with "died" is not relevant: it does not apply to living people. More specifically, "illegal" implies a conviction or judgment, and ity is in practice more often just a presumption when applied to a particular individual. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about "kike" and "nigger" is ridiculous. Those terms are strictly derogatory and slang in nature, while the term "illegal alien" is rooted in legal jargon that is accurate, neutral and inoffensive. Should we not call a felon a felon because that word has negative implications? A word referring to a negative action is likely to have negative connotations, as logic would suggest. It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that the illegal immigrants have in reality broken the law. A word that reflects their breaking of the law, the primary distinguishing factor between that group and the group of legal immigrants, is necessary. "Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" fulfill their purpose of contrasting illegal and legal immigrants. The notion that an opposite should not be used to refer to an opposite simply because that word holds negative connotations is absurd. "in practice more often just a presumption when applied to a particular individual" This comment is baseless and irrelevant. Your assertion that the term is empirically used incorrectly is both unsupported and highly location-sensitive. You are changing the term, albeit without saying so, to specifically refer to Hispanics in the United States region. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the sources provided above. The heart of WP:NPOV is still to reflect, as close as possible, the usage of mainstream, reliable sources. The OP has made a clear case that mainstream, reliable sources proscribe the use of "illegal immigrant" (and similar) to refer to people (rather than acts) and Wikipedia usage should reflect the same. The MOS should be brought in line with the rest of mainstream media. --Jayron32 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Illegal immigrants" is a term to properly describe people that, at the end of the day, are in a country illegally (without the proper paperwork etc.) I will note that this is, to some extent, a hypothetical concept in that factually that the person has absolutely no paperwork that allows them to immigrate into the country, but from the standpoint of actually having the evidence or the lack of evidence to this point may not always be there. That it, just because a person cannot immediately show they have evidence of legal immigration does not make them illegal. Importantly, this generally means speaking to the general term and not in reference to any single person. The US may report that increases in illegal immigration increased by some number, that's a completely appropriate use of the term since we are talking abou immigration against the law. On the other hand, unless a person has specifically been charged and enforced as an illegal immigrant, calling the individual as such is not proper. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This whole proposal is so US centric, and assumes a view of the world as a US citizen in America. The Rationale section shows this with nearly all the selected sources being American in origin, the one for the UN takes the Micky out of the idea of using "irregular migrant" and also observes "A murderer, for example, might instead be a 'person accused of unlawfully ceasing the life of another'." If you assume that anyone can be any illegal immigrant in any country then the phrase is not "derogatory". I once I worked in South Africa for a US company that had lawyers up at Jo'burg International Airport at least once a month because of mistakes an American had made in filling out the landing/immigration form provided in Afrikaans and English on the plane (the English being a translation). As one read the form in English there was a section for "the reason for visiting South Africa". That section of the form was a multi columned tick box list (you know the sort) "tourist" etc. The first first applicable box for the executives flying in for meeting at the Jo'burg for a business meeting was "work" so people ticked that (if they forgot the warning they had received via email). However further into the tick box was "Trade". In Afrikaans apparently the difference was obvious, but in English it is not. As far as the South African authorities were concerned those Americans who ticked "work" were illegal immigrants, as they did not have the necessary work permit to "work" in South Africa, hence the need for lawyers to try to plead that their clients were there for a trade/business meeting and they had made an innocent mistake. Sometimes these illegal immigrants were forced to use the return leg of their business class ticket to return to the US on the next available flight, and sometimes their illegal status was adjusted to legal and they were allowed to stay for the few days they needed for their business meetings. -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Irrespective of the legality terms, "immigrant" and "emigrant" imply a specific national viewpoint, contrary to wp:WORLDWIDE unless qualified by "from Lower Nonexististan" or "to Paradisia", e.g. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree take a look at this article (25 July 2014). Unless one is resident in one's domicile one is both an "immigrant" and "emigrant" and that is the general world wide view and is irrespective of if one's residency is legal within the territory in which one resides. If a person's domicile status is a political football (which is unusual) -- such as the descendants of refugees from what is now Israel currently residing in Gaza and the West Bank -- then the situation is more complicated. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the terms "immigrant" and "emigrant" obviously depends on context. If someone moves from Canada to the US... we would appropriately refer to them as being an "emigrant" when discussing their move in a Canadian context, and just as appropriately refer to them as an "immigrant" when discussing their move in a US context.
When someone leaves a nation, contrary to the laws of that nation (example, a defector from the Soviet Union, who left the USSR contrary to Soviet laws), we could accurately describe them as being an "illegal emigrant". However... while "illegal emigrant" might be an accurate description for someone who leaves a country against the laws of the country they are leaving, it would not qualify as a NAME for such a person. The term "illegal emigrant has not entered common usage in English language sources. Unlike the term "Illegal immigrant", which is extremely common, and is used as not just a description but as a name. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @CircleAdrian: can you please clarify if this proposal is meant to cover all national varieties of English or just articles written in American English. If it is for all varieties of English what evidence is there to support your suggested wording in each verity of English? -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question... If "Illegal immigrant" is a purely US variety term... then it would be appropriate to limit its use to articles that relate to the US (and to use other appropriate terms in other contexts). Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Illegal immigrant is common terminology in the UK media and bureaucracy. The conversational term tends to be refugee. ~ R.T.G 01:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @RTG: They are not synonymous. Refugees are people seeking refuge, typically from wars, oppressive governments or natural disaster; they often have the intent of returning home when the danger has passed. Immigrants are people who have entered a country with the intent of living there, having left their previous homeland for any reason. Illegal immigrants are immigrants who have not first obtained authorisation from the country that they are moving to. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64:Perhaps. My intention was to respond to the assertion that "illegal immigrant" is a US-centric term, but that only seems so because of their issue with cross border migration, making it a more recurrent theme in their media. "Migration" means the moving from one place to another. "Immigration" means the intent to remain there permanently. "Illegal" means contrary to legislation. I wrote and deleted a toolong paragraph about the definition of the word refugee. Suffice to say though, my view is that we must rely questionable resources on every level, from every intention. The compromises are not always pertinent to the issue yet defended as such. I'm pessimistic, even in my support. ~ R.T.G 22:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the use of the term 'illegal immigrant' these days does often betray the writer's POV, so do the proposed replacements. And while most 'mainstream media' use other terms, that is not the case of all of them, and the disparity is not overwhelming. Until a term comes to fore which does not immediatly tend to betray the speakers POV, I oppose changing the guidelines regarding this term. Marteau (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Illegal immigrant{s}" and "illegal alien(s)" are accurately descriptive. They are NPOV. I doubt anyone disputes the legality or not of such immigration. We don't need euphemisms or convoluted language. Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to go ahead & say that I think this proposal has failed — folks have posted several different disagreements about it, and I don't see any way that I could edit the proposal that would satisfy all of them. I had thought this might be something of a Sisyphean task, but wanted to try anyway. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. (Also, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this proposal & these comments at this point — hopefully a more experienced editor can either tell me, or move/edit it themselves.) CircleAdrian (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Illegal immigrant" and "Illegal alien" get roughly 2950 hits combined in article space. I've heard "undocumented.." this or that more than a few times. I think there is a better word than undocumented still, but undocumented is definitely recognisable. What to combine it with I don't have several ideas and believe there are several more. Not certain to that part. Maybe someone can convince me in the comments above. But yes, genuine neutrality and objectivity is half of what I think this site is all about so add me, conditionally, to the one. (conditionally that it is well finalised whatever that might mean) ~ R.T.G 22:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you know, that there is no wiki article on neutrality? It is a redirect to Country neutrality (international relations), a position toward war. ~ R.T.G 22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I feel that the proposal seeks to change the term due to the term's general use while referring to derogatory actions of that group. The term is not offensive in itself; rather, it is used so often in context with derogatory actions that the author of the proposal feels that the term has been tainted by the negative comments surrounding it. I also feel that this stems from some element of personal offense taken when the term is used: the reference to Justice Sotomayor, herself of Hispanic background, demonstrates that Hispanics as a group have come to be offended by a term that is used to refer to a small subset of that group. This appears to be an issue of personal pride rather than neutrality, and as stated frequently above, the term is used descriptively, accurately, and passively in the context of Wikipedia. The choice of the author to draw attention from the word "illegal" to "undocumented" is an apparent effort to portray the group in a more favorable light. Drawing attention away from the criminality of the immigrants more closely aligns the group with legal immigrants, which in turns furthers distrust of immigrants in general. The proposed shift in terminology would not alleviate any concern of ill intentions, but rather push the burden onto an undeserving group that already takes heat in society. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The law states that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty. It also supports that an undefined number of undocumented visitors are legally acceptable, i.e., refugees and, strictly speaking, those for whom a claim to citizenship rights would be accepted. The wider implications can be described in detail, but that should not be up for debate here. The fact is that there are "illegals" who are not contrary to the law and Wikipedia policy could reflect that. If that is true, it must mean that current policy does not reflect it. Whatever the intricacies of the debate going on here, those are the simplest implicating facts, and to differ in further implication, you must first differ to the simplest implication. If our complicity with simple fact is held to imply something more afterwards, for something else, well, guess what, we didn't do that, until we have pandered to it in some way, and much as the debate wishes to suggest the opposite, once we pander to it, that is the point at which we had a part in doing it. The nature of legality is something which is finalised, not something which is prospective of finalisation. The reason the media says "illegal" is because they sensationalise information to draw your attention to the aspect they want you to consider, and that is very important, but it should have no place on Wikipedia content, except when describing the situation to exist. This policy could not affect direct quotation. The nature of quotation is irrelevant to its notability. It's already policy. it's just not defined yet. ~ R.T.G 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I'm a little stunned that this proposal is seeing this much opposition. Protonk (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Using the most commonly used term as per the naming standard should be what we do. There is no need to add complication, and push one biased point of view that differs from other points of view by enshrining it in a policy. Having such a policy or guide is non-neutral. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The terms we use should be simple to understand.
    • illegal immigrant an immigrant whose immigration was or is against the immigration law of the country or territory they migrated to.
    • undocumented immigrant one who's immigration was or is not documented, or possibly one who has no documents. They may be legal or illegal. Similarly an immigrant can arrive with full documentation, be recorded by the immigration authorities and put in some kind of holding custody for deportation - documented but illegal.
    • unauthorized immigrant one who is not authorised by whom? Is authorisation the same as legality? It seems to me that in the United States it isn't. Moreover someone immigrating successfully on false documents is an illegal immigrant, but they have been authorized.
    • irregular immigrant just too vague.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Oppose, stating that something is illegal shouldn't be considered bias. Some laws are fair and some are unfair. It's readers who may judge about that. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An illegal immigrant is someone who immigrated illegally. That phrase isn't judgmental and doesn't contain opinion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More neutral terminology is needed. It's a common phrase, but that doesn't mean that we have to use it on Wikipedia. We don't say that someone who violates copyright is an "illegal copier"; likewise, we should avoid demonizing those who immigrate, regardless of the legality. I can't wait for "illegal walker", "illegal entrepreneur", and "illegal spitter" to become commonplace. It will make the whole debate much more amusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. to limit the wording that reliable sources may use to describe an individual's immigration status flies in the face of WP:VER, if reliable sources say that the subject is an illegal alien or undocumented immigrant so be it. My feeling is that such terms should be quoted and as with quoted text, attributed to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, support in principle but I oppose euphemisms like "irregular immigrant". I would prefer to reword sentences to refer to the act as being illegal. Red Slash 02:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone noticed that most of the people called this in the USA are not really immigrants at all. They are here to work for a while and send money home to their families. (I am cool with this and them BTW.) They have no intention of staying here, much less becoming Americans. BayShrimp (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prod then speedy

I was under the impression that, in general an article that had been prodded and de-prodded, could not subsequently be speedied. Was I wrong? If not where its the policy/guideline? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

There's nothing at WP:DELETE, WP:CSD or WP:PROD that says that an article that has been prodded and de-prodded, cannot subsequently be speedied. However, an article that has been prodded and de-prodded cannot then be prodded again. If any of the speedy deletion criteria apply, one or more of those may be used at any time, even if a prodded article's seven-day grace period is not yet over. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... think of an article that has multiple CSD issues. Someone prods, listing just one of them... that issue is addressed and thus the article is (correctly) de-prodded... yet there are still those other issues (not listed) that might result in a speedy. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Prod article cant be sent to speedy as " PROD is a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion." first lines on Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. By using prod this user already gave notice that speedy rules dont apply on the article. Mion (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If an article meets one of the CSD criteria, then it can be speedy deleted whether or not it has previously been prodded. Reyk YO! 06:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be absurd, a second user de-prodded it, so 2 contributors stepped into discussion, the prodder would evade discussion with the de-prodder by shortcutting to try to have a 50% chance on a consenting admin with speedy. The only logical route would be AFD next so more users can bring up arguments. Mion (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose someone prods an article for some reason or other and the article's creator removes the prod. If I show up later and discover the article is a copyright violation or that the article creator is the sockpuppet of a banned user, I can still speedy that article accordingly. Or if it's a re-creation of an article deleted at AfD- PROD doesn't apply at all since it's previously been at AfD but I can still speedy it per WP:G4. Reyk YO! 07:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point Reyk, I understand the need for a few categories in speedy, in this case the discussion is about a clear case Copyright and edit violations, maybe what is relevant tot the discussion, are PROD's regulary checked on Speedy cases and automaticly removed ? Mion (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to go around the speedy rights for admins is to focus on the user that applied PROD in the first place. Adding on WP:PROD on the 3th line, After an article gets de-prodded, the user that applied PROD on the article can only use WP:AFD, if the PROD was a mistake leave a message on WP:ANI. As such all except the prodder keep the speedy rights and the prodder is forced into discussion on AFD. Mion (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this would be best resolved by taking the entire PROD process and guidelines and depositing them directly in the trash can. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such rule. A PROD has no effect on later speedies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree, with the addition that admins should strongly consider sending it to AfD if the CSD is for the same issue as the prod, and a neutral third editor deprodded. So if someone prodded an article for notability, and a neutral editor disputed that prod, and its then nominated under A7 it could be a problem, and probably should go to AfD. On the other hand if its a valid G12 tag, the previous prod removal doesn't matter. Monty845 21:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that someone could prod and have their sockpuppet deprod to block a valid CSD. Since CSD are intended to be very obvious things, this whole thing probably isn't worth worrying about. Anomie⚔ 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While there are some situations where skipping a CSD may be a good idea. For example if Person A prods article as non notable, neural editor B removes it thinking it might be it would make sense to skip A7 since it has a lower bar than notability I don't believe though that there should be firm rule due to the fact that it can be manipulated. The creator could remove the prod themselves. They could also prod their own article with a clearly irrelevant rational, wait for the inevitable removal as a rational to prevent a CSD. In the end some common sense should apply.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Protonk, As our userbase is shrinking [14] there is a very good chance that if a PROD is added it wont be noticed for a week by other regular editors, if we have 3000 wikipedians with more than 5 edits and each has 1000 pages on the watchlist that would make 3 million, leaving 1,5 million pages not followed, hence the page would be deleted without discussion (POV). Its a problem we didn't have in the past as we had enough editors with enough pages on follow. As we cant expect that the WMF and the chapters change their imago on the short term we better get ready to clean out procedures so it can be handled better with less people. I'm for removing PROD from the procedures Mion (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's entirely correct: the administrator reviewing the PROD request has to make an assessment whether or not to delete, and it's not an automatic delete just because there's a PROD tag on the article. I'm supposedly a notorious deletionist and even I have kept PRODded articles. Risker (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except for CSD when an article violates our groundrules the role of admin is to judge brought up arguments by the community as a 3th person, not to act as a second person, bringin in own POV. (not saying admins are not doing their best).Mion (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, this would fall under the rules of common sense. CSD is intended for cases that are unambiguous fails of policy. Prod is intended for uncontroversial deletions. In most circumstances, an article that is deprodded is neither unambiguous nor uncontroversial and should go to AFD. Common sense also dictates that there would be exceptions - the most obvious to me would be a scenario someone prods an article on something like notability grounds but misses that the content is a copyvio. In that case, CSD would clearly apply even after a prod. Resolute 19:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see CSD applied a lot more carefully. One popular CSD criterion seems to be A1, "no context". I have seen this used when the admin simply did not understand the article, possibly because it was overly technical, but certainly without the requisite attempt to find further information. Deltahedron (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rid of PROD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus appears to overwhelmingly in opposition to this proposal. Although some supporters believe that PROD has is drawbacks, the opposers appear to believe that these are outweighed by the simplicity of the process and the burden that would be placed on AfD were PROD to be scrapped. Should further discussion about possible flaws in the PROD process be desired, I recommend starting a new thread at WT:PROD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I agree that, in general, PROD is an unnecessary complication when we have speedy for special cases and AFD for everything. I would like to get rid of PROD, with one exception. How would we deal with unsourced BLPs, which currently can be PRODed? I don't want to see them speedied, because the seven-day period is useful to allow time for sources to be found. I don't want them sent to AFD, which would invite POV warriors and sockpuppets. Can we get rid of PROD except for special cases such as unsourced BLPs? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLPs don't get prodded: they get WP:BLPPRODded, which is not the same. But the main reason for PROD existing is so that we don't have to have a tiresome discussion for deletion candidates for which no CSD criterion applies yet are clearly uncontroversial. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Do we really want a lot more AfDs? At least with a PROD deletion an article can be easily recreated. I can see the reasoning behind getting rid of PRODs but we need to consider the knockon effects. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this position; PROD is intended to be a lightweight method of getting rid of non-encyclopedic content that doesn't quite meet SPEEDY level. Before contemplating elimination of this process, I'd want to see some statistical evidence outlining the frequency of deletion through the various processes, and whether or not the PROD process is working as intended. In other words, I'd want to see some hard evidence that PROD is failing before I'd want to eliminate it. AFD has a hard enough time gathering sufficient commenters to develop a consensus (there are just too many AFDs that have to be extended due to lack of comment) to want to expand its workload without clearcut evidence that other processes are actively failing to work. Risker (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of PROD is to deal with articles that have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving at AfD, thus lightening the load on AfD in general. If an AfD received unanimous support for deletion, then it was a likely candidate for the PROD to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 14:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But in practice PROD is used on articles that have been around for years and as the PRODDER thinks the article is not notable enough the PROD is used to prevent discussion on AFD. Mion (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how PROD prevents discussion on AfD. If a person honestly thinks that an article should go to AfD instead, then they can remove the PROD. Of course, explaining why they think the article should go to AfD instead of PROD is a different matter because that type of action could be interpreted as being WP:POINTY. —Farix (t | c) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove PROD as an option - Given that AFDs have to generally be relisted due to lack of participation, do you really think that PROD (a nom and admin by definition) is a better option? Nothing of WP:BEFORE and very little scruntiny by those most familiar with a subject. I just removed 5 PRODs because the 5 articles should be merged together, but they were all likely to be deleted individually. Also, PRODs do not give room for merging - a much better option for Wikipedia. Speedy and AFD is all Wikipedia needs, there does not need to be some third option to reduce transparency and "speed-up" a deletion when even AFD nominations routinely do not get comments until their 2nd listing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please. BLPPROD is fine. It's a good tool for that specific need. PROD in general is largely useless. I don't have data on this (working on that ATM) but I suspect that a large number of PRODded articles which are deprodded are eventually deleted by other means. As for articles which aren't deleted, what have we really accomplished by PRODding them? The template looks the same as an AfD template and the semantic difference between "proposed for deletion" and "nominated for deletion" is often lost on new users, so an article with a prod tag looks just as much like a rejection of contributions as an AfD tag. And for articles which really ought to be deleted (or attract enough attention to be sent to AfD eventually) removing a PROD tag to have it replaced with an AfD tag can be baffling to new users. They've just defended their article against deletion only to see it put into the queue for a different kind of deletion.
  • NOTBURO should mean something here. We don't need two largely similar processes for deletion. We especially don't need them if the justification is (largely) that they lessen the load on extant internal processes. Let's have one process for deletion discussions and one for speedy deletions instead. Protonk (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: PROD has its uses. pbp 15:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On thing to bear in mind is that it is a lot easier for administrators to assess and manage PRODs than it is AFDs. There are two reasons for it: usually the matter is simpler to assess, and more importantly it does not require nearly as much work or any fancy scripts to do. (I don't close AFDs because it requires either a script or 10-15 minutes of finding all the right places to post notices, etc.) If PROD was to be declared redundant, then there needs to be some major, major simplification in the closing of AFDs. The current process is absurd. Risker (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, these 2 scripts for AFD User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD and User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD ? Mion (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two; there are others, as well, I believe. As someone who often works on slower and/or otherwise restricted computers, the more scripts I have the more likely I'll have serious problems doing almost anything. Something built into the admin bit or built into the templates (and not using a lot of javascript) would be better. Perhaps this would bear research into cross-wiki deletion processes and the tools/steps that are used. Risker (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The absurdity of the AfD process (and I agree it's a bit absurd) shouldn't prevent us from making the deletion process as a whole simpler. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Risker (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hideClosedAFD script could be a simple tab under Preferences/Gadgets on/of that shows an extra tab on top of the article show/hide closed discussions, might be usefull on other pages as well. (all where discussions are closed). closeAFD can be fully done by a bot with an admin bit, all you need to do is close the discussion with the result and let the bot do the rest, the bot can check A if the discussion is closed AND B if the name of the closer is on the admin list, once it is finished it can report in the closed discussion that it finished its tasks. Mion (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. PROD is not a complication; it's a simplification. It allows bad articles to be deleted with less fuss and fewer acronym-based arguments. The only downside of that is that good articles might get clobbered too, but this is not very likely — if anyone is actively watching the article, they can simply de-prod it, and in the event that a mistake does happen, it can be reversed easily with no need for a DRV. I really think PROD stands almost alone in this space as a non-bureaucratic, non-lawyerlike practical solution, with very low harm potential. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"if anyone is actively watching the article" was exactly one of the main problems. Mion (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, if an article is not being actively watched, it probably should be deleted. I know it's not formally a deletion criterion, but that's kind of the point. Wikipedia has huge amounts of cold dark matter; PROD is the best process I know of for cleaning it up. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are really suggesting to delete 1.5 million articles, well the total amount of notable article would be 90 million, that leaves 87 million unwatched pages, go ahead, delete them all. Mion (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a little trouble following your math there, Mion. Apparently there are currently 4.6M articles. You think a third of them are not actively maintained? Seems unlikely but I haven't tried to check. Then I guess you're subtracting that and assuming that there are a total of 3M articles that are ever going to be maintained, and subtracting that from 90M?
I don't really know where you get the 90M figure, but let's suppose it's accurate. Do you really want 87M unwatched articles floating around, with no one taking care of them? I don't really care whether the topics are "notable" or not; I think that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP's reputation. (Just the same, if no one can be arsed to even put an article on a watchlist, then the chance that it's "notable" seems to me not that great.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The problem is very little of that is actually true or meaningful. The goals of PROD are laudable. It's meant to be an easy-come, easy-go means to delete pages which potentially nobody is interested in. Any prod tag can be removed by any editor and a prod can be uncontroversially reversed by any admin (and we do occasionally get PROD requests at WP:REFUND). That's all great, but it speaks mainly to the aim of the process and not its effects. In reality, editors don't understand that they can contest proposed deletions and their immediate reaction to deletion isn't "oh great, I can reverse this easily". More often it's the same reaction we see with deletion through any other process. As many restoration requests for PRODded articles we get on REFUND, I'd say we get half as many requests to "restore" an article which is proposed for deletion but not yet deleted. some of those requests are for articles which could've (and in some cases should've) been sent to AfD first, leaving admins working on refund in the unenviable position of restoring the article then nominating it for deletion, finally circling back to inform the editor (who now likely has more than a few templated messages about both deletion processes) that while their article is no longer "proposed for deletion" it is now "nominated for deletion". That process is not a model of simplicity, in my mind it borders on the Gilliamesque. The whole affair would be simpler if there were one process to summarily delete an article (CSD, broadly) and another to delete it with some deliberation (AfD). And I think we overstate how easy and process-free PRODding/dePRODding an article can be because we're all quite familiar with the project, but I'd further submit that a process which deletes an article in a matter that looks binding to a new editor but isn't is as close to the definition of bureaucratic formality as we're likely to see on Wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Farix, the whole point of a PROD is so that deletions have the chance to improve without being deleted. AfDs take time unless an article absolutely looks like it needs to be deleted PROD should be the first choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: PROD fills a gap in the deletion process between speedy and AfD, simplifying the process for uncontroversial cases not meeting CSD by removing the need for community discussion which would only have been pointless yea-saying instead of debate. The PROD template states: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" (with original emphasis). If that sentence is too difficult for someone to understand... well, come to your own conclusions. BethNaught (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Without PROD, the use of CSD will expand into the gap, and that means more articles deleted by admins effectively on their own personal sayso. Deltahedron (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I devote much of my time on Wikipedia to monitoring the prod lists for articles that shouldn't be there. I'd guess that, on average, I identify about one article per day that (in my opinion) shouldn't have been prodded, usually either because it's a notable topic or because it has been through the prod or AfD process before and is therefore ineligible for prod. With a little research and sourcing effort, the great majority of the articles that I deprod as notable end up surviving. But that leaves dozens of articles every day that (as far as I can tell) have been properly targeted by the prod process, and that can be appropriately disposed of in summary fashion. In summary: I would like to see fewer misuses of prod, and more compliance with WP:BEFORE. I agree that CSD should be more carefully used. But we don't need 50 or 100 more AfDs every day; the AfD boards are already choking. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - PROD is fills an important gap. It asks the question: Does anyone disagree that this article doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? If anyone cares, the article is deprodded and either left alone, improved, or nominated for AfD. PROD provides a useful mechanism for getting a second opinion without the formality of AfD. I mostly use it when patrolling the back (oldest entries) of the new pages queue, where one occasionally finds poorly-written, poorly-sourced article about non-notable subjects that were created by SPAs who never make any other edits.- MrX 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given the lack of participation at AfD these days, and the increasing backlog of very poor and unsuitable articles, some mechanism for cleaning up the mess is necessary. In fact, not so long ago, there was consensus that AfDs with no participation should be closed as uncontested PRODs. That suggests that the PROD process works well. Reyk YO! 04:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:PROD is supposed to be for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". The process is routinely abused by new page patrollers, who use it when they don't like a new page but can't think of a speedy deletion criterion. For a recent example, see Claude Picasso which was prodded within 5 minutes of its creation. Prodding an article when it has just been created in good faith seems uncivil and is not what the process was meant for. Using the process to get rid of old pages which nobody is watching at the time also seems quite disruptive. Wikipedia has millions of articles now and the number of volunteers to keep an eye on them is dwindling. I patrol CAT:ALLPROD but there's always hundreds of pages there and so it's too time-consuming to check them all. The deletion process is meant to be difficult and so we should not allow pages to be removed without any oversight. Andrew (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're prodding after five minutes, not only are they going against the advice given right at the top of Special:NewPages to patrol from the back, they're also being WP:BITEy. It's a failure of the person doing the patrolling, not a failure of the PROD process. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, we should not remove the prod process just because some people misuse it anymore than hammers and knives should be banned because some people use them as weapons.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The concern that unwatched articles are wrongly deleted by PROD presumes the deleting admin blindly follows an obligatory deletion timetable. This is an absurd premise; an attempt at fixing a problem that does not exist.—John Cline (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If we get rid of PRODs, the only deletion avenue left when none of the CSD criteria apply will be AfD. There are presently concerns at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Daily AfD pages are getting too long that the sheer number of AfDs is causing the AfD system to break down, because technical limitations mean that some discussions are not being shown on the daily pages. No PRODs means more AFDs, and inevitably the limitations will be reached sooner. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the CSD criteria are radically expanded to cover most of what's PRODded today, which I'm not convinced is the ideal solution anyway. There's always a second pair of eyes, since even if an admin placed the PROD, that admin should not then also perform the delete; someone else should examine it. If that admin thinks the article is salvageable, they can always dispute and remove the PROD, and I've done exactly that myself when reviewing expired PRODs. If we just eliminate PROD with no replacement, AfD will become flooded with obvious cases, and I don't see the benefit in that. Most AfDs have too little participation as it is, and we should save that for the complex and contested cases. For the simple cases that technically can't be speedied but uncontroversially should be deleted, i.e., a drive-by posting of an essay or opinion piece or an article on software currently used by three people, PROD fills a real need and keeps the clutter off AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - given the volume of low-participation AfDs, more PRODs are needed. ansh666 19:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metrics

The request for metrics is a good idea. Do we have metrics on how many CSD, PROD, and AFD nominations there are in a typical month (or other period), and how many CSD, PROD, and AFD deletions there are in the same month? (I know that most CSD and PROD nominations do result in deletion, but there are a few CSD and PROD nominations cancelled.) It would be useful to see CSD broken down by category, since some of the article categories are categories that could alternately be PROD or AFD, and some of them are janitorial (requests for an admin with a mop). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working on this. I don't think I'll be able to give total statistics, but I plan to gather suitably large representative samples of deleted articles and see how widely PROD is used and where de-prodded articles are deleted under another process. I don't have db access so this will take a little bit, probably a few days to a week. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An important point seems to be being missed here

If one reads the instructions, it should be apparent that PROD is a non-admin process, while SPEEDY is an admin process. Or to put it another way, PROD is a way to tag an article for an admin to do a speedy on it. Therefore "get rid of PROD" means "a non-admin user has to do everything through AFD" and "no speedy after de-PROD" means "if an admin finds something before anyone objects, he can just speedy it; but if a non-admin tags an article and is rebuffed, it cannot be speedied." Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tags may be placed by anybody, not just by admins, just as {{subst:prod}} may be placed by anybody. CSD tags, once placed, are not binding: a non-admin may remove a CSD template if the deletion criterion is inapplicable, just as anybody may contest a PROD. The difference is that if anybody demonstrates that the original criterion was applicable, the CSD tag may be re-added; a {{proposed deletion/dated}}, once removed, cannot be re-added.
As regards "no speedy after de-PROD", I'm pretty sure that at the top of this thread it was made clear that there was no such rule. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point seems to be missed here: from the point of view of an article writer, an AFD tag reads like "somebody wants to delete your article, come to our arguing page to argue about it"; whereas a PROD tag reads like "somebody wants to delete your article because <reason>, please edit the article and fix it, and we'll keep it". An important part of PROD is that if somebody prods an article for (e.g.) lack of sources, then whoever removes the tag is encouraged to add sources. Wikipedia benefits more from fixing articles than from arguing about them. >Radiant< 15:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on Suicide

I brought this up in the proposal section, and people were generally supportive. These recommendations for how to report on suicide http://reportingonsuicide.org/Recommendations2012.pdf have varying degrees of applicability to Wikipedia. I thought, at the very least, we should stop using "success" to describe suicide. 184.77.68.158 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say again, I think you should write this up how you think it could apply to Wikipedia, somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. WP:Suicide) and run a full RfC to get it established as a guideline. If you need help with any of those steps, I'd be glad to help. VanIsaacWScont 04:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would need a different name: WP:SUICIDE already exists for a different purpose, and it would be confusing to have two links of different intent which differ only in capitalisation. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few comments in the previous thread were far too supportive. Wikipedia's role is not to provide advice of any kind. We should not tell people how to make value judgments. What that means is that when we look at great people from history like Aaron Swartz, Abbie Hoffman, Timothy Leary, or even Robin Williams, do we say oh yes, they must have all been sick in the head and dismiss their decision-making as something to hide from our audience lest they make the same mistake? Or do we simply recognize that our job is to report the facts?
And the facts are important. In the case of the first individuals above who were politically important, I don't exclude "conspiracy theories" a priori. After all, stupid people commit murders; smart people commit "suicides". So when these smarmy people tell me that it is wrong to be "Including photos/videos of the location or method of death, grieving family, friends, memorials or funerals", I have to ask whether they appreciate our role in helping people to understand whether there is truly unanimity and lack of doubt regarding the manner of death, or the importance of covering the final departing comments of those who have died, and the protests, demonstrations, and mourning that follow them in a political context. Nor can we tamper with the facts - if sources say a suicide was without warning, then we cannot discard that because there "must" have been signs.
What we can grant is to expand articles, or only some minor caution and semantics: indeed, claims of skyrocketing suicide rates in a certain area should be double checked (does that even happen?), coverage of public health aspects can be checked, quotes from suicide experts can be searched out, medical facts can be carefully checked and well-sourced. But this PDF is POV-pushing, not useful style advice. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Wnt that the PDF is POV-pushing. But it is hard to "report the facts" when today even newspapers and other otherwise RS have to resort doing tabloid journalism to sell copies. Maybe we do need to use some of our own common sense and editing on what to include. And when it comes to Timothy Leary no one should be emulating his life IMHO.Camelbinky (talk)

"I thought, at the very least, we should stop using "success" to describe suicide."

I agree. Now, how is the correct way to describe a suicide attempt?

The other point that I agree with is that we should never say that a person committed suicide "without warning" or "inexplicably", since that violates verifiability. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't violate it if that's what the sources say. It may be an ugly thing, but there are people who, when they commit suicide, it comes as no surprise to the people they know. So the reverse case is also defined. And as I said above, I think it's important to note details that offer any degree of doubt regarding whether a suicide was authentic; to me this is a sort of "BLP" issue in that I cringe to announce definitively for sure that someone just killed himself, quashing all qualms to the contrary, simply because a coroner has just put out a form with the box checked and the word written on the right line. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telling people their edits are promotional

Half the requests I get on WP:UTRS are of the sort "But I was only adding factual information to the article, why did you block me?" Plenty of others create articles that get deleted under WP:G11 and object to the assessment. I feel like we need to be more careful when using terms like "advertising," "promotional," etc., especially when our definition is broader than common usage. I think we need to address this issue on various fronts:

  1. For borderline cases, instead of using those words, say things like "your article presented the subject with an overly positive tone," and if they dispute that, talk about WP:COI and how it can lead to hidden biases.
  2. When blocking for having an organizational username (let's not use the term "promotional username" anymore - also too confusing for the same reason), and the edits they made were not too bad (i.e. insufficient for a block if they had an acceptable username), then we should regard username as the sole reason for the block (though a warning about COI editing would be useful).
  3. Make it more clear to new users what is and is not allowed regarding COI editing. (I'm looking for suggestions on how to do this.)

Please discuss. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree. We are driving off potential contributors in the hundreds or thousands with our overzealous enforcement in these areas. Re: #2 If the edits are good the username should not be the sole reason for the block, this is said in policy. –xenotalk 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key is to avoid accusing the editor of wrong doing... and instead focus on the edit itself. If an edit appears overly promotional, it is important to explain why the edit appears to be overly promotional, and suggest alternative language that is less promotional.
On the other hand... if someone appears to be intentionally misusing Wikipedia, we shouldn't worry about keeping him/her around. The flip side of "driving off potential contributors with overzealous enforcement" is "driving off experienced contributors due to no enforcement at all". Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno: By "If the edits are good the username should not be the sole reason for the block," was the "not" accidental? (Otherwise it doesn't make sense.) Assuming that: My point is, I feel that the edits don't even need to be good, they just need to be not blockable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." (From WP:USERNAME) –xenotalk 11:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously disagree with this. While there are certainly a great number of editors that could contribute useful content...some still have to use links to their own website, book or academic paper or news story. Some editors edit their own pages with actual promotional content that they should not be doing. You can NEVER accomplish a weakening or lightening of everyone's speech. Not as a matter of right but of control. You simply cannot control this type of thing. This is very much instruction creep. We would then be instructing editor's in a pretty precise manner and I really object to that myself.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who started editing in 2006 only because I was promoting myself, friends, my peace group (articles all now deleted), I agree you have to give brand new editors a break and explain policy. I got away with it for months, and by the time it was explained it was against policy, I was hooked on Wikipedia. Most probably have no idea it's against the rules. Yet within a few weeks of editing they too could become hooked, learn policy and start learning to edit productively. (A process that can take years, in the absence the right book or video that impresses all important policies on their consciousnesses in on short sitting.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the truly positive things that Editor retention used to urge was greeting new editors and helping to guide them through the first few steps to becoming good contributors. Helping them find the policy and guideline page, explaining the ends and outs. That is helpful but how can we do more. Automating greeting don't work. it takes a real person one on one.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the principle here, but an awful lot of the stuff I come across is ... not so much intentional spamming, but corporate communications people or founders of startups who have no idea of the difference between corporate communications and an encyclopaedia article and no interest in contributing to Wikipedia beyond writing about their own company. While there's no need to be actively hostile to such people (I don't think they mean the project any harm, they just don't understand what it's about), we still need to get rid of articles that say things like "...is an innovative provider of bespoke business solutions" and we still need to separate them from the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's a judgement call. But only be dismissive of most obvious cases. Who knows, even some of them could get hooked on wikipedia given a few weeks. If they aren't overtly disruptive, encourage them to go work for a month on other articles in topics of interest to them and come back and who knows. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE and WP:RS in cases where the RS-es themselves are being subjected to scrutiny

Mostly due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamerGate, but also since I notice an pattern worldwide where media are less being trusted and it might happen more in other sections then the gaming industry - In my opinion, especially due to the tough nut that the GamerGate article is to being written due to late appearances of neutral RS, the RS used largely being accused by one of the involved parties in the event being described of bias and accusations of several weeks long of Wikipedia itself being biased, WP_UNDUE and WP:RS should be re-examined at some point in case the RS themselves are being largely accused of bias, and no examination of those claims are brought up by an neutral third RS-party. While I understand the reason for the RS-only use - it makes it hard to make an balanced article of something noteworthy if the RS are subject and 'group together'. Thoughts?MicBenSte (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

187.15.167.213 (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) WP:V already adresses this situation, albeit partially. On the Notes section, Note no. 8 lists that any media outlet with possible interests other than professional may be considered "Conflicted Sources". The article doesn't seem to tell what needs to be done about them, be it removal or otherwise. More info needed. Editors, please help.[reply]

Colourisation of images

There is a developing trend for colleagues to colourise b&w images and use the new version in articles. This is often done via Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.

There are two types of case where this happens:

I think we should develop a clear and agreed policy on when such images may or may not be used, and how and when the fact that a colourised image is shown must be declared.

(I've raised a separate discussion on Commons, about the habit some editors have, of replacing b&w images with colourised versions, instead of creating a new file. The two issues should not be confused.)

I'll post a pointer to this discussion on the above project's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong about colorizing old photos (if it looks good, at least), as long as in the file description it's clearly said that it's a modern colorized photo. Having said, the original photo should never be replaced by the new colorized photo. The colorized photo must be uploaded into a new file. --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure a few recent requests is a "developing trend", but I think this is worth discussing.
Presumably you used the word policy generically, I very much doubt we are going to be able to make a WP:POLICY on the limited consensus that will be gathered here, probably not even a guideline, maybe an essay. I'm also not sure on the effectiveness of wikipedia community desires on something that is mainly enacted on commons files.
On to the issue: When was it OK for an artist/technician/person to colourise images? Is there some cut-off date? (I get the impression "old" colourisations are acceptable) Are all colourised images "useless/horrible/fakery"? Can only some special people be allowed to colourise images? (Should we only accept artwork from notable artists, photographs from notable photographers, etc?)
I'll use a couple of examples: My only two colourisations so far.
This is currently used in an article about the subject of the work, not in an article about the original artist or his works. I have ensured it is captioned as a colourisation of the original work. I believe I managed to make a useful image. I think it catches the interest of the reader more than either of the source works. I don't think it creates a false impression of the subject of the article. It wouldn't be appropriate to use in an article about Sabinin's (the artist) works though.
This isn't currently used anywhere. I don't think I did a very good job. I also don't think it creates a false impression. It's (hopefully) unambiguously described as a colourisation of the original work on commons.
My thought is; that if colourisation adds utility, then it's fine. It should never overwrite an original, and it should be unambiguously labelled for what it is. (Hohum @) 18:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something that might be worthwhile is an agreement on what phrases to use in captions and commons descriptions to ensure that there is no confusion that the colourisation isn't by the original artist.
I used "Colourised version of <Artist's> Name of work". Can that be confused to mean "<Artist's> colourised version of Name of work" ?
Perhaps "2014 colourisation of <Artist's> Name of work", or something like that, would be less ambiguous? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed mean policy proper, though it's not necessary to have a new document; adding a line or paragraph to an existing policy, such as WP:OR, should suffice. It would be policy about the usage of colourised photos, in articles, not about uploads to Commons. We'd obviously need to consider colourisations that are contemporary with the subject, as part of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorization of images by a WPian editor should be treated as derivatives of the original work, just like cropping an image, or marking up an image. As such such derivations should be explained in the caption, and the original image should be linked to in the file description page, all part of providing sufficient attribution for our licensing policies. This can likely by easily added by a line or two to WP:IUP. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using a work colorized by a reliable source is one thing but colorizing a work ourselves would be original research unless we could cite the source of the chosen colors. If you have a high quality B&W version and a low quality color version then I think it would be reasonable to colorize based on that information, we just should not be guessing. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some cases where a colorized image is appropriate, but I can't imagine when. (edited to add) If the intent of the colorization were to contrast, say a typical US Civil War uniform of the USA as compared to the CSA, and no suitable oil painting or water color were available, but there was clear info as to the colors of the uniforms and insignia, then such a colorized image would be helpful. It is original research, and if done to a historical image it is completely unacceptable. Such images would include 19th century American Civil War photos by Matthew Brady, or a famous photo of Robert E Lee around the conclusion of that war, or photos of Abraham Lincoln. In colorizing a historic photo of Lee, Lincoln, Hitler, Hirohito, or others the result would differ from the original artist's intent. It would also allow the colorist to create a false impression that the subject was sallow or wan as a result of their struggle, or that he was healthy and ruddy cheeked. (edited to add) The modern colorist's biases could make a historical figure look jolly or evil to some extent. Muddy water in a battlefield scene could become bloody water via original research of the Wikimedia colorist, or dirt on a US cavalry uniform could become bloodstains in an attempt to show how they slaughtered helpless Native Americans. Drab and dismal workers' cottages in a 19th century factory town or in pre-unification East Germany or in present North Korea could become cheerful and colorful through the Photoshopper's biases. Edison (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something *can* be used to misinform doesn't mean it will, and doesn't seem to be much of an argument against it. A bad or biased colourisation is no different to a bad or biased restoration, colour correction, contrast change, crop, or collage. Graphs and illustrations can be misleading too. Are historic colourisations (i.e. created near the time of the creation of the original) fine? (If so, why?) I think there is a far easier benchmark/regulator: If they are bad they won't get used in articles (for long), if they have utility, they will, just like other material. (Hohum @) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Currier and Ives colorization of some scene, person or event done around the time of it would be a fine illustration. A Wikipedia editor's colorization of an American Civil War photo would be unacceptable, for the reasons I cited. It's not a matter of "could be" original research, it definitely "would be" original research. Keep your Photoshopping mitts off historic black and white photographs, at least the ones displayed in this encyclopedia, with exceptions such as I noted. Edison (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen's summary of current rules is spot on. Edison's "Keep your Photoshopping mitts off" comment could be a bit more civil, but I think by and large, colorized historic B&W photographs are not a good idea in articles; if challenged, the uncolorized version should be used instead. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color makes things snap. The two examples up top are barely visible in B&W, but much more distinct and visible in color. We illustrate with a lot of more or less reliable sources; staged photographs and paintings are barely more reliable then colorized version thereof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorizing works for decorative reasons erodes the veracity of our encyclopedia and reader trust in our encyclopedia. (I want to make a reference to Leibowitz here, but it's probably a digression too far.) If we want snap ang bling, let's add some blink tags to the sidebar, maybe some popup ads and autoplay videos. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, diagrams, and other images that are essentially data in a pretty form should be an exception. Examples: File:P&BC RR map 1901.jpg, File:Pennsylvania Company.jpg --NE2 02:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chillum - You are torturing the Wikipedia concept of "original research" by arguing that it applies to photo colorization. "Original research" involves a prohibition from novel interpretations in the fields of science and history being "written up" as Wikipedia content. Colorization is a simple editing matter, no different in its essentials that cropping an image, or airbrushing away scratches and dust speckles, or applying a sepia wash to a gray image, or laying on an unsharp mask so the image looks cleaner on screen. None of these things are "original research." Carrite (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you need a basis for the colors you choose don't you? It would be reasonable to colorize a uniform where a source for the correct colors could be found. Or to colorize a high res version of a b&w version from the colors of a low res version. But I don't think and encyclopedia should be coloring an old photo of an extinct animal or picking what color the dress of an early first lady was. There are cases when it is original research and cases where it is not. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the catalogue information for the engraving at the Tate you'll see the author sold them as aquatint engravings where they were hand painted by an agency and signed by Daniell. So the picture is basically as Daniell wanted though of course it has probably faded since then. I'm sure a machine that automatically examined paintings to figure out the pigments used and produced a good approximation of the original using a version of 3d printing would make quite a bit of money for people wanting to see what their old paintings would have looked like. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introductions that define the subject with a synonym

The following Wikipedia pages begin with the respective text…

Page First words on the page
Policy A policy is a principle...
Regulation A regulation is a rule or law...
Principle A principle is a law or rule...
Law Law is, generally, a system of rules...

Using “is a [synonym]” does not clearly identify the intended meaning – it assumes that readers have a better understanding of the synonym, which is not necessarily the case. It can also lead to loop definitions. For example, the first definition for “rule” in Wiktionary is “a regulation, law, guideline” – so “regulation” and “law” in the above examples point to “rule”, which points back to them.

I propose that “is a” should be reserved for identifying that the subject is a member of a parent set. For example: “a dog is a mammal”; or “a house is an abode”. The definition of a subject should present its defining characteristics, rather than using the “is a [synonym]” phrase. For example, although the Association football page mentions some synonyms in the introduction, the first sentence identifies the nature of the subject (that it is a sport) and its key components (players and a spherical ball). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwilkin (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a new policy, or an amendment to an existing one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recursive definitions are used all the time, check any word in a dictionary and follow it along and you'll get a loop. Yet dictionaries are immensely useful. Wikipedia is a human endeavor and is intended to be read by other humans. It is not a database for machines. If good reliable sources in the real world do it then it is good enough for Wikipedia. In summary - no. Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policies, regulations, principles and laws are types of rules, right? --NaBUru38 (talk)
Unfortunately, recursive definitions are a necessary evil. Unless there are a set of base terms that everyone knows at birth, every word has to be defined using other words, and you've got to start somewhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL beheading videos

I would like to open a discussion about the inclusion of the actual video recordings of the ISIL beheadings in Wikipedia. (Full disclosure: I have not watched any of the videos.)

I don't know whether we should upload one or more videos to Wikimedia Commons or just provide an external link. I'd just feel uneasy if there were anything that Wikipedia couldn't print because most people would turn away. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • YouTube has banned the videos. The British are actively removing them from the web. Any attempts to post them or link to them is re victimizing, facilitating and aiding terrorists (the videos are an act of terrorism) and is going to be reverted very quickly. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not condone the elimination of historical documentation I do not think Wikipedia is the place for them. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Wikipedia is not censored, giving a terrorist organization a forum for their propaganda would definitely be UNDUE. There are lots of sources we can use to support information on ISIL, without the need to use these specific videos. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For copyright reasons alone, the videos cannot not be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Whether they ought to be used in the English Wikipedia under a fair-use justification is another matter (I don't personally think so, for the reasons already given by others). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a copyright standpoint, I am 99% positive (though IANAL) that US would reject a copyright claim on these not only as a terrorism group but that it is from a country that US does not recognize copyright from. But keep in mind that Jimmy Wales has asked us, where reasonable, to still respect copyrights from these areas. They still exist, the fact that YT has banned that doesn't hide that fact (the videos likely fail TOS due to showing death)
For using the videos here under an NFC stand, they are not really going to meet the tight NFC conditions. While they are the subject of discussion, we don't need to see the motion of the video (even if it omitted the beheading parts). Even still shots are likely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been wondering how the copyright would work on these. For instance, it's not like IS could file a copyright infringement suit is it (or could they)? I uploaded [:File:Jihadi John.jpg] with a FUR but I'm wondering if there exists an argument that the videos are in the PD. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but (1) I don't think a US court can reject a copyright claim simply because it feels the plaintiff is immoral or even evil (e.g., what about a video of a college hazing ritual, or a self-made video of the copyright holder engaging in a sexual act?); (2) I believe it has not been established where the videos were made, so it is premature to say that they are subject to the copyright laws of a country that the US does not recognize; and (3) whether or not anyone is likely to try and enforce a copyright claim is irrelevant to whether or not material is hosted on the Commons. There are several unknowns at the moment, so I would think the precautionary principle would kick in and prevent the videos from being hosted on the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that the US would consider rejecting the copyright for a terrorist group which they consider non-nationals. But I would agree 100% that without any other guidance, we assume these are non-free images/videos. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright certainly applies. Copyright laws exist in Iraq, Syria, and even in Afghanistan. The place of publication may also be relevant, but that would still be covered by copyright. We don't recognize IS as a state, and what its rules are on copyright would be an unknown anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, were the image stored on US servers, US copyright law applies, and it does not respect the copyright of works published in those countries due to lack of reciprocal copyright agreements ala the Berne Convention. We could tag it free, and if someone there tried to sue for that, they would not succeed. That said, we have been asked that even in these cases that we respect the foreign copyright and tag as non-free if they have a valid foreign copyright. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These videos must not be included on Wikipedia for reasons that I hope are perfectly obvious. Consideration of their theoretical copyright status is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Newyorkbrad, and would also advise everyone to read this article. UK police have warned that even watching the content could constitute a terrorist offense, and it's possible the same may be true of other jurisdictions. We shouldn't place people in a position where they could face prosecution just for watching something on Wikipedia. This is Paul (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Perfectly obvious" is not a reason covered by our policies. HiLo48 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is Paul, that is a severely problematical argument. Wikipedia contains a wide range of content that might be considered illegal by one or more countries across the globe. Furthermore any and all content in Wikipedia could be eliminated by fiat of any random country on earth passing a local law against it. Nope, that doesn't fly. Alsee (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Well I guess I have to bow to the superior knowledge of someone with fewer than 500 edits. Actually, I'm not the only one to express this concern. You might also like to check out RedRose64's comments below. But as well as the legal issues of this, those advocating posting the material on Wikipedia really need to consider the ethics of such a move. Hasn't this whole thing been distressing enough for the families and freinds of these guys without them knowing it's on here for all to view. We don't need the footage to illustrate the article. There may be a case for posting a still–lots of newspapers have used such images after all, but that's a different matter. This is Paul (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if ISIS decided to release their videos with a free licence?
What if the Islamic State didn't sign the Berne Convention, so copying their videos wouldn't infringe any international law? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My logic for starting this discussion went something like this: The United States is about to engage in a war in which many people might die. One of the primary reasons for joining that war is because of American reaction to the beheading videos. I want to see at least one video so that I can make up my own mind. I don't want to view them off a horror/shock video website because the website may have altered them to increase their shock value. Wikipedia, being a encyclopedia, would be a good place to at least find a link to the unaltered videos. I therefore looked at the 2014 ISIL beheading incidents and James Foley articles but I didn't see any links. I then discussed this on the talk page and they suggested that "there needs to be a policy or Jimbo discussion to see how far our wp:Notcensored ideology goes against community values". So here I am.
@Chillum: In my opinion, Wikipedia may be the best place for the videos.
@Newyorkbrad: I respect you a lot but I don't understand. Could you please explain why you think that the videos must not be included on Wikipedia. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is any way a support to use the videos (I'm dead set against us including them), the claim by a foreign country that viewing them may be an illegal (as opposed to a request not to distribute them) reeks of censorship and I think that unless the legal aspect was perfectly clear, we would ignore such advice, or at least seek WMF's council if there was a pressing need to include them. But again, in this case, there is zero need for us to use the videos (they show nothing otherwise not implied by what beheading is, and they are shock value to begin with). --MASEM (t) 23:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hope that the arguments against posting videos of people being beheaded by kidnappers are too obvious to warrant detailed discussion here. Under no circumstances will posting these videos be acceptable. The suggestion that the copyright status of the videos is the governing factor, under all the circumstances, is depraved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the reasons for not posting the video are obvious is a non-existent argument. Wikipedia must never stoop to that. Policy. Policy. Policy! HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that particular argument is endorsed by policy. Even if there is no formally written rule barring this content, it should not be posted on Wikipedia, for reasons that really are obvious. Kahastok talk 22:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Treat me as thick. Treat me as an ISIL supporter. I'm neither (IMHO), but there will be some ISIL supporters who use English language Wikipedia. They may well be thick, but we should cater for all our readers. Even if you think there's a policy that supports your view, at least post a link to that policy. And spell out the reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok did cite ignore all rules, the general-purpose fallback position for people who can't admit that they have no leg to stand on. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Missed that. Glad I did. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have a long standing policy on the use of primary sources and I would certainly argue that this is an example where we would best follow that policy to the letter. I would offer that following that policy will result in a rejection of the primary source in favor of the myriad of reliable secondary sources that are available.—John Cline (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should translate that into precisely what you think should and shouldn't go into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not an archive, we are an encyclopedia. Though there are archives out there. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chillum: or anybody else: Do you know of an archive (two or three would be better) that contains the beheading videos or how to find them. By "archive" I mean a website that is unlikely to remove the videos. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, no. Even if I did, I wouldn't disclose it here, because that could be construed as an offence under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, section 4, subsection (1). Even if I viewed the video without telling anybody else what its URL was, I could still be investigated; and my net provider could be required to disclose my browsing history under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that we had this conversation at length at Talk:James Foley (journalist), and ended up leaving it at a position where we mention the video, mention that it is available at Bestgore.com (which has a large and quite stable collection of beheading videos, including Foley, Sotloff, and Haines) and via torrent, but didn't actually include the direct link. At Talk:Steven Sotloff we had a similar discussion, but because I had a good Dutch news source with the video online we left it with the video directly linked. In the former case, per complaints, I noted that the British government had warned about the video; in the latter I neglected this. This appears to have been stable for several weeks now. Including the links, or at least, under protest, instructions that are very nearly as effective as a direct link, is in accordance with what I want Wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is not a place where people go to look up what people here think is good or bad, commendable or reprehensible. It is a site to research the topic at hand! And all this imaginary ethical hand-wringing has nothing to do with Wikipedia's mission. Implausible threats by the British government that 1 in 4 Brits promptly ignored have nothing to do with the administration of Wikipedia. Claims of emotional harm or propaganda value have nothing to do with the site. We are not God. We should have faith - backed by inductive reasoning from countless examples from history - that allowing people to know the unvarnished truth will in the end lead to the best outcome. That is why we edit Wikipedia, why editing on any article doesn't go through a censor committee to decide whether knowing about that topic is good or bad, and a licensing committee to decide who is allowed to know about it and who should get a 404. Now yes, perhaps including these videos might do harm, even lethal harm; for example, they might inspire people to try to figure out where the videos shot, leading them to eventually join Bellingcathttps://bellingcat.com/ and perhaps in the future come up with some bit of actionable intel that gets some guy in ISIS killed from the air. (Is that a good or a bad thing? I lost track. Like I said, I'm not God. Like Werner von Braun, I say that's not my department!)
Now as for John Cline's claim that rejecting primary sources is policy, I think that is a bad misinterpretation and a horrible idea. The first thing any serious student of the sciences should have drilled into him is go to the primary sources, see for yourself. Secondary sources are useful guides, but the purpose of their guidance is eventually to get the student to the raw data, to evaluate it with fresh eyes and perhaps find fresh insights, or at least make a knowledgeable criticism of the opinions that exist about them. We should always back up secondary sources with important primary sources, because Wikipedia is but a way station to that final destination. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, I did not say that rejecting primary sources is policy. I said we have a long standing policy on the use of primary sources, and offered that if it was followed, [this source] would be rejected by the very discussion that policy requires. Should I provide a link to the policy and perhaps copy paste the verbiage?—John Cline (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: I think you'll have to, because I don't see anything there (WP:PRIMARY) that tells us to reject a source, only unsourced and non-obvious interpretations of the primary data. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." In my opinion this source is not appropriate for inclusion.—John Cline (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a weak thing to cite, first because it is not specific to primary sources of this type, and more importantly, because editorial judgment of "appropriate" sources is referring to relevant or useful sources, not to a political litmus test wherein you assume it is "common sense" to exclude what you (indeed, we) disagree with. Wnt (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I assume is this alone: A discussion would reach a consensus not to include the video. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am. All other things that you suggest I've said, I did not mean to imply.—John Cline (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you're talking about is getting a (hypothetical) majority of editors to exclude the video because they don't like it. Which is always what this sort of thing boils down to, but for some reason people always seem compelled to throw 3 to 6 random policy shortcuts at us first, in a pretense that some sort of established policy is responsible even though the real established policy is against censorship. But it's still an abuse - editors are supposed to use their editorial judgment to improve the encyclopedia rather than to stamp their opinions on it. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely categorize editorial decisions as censorship but refusing to give readers access to videos for political reasons, even obvious and uncontroversial political reasons like not supporting terrorists, is what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. If the videos fail NFC, crash the servers, or are of undue weight and insufficient value to an article, then a decision not to use them in an article is all well within editors' discretion. However, a categorical refusal to show videos of terrorists killing people is a decision that some human knowledge are two objectionable to present. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against posting such videos (with a warning for graphical content and the fact that waching the video is illegal in certain countries). The relevant argument for Wikipedia is that ISIL has become infamous for the beheadings, so they can in principle be posted. In extreme cases however, we also need to consider the harm done to society when posting information here. In this case, there is no harm despite what some authorities have said. In the past similar videos posted by groups affiliated by Al Qa'ida have led to complaints from the Al Qa'ida leadership for being too violent. And it seems that ISIL has now also modified its tactics. Bad organizations will do bad things, there is little harm in showing the bad behavior of these groups.
Note that what I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial in case of the coverage of WWII and the crimes committed by the Nazis. Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So true. Guillotine (and many other articles) shows a painting of the beheading of Marie Antoinette. Paintings were the equivalent in those days of a video today. Full colour. Very graphic. It shows one of the "beheaders" running around with her detached head on the end of a pole, while another collects the blood gushing out of what's left of her body in a bucket. I see no moral or ethical difference between that painting and the ISIL videos. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is surely that Marie Antoinette has no living close relatives. These journalists, aid workers, etc. do. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there could be something in that observation, but please, what Wikipedia policy covers it? The policy area seems to be being wldly ignored in this discussion. It's all been about feelings, and "Well the reason's obvious!", with no attempt to put it into words. It would be very wrong to build an encyclopaedia based on what some current editors feel is nice or not. Many Muslims have massive moral objection to our inclusion of images of Mohammed, but we still do it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that concerns living people falls within WP:BLP. That is policy, and one of the strongest that we have. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that WP:BLP is stretching things a bit. Obviously the victim of the earliest beheading has been dead a while now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLP#Recently dead or probably dead: ... the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of ... a particularly gruesome crime. If this crime wasn't gruesome, I really don't know what would be. In the lead section to the same page we find Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.. These videos are sensationalism. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Streisand effect. These kinds of debates probably arouse curiosity and anti-censorship sentiment that leads to more people watching and distributing the videos. Think of what effect that has on the family and friends of the victims! For reasons that are obvious, therefore, I think Wikimedia should host the videos. Yev Yev (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "should" or "shouldn't"? And please drop the silly "reasons that are obvious" thing. Wikipedia is read by people from many cultural backgrounds in many different places, probably including people who think these beheadings were a good idea. (Remember that we've had a narrator of at least one of them with a strong London accent.) Your "obvious" reasons may not be obvious to everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could upload some videos of people being raped, for the rape article, while we're about it.--Ykraps (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they're adults, it would be legal. Yev Yev (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yev Yev, you meant to preface that with "I'm not a lawyer", right? I'm not a lawyer either, but a quick search showed me that in many places it's not legal to post images of people who are naked or engaged in sex acts without their consent. Additionally, even if it were legal, it would definitely violate Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before this thread goes any further, perhaps I ought to say that I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point; and the point was not whether it would be legal or not. The question here is not whether we can, it's whether we should!--Ykraps (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb: if we can, we should. Yev Yev (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, even if our actions cause pain and suffering to other human beings, we should do it simply because we can? Such a lack of social responsibility. Presumably you are a child?--Ykraps (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many Muslims (not just ISIL members) find seeing images of Mohammed painful. We include images of Mohammed. Do you care? HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I care, although I accept that on occassion a potentially offensive image is required to illustrate a point. What is being advocated by Yev Yev, if you bothered to read his post, is doing it simply because we can. If you think such a video will enhance an article, please explain how! I have never heard reviewers at FAC demanding the inclusion of a video to graphically illustrate something that has already been adequately described in the article. Do you really not understand what an execution by decapitation is, without seeing a fucking picture!--Ykraps (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me and what I understand, although I've never seen a beheading, so no, I would have to assume several things about such an event, and assuming is dangerous. Again I refer to earlier times. Beheading and hangings etc. in Europe used to be popular public events, where the masses would come for their amusement, and incidentally, education. Many seem to want to avoid that education now. And we're an encyclopaedia! We are precisely the place where such information SHOULD be.
Your "we used to have public executions 200 years ago, so it must be a good idea" argument is unconvincing. We used to send 9 year old children to work in factories. Do you think that was a good idea? Again I ask, what value will it add to the article? Certainly nothing educational, as you purport. We all know what beheading means. It would be less ridiculous if you suggested adding a video of someone mashing potatoes, to the mashed potato article.--Ykraps (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really pathetic when someone who is losing a debate misrepresents my argument, even putting words quite different from what I actually said in quote marks as if I had actually said those words, and then argues against them and describes them as ridiculous. Yes, those words are ridiculous, but they are your words, not mine. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have misrepresented your argument at all. You appear to be saying that people can learn something from watching an execution. I keep asking what it is you think they will learn, and you keep avoiding the question. If you have nothing else to add, why don't you come up with a proposal that we can vote on.--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have misrepresented me! Only a fucking moron would think otherwise. I get really sick of people who think they can claim I said something I didn't say, argue against it, and believe they're achieving something positive. You give me the shits. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, you said, "Beheading and hangings etc. in Europe used to be popular public events, where the masses would come for their amusement, and incidentally, education. Many seem to want to avoid that education now." As no-one here thinks an education is a bad idea; you must have meant it was a good idea, and that by watching these videos today, we can learn something. Please feel free to add more insults, it only shows that it isn't me losing the debate.--Ykraps (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally quoting me verbatim, instead of making up some other bullshit to argue against. You are improving. An apology for your earlier misquotation would be nice, but I know I won't get it. So you can still piss off. You're adding nothing here. (Oh, and BTW, my country has a government today that is clearly making the getting of a decent education harder, so you're wrong on that count too. Uneducated voters are easier to fool.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're concern about being mis-quoted is unnecessary; this is not a spoken conversation, your comments are all here for everyone to read. The summary of your argument in double inverted commas was not meant to be a direct quote but rather a title for your argument. I accept that it may have been better to use single inverted commas, but many English variations do not differentiate between the two, so I doubt whether that would have made a difference. I have no idea what I have said to prompt the comment about education in your country, so I can't help you there. If you wish to play the injured party, might I suggest that you don't call people, "fucking morons" or tell them to "piss off". Now, in the interests of keeping this debate focussed, perhaps you could tell me why you think these videos are educational.--Ykraps (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear we are working at different levels of comprehension here. I have already answered everything you have just asked. You misrepresented my argument. And you cannot even see how. I'm sorry, but you are not dealing well with the complexities of this. You should probably give up and leave it to those who do understand. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you find this complex, for me it is quite simple: If we are going to add something to an article, it needs to improve it in some way. You say that the videos have some educational value, and I keep asking, in what respect they are educational. Perhaps you could point out the exact sentence where you answered my query.--Ykraps (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth trying with you. You are one of a bunch of editors who don't like the videos, so you cannot see any reason why a global encyclopaedia should include them. Please read that again. "Global encyclopaedia". Versus you don't think they're very nice. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're a global encyclopedia, but we're not a history book or a video archival service. Big difference. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, victims of crimes or their family members may be in favor of making such videos public. There are e.g. women disfigured by acid attacks who have posted their pictures. Recently a video has been posted by the BBC showing a deadly motorbike accident filmed from the helmet camera of the victim. The mother of the victim wanted this to be made public with the support of the local police to warn people of the risks we face on the road. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, I hardly think you can claim that you have "tried" with me. You have made no attempt to answer my question at all! Whether I think the videos are "not very nice" is not part of my argument. I have already said that I would be in favour of adding something unpleasant if it brought some value to the article. I know we are an encyclopaedia, that is why I am keen that everything added to it is educational, and that is why I keep asking; what is it you think people will learn from watching these videos.--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFREESPEECH does not prohibit the posting of these videos. In fact, I don't really see its relevance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but many other strong reasons do apply. Non free content and BLP are just two.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free content is a technical reason in an area where I have limited knowledge. The discussion on it above was anything but conclusive. BLP is marginal here. Will it be OK to post them later, when the time after death has increased? HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hilo, though BLP has been widely employed for arbitrary PR spin, it does not actually prohibit citing well known material, but specifically encourages it (WP:WELLKNOWN). Wnt (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust Mark Miller's expert take on it. I remember a few years back (as Amadscientist) he managed to filibuster Wikilawyer to death my Fair Use image of a screenshot from Innocence of Muslims as broadcast by an Egyptian TV station (which oddly decided to blur out the face of a woman while leaving the actor playing "Muhammad" depicted, never did understand that) claiming that NFCC criteria banned the use of the image because he didn't like it. I don't think I've even bothered to try to post any NFCC image for any reason ever since then, and generally advised against others trying either. I think if we let people like him have his way we'd end up burning down Wikipedia altogether, because letting people see things is just bad, and walk off in bland acceptance that we only have the freedom to view anything if we're willing to pay somebody for the right to see it. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a NFCC perspective (and ignoring the shock value), the videos fail our requirements particularly NFCC#1 in that the "content" of the videos (and speaking in the sense of motion video, not still frames) can be simply described by text and that the visual content of the videos do not significant aid in the reader's understanding of these. A still (like the one I thought I saw floating around here on WP of Sotloff) is reasonable if editors want to include that to give the impression of what's going on but we don't need to actually see and hear the motions to understand how these videos are presented by ISIL to the world at large. Also, we would not allow the full vidoes under NFCC anyway - a max of 10% of the length - which makes them even less relevant since there's very little motion going on in them. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An gruesome example of potential "Fair use" would be the actual knife-strokes of the James Foley decapitation. Many people, myself included, were skeptical when this video came out that he had actually been decapitated at that time -- rather, I am suspicious that his captors somehow killed him in an unplanned way (such as during an attempted escape or if they freaked out about possible rescue) and pulled out an archived mock execution with some vague text to make the video so they would sound like they had kept things under control. A cropped close-up/slow-motion of the actual knife strokes that were discussed in reliable sources would be a limited and relevant Fair Use. Wnt (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, yes, if there was a thorough discussion on the issues of possible fraud with that video and not something that you or other editors suspected and need to show the video to confirm (that would be OR otherwise to doubt the video w/o any other RS making the same statement of doubt). --MASEM (t) 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL have been declared a terrorist organisation by many countries around the world, including the US, UK and Australia. These videos are clearly terrorist propaganda, designed to recruit and instil fear. On a moral ground, I don't think wikipedia should be hosting terrorist material for active terrorist groups, when the mainstream media is refusing to host and distribute it. As I wrote at Talk:James Foley (journalist), the police in the UK have warned that downloading, or redistributing this material is illegal under anti-terrorism laws. Clicking on a link containing this material is not a good idea, and when the issue was raised at James Foley, it was a torrent. Downloading a torrent would have resulted in me redistributing the video, which could result in severe naughty points. One of the five pillars says anyone can use, edit, and redistribute, with this on the servers, people would not be able to redistribute in the UK.
On a policy issue, wikimedia and wikipedia are based in the US, and US, Florida and California laws apply, this includes the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act outlaws providing material support for terrorism, and when most other mainstream organisations seem to have refused to host them, wikipedia choosing to could count as material support. If wikipedia does host these videos, then it should get proper legal advice, until then we should not. Martin451 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points and should be revisited if you decide to upload the beheading video(s) to Common sometime in the future. For discussions about how to include the videos without uploading them, please see the next subsection. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a new subsection here. Although I'd prefer a less-gory name, as long as Bestgore.com isn't likely to remove the ISIL videos, let's concentrate on providing external links and leave the possible updating of Wiki-Commons for another day. If you agree, this removes all talk about copyrights from this discussion.

Wnt, I finally found your link to the Sotloff video (in a inline citation, not an external link, to The Post Online authored by Bert Brussen, et. al. -- that's reference 44 right now) by parsing your first posting to this discussion. Any reader who doesn't go through the references in the Sotloff article entry-by-entry will probably miss it.

Couldn't we devise some kind of notice to surround an external link to the video(s), just to make sure that no one clicks on the link without severe warnings? An external link is really the place where most readers would look for it, if it's not already in the article itself. In particular, we ought to have a link in the Foley article because that article gets into the possibility that the video is fake. Also, all of the actual "beheadings" by ISIL are apparently done off-camera and the victims are then shown seconds later with their heads severed. This is one of the aspects on which readers should be able to make up their own minds, rather than trusting someone else who has seen the video. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a deflection exercise. Nobody above has actually given a sound, agreed, policy based reason for not including them in Wikipedia. So why this proposal?HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We generally have a rule against disclaimers of all sorts on content that might offend people for religious, sexual, spoiler, or other reasons. I have in fact watched a couple of these videos and, though the message and delivery are repugnant, do not personally find them nearly as disturbing as the ISIS videos of mass murders of captured soldiers, the videos of the World Trade Center suicides, Holocaust videos, or a number of other things. Why would one shocking subject be more worthy of censorship than any other? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has given a sound reason as to why we should include them either. Given that this is an encyclopaedia, how will incorporating such a video improve an article?--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ykraps I see no reason why these videos should be included. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, not a horror comic. None of the above statements give any sound reason why they should be included. David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have answered your own question. We include them because we are an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't picture external links being a useful way to note the video. To begin with, WP:EL is such an anal-retentive checklist that by and large, even non-controversial links that are useful and educational usually get deleted; it's scarcely worth bothering with them. There must be a hundred people who like to go around deleting them out of articles even when they are simply listed there because nobody took the time to integrate them inline into the content. Which brings us to the other issue, which is that usually when a beheading video is a relevant source, it can be used as a reference, and almost always inline. While I highly value primary sources, I don't see a need to pull these particular ones out and showcase them as external links rather than leaving them as references in the relevant section. My goal here really is to make a well-referenced article, not to shock people just for the heck of it, so there's nothing special about these as opposed to other sources in the articles. (That may be different if the article were James Foley beheading video, but despite suggestions such an article be created, I think that almost always it is more practical to merge with the bio because you'll end up rehashing most of the bio in such an article anyway) Wnt (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: Just to make sure, on your "other issue" you're suggesting that, rather than make the connection in the external links section, we insert the video's url and description (say via {{cite web}}) inside of a standard inline citation. This would mean we'd have a footnote listing Bestgore.com, say as the publisher. Is this what you mean? Wouldn't this cause someone scanning an article's references to revert this incite as an unreliable source, without checking any further? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyGoldsmith: See James Foley (journalist) for how I handled this. A reference doesn't have to be one simple cite web; you can give more detail. Now it is true that if someone deliberately tries to be obtuse, i.e. does not look for the video, does not compare different places the video is accessible to see if they are the same, and does not look at the talk page to see that I had viewed the LiveLeak version so was able to compare the two, and does not give any credit to Bestgore comments that might disagree, they could claim that the video there 'might be a fake version' despite the lack of any reason to think so, but I don't think this would be in good faith at that point. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There's a request above for a "sound, agreed, policy based reason" for omitting videos of people being murdered. The most relevant policy is WP:IUP. IUP prohibits the inclusion of images (including videos) of identifiable people "that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life" and to protect the subject's privacy in general.

Note these two points:

  • There is no limitation on living vs dead people: this long-standing policy (which is largely copied from Commons) normally requires the subject's consent even if the person has died since then.
  • If you check reliable sources on the subject, the act of dying is widely considered to be an intimate, personal, and private act. I've found no sources that say that being murdered, or dying through any means, is a public activity akin to walking down the street or standing up in court. Therefore, if we're prohibiting non-consensual images of the person engaged in private or intimate acts in general, then the moment of death certainly qualifies under this policy.

The policy explicitly says that editors must use their best judgment after considering all the facts and circumstances. For example, although pictures of identifiable naked people require consent, a person who gets naked as part of a publicity stunt can be presumed to have consented to it.

Since this sort of thing comes up every now and again, I'm going to propose on the policy talk page an addition of people who are extremely ill or dying. I'm far more concerned about the situation of people with medical problems than with this debate (where the consensus is already solidly against the videos). I hope to see you all there, with your civil and commonsense ideas for improving this aspect of the policy, especially as it applies to other, far more common situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Unless I'm missing something, WP:IUP only applies to pictures uploaded to Wikimedia. This subsection discusses if and how to include the videos by some means other than uploading them; for example, via reference or external links.
I have stayed away for a couple of days and it looks like things are quieting down. (I'd like to get this right. Whether we resolve our problems tomorrow or a month from now is a distant second priority for me.) For anybody who's still interested: Do you think we have consensus now for adding just the Foley video from Bestgore as an inline citation to the James Foley (journalist) article? (We can tackle other videos for other articles later.) Is there any new objection? Should I set up a WP:RFC? (and/or WP:ANI and/or WP:DR/N?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin access to deleted page histories

Hi there. I'm an experienced editor here at the suggestion of RHaworth. I'd like to propose a new category of user rights that allows designated non-admins to view edit histories for deleted pages. Admins could grant this user right on a discretionary basis. The relevant policy is WP:DP#Access to deleted pages, help page is Help:Page history#Moved and deleted pages.

For the last few weeks I've been working on a cleanup effort of spammy and spam-like content that may have been generated by a large network of paid socks or meats. I've only just begun. So far I've focused on the content, and I was planning on dealing with the conduct issues at the end. However, I've run into a bit of a conundrum relating to article deletion. I've nominated some of the most problematic articles for CSD (a mix of G11 and G12), and I've had 5-10 accepted so far. (I don't have access to a list as I only learned about CSD logging just now.) A few other articles I've tagged (advert, notability, etc.) have been subsequently nominated for AFD by DGG. But, as these pages are deleted, I lose the ability to gather the evidence necessary for SPI.

RHaworth has suggested nominating me for RFA but I doubt I have the requisite experience for that. DGG has suggested putting off all deletions until the SPI process is complete. That could certainly be done if necessary but I believe it wouldn't be beneficial to the cleanup effort or the project as a whole. There is also no way for us to stop other editors from nominating pages for deletion.

A note about my proposal: The stated rationale for the current policy is to hide defamatory or other legally suspect material from the public. Slightly expanding the set of people who can view this material from (all admins) to (all admins plus a few more approved individuals who have a justified need for access) would not undermine this rationale. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed before, but I'm afraid it'll never fly. What you'll be told is that to be able to view deleted material the WMF has insisted that you go through an RfA, or at the very least an RfA-like process. It's complete nonsense of course, but you'll be facing an uphill battle to change anyone's mind. Eric Corbett 18:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly nonsense. Sensitive information needs to be deleted all the time and there are legal issues with giving out the right to see deleted content willy nilly. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, the proposal isn't isn't to give out the right willy nilly. It would require a justified request (something I can't imagine many people making) and could be reversed by consensus. We could also set whatever preconditions the community and WMF wish to impose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The group (from a technical standpoint) already exists: WP:Researcher. But it's not assignable by admins, and not likely to be made so. Most of the links at that page aren't useful anymore, but the process appears to have been "submit an application to the WMF". Anomie⚔ 11:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have your opinion and I have mine. Let's leave it at that. Eric Corbett 18:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments both. Eric, can you point me to where this was shot down? Also, what about an alternative proposal in which some deleted pages are flagged to be hidden from the public (such as those containing defamatory content) and others are not? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a software change, so that won't happen either. The logical fallacy underpinning the established view as expressed by Chillum above is that neither administrators nor those voting them into office are required to identify themselves to the WMF, so there's no vetting in place anyway. Here's the relevant discussion anyway.[15] Eric Corbett 18:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about blanking rather than deleting the pages, posting a template that the edit histories are being preserved temporarily for an investigation, and having the pages protected in that state? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about filing the SPI right now? If it's a spamming ring, focused on a specific IP range, we can shut it down and likely have the IPs globally blocked for an extended period. People forget we're not the only project getting spammed by these folks half the time. Meanwhile, more accounts might well be being created even as we speak, creating more mess to be cleaned up. I really don't see any benefit in retaining these pages (which will still be google-searchable) in any form if they're to be deleted. Perhaps making a list of the accounts and articles will be useful. Risker (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make some strong arguments, Risker, for why I should focus on the SPI ahead of the content cleanup. I'll think them over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on NYB's suggestion, we often do something like that in copyright investigations. cf. this page as an example. I would not be comfortable using the template, and holding off clearing it until a SPI is completed; although it does take time to clear copyright issues, if we ever deliberately retained them longer than was necessary, it might raise issues. However, I will argue that copyright infringements are not ideal for studying behavioral evidence, as, by definition, they are someone else's work (I admit to no experience with SPIs, so I may be over stating this). However, spammy articles might well have useful behavioral information, and I do not see the same legal issue with longer retentions, so I am thinking that the code from the copyvio template could be modified to blank a spammy article, through in a noindex at the same time, so no one is likely to find it, or easily see it, yet the history is available to non-admin SPI investigators.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that there might be some opposition to having an article in main space with a noindex; if others have the same concern, the article, if qualified for deletion, could be moved to draft space, thus out of main space, then noindexed, and could sit for some time while an investigation is done. I would still add the template to hide it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that NOINDEX has no tangible effect in mainspace; so, yes, moving to a different namespace would be necessary. –xenotalk 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just file the SPI first, then tag the pages for deletion. It won't matter if the pages are deleted in the meantime since most people handling SPIs are admins anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My approach to promotionalism to to delete the articles, not worry about where they may be coming from; my approach to paid editing is careful & skeptical scrutiny of the sort of articles that paid editors characteristically work on. I personally do not work on spi for a variety of reasons, but I want to make sure I am not interfering with those people who are. (And, fwiw, I think DrF is well qualified by his good judgment and understanding of policy for an administrator, and I urge him to let me nominate him. Some of the work he is doing would indeed be facilitating by having access to deleted articles, and this is the only way.) DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave proposal: summary points

Hello,

I have been working to clarify when (rarely) and when not to use Find a Grave - and came to a summary of key points, from a discussion at on the template talk page. This seems fairly congruent with what is posted on Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave, except that there are clearly definitions rather than "some people", "some times" kind of statements.

The following were invited to discuss the matter:

... but I think that this has likely been such a contentious issue for awhile that it's kind of died on the vine. My intention was to see whether the Template talk page could be updated - so that there's at least one page that summarizes some specifics - and that page seemed to make sense since it deals with the two potential scenarios: references and external links.

My goal is clarification - I have no stake in the end result.

Any idea about how, whether, etc. to proceed? Did I bring this to the right place?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see mention of "Find a Grave" on-wiki, I still am rather ashamed that this project retains WP:FAG as a shortcut to it. Tarc (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Find a Grave is user generated content. How is it different than using any other crowd sourced reference?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it is a redirect to Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people it seems clear that should be WP:FAGFP but what do I know...better to offend people than to be accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really going to go through another long RfD process regarding this issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the last one closed as a no consensus, maybe we'd have a better shot this time around, overcoming the libertarian flag-wavers and free-culture fanatics. There's also the similarly absurd WP:Cum, kept for the same rationales. Tarc (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also have WP:JAP, WP:WOP, WP:DICK, and WP:QUEER from whose point of view do we draw the line? Per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC there are bound to be things on Wikipedia people don't like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving that you're part of the problem, Kid. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is seeing that redirects don't get deleted needlessly by those who want to choose what most offends them on Wikipedia then so be it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is offensive and it is inaccurate and seems to actually be something used for the shock factor in this case. It isn't going to change and you are not going to shut people up that are offended. It really is that simple.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put it up for deletion at RfD if you feel so strongly about it. Reyk YO! 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Again, no stake here, but here's my understanding at a high level:
  • References: No biographical information can be used. What can be used are memorial data from photographs of gravestones or supplied by the VA and American and UK War Graves Commissions -- if there aren't any exclusions, like posting of copyright infringement info on the page.
  • External links: There's a lot of exclusions to go into - the situations are very limited. But the summary at least spells it out all in one place.
The point of getting the information posted is to make guidelines clear + make it real clear what to do when the references cannot be used. Right now, there are users following the instructions, which are to remove to replace with a reliable source. If it's removed, without a citation tag, then it looks like the following source covers the information. Since generally the only "new" data that would come from Find a Grave would be the cemetery. It's not likely that the following source had that info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about a previous AfD process, I mean specific to Find a Grave. I'm just trying to get info documented which limits the use of the Find a Grave template more clearly than the existing language.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it all depends. For example, if a known-good editor does many useful edits and happens to add a couple of find-a-grave links, others would probably conclude that there was good reason to leave them as is. By contrast, if someone focuses on adding such links, others would probably conclude they were junk and should be removed. It is extremely unlikely that a formula can be produced that specifies when find-a-grave links are reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, That's a good point! If that's the case and it's better to never use Find a Grave, then why don't we say so on the Find a Grave template, etc.? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on point this time, the reason may well be that the template itself should not exist and that having it as an option only seems to give the excuse to those wanting to use Find A Grave as a source. If we have the template to use...its going to be used as just an excuse why we should be able to use Find A Grave. Another reason may well be that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is only a guideline and not policy and easily ignored (not being flippant. Many editor do ignore it and use all manner of sourcing). Really there is nothing on Find A grave that is useful as a source. If the headstone has the information than that is the source. Should that be used as the inline citation? Is using tombstone information on Wikipedia a reliable source? Do we even have a format for an inline citation to use such information? If not...should there be?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your points, Mark Miller. I can more easily find information, for instance on questionable / unreliable sources like encyclopedias, peerage information, etc.
Having the template is what made it seem right to me to use it for date of birth, date of death, and cemetery information. It makes sense that if it didn't make it into print, then it's not notable enough to use.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If it isn't in a secondary reliable source, or primary source or tertiary source, we shouldn't be adding the content. But...."should not" falls short of policy. We allow too much leeway in these instances but I don't see it improving. I do, however, support the idea that the template should be deleted.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if I drafted something for the Template:Find a Grave page that was sterner about not using the template (thinking back about an initial comment about a long, drawn out AfD discussion sometime in the not too distant past)? Or, someone else-if there's a problem with me doing it-draft something sterner about not using it so that there's better guidance about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nit: Mark, every source, including unpublished ones, can be categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary. A gravestone is normally considered a primary source, as are most sources whose natural citation template is {{cite sign}}. It's not an WP:Independent source, and it is a self-published one, and it has none of the characteristics of reliable sources (reliable sources may be primary, secondary, or tertiary), so it requires a little judicious handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a high school teacher I have been lenient with students using Wikipedia. The Neil Tyson edits have me concerned.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of my students using Wikipedia for research. But after reading about the scrubbing of facts as to what things Neil Tyson as actually said, I'm considering banning Wikipedia sources entirely.

The whole point of research it to create a solid, defensible, position. Now, my students cannot honestly say that data is apparently "whole", and thus cannot be defended at all.

So for now, in my class anyway, no more Wikipedia in the bibliography until this policy is cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:AB00:E3D:3DD4:AD30:7D76:9029 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You'll be hard pressed to find someone here who thinks your students should be citing Wikipedia! Even Wikipedia doesn't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. Instead, encourage your students to use the references cited in a Wikipedia article as the source of their information. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well they should not be relying on Wikipedia, in the opinion of many, including me. Using it for background research is often quite helpful, however. It would be good for students to learn to question Wikipedia as with anything, then further research, question, question, dig further, etc.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Help us all. Who the hell is Neil Tyson. What did he do? And so what? (That link is to a massive slab of text. Educate those of us from a different part of the world.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He apparently said something about Dubya, but c'mon, who hasn't? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so he is alleged to have misrepresented Dubya. Yeah, well, people misrepresent me on Wikipedia Talk pages all the time, especially when they are losing a debate to me, and there's never any consequence for them. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@IP. What you should be doing is teaching students that Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research but is not in and of itself a source that should be cited in their final presentations. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an excellent source for sources. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia, a tertiary source, should never be cited directly. The sources used on the articles should be cited instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, with the vastly increased amount of attention people seem to pay to various types of "credit" nowadays, at some point we're going to see teachers demand that students not merely list their sources, but also somehow acknowledge what sources they got the sources from - i.e. to cite all the searches performed, on which engines, etc. There is a peripheral encroachment of the political concept (which I vehemently oppose) of database copyright; copying Wikipedia's list of sources verbatim in order might be a regular copyright issue but copying even a chunk might eventually end up under that rigamorale if we don't fight it. But the right reason to consider such a move is one of ascertainment bias -- in other words, if Wikipedia POV-pushers have slanted the article and taken out most of what one side has to say (which nowadays, some highly placed administrators have begun to treat as their civic duty!), then the student's paper is going to reek of this inherited slant.
Wikipedia may validly be cited either for that purpose, or if an outside body has reviewed and passed a specific revision (this is under discussion at WP:MED currently, I think). But in every case the student who references Wikipedia should cite a specific revision (with "oldid=" in the URL) rather than the ever-changing topmost version. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith that you are a teacher and not someone trolling us, you are absolutely correct in barring Wikipedia as a source. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact, we even have a policy against using sources which cite Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR). So, I absolutely agree with your decision, regardless of how the content dispute at Neil deGrasse Tyson plays out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OP should be referred to Wikipedia:Education program. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your concerned about a source covering the whole story, then Wikipedia is certainly inadequate. For various reasons material on Wikipedia may not be covered, and in general if you want students to get a big picture then looking up many sources should be required. Also user generated content from wikis are in general not reliable sources, but the reason we outright ban information from Wikipedia to be cited is to avoid circular citing; reliability always depends on context and in some cases even user-generated content from wikis is allowed on Wikipedia to be cited. Information on Wikipedia can(and should) always have superior sources which can be used as references, and if a student cites Wikipedia then they should be prepared to defend why they did so. An example I can think of where it would be appropriate to cite Wikipedia is in the case of an obscure topic where the only sources covering the topic are behind paywalls and inaccessible to students. It is inappropriate and dishonest to cite a source for information if you can't read the source yourself, and in such circumstances you should cite Wikipedia as citing the source for that information with the understanding that Wikipedia's representation of the information from that source may be dubious.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like AQFK above, I'm a little suspicious that a real teacher posted the above. Years ago when I was in school (admittedly roughly contemporaneous with the end of the Middle Ages & after they stopped teaching Latin in high school) we were repeatedly told Do not cite encyclopedias in your research papers -- with that kind of emphasis. Part of the reason was that the teachers wanted us to learn how to do research & maybe evaluate sources on our own. The rest of the reason was that all encyclopedias are notoriously inaccurate -- even the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, an encyclopedia is good for looking up facts like the capital of Paraguay & how many bushels of corn were harvested in 1965, & if it features signed articles then those articles might provide a useful, if dated & opinionated, introduction to the subject. (Although you run the risk that the article has been abridged or radically pruned to make room for more trendy articles.) But if you want to truly know a subject, you don't limit your research to an article in an encyclopedia -- although it would be nice if we could accept that no encyclopedia will ever contain all of human knowledge, but it can serve as a good introduction & starting place for further research into various topics. -- llywrch (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status.

Following a spate of discussions relating to consistency in article titles, I have condensed our common practices regarding title consistency into a set of explanations that I believe covers the major issues arising in this area. I do not believe that anything I have said on this page is novel, but that it merely restates in one place our existing practices and determinations regarding consistency in article titles. Of course, constructive suggestions for improvement are always appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What objective do you see being achieved in upgrading the essay to a guideline? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My objective is that if editors find themselves in discussions like the one I had at Talk:Mikhaylovsky (surname)‎#Requested move, they can point to the this description of common practice without drawing a response that the essay is just one editor's opinion (not that this happened in the discussion at issue, but there I had nothing to point to directly addressing the dispute, despite the uniformity of the titling practice). In a sense, in essay is just someone's opinion which can be considered or ignored if the reader feels like it; a guideline is a reflection of the preferences of the community. Since I have made a diligent effort to draw up a set of examples that reflect community preferences for choosing titles in various situations, I would like the status of the page to reflect that it does so. bd2412 T 19:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in no small part as a person with whom bd2412 had a discussion/disagreement in the Talk:Mikhaylovsky (surname)‎#Requested move RM, I, too, think upgrading this essay to a guideline would be a good idea. If that discussion is of any indication, and drawing on my own experiences in this area, the essay documents the existing consensus fairly accurately and thus has my full support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2014; 19:46 (UTC)
The essay currently states that it supplements Wikipedia:Article titles - which is policy. I'd have thought that the appropriate response to an "it's only an essay" argument would be to see what the policy says, and then discuss the merits of the particular case - which is what the essay seems to advocate anyway. If the essay does merit upgrading to a guideline, it will need doing so via a formal process, rather than a discussion here (unless I've misunderstood Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) - you'll need to start a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Consistency in article titles, and announce it in the appropriate places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was the appropriate place. Oh well. bd2412 T 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will initiate an RfC within the next few days. I would like to give a little more opportunity for comment on the page itself. Regarding the suggestion that editors "see what the policy says", the problem is that the policy only says to be consistent, without offering further guidance on what that means. This essay, hopefully soon to be a guideline, summarizes what that means to the community based on the wealth of talk page discussions that have been on the topic. bd2412 T 20:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPOSAL doesn't actually require you to have an RFC at the page itself (or to do anything in particular), but that is the most common process, and it may be the most convenient (since everyone who is already interested the page is likely to have it watchlisted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that likely to have an inherent bias, though? I don't have any proof, but my guess would be that "people already interested in a page" are more likely to agree with it than the average Wikipedian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Being "interested" in a proposal may also mean that an editor is firmly against it. What it does often boil down to in practice, sadly, is that editors with strong and polar opposite views are often drawn to such proceedings, instead of a wider and more moderate community. But that is a common and already well-known problem with any Wikipedia proposals. Around here there are so many useless mega-long threads discussing the value of adding/removing a comma or arguing about metaphysical benefits of a "primary topic" that rational proposals which actually have practical applications and make a difference often get thrown under the train of indifference as well, leaving only a handful of hardcore fans duking it out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2014; 18:10 (UTC)
  • If not to be a guideline, it can be a policy supplement linked from the policy. I see it is currently tagged with {{Supplement}}. In principle, policy supplementing essays should not be tagged as such unless linked from the policy page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would keep it an essay — some useful thoughts, but should not supersede (or come to a comparable level as) checks and balances in the specific guidelines, e.g. WP:NCPDAB, WP:MUSICSERIES. Such guidelines are sometimes updated, e.g. WP:NCPDAB, months of discussions over a few words, and WP:MUSICSERIES more recent complete overhaul. Don't think when rewriting such guidelines it would be a great help to have a "competing" view in a consistency guideline. E.g. this exception to WP:CONPRIME: "A particular example of this is Johann Sebastian Bach and his many composing namesakes. Conventionally J. S. Bach's compositions would be the primary topic in any genre, i.e. without disambiguator (Brandenburg Concertos) if not needed, and disambiguated or serialized by BWV number (Missa, BWV 232a) or (Bach) parenthical disambiguator (Orchestral suites (Bach)). Only descriptive titles (including category names) would usually give the full name for any composer after "by" (List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach). For the other Bachs, if parenthical disambiguation by name of the composer is needed: add the initials (with periods and spaces) in the parenthesis: Trio Sonata for Two Flutes (W. F. Bach) — Sonata in G major for two flutes and basso continuo, BWV 1039." --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the additional explanations given below, which didn't convince me as explained, also seeing this discussion, showing how difficult it is to get a grasp of all what is already in the guidelines consistency-wise (we really don't need more of that), I say with even more conviction: Keep it an essay --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would keep as an essay WP:TITLE plus the various specific guidelines is quite enough, we don't need a guideline that competes with the specific ones or tries to put itself above them. See also Wikipedia:Consistency which is inactive for good reasons, it would have just caused too many problems and conflicts with articles being independent. Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Francis Schonken and Dmcq, you both seem to be concerned that the proposed guideline would be competing with project specific guidelines. The intention of the proposal is to reflect common practices already in use in the encyclopedia, but it also notes at several points that there are topic specific guidelines for many fields (for example, noting that persons with titles of nobility are presented differently from human names generally). I would also reiterate that the proposed guidelines do not create anything new or inventive; they merely collect in one place various determinations that have been made regarding the general application of consistency. Would it help if it was more clearly stated in the proposal that topic-specific guidelines override these general practices, and that editors should refer to project-specific guidelines? Of course, not all projects address consistency in titling in their guidelines, and not all topics fall neatly into one topic - I don't imagine that anyone objects to providing guidance where there is no applicable project-related guidance. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Don't get me wrong, I like essays, wrote a few myself, for example this one I'm quite proud of
      2. Either the page has something specific, guidance not found elsewhere, or its value is rather illustrative w.r.t. approved guidance (e.g. giving an overview and examples). For me it would need to be demonstrated it has enough specificity so that editors should know about it when they're tackling an issue for which all other guidance combined wouldn't have the appropriate guidance, and secondly, it has to be demonstrated that tackling an issue according to this guidance, and to whatever other guidance, would not result in different results. An explicit "other NC's take precedence" declaration would take care of the second point (but that would be so when it remained an essay too). The first point — why would it be necessary for editors to familiarize themselves with this guidance? — is still open to me.
      3. The general point is also: there are so many guidelines, what a workload to get to know them all... Fresh editors might get frightened for less... what would be the upside for saying to a fellow editor: this is a guideline you shouldn't miss? Can you explain in a few words where its force lies (which would not be the current content of its nutshell, as that much is already clear from WP:AT)?
      4. Again, giving summaries of other guidelines and giving examples is good and helpful, but most of all I see an essay you can be proud of. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      5. To make it a bit more practical, as an example, where would you expect the proposed guidance to make a difference in this consistency-related discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposed guideline collects common practices not only from topic-specific guidelines, but from the results of move requests and other discussions where no topical guidance was available, but where there has repeatedly been a strong consensus in favor of maintaining consistency. The problem with referencing topic-specific guidelines is that they are topic-specific. Here's what I mean - we have articles on Economy of Hawaii, Economy of Ohio, Economy of Vermont, and so on. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics that gives some guidance on how these articles should be laid out, but says nothing about titles. We can't turn to the guidance offered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology to decide how these articles should be titles. There is no guidance that says we can't have articles titled Economy of Hawaii, Ohioan economy, and Vermont economic profile. It may seem like common sense that if 48 out of 50 states have articles titled "Economy of..." then the last two should be titled that way also, but there is no rule in the encyclopedia that clearly says this, only a large number of move requests and other discussions where similar discrepancies have been resolved this way. Similarly, although Florida is a primary topic and Florida (disambiguation) lists other places called "Florida" (which have there own economies), there is no rule that an article titled Economy of Florida should be about the economy of Florida rather than the economy of Florida, Chile. There is no guideline that says that we can title an article Georgia in the American Civil War rather than Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War, there is only a discussion where it was decided that this kind of move was common sense.
      As for the specific consistency-related discussion to which you refer, that is precisely within the purview of the relevant WikiProject, which says "[w]hen a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)". This seems to distinguish "(instrumental)" from "(song)", so if there is still confusion about there being overlap, it is the project's guideline that should be fixed. The proposed general guideline would suggest that the use of disambiguators should be consistent, so you would need to see if there are other instances where two works of the same name are distinguished by one being disambiguated with "(song)" and the other with "(instrumental)", which would indicate that this is either a common practice, or a bigger problem that needs to be addressed in the topic-specific guidelines. bd2412 T 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      For Economy of Hawaii and the others in that sentence, see WP:NCCST#Guideline. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if the "Foo of" status is used consistently, we could still have one group of articles with titles like Economy of Hawaii and another with titles like Economics of Ohio. If "Foo" and "Bar" mean the same thing, and there is no WP:ENGVAR issue, then articles should consistently be titled "Foo of Place" or "Bar of Place", but not a mix of the two (or all titled "Foo of Place" with a single article title "Bar of Place", and a defender of that title arguing that there's no policy or guideline requiring that it be changed). Of course, even if this goes from essay to guideline, we will still have editors who like their inconsistent titles saying, "it's only a guideline".
      Re. specific consistency-related discussion: you seem to have missed my argument in that discussion to extend consistency across the somewhat illusive classical/popular music border: both types of music are treated in the same guideline (WP:NCM), separately, leading to inconsistency between the two genres. The discussion is about an issue fellow editors apparently can't get worked out for the popular music genre. The suggestion I made: apply what we'd do if it were a classical composition. Problem solved. And, relevant to the discussion here, more consistency. But, indeed, the proposed guidance wouldn't seem to have any effect there. In other words, no specificity proven, at least not enough for this to go beyond essay level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as unnecessary mission creep. Any extra instruction has to have a very good reason for its existence - otherwise its very existence degrades the rest by simply being there occupying volume. I know it's not too practical but I'd like an impetus in government so every time they passed one law they had to make a real effort to remove another. I can't see one I'd like to remove to pt this in instead. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The instruction exists whether this is a guideline or not; it merely takes a more arduous and roundabout process to inform people about it. It's like the story of the monkeys who get doused with cold water whenever they try to grab the banana hanging there as bait. When a new monkey comes in and tries to get the banana, he gets beaten by the other monkeys for it without knowing why. Eventually there are only new monkeys in there, and all they know is that if an even newer monkey tries to get the banana, he gets beaten for it. Rather than having unwritten rules that are only acknowledged when someone tries to move a page to an arcane title, we can offer guidance. This makes no new rules, it merely explains what the common practices are, and why it makes sense to have those practices. bd2412 T 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an essay. It is very new and very few editors have contributed to it. If in a years time talk pages frequently link to it then the question of whether it should become a naming convention can be revisited. Also note the section Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the 'last straw' that lead me to start this essay was a discussion on the Wikipedia:Article titles talk page, where I have already outlined the parameters that have become the current essay. Please do feel free to improve the proposal if you think that it is lacking, particularly if it is missing anything about common practices that we use to maintain title consistency. bd2412 T 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and ideologically charged editing

When has wikipedia started to use personal opinion and political bias in the redaction of it's articles [16]? Isn't an encyclopedia article about referenced facts? Shouldn't an Encyclopedia be as neutral and factual as possible? Why even have WikiProject_Feminism [17] (a clearly delined political and ideological master censor) dictating newsworthy facts as sound or not? There's a clear inferred vested interest by that WikiProject in controlling the article about "GamerGate" just by looking at the number of edits it received (specially when compared to other articles, some much more relevant to the topic of Feminism). I can't phantom how this type of procedure will make Wikipedia reliable to the eyes of the public. What's next, a "WikiProject_Creation" dictating what is and is not science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.237.146 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already tell creationists that their views are not science, and your arguments show a lack of assumed good faith and basic understanding of the site.
WP:Feminism is there to edit pages that document the history and ideas of notable feminists. They are not there to censor stuff.
Per WP:SELFPUB, Zoe Quinn is at least a reliable source about herself. GamerGate is a conspiracy theory, and per WP:GEVAL, their reinterpretation of news sources will not be given equal validity.
Your claims of "clear invested interest" fail WP:Assume good faith, and are are pretty solid proof that the cause you're pushing for is conspiracy theorist bollocks at any rate.
Further posts that continue to make the above mistakes will be treated as trolling.
The GamerGate folks are sadsacks who are using their conspiracy theory to ignore problems in their own lives (or in themselves). Are you sure you want to be a member of their ranks? Are you sure you want to make the world just a bit worse by propagating a conspiracy theory?
Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this " are sadsacks who are using their conspiracy theory to ignore problems in their own lives (or in themselves)" is what it is to be expected from a moderator of a n encyclopedia. I understand now how you do your "fact checking" and what your standards of exemption and neutrality are. Revealing, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.237.146 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you think I'm a moderator only confirms your ignorance. You have no idea what's going on, go home. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next I should raise an RfC on whether characters in books which are not out of copyright are subject to WP:BLP ;-) Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi flags

Hi, on the talk page for WikiProject Chess I raised a concern about tables for chess competitions played between 1933 and 1945 featuring the flag of Nazi Germany. I am not satisfied with the WP:NOTCENSORED response I received from Cobblet, and taking his responses to their logical conclusion, it would appear that he has no problem with putting a Nazi flag opposite a Jewish player's name, something I would consider patently offensive. While it is a common practice on wikipedia to include flags in sports tables, the fact is it's unnecessary and is done purely for cosmetic reasons, possibly in violation of MOS:FLAG. They add no information to an article, so removing them would not be "censorship".

As this issue has an impact on other sports-related pages I am asking for opinions from the wider wikipedia community on this. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as offensive in this context, where it's clearly representing the flag of the country they represented rather than a statement of political affiliation. The hammer and sickle appears next to everyone who represented the USSR, but doesn't imply they were communists, and religious images appear on dozens of national flags but we don't presume, or expect readers to presume, that we're claiming in Wikipedia's voice that (for instance) English and Iraqi nationals are automatically Christians and Muslims respectively. Mogism (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a person competed for Germany in an sporting even from 1935-45, then as distasteful as the image may be for some, the Nazi flag is the one that should be used. We can't whitewash history. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure of one thing: we don't want to use flags in tables like this when they are only representing nationality, as opposed to actually representing a country. If it is the case that the players from Nazi Germany were playing as representatives of that state, then there is no reason to remove the flags, and it should not be taken that chess players necessarily shared the same "ideals" that the Nazi government supported, so the fact that a Nazi flag appears next to a Jewish flag should not be taken as insulting. (eg: what Mogism and Tarc said) If it is the case that these just only are the nationality of the players and they were not playing as representatives of that country, they (all flag icons) should be removed per MOSFLAGS. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of MOS:SPORTFLAGS when this discussion began and think it is a reasonable policy. I think following it may alleviate MaxBrowne's concerns in the specific cases he has in mind, where the players in question may have been lived in Nazi Germany but not represent it in any official sense. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't duplicate discussions. Let's keep any any new comments at talk:WikiProject_Chess#Flags_in_tournament_crosstables. Thankyou. Alsee (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tag?

The article Washington Redskins name controversy has again been given a POV tag, with even less posted on the talk page. How long to wait until removal of the tag? I'm thinking a week.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A week seems reasonable - unless the article is obviously POV (read through it befoire de-tagging it), if the tagger can't even be troubled to give somer indication of what makes him/her think it's POV within a week, the tag should be removed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of archiveurl and archivedate

I was told some time ago, by a senior editor, that archiveurl and archivedate are now deprecated in favor of archive-url and archive-date. That editor has since left the project, according to his user page. {{Cite web}} shows both forms in various places but does not include archiveurl and archivedate in its list of deprecated parameters. What is the status of this change? Unless the unhyphenated parameters are truly and officially deprecated, I will continue to use them in new cites. The hyphenated forms allow the parameter name to be split by a line break in edit mode, diffs, etc., and I see that as undesirable. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'archive-url' and 'archiveurl' are aliases and have the exact same meaning; ditto for 'archive-date'. There is some opinion that 'archive-url' is preferable because it does not get marked as a spelling error in some browsers. We are working to standardize names so other parameters will work with and without hyphens. Bottom line: it isn't broken with way you use it. --  Gadget850 talk 16:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what Gadget850 said. But, why are you asking this question here? Questions about Citation Style 1 are best answered at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both for the answer and the correction. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=627424386"