Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

Requirement for non-primary sourcing in NGEO

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn, per discussion with FOARP etc. It may be worth having a discussion on the secondary idea of a location not being notable if the only coverage of the feature is mention in a census table as suggested by SMcCandlish, but that idea would need considerable work shopping before it can be proposed anywhere. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should WP:NGEO be clarified to state that all articles within its scope must include at least one non-primary source? 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey (Non-primary sourcing in NGEO)

• Support per WP:OR, which says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them and Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability, as well as WP:WHYN which compliments this by saying We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

While this clarification is redundant as we already have a core policy that clearly requires this, I think it is useful to provide as it is not uncommon in this topic area for editors to forget that such a requirement exists; we see many articles on geographical locations sourced solely to the census, for example. I also believe the requirement itself is a good idea; if all we have is raw data on a topic then we are not able to put it in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, as required by WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and we are not able to provide the interpretation and context that is required for an article to provide encyclopedic coverage of a topic. Further, the sole use of primary sources often causes issues; such sources often require a degree of interpretation to comprehend and this has resulted in the creation of articles that claim, for example, a petrol station is a village. We can minimize such mistakes by reminding editors that they need also need to use secondary sources in their article creations. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per NEXIST, we don't actually have to be currently using a source for it to count towards notability. That being said anyone asserting that the topic is notable on NEXIST grounds actually needs to be able to present the sources... The only real caveat I would carve out would be for topic where their primary language of coverage is likely other than English (a Kyrgyz parliamentarian for example), in that cases coverage can be presumed to exist if nobody present has the language skills to confirm one way or another whether it does or doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  While we don't need to be using the source for it to count towards notability we do need to be using at least one secondary source to comply with WP:OR; I think it would be helpful to provide a reminder of that - particularly since even when articles covered by NGEO are challenged editors forget this requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ehh, I think its more a user behavior issue if someone is creating articles without reliable secondary sources. My understanding is that the vast vast majority of articles which are largely unsourced were created more than a decade ago, not recently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it's still quite common today; for example, I recently came across someone creating hundreds of articles on hromada's sourced solely to the same primary source, and someone else creating hundreds of articles on Indian villages sourced to the same four censuses; even a quick scroll through recent page creations turned up this article, which is sourced solely to GNIS and the Iranian Census. Given that it is such a common misconception I feel it is more appropriate to characterize it as a communication issue rather than a behavioral issue. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As North8000 frequently says, Wikipedia is a fuzzy ecosystem and we ought to be clear and deliberate in how or why we change WP:N. I, for one, believe two things - first that stub articles are appropriate and useful to our project. Some information is better than none. Second, I believe that we should not treat primary sources as black and white. Yes, relying on primary sources is problematic, since primary sources frequently make the thing they are associated with/from look good and more important. However, there are primary sources that are purely factual and should be trusted. Who are the members of a legislature? Who are members of a football squad? Who holds a named professorship? Which businesses are listed on NASDAQ? I am more concerned with improving this project and using common sense than design one-size-fits-all rules that may have unintended consequesnces that make this project less usueful to readers. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NEXIST. Notability is independent of the sources actually used in an article. (Edit: there's also an interesting point made by Thryduulf just below. There may be a forum shopping issue to dig into.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NEXIST is about whether the sourcing is currently on Wikipedia. It is not a pass on it not existing at all.FOARP (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP: I might re-read the proposal again. :-) This proposal has nothing to say about sources existing, but would add a new requirement that one be on Wikipedia to count towards notability. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per all Enos733, The ed17 and Horse Eye's Black. I really don't want to assume bad faith here, but this feels remarkably like trying again to make it easier to delete content that some people do not like when the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Changes to GEOLAND RFC is not going the way they hoped. The existence of a large number of stub articles on geographic places is not a problem that needs solving. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  The requirement already exists; articles based solely on primary sources can already be deleted, both in this topic area and any other. The difference that this will hopefully make is to reduce the number of articles created in violation of the requirement, by reminding editors who are using NGEO to help determine whether a topic warrants an article that they need to include a secondary source. BilledMammal (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Although I am aware that you believe The requirement already exists, I have not yet seen any evidence that the community supports this view. This is the question I have asked in the discussion section above, and it has not yet been answered. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no reasonable way to interpret the sections of WP:OR and WP:N that I quoted other than that the requirement exists; if you believe the community no longer supports that requirement then the correct way to address it is an RfC proposing modifications to WP:OR and WP:N. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Guidelines are not hard and fast rules, by design. WP:N is not absolute. Your interpretation of it is not inherently correct, nor the sole interpretation. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:WHYN, WP:NOR. Secondary, independent sourcing is required for all articles. No area of Wikipedia is exempt from this requirement as it is needed to maintain WP:NPOV and avoid inaccuracy and hoaxes. WP:NEXIST is an argument as to when it needs to be established, not if it needs to be established - and it needs to be established no later than a primary facile case of it lacking is put forward.FOARP (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the overall proposal, per the most of above commenters; it has confused the sourcing used to establish notability with the sourcing used to satisfy WP:V. But I support this secondary idea: "While we don't need to be using the source for it to count towards notability we do need to be using at least one secondary source to comply with WP:OR; I think it would be helpful to provide a reminder of that". A problem with using old census data and the like as the only sources for the existence of something is that micro-local jurisdictions are created and absorbed all the time, sometimes within just a couple of years, and they are not encyclopedic material (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY including a geographic one, WP:NOT#DATABASE, etc.). At best, they should redirect to whatever they merged into or are a subset of, just as we redirect non-notable school titles to notable school districts. But if there isn't even any sourcing available to establish that the little locality presently or recently existed and some basic details about it, other than a mention in a census, then there isn't any basis on which to write anything encyclopedic in the first place, even as a sentence inside another aritcle. I'll repeat part of NGEO: "Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." Note in particular hamlets in census tables which is mostly what this is about. NGEO also says: "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply." The actual rationale for that perhaps overly specific line-item also applies to "if the only coverage of the feature is mention in a census table"; it's just that the RfC that arrived at that exact wording was only considering maps at the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and I agree with a lot of SMcCandlish has said. Also I'd maybe some clarity on NEXIST might help, notability isn't depend on the references in the article, but those references do need to exist and be proven to exist at AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Per policy, articles must be based on non-primary sources. This is an independent criterion from establishment of notability. While I acknowledge the concerns of @Horse Eye's Back and @SMcCandlish that presumptions of IRS SIGCOV can be asserted with SNGs and rebuttably protected by NEXIST, the articles themselves must still comply with NOR policy--which means that the content of the article must be based on non-primary sources. In theory, one could achieve this without actually citing the secondary source, as long as the majority of the info is verifiable to a secondary source. However, in practice the NGEO criteria have become totally divorced from any empirical demonstration of predictive power. Even the "evidence" that every subject in some subclass really does meet GNG is often simply a collection of passing mentions in primary news, appearances in primary government docs, and clearly indirect coverage that just bypasses NOTINHERITED. Inclusion of secondary sources, which should be a very easy ask -- and indeed is expected in every other topic area -- is apparently too onerous and time-consuming for geo mass creators in particular. Editors who create each article with individual attention should not have any more of a problem finding secondary sourcing than they would for any other topic from the same region or time period. So the only editors who would be affected by enforcing the secondary basis requirement would be those concerned with rapidly creating boilerplate stubs for every item in a geographical database--and if doing this is so vital to the encyclopedia that we can indefinitely waive all standards for this topic, then it would make a lot more sense to give the task to a bot and free the human editors to work on things that do need human effort. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is yet another one of BilledMammal's backdoor deletion proposals. Can we ban such proposals already? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you think BilledMammal is being disruptive, the noticeboards are thataway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose while it is best to have secondary sources it is not quite as easy to locate them as is being suggested above. I once came across a stub about an Iraq town with a population of 46,000 and I couldn't find any secondary sources at all and there wasn't much in primary sources either. In these situations a local editor with access to offline sources would be essential. Beyond adding templates I don't think deletion is appropriate in these circumstances if the details are verified in reliable primary sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article on a geographical place is going to include the history of that place, if suitable sources exist for that history. I happen to be aware that there are books written by historians that do not contain the level of veneration of secondary sources, and the level of condemnation of primary sources, that appears in our policy. Examples that I have come across include, in particular, "Historical Interpretation" by J J Bagley, "The King's Parliament of England" by G O Sayles, and the introduction to Selincourt's translation of books 21 to 30 of Livy titled "The War with Hannibal" by Betty Radice. In view of what these authors say about primary and secondary sources, I am unable to support the proposed addition to this guideline. If Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are going to animadvert on primary sources of history, I think the starting point should be to find out what historians actually say about those sources. I will not at this time support the addition of any further such animadversions not based on statements made in the verifiable published works of historians. James500 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the NEXIST argument above; contradictions in Wikipedia policy exist—deal with them instead of digging a deeper hole, per WP:POLCON (which I see was mentioned in the pre-RfC discussion, and then just discarded). I feel like the proposer should also be aware, if they have any hope of passing more proposals, that WP:BLUDGEON can also apply to starting discussions, and not just participating in them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no clear definition of secondary that we agree on; I've come to realise that the definition differs widely between fields. This level of hostility towards articles that cover topics that verifiably exist, are covered in reliable sources and are generally considered the purview of an encyclopedia is getting really wearying. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be a solution to a problem that's already been solved. I understand there were a ton of articles started about cities and/or named places based off of one GNIS or census entry. That created a mess and stirred up some hostile feelings that unfortunately resulted in us losing some good editors. However, that is over and done and dealt with. I can understand a desire to want something in policy to avoid a repeat of history, but let's not impose hard line mandates that could have any number of unintended consequences. Remember what made Wikipedia great was freedom to edit, not endless and ever expanding restrictions.Dave (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We have long said that WP performs the function of a gazetteer. Until a separate sister project is established by the WMF to do this, it makes sense that we actually include all formally-recognized placed as to serve this purpose. That means we need sourcing to affirm they exist, but not the same type of sourcing expected for notability (non-primary sourcing). Obviously, if that can be added, great, but it should not be a requirement as long as we consider the gazetter function as part of our purpose. (Also, this is the only area that we do have such allowance, so its not likely to spread to other topic areas). --Masem (t) 13:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the already mentioned points and and NEXIST. Masterhatch (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding more confusion between notability and sourcing type, and more wiki-dogma in place of reasoned evaluation, is not a step in the right direction. The proposal treats "primary" as if it is always an attribute of a source, taken completely out of context. This is incorrect. A source can be primary for some claims and secondary for others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think everyone would agree that this is the direction individual articles should be moving in over time. However, the notability guideline has always been focused on the subject itself, rather than the article. —siroχo 09:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Notability is an inherent property of the subject of an article and entirely separate from the current state of said article. That is a fundamental principal that this proposal would toss out. If someone sees an article that they think is insufficiently sourced, WP:SOFIXIT still applies, as does WP:BEFORE. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose What novel ideas, syntheses, analyses, evaluations and/or conclusions are present in a geography stub? XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Non-primary sourcing in NGEO)

See here for the pre-RFC discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• There have been so many proposals relating to notability and deletion recently, I'm losing track... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Almost all started by or strongly and prolifically endorsed by the same few editors. I would support a moratorium on any new noticeboard-level proposals relating to notability and/or deletion until after all the currently open RFCs and similar discussions about such matters are closed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. One at a time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support moratorium. The sheer number of proposals, the speed with which they are being proposed, and the sheer number of comments in those discussions by the same few editors, is making it impossible for other editors to get anything useful done elsewhere on the project. James500 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. couldn't have said it better myself.Dave (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

And I note there is now yet another one on extending BLP-type prods to all unreferenced articles, taking place on proposals. It is genuinely hard to keep up with all this and actually do any real work here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to share a link. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Request for comment: Unreferenced PROD. I'm about to start a formal proposal for a moratorium. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, Airshipjungleman29, James500, Moabdave, and Novem Linguae: and anyone else interested, the formal proposal for a moratorium is at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Temporary moratorium on new proposals regarding deletion, notability and related matters Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think it worth noting here that this discussion was supposed to take place after the other RFC closed - indeed it was agreed on the NGEO page that it would not take place until the other RFC had at least closed. It was then that NewImpartial decided to open their RFC to pre-empt this one and BM open this one. To be honest I would not have opened this RFC now - tit-for-tat is never a good idea.

There's a lot of talk about "the same few editors" above, I haven't counted the number of editors who repeat this particular statement but it does also appear to fall into the definition of "a few". Frankly, there is an increasingly acrimonious discussion between editors who focus is on cleaning articles up and removing inaccurate content, and those whose focus is on generating or defending articles created rapidly and in large numbers based on primary sourcing - you might feel that characterisation is unfair, but it is the effect of the present discussion.

@SMcCandlish - your argument about WP:NEXIST is interesting. Is there a proposal, giving proper weight to WP:NEXIST, that you could support? For example, a requirement that secondary sourcing should at least exist for the article-subject? FOARP (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that Newimpartial's discussion is not an RFC. Your characterisation of the editors is definitely unfair, but this is the wrong place for discussion of that. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me: NewImpartial's question about how to implement policy on the page that says right at the top "this is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented". 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have specific wording in mind, and in the P&G sphere I tend to focus on the style matters, so I may not be the best to craft such wording. The exact interplay between various statements in the sourcing and notability policies isn't an area of expertise for me. But I think someone for whom it is could gin up a propposal pretty easily, using what I said above and perhaps your summary "secondary sourcing should at least exist for the article subject". But something like that should surely be proposed after the current furor[e] has died down a bit. There's a clear lack of appetite above for another proposal relating to any of this until after all the concurrent ones are closed. Kind of a WP:TALKFORK problem (even if not strictly WP:MULTI; it's not literally "the same" discussion in multiple places, but a failure to centralize related propositions and consider them together or at least in series).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we have had at least one too many discussions on this topic of late. The mass-creation RFC mandated by ARBCOM after the whole Lugnuts farago was supposed to be a centralised discussion of all this, but it simply fell apart without a conclusion.

I would support workshopping the WP:NEXIST proposal over at NGEO and proposing something based on that back here towards the end of the year/start of the next as a Christmas present for everyone. BM is correct to highlight that we're acting as if secondary sourcing can be abandoned entirely in the NGEO area, but it's also worth saying that WP:NEXIST needs to be given some play since so many articles have been created under the apparent assumption that it basically doesn't matter. I don't believe the doom-laden predictions about mass deletion myself, but clearly enough people do that something needs to be done to assuage their concerns.

@Newimpartial/@BilledMammal - are you guys OK with mutually withdrawing the proposals and going back to the drawing board on this? We could play this out to the end but I don't think it's going well. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I haven't made any proposals, and I also haven't asked a question about how to inplement policy, which was your second attempt to characterize my question and was a second fail.

What I did, was to ask what the status quo is. We have two or three editors who believe it is a certain thing (NOR offers a deletion option unrelated to SYNTH) and we have other editors who don't see it that way. If the status quo really amounts to "the community is divided on this" I would think it helpful to see that documented before anyone draws up a proposal to change the status quo.

Basically, I would like to see what the community - not the five or so most invested editors - think the status quo is before an attempt is made to change it. I am not especially attached to the wording I used in my section above, but I do think that step ought logically to precede any proposals either to implement or to change the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

OK NewImpartial, replace "proposal" with "whatever that is" if that fits for you. BM is OK with withdrawing, are you? FOARP (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to "withdraw" the question I asked above, since it still seems pertinent and it doesn’t involve any change to the status quo. If editors have better ideas about how to assess what the status quo actually is, or if there is a SNOW sense that the status quo is "editors can't agree what the status quo is", or some other, better approach has been identified than asking the question I asked above, those would be reasons to shut down the above discussion. So far, I haven't really seen anything that falls in any of those buckets, and I also don't see how leaving the above section open could make anything "worse". Perhaps I am simply lacking imagination at the moment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that 'the status quo really amounts to "the community is divided on this"' is pretty well demonstrated by the nature of these discussions. Whether it should be divided or not (based on existing policy and what it all says) is a different matter, but I learned a long time ago not to assert that dispute or uncertainty didn't really exist (in the face of demonstrable actual dispute/uncertainty) on the basis that it shouldn't exist because of policy's clarity. Got myself a reasonably long-term move-ban for taking that kind of stance, back in the day.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me; I quite like what SMcCandlish is suggesting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Notifications (Non-primary sourcing in NGEO)

@Actualcpscm, BilledMammal, Bkonrad, Davidstewartharvey, FOARP, Firefangledfeathers, Harper J. Cole, Horse Eye's Back, James500, JoelleJay, Mangoe, Masterhatch, Newimpartial, North8000, and The ed17: Notify editors involved in the pre-RFC discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear consensus by use ignoring discussions

Is it fair to assume that consensus by use occurs, where no matter how many discussions take place, users who are unaware/not party to the discussions or unaware/not party of Wikiproject style guides and discussions carry on doing the actions which are being discussed a certain way no matter what occurs in those discussions or internally within a wikiproject.

TL;DR is it consensus by use where users (a large number) simply pay no attention to or have no knowledge of discussions on a specific subject? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Sometimes, a local consensus can emerge from a talk page which is not necessarily indicative of a broad, community-wide consensus. Is that the point you're making? Pecopteris (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but it sometimes does. Addressing that behavioral issue is difficult. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I mean when a Wikiproject decides something, but users such as casual and new users, simply pay no attention either through ignorance or preference. I mean i feel in some cases Wikiprojects can make all the consensus they want but trying to get others to pay attention to those discussions can be impossible.

I mean a prime example is the accessibility rules, I know the rules sty not to have headers embedded tables, to aid screen readers, but that is roundly ignored by users, who may not even know the rule exists. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There is also this discussion where a wikiproject has withdrawn support for doing something one-way nad is endorsing doing something another way, but editors outside of the wikiproject are roundly ignoring hat the wikiproject is saying by continuing to do things the way the wikiproject no longer wants things done. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a slightly different situation; per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS editors outside the WikiProject have no obligation to follow the WikiProject's consensus; if the WikiProject wants the broader community to follow it then it needs to get consensus in the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am fairly new here and trying to get to know how things work.

Can the members of the wikiproject try and say 'do it our way because we have discussed it'? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No. I often revert changes to number articles where a drive-by vandal thinks it's amusing to replace the topic by 42, 69 or 420. Despite the frequency of such updates, I don't see an unwritten consensus to change all numbers in Wikipedia to 42.

Where written guidance varies from common good practice, we should update it. This does happen. For example, those of us who work on disambiguation follow detailed and carefully crafted guidelines. We recently discovered a clause in an unrelated policy page contradicting our practices. The policy was duly amended to reflect reality by removing the clause. Certes (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I get your first paragraph

How is something, as shown in the football topic be resolved? (Redacted) PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My slightly ridiculous first paragraph was to illustrate that, just because people do something, doesn't mean we should mandate or even allow it (though we may mandate or allow it for other reasons). The football issue clearly needs a discussion about which format is better, or indeed if both formats are acceptable. I don't know the topic well enough to say anything helpful on that matter. Certes (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia gets used for referencing in articlea all the time, that doesn't mean it should be used or that it's reliable for sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment above please expand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

PicturePerfect666, please read WP:CIRCULAR. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok but how does that apply here? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR explains why Wikipedia shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. Despite that policy, editors do cite Wikipedia, making it an example of something that is done but prohibited. In my opinion, we shouldn't ignore that policy simply because some others ignore it. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Certes (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

CIRCULAR doesn't seem to be relevant to the OP's question, though. The question is about "discussions" (which are not policies) and "Wikiproject style guides" (which are also not policies). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Examples to illustrate a point don't need to be directly related to all the points discussed. My original statement made no mention of WP:CIRCULAR, but the point still stands. CIRCULAR has consensus through discussion or silence, and ignoring that consensus because IDLT is wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Consensus should be (and regularly is) ignored by the closers of discussions, where the majority of opinions are on one side of the argument but do not represent policy or provide strong enough arguments. The points made in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a typical example of this. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Policy is supposed to be descriptive (based on “what is actually done”) as opposed to proscriptive (based on “what we would like done”). However, there are rare occasions where we don’t achieve this. When that occurs, one could argue that policy does not follow community consensus.

The solution is to discuss the issue and suggest changes to the policy that better reflect “what is done” (ie community consensus) - with good examples of how and why the community consensus isn’t properly reflected by the current policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's weird that anyone would jump to LOCALCONSENSUS to say that "Wikiproject style guides and discussions" should be followed. I know that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but seriously: two of the three sentences in LOCALCON say that WikiProjects don't get to decide these things. LOCALCON (which I wrote) exists because a WikiProject tried to ban infoboxes from "their" articles. Nobody has to follow the advice put forward by a WikiProject, just like nobody has to follow the advice put forward by any other individual or self-selected group of editors.

What editors actually do in individual articles is Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Relationship between Notability guidelines and WP:NOR

NOR/WP:N Question

As a matter of current practice and status quo, has WP:NOR established a requirement that all articles must have at least one secondary source or face deletion? Or would the general application of this principle represent a change to the status quo? Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

NOR/WP:N Context

• WP:GEOLAND reflects a long-standing consensus that Wikipedia incorporates features of a gazetteer (in the language of WP:5P); it creates a presumption of notability for places where WP:V, independent sourcing has been presented showing official recognition;
• in both AfDs of stub articles and proposals to change GEOLAND (e.g., here) a substantial current of community sentiment has been expressed in support of this understanding of the status quo;
• recently, certain editors have decided that the sentence about Notability in NOR and a reference to it in the "Why we have these requirements" section of WP:N mean that no topic can be Notable (and therefore presumed to merit an article) without at least one secondary source (see this discussion).

To be clear, my own position is that articles should have secondary sources (which reflects the language used in the WP:GNG) and, of course, I recognize that policies take preference over guidelines via WP:CONLEVEL. However, I have always read WP:NOR as essentially concerned with the validity of article content (especially the exclusion of SYNTH), rather than being intended providing grounds for the deletion (or mass deletion) of articles where synth concerns are absent. So I would very much like to know where the VP community situates itself on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

NOR/WP:N Discussion

Please add threaded discussion here.Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Without at least one independent source, how do we know whether the article is not a hoax? Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  To answer your question, Independent and reliable sourcing is, indeed, required to meet WP:N and GEOLAND. But what I am asking about is secondary (or tertiary) sourcing, which is not strictly required in the relevant sections of WP:N but is set down as a universal requirement in NOR. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It is disappointing that you chose to open this despite knowing that an RfC was being drafted to ask a related question, and without consulting with the other editors involved in drafting that RfC despite otherwise taking part in the discussion; I've now gone ahead and opened that RfC, would you be willing to close this to allow that to proceed and then if there are outstanding questions open it then?

  As feedback on the question itself, I think it would have been better to make the context more neutral, and at the very least include the lines from WP:OR that you believe should be interpreted as only applying to the content of articles, rather than to the question of an articles existence. It also doesn't seem to be a productive question; it won't resolve the conflict between the clear wording at WP:OR and the creation of articles based solely on primary sources like censuses. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  To answer your question, BilledMammal: no; I think it would be best to leave this discussion open in parallel, since it asks a different question (namely, what is the status quo).

  Also, in your comment to me earlier today you stated that you planned to run your RfC "next week" - I am curious why you have now rushed to do so today. Surely there was time to discuss what the status quo is, for a couple days at least, before launching into a major change?

  Finally, in response to why I believe the WP:OR policy page is concerned with the content of articles, I would quote the first sentence of the page, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, which I have always understood to represent both the purpose and the scope of that policy page. But I didn't offer that kind of proof-text in support of my own views precisely in an attempt to present my question - and as best I could, the relevant context - in a neutral manner. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  This seems like a reasonable explanation for your actions. I don't know why but it seems FOARP is assuming bad faith and ignoring it, below. (I've no idea what any of your editing is about.)

  To answer your question: I think it's not cool, but editors routinely ignore WP:PAG when it comes to policing new pages. I created a new page a couple weeks ago and it was deleted within what felt like seconds, even though it was about a large US company that had recently changed its name (hence the new article) but was already obviously notable because the page showed had several subsidiaries with their own articles. A bit less absurd than deleting Alphabet Inc. right when it was new. I guess the folks who do new page patrol are generally trigger-happy/terse/aggro, because the bulk of what they see is non-notable self-promotional trash, and that's just the way it is. You could 'win' the RFC in favor of a bit more clearly mandated restraint on deletions being written into policy and I bet the status quo wouldn't change.

  Dealing with the gunshots left a bad taste in my mouth. I found a way to put the content on an existing page and don't even care to look back to see if the page is still alive. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, secondary independent sourcing is needed/leaning Bad RFC

I have to agree with the others above this attempt to “spike” BM’s RFC was distinctly on the cheesy side as a move. I’ve also go to ask if WP:BEFORERFC was followed. Finally the question is not neutrally formatted.

But addressing the question directly: yes, we need independent secondary sourcing in all of our articles as a basic way of avoiding original research and maintaining a neutral point of view, as well as avoiding hoaxes and inaccuracy. We can discuss when that needs to be established, but it needs to be there eventually. At the very least no later than a primary-facile case that it doesn’t exist has been put forward (eg by pointing out that the article sourcing includes no independent, secondary sourcing and that none appears to exist elsewhere). FOARP (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes and no - it depends on the nature of the source and what it is being used to verify. Some primary, non-independent sources are sufficient to fully verify that the subject of an article exists and is not a hoax, others are not. For example we do not need a source independent of an organisation to verify that Person X is an employee of that organisation; a book verifies it's own existence, author, date and place of publication, etc. A researcher's statement that they have discovered a room temperature superconductor verifies that they have claimed that, but an independent source is required to verify that the claim is correct. It is important to note that questions of verifiability are completely independent of questions of notability, and both are separate to and independent of questions of neutrality and balance. The three must not be confused or conflated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• I wonder if this is the right question. As there is disagreement of what the current status quo is, a better question might be what the future consensus should be. The current question appears to try and retroactively apply a consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, the question is ridiculously ambiguous (are we supposed to answer that yes the status quo as described at WP:OR and at WP:N is indeed that all articles not only must have secondary sourcing but also must be based upon it, and that it is further needed to establish notability; or that yes, the expectations at AfC, NPP, and AfD broadly enforce this requirement; or that yes a topic for which no secondary sourcing can be found should be deleted?).

JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - as the creator of the section, I did not at all intend this filing as an RfC. I am asking editors for their views to assess the current community status quo about one main point - does NOR currently establish a requirement for secondary sourcing that can be used, e.g., as a grounds for mass article deletion, or would that represent a change in policy? But I am also hoping for input on more general questions, like: is WP:NOR supposed to bear on deletion discussions only if synth is an issue, or more generally? Does all of NOR on article notability trump everything in WP:N, because the former is a policy and the latter a guideline, or do questions of scope also come into it?

I was really hoping for fruitful threaded discussion rather than sterile !votes, but as the old men have said, you can't always get what you want. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I think one problem that has been muddying the waters of this general debate is that different groups mean entirely different things by "secondary" and there's also considerable debate about what exactly "independent" means. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that in general, "secondary", "independent" and "significant" are not nearly as clear-cut as a lot of us act a lot of the time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Supplying surnames for siblings

[NOTE: I have edited my own text here, for better clarity, based on the discussion below.]

Hello. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts as to whether it's good practice to include, rather than omitting, surnames, when an important reference is made to a sibling of someone already mentioned, even when the surnames are the same. My perspective is that, as with spouses, sharing a surname should not be presumed just because two individuals are siblings, given all the reasons that this might not be the case, even though it's true more often than not. Beyond this, it seems just basic encyclopedic decency to identify someone by their full name at first mention. (The exception would be if the reference to the sibling were a trivial mention in passing.)

If you have a moment, please look at the reversion of my edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fanny_%28band%29&diff=1179379930&oldid=1179333240

and the discussion between the two parties concerned in the reversion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Surnames

Thank you. Jcejhay (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think where related folks share a surname, it's more readable if that surname is not repeated. It is understood by the common reader of English, and the addition can make things stiff and awkward. (Bob Bobbington was raised with his older brothers Freddie Bobbington and Stan Bobbington, and younger sisters Barbara Bobbington (now Barbara Bobbington-Hemsworth) and Flossie Bobbington.) And if these people are not separately notable, the surname isn't even particularly important. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler I agree, for the sort of example you're giving. That's what I'd call a "passing mention." But if you look at the instance that brought up the difference of opinion, you'll see that it's about a rock band, where the text is telling us who the band members were. The band members might not all be notable enough individually to have their own articles, but within the context of the band's article they are important figures. Jcejhay (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've now revised my original text to make it clearer. Jcejhay (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, siblings may not share a surname. However, such sharing is so common that it is always assumed to be the case unless specified otherwise. You are arguing against the standard practice throughout the entire English speaking world. Passing reference or important figure doesn't matter.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Khajidha, may I ask you this: Would you make the same argument regarding the surname of the wife of a previously mentioned husband? Jcejhay (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And for the surname of a husband if the wife was mentioned first. It's REALLY simple: family members with the same surname don't need to have that surname repeated. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, try rearranging things so that they aren't listed one right after the other. In that case, referring to one in relation to the other becomes the clunkier formation. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposed text should be rewritten to put them on an equal footing. Limiting the description of the second person to "her sister, bassist Jean" casts her in a subordinate role. My preference would be to follow the model of 30 Seconds to Mars: "brothers Jared Leto (lead vocals, guitar, bass, keyboards) and Shannon Leto (drums, percussion)". Alternatively, if there is an insistence on not repeating the surname, "sisters June (guitar) and Jean (bass) Millington".--Trystan (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trystan Yes, well put: "casts her in a subordinate role." That ties in with my second point above, about what I called the "basic encyclopedic decency" of giving someone's full name (unless it's an incidental mention). Jcejhay (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, if June is mentioned first because she was more a driving force behind Fanny than Jean was (I don't know offhand whether or not that's the case), that doesn't seem to come across in the article. However, June was the older sister; and if rock and roll logic says that guitar is more important than bass, then perhaps these factors could explain why June is mentioned first. But I also see that in the lineup section farther down, Jean is listed first, then June, then the other two (even though both those musicians' surnames would precede "Millington" alphabetically—so it doesn't seem to be simply that Jean comes alphabetically before June). Jcejhay (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Trystan. "The group was founded by guitarist June Millington and her sister, bassist Jean" suggests that Jean was less important to the founding. Why not "The group was founded by Jean and June Millington"? It might help to not cram quite so much information (founding, names, instruments, relationship) into the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The applicable guidelines are at MOS:SAMESURNAME. It is also helpful to review WP:WAW. —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm...unless I'm missing something, MOS:SAMESURNAME seems to cover everything except the type of scenario we're talking about. Jcejhay (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, then I don't understand the problem: is this about siblings where you don't know people's surnames? —Kusma (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Did you follow the links in my original post? That should illustrate what's at issue. Thanks. Jcejhay (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That part seems covered by the Reagan examples. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Jcejhay (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the Grimm example is arguably the more relevant. However, I don't think that example implies that formulation is either mandatory or advisable when introducing individuals. The more on-point advice is in WP:WAW, to not define women by their relationships (e.g., don't reduce the person on introduction to "her sister, bassist Jean"). Compare the lead of AC/DC, which doesn't mention they are brothers until the next paragraph. Or The Carpenters, that at least puts the siblings on equal footing, rather than introducing one as an adjunct of the other.--Trystan (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on some of the suggestions here, I have revised the Fanny article along the lines of "sisters June and Jean Millington." I kept June first because she's the older sister. (She's also the one whose notability level has resulted in her having her own wikilinkable article.) Jcejhay (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia offer article protection as a compromise between deletion on request and causing needless distress?

There seems to me to be a wide chasm between Wikipedia having the good sense to delete the biographies of relatively unknown people who request it, and forcing them to just live with the fact Wikipedia has an article on them because they aren't deemed sufficiently non-public to be afforded this courtesy.

There appears to be a large class of people out there who are not unknown in the sense Google will return a lot of mundane biographical material as a result of a search on their name, but who are otherwise by any other definition, private individuals who are not seeking fame or fortune.

People whose presence in the digital space is merely a by product of their career. People who are not on Wikipedia for any other reason than they exist and have achieved certain things in their career. Noteworthy but not exceptional or controversial things. In context, relatively mundane things. Things that only get written about in specialist sources to do with their specific field.

It is quite understandable that a large proportion of these people, while being comfortable with having an internet presence in the form of accurate, reliable and relevant Google results, would be distresssed at the prospect of the top result on their name one day being a Wikipedia biography. A result that is by design, potentially inaccurate, unreliable and often featuring irrelevant trivia of an often deeply personal nature.

Since there seems to be a good case to make that Wikipedia would suffer if these people are arbitrarily removed simply because they request it, given that would for example make cataloging the top echelon memberships of professional bodies permanently incomplete, a sensible compromise would appear to be to keep these biographies, but fully protect them.

This would ensure changes are only accepted if they are indeed accurate and relevant. Since by definition these people are relatively unknown, this would hardly be a burden, with their biographies unlikely to see more than a handful of non-trivial edits over their careers, and perhaps none once they retire. And rather obviously, biographies of such people need to be quite comprehensive before they are even published here.

Without this compromise solution, Wikipedia seems doomed to have to continually make an unenviable choice between knowingly causing distress or knowingly damaging its integrity as an almanac. A resource where by design, achieving a certain milestone in one's career comes with it an automatic presumption you are worthy of a Wikipedia biography. Edson Makatar (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is covered by our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Long term full protection is not a viable solution; all these articles would quickly become outdated and actually inaccurate instead of the potentially inaccurate that you wish to prevent. —Kusma (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There are also possibly unreasonable degrees to which living persons would seek such protection. I can envision someone who has no real privacy concerns, or no real objection to having an article on Wikipedia, nonetheless wanting to control the content of their Wikipedia article in ways we don't permit to try and use this as a mechanism to that end. BD2412 T 01:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Full protection greatly impedes factual errors being corrected, or edits to bring biographies into closer compliance with relevant policies. It would lock such articles into a semi-permanent state of being potentially inaccurate, unreliable and often featuring irrelevant trivia of an often deeply personal nature. It would greatly increase the workload on administrators who would be called on to make content decisions about areas where they may lack expertise or an interest in re-writing specific content. And the number of active administrators is declining. It is the responsibility of all active editors, not just administrators, to maintain and improve BLPs. If input is desired about specific BLPs, then Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the place to go. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a WP:VRT agent. Every time I see a request from an article subject (person or company) to protect a page, it's always, without fail, a request to protect the page so that only the article subject or associates may edit it. This is neither desriable nor even technically possible. For the borderline cases, I propose the article for deletion. Otherwise, I advise the person, if they don't like what the article says, to suggest improvements on the talk page. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, or they send me a letter and I suggest improvements on their behalf, which are evaluated by others and either rejected or implemented.

That's how things work now. Someone distressed about having a Wikipedia article about them, which is not deletable due to notability, can contact VRT and get the response I described, or they can engage on the talk page to suggest improvements and corrections. I see no need to offer a "compromise" protection. If anything, the article should be semi-protected to prevent the COI editors from making unilateral substantive changes to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The source of the distress this compromise seeks to abate, is the knowledge a biography exists, it is not being looked after, and anyone can make poor quality or even damaging changes to it. It says a lot that your only perceived beneficial use of protection is to protect Wikipedia from a subject. Perhaps that answers the question as to why some never even bother to engage with Wikipedia to even ask for a change. It must be difficult for a subject who has already seen Wikipedia apparently accept an edit that saw Google instantly transmit deeply personal and totally irrelevant information to the world, to then assume there is anyone here who is going to remove it on their behalf, never mind doing it quickly and without questioning the subject's motives. It was after all inserted right under the noses of all these editors who are supposedly keeping an eye on these biographies. But in reality probably don't exist and never did, because it stretches credulity to think there is anyone here who really cares about the biographies of these little known people given their biographies are rather famously only being added to Wikipedia at a very slow rate even though they are theoretically notable enough to be on Wikipedia and have been for decades. Edson Makatar (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It was of course assumed that at the time it was locked, the biography had been checked for errors and stripped of irrelevant material. I do not think Administrators here are incompetent or over-worked, given some are confident enough in their own abilities they charge consulting fees. The workload here would be limited since these are little known people whose biographies would not realistically be receiving valid updates very often. The workload is surely higher when the biographies of such people are left open, since the vast majority of edits then will either be vandalism or otherwise inappropriate, or worse, as some claim, attempts by the subject to abuse Wikipedia for their own ends. Obviously the workload is negligible if there is nobody bothering to review and correct those edits made in the open model, and it seems rather obvious that it is this historical weakness of Wikipedia that causes these kinds of subjects distress. The sheer and ever present knowledge nobody here is looking after your biography (and the ever present assumption that you as the subject are a threat to Wikipedia). Too many amateurs and vandals, not enough experienced editors. Edson Makatar (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the small issue that open editing is the very point of Wikipedia: Leaving editing open means that tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors can spot and fix issues. "Admin only" reduces the number to the low hundreds. We would not be able to deal with the additional workload you are proposing, which would likely turn into a several years long backlog. —Kusma (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You won't know it is impossible until you try it. The sheer irony of your comment is that the existing systems of protection were brought in precisely because it is a complete myth that tens of thousands of good people stand ready to spot and correct poor or even bad edits. After all, how many of the 3,000+ American Academy of Sciences biographies Wikipedia currently has are even on your radar? My guess is precisely zero. I could go and select one at random right now, insert something true but deeply personal and entirely irrelevant, and I would bet good money that the time it takes for anyone to notice it could be measured by days or even months, not hours or minutes. It could stay there forever. And as seen above, if the subject dares to open their mouth, much less remove it themselves, they will not be treated with kindness or respect. That is the reality of the open editing model for the people whose distress is clearly real and currently unmitigated, precisely because there is not a vast army of diligent overwatchers here anymore, if there ever even was. The subject's only recourse currently is to ask that Wikipedia delete their biographiy, but it appears this does not happen very often because wanting Wikipedia to have a comprehensive almanac of Academy members is a powerful force. I happen to agree with the goal, I just don't see why all those biographies need to be left vulnerable, when the vast majority will not be in receipt of worthwhile edits very often. We are probably talking months if not years between worthwhile encyclopedic changes. Any higher, and clearly the person is not the kind of subject I had in mind for this proposal. Edson Makatar (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't think that Wikipedia has volunteers looking at new edits, I suggest you spend some time at WP:recent changes competing to be the first to revert a vandalism. About the only area of the project where we are seriously struggling and on a longterm decline is in getting new administrators, Only eight so far this year. Now is really not the time to try and put extra tasks onto our dwindling admin cadre. However if you were willing to accept a lesser level of protection, there have been discussions about increased protection for BLPs in the past. So you could read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pending_Changes_expansion_RfC#B:_PC1_protection_for_recognized,_vital,_and_BLP_articles especially the oppose arguments, and try to formulate a proposal that meats at least some of the concerns that the opposers had. Then launch a new RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because something can be abused (although in this case I see little benefit to the subject in the proposed form of abuse) doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. By that logic, Wikipedia should never have been created in the first place. Edson Makatar (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would the biography of a little known person quickly become outdated if open editing is disabled? By definition, for these sorts of people, there will be very little change in what Wikipedia can say about them over time. Edson Makatar (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That excludes anybody who writes or publishes, for example academics. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't. There is a long tail of little known authors and academics with biographies here whose latest book and paper can be safely ignored by Wikipedia, the encyclopedia (whose role is after all to summarize and analyse, rather than merely document). They are ironically the very people who probably try to abuse Wikipedia by using it as some kind of free CV service, updating their bibliographies whether the works were significant or not, and so end up inadvertently being subjected to the very protection that is not afforded to those for whom having a presence on Wikipedia is a source of great distress. Edson Makatar (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Accepting for the sake of argument that protecting BLP articles on request would be workable, do you have any evidence that there exist any BLP subjects who would prefer to see their articles fully protected but otherwise subject to normal wikipedia processes? Is there any evidence that there are any BLP subjects who would actually be helped by this proposal? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no such evidence. Do you have any reason to believe a subject wouldn't be happy with this as a compromise solution? If, as seems to happen a lot, they request deletion because they are a low profile individual, but many people here tell them to go jump in a lake because they are notable in a mundane sense and their presence here completes a notional set of people with X achievement in Y field. Edson Makatar (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely failing to understand what they are complaining about in the first place.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

All the time! Where information is inaccurate I will fix it quick smart. The problem is that most complaints are not about the accuracy of the information presented. The most common complaint is that the image in the article is unflattering and that they would prefer a high-quality, professional, publicity image. I tell them to upload an image that meets our requirements. However, I also get requests to remove reliably sourced information that they find embarrassing for one reason or another. For example, athletes found reports on how much money they received in grants embarrassing because it showed that some members of the team got far more than others. I have learned to treat these requests carefully, as sporting bodies will come down on the athletes like a ton of bricks if they find out about attempts to remove such information. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction. Most of the responses to far have basically been off-topic, trying to address whether media references/popular culture material is best included in the article in question, rather than the posed question of whether an inline citation is required that a work contains the plot point that it contains.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The section heading is misleading. The question is whether mentions in "In popular culture" sections require citations, and the answer is "yes", even for statements that would not require citations as part of the plot section of an article about a work of fiction. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

More strongly, for "in popular culture" sections, I would generally require citations to independent publications, not merely citations to the fiction itself. That way we have some sourced evidence that this plot point is actually of significance to the fiction in question, not just a throwaway mention. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• The reason why most of the responses were “off topic” is because the initial challenge/question was focused on the wrong policy. The underlying problem with the article wasn’t really that the material was unverifiable… the problem was that it was TRIVIA (a common problem when it comes to “in popular culture” sections). Remember that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Material can be deemed irrelevant, trivial, or undue to mention, even if it is verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• If this is about sourcing for "in popular culture"-style items, then WP:IPCV would seem to sufficiently cover the matter, including a footnote to the RFC that established not only that sourcing is generally required, but that it generally should be secondary sourcing. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Specify animal/plant care guides in WP:NOTGUIDE

I edit a lot of articles for various animals and by far the most common issue I come across is care guides for pets, either uncited or citing a pet store/hobbyist page. There’s undoubtedly hundreds more I haven’t found, and a lot of these stay up for years. Recommending specific enclosure sizes, humidity, diet, etc. These are often outdated or dangerous, and they are always subjective as all husbandry is. While I’m sure it wouldn’t completely fix the issue (considering these guides always lacking reliable sources anyways), I feel it might help if animal/plant care guides were explicitly mentioned in WP:NOTGUIDE. PoetaCorvi (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@PoetaCorvi, if you have a suggestion how to add this to the first point of WP:NOTGUIDE, please mention it at WT:NOT. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that it would make any difference at all, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it time to revisit "opt out" and BLPs?

In preparing to comment on the suggestion several threads up by Edson Makatar regarding protection of BLPs, I came across this failed proposal from 2013 which suggested that BLPs, other than those for elected officials, could be deleted at the request of the subject. That seems overly harsh and inconsistent with WP:NOTCENSORED. However, is there any feeling that the proposal might be workable if it offered a much more modest accommodation? Specifically, I had in mind providing that BLPs in these circumstances could have the NO INDEX tag applied to them (instead of being deleted)? I'd also add a carve-out to BLPs listed in Wikipedia:Popular pages (in addition to those for elected officeholders).
This should ameliorate NOTCENSORED concerns as no content is actually being removed. And, truthfully, my interest in this has less to do with the privacy of persons as it does with improving the style of BLPs. Offering "opt out" would provide a mild disincentive to WP:LEAD section manipulation and promote a more collegial editing atmosphere by significantly lowering the stakes. Chetsford (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a provision for admins to delete BLPs of barely notable individuals when closing a deletion discussion. I genuinely can't follow from your post what you are suggesting beyond noindexing BLPs on request but I would not support that. The direction of travel for a long time has been that BLPs must be properly sourced and the only real change I would make would be some kind of UNDUE protection so that BLPs don't become hit jobs simply because the only sourcing we have is something bad about the person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"I genuinely can't follow from your post what you are suggesting beyond noindexing BLPs on request" Good news! You actually are following what I'm suggesting as that's it: noindexing BLPs on request.

"the only real change I would make would be some kind of UNDUE protection" I think we already have that, but I'd be interested in hearing more. In any case, I think my proposal is more about article quality and overall project experience than anything else. In closing RfCs I've noted that a not insignificant number of these requests originate out of disagreements with the first few sentences of the lead of a BLP. I don't believe this is coincidence. Rather, some editors occasionally try to "float" the most tawdry aspects of a BLP's life to the top of an article so it will appear in search engine snippets. These disputes generally lead to inferior articles and a sometimes toxic editing environment. Providing for optional noindexing of some BLPs that, while they meet our notability standards may not be persons of urgent public concern, would mitigate that to some extent by removing the incentive without limiting content accessibility. Chetsford (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a NOINDEX tag is added to an article after search engines have already indexed it, doesn't that fail to have the effect of search engines removing the page from their search results? I thought once it's indexed, it's indexed. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the exact search engine, but most respect the tag even when the content is previously indexed AFAIK. ― novov (t c) 01:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

At least with the larger ones (i.e. Google, Bing), that's my understanding, too. Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Policies about how we interact with search engines

There's a discussion at WP:VPM#Obsolete policy proposals appearing in Google answers about how we should interact with search engines. Noting it here since it has policy implications. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding video depicting extremely violent murders could benefit from additional community input

A discussion is underway at Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas war#Extremely violent execution video in the body section regarding a video that depicts militants shooting people and beating/chopping them to death in the street. Although I believe the issues governing inclusion/removal here are already settled under existing policy and community consensus, I nevertheless think the issue of this particular media is of substantially large enough concern and implication to warrant broad community consideration, and the sooner the better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback re: endorsement guideline

This comment serves as notice of a discussion that editors of this page may be interested in: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Interpretation of endorsement guideline re: EMILY's List/Laphonza Butler? 67.170.42.135 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Deprecate the minor edit system

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Partially as a result of editors who were !voting on the earlier proposal to redefine what counts as a minor edit: Should the minor edit system, an option through which edits can be marked as minor for small technical or grammatical changes, be deprecated?

• Option 1: Yes, completely.
• Option 2: Yes, except for experienced editors or admins.
• Option 3: Yes, except for bots strictly performing technical tasks or cleanup.
• Option 4: No.

My choice: Option 1. It is hard to see any benefit from this system, as it's far too easy to abuse minor edits by marking major ones as minor, and there's no penalty for not marking actual minor edits as minor. With the definition and criteria of minor edits being as vague as they are, it seems to me that the best practice would be to remove it, and if need be, potentially replace it with something else. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 I don't see what having minor edits adds. People don't use them consistently, and some use them to try to hide what they've done. I don't think you can safely exclude minor edits if you're following an article. I realize we've had minor edits since the year of the Flood and it's hard to change something of such long standing. But I'd get rid of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I spent a few minutes thinking about what utility I get out of the minor edits system, IMO the biggest one is that its effectively an "I'm a vandal who is editing in bad faith" button. Seeing a major edit marked minor is the #1 thing that makes my spidey sense tingle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose one could then argue that the "minor edit" checkbox is a honey-trap for vandals (a 1,000-byte edit marked as minor is a sure sign you've found one) which makes it easier for admins to block them, but I would also think that reducing the attack vector for vandals looking to cause trouble would be a much better idea. Removing the minor edit box is one fewer temptation to cause havoc. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• What the actual fuck. People in the prior RfC were complaining that any !votes asking to deprecate minor edits shouldn't be counted or need to go in a separate RfC. Then when that RfC gets created, it gets insta-closed procedurally by a non-admin saying that discussion needs to be concluded. If you want me to remove the "RfC:" from the topic, actually tell me that instead of this maneuver which to me reeks of WP:NOTBURO. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  People are already discussing the subject of this pseudo-RfC in the discussion above; it is counterproductive to have two concurrent, duplicate discussions. If after that other discussion has been closed, and editors wish to continue pushing for minor edits to be deprecated, then a discussion should be held planning an RfC, due to the enormous scope of a potential change (which could affect millions of editors). This would need to be advertised extensively and hosted on a more suitable location, such as VPT or a subpage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure looks like bureaucracy but what is the next step? The discussion above should be closed so that an RFC can be set in motion (I don't see that a simple question RFC needs to be planned).Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm too lazy to do all this, but what someone should do is:

  1. Close the "proposal" discussion above, which doesn't have an RFC tag btw, and where consensus is bloody clear (it's "scrap the whole system")

  2. Revert the procedural close of this section

  3. Add an RFC template

  4. List it at WP:CENT

  I encourage InfiniteNexus or anyone else to do this. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have requested a formal close of the previous discussion at WP:CR. But like I said, additional planning is necessary for an RfC of this scale. For starters, I think the question should just be a clear-cut yes-or-no (or support/oppose). Secondly, VPP is not the best place to host this RfC; I would think VPT or VPR are better options, or perhaps it should be hosted on its own subpage like I suggested above. And finally, this needs to be advertised beyond at CENT — to reiterate, this change could affect literal millions of editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the implications of the proposal, I think there’s also a case that could be made for any RfC to have an invitation placed somewhere like MediaWiki:Sitenotice in addition to anywhere/everywhere else. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  We need a consensus to open a request for comment to form a consensus on something now? Congratulations, InfiniteNexus, you've invented a whole new layer of wikibureaucracy. – Joe (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've never heard of needing consensus to start an RFC. It makes me wonder if you need to build consensus to seek consensus to start an RfC. Possibly, it may be required to get consensus to try to get consensus to seek consensus to start an RfC. It only gets worse from there. I think the close in that regard is open to question.Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As I have said elsewhere, this isn't your typical RfC; it's a change that could potentially affect millions of editors. At least some planning of how and where to present the RfC is necessary, not a hasty pseudo-RfC that is initiated while a discussion on the same subject is still ongoing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• While this RfC is not open, how about workshopping the options? I think that keeping minor edits is fine if the feature to hide them is removed. I can live with keeping minor edits if the "hide minor edits" feature is made opt-in and renamed "hide edits marked as minor". The options to restrict use of minor edits are acceptable to me only if anyone who complains about any other editor's use of the minor edit feature earns an automatic block. —Kusma (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  A more bureaucratic option would be a system of "minor edit reviewers" in the same way we have NPP but that seems hard to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's a major gap between new pages and minor edits. I don't think we need much more than RC patrol to monitor minor edits, and creating new groups to monitor them feels excessive. How many problems are actually caused by misused minor edits that can't be covered by filtering to just minor edits in Special:RecentChanges (because yes, you can do that)? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't seen any research on whether or not the misuse of minor edits actually causes more problems than it solves. As I've said above effective misuse of the tool is rare as misuse is more likely to paint a big fat target than dissuade scrutiny. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• This close does seem needlessly bureaucratic, but I haven't looked in all that far, so I could be wrong. As a non-admin, I do resent your implication that non-admins are less competent, at, say, closing RfCs. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  That was not my implication. It was the confluence of factors altogether that I find to be generally insulting. I have no objection with a non-admin closing an RfC, particularly if it's a clear-cut outcome and you're just moving the wheels for the betterment of Wikipedia. But to outright deny a discussion from taking place truly takes some nerve, and I would hope that would come from a position of authority, if it comes at all. And that closer better have a CLUE and know their PAG inside and out. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of the close was not to "deny" a discussion from taking place; it was to temporarily slam the brakes on it because an RfC was premature. Now, how about we move onto actually discussing how to format the RfC? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the format of this RfC? Levivich (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have already answered this question several times throughout this thread, but I'll summarize here. For starters, let's talk about where it's being held: Village pump (policy). Minor edits have nothing to do with policy! I would think an RfC should be held at WP:VPT (technical) or WP:VPR (proposals), or if the discussion potentially becomes too massive, it may be prudent to create a standalone page like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecation of minor edits. Secondly, having four options (while not exactly unheard of) increases the likelihood of it ending with no consensus. Thirdly, the RfC itself is improperly formatted, missing an {{RfC}} tag and having a blatantly non-neutral question which bizarrely includes the initiator's !vote (see WP:RFCBRIEF). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  As to the location, it seems obvious that VPP is the most visible place for making Big Changes such as this. If it were anywhere else, it should get a pointer from VPP, but better to just have it at VPP than have the pointer IMO. Yeah it can be moved to a subpage if need be, and yeah it should have an RfC tag and be listed at cent.

  Do you have a suggestion for an alternative RfC question? "Should minor edits be deprecated?" seems like the obvious one to me. Levivich (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  VPP is not the right place; this topic has nothing to do with PAGs. But of course, we have to make sure this RfC is visible/advertised as widely as possibly, and that means posting at the other village pumps, CENT, watchlist or site notices, tech news, large WikiProjects, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me the only way forward is to have an RfC on where to have the RfC. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The word "kafkaesque" appears on over two thousand Wikipedia pages. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  VPT generally dislikes hosting RFCs.

  But let me put in a suggestion that if you expect this to attract a lot of comments, please start it on its own sub-page. This page is already 600,000 bytes long. The sheer size of the page makes it impossible for some people to participate in the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  In re-reading this, I want to make the following comments:

  • If minor edits have nothing to do with policy, why then was this discussion allowed to continue unabated?
  • Your second point is untrue. Any closer worth their salt will understand that options A, B, and C fall under the "remove" category while D falls under "don't remove". If there are an assortmed mix of answers in "remove" that still outweigh the "don't remove" option, it will be obvious that the consensus is for deletion and at a minimum, they would start from that baseline.
  • Several RfCs on this page don't have the RfC tag. I was planning to add it and put it on CENT once it was clear there was some interest in holding it.
  • Seriously? The question was neutral. The same page you quoted does not prevent the RfC proposer from voting. In fact it says: If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. Although I didn't sign it twice, I did put my !vote below the initial statement and made it clear it was my opinion.

  I said on your Talk Page, I wouldn't contest the close, but at this point I am about to go ahead and re-open the RfC and reformat it to your liking. I'm highly disappointed at the manner in which you interpreted my actions. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Multi option was the way to go, given the outcome of the prior RfC in this (and the bot point raised above). Yes/no was tried in the prior RfC. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:TALKFORK: Discussions should not be forked to multiple talk pages, noticeboards, or other venues, but centralized in a single place. Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. [...] In most cases, an open discussion is preferably kept at the place where it first began, with split-off discussions closed and retargetted to the oldest open discussion. and wait until the previous discussion (to which editors are still adding new comments) is closed. We are in no rush, unless you are in a hurry to abolish minor edits for some reason. And I am perplexed that you continue to insist on holding an RfC not about policy on a page about policy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion no longer serves any further purpose. It is clear that our positions are entrenched and irreconcilable. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask which policy requires an RfC to have consensus to start it, which policy says that an RfC can't start while related discussions are vaguely ongoing, and why InfiniteNexus couldn't simply add an RfC tag? In other words, please justify your close with reference to policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Not everything editors do have to be expressly permitted by PAGs. An RfC of this scale should not be started unilaterally without giving any thought to how and where to present it. Also, WP:TALKFORK states: Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, an IAR close. Thanks for clearing that up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC workshop

(edit conflict) So while several editors above believe it is better worth their time deliberating whether my close was appropriate, let's be more constructive and start brainstorming how a take-two RfC should be formatted. As I have written above, I think the RfC question should just be a straightforward "should minor edits be deprecated" with either "yes" or "no" options, maybe a third option if somone can come up with a alternative/compromise to deprecation. But we shouldn't go anywhere beyond three, or else that would just become too complex. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the question, but as a neutral RfC covering all possibilities I would suggest:

Should the minor edit system, an option through which edits can be marked as minor for small technical or grammatical changes, be deprecated?

• Option 1: Yes, completely.
• Option 2: Yes, except for experienced editors or admins.
• Option 3: Yes, except for bots strictly performing technical tasks or cleanup.
• Option 4: No.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also include Partially as a result of editors who were !voting on the earlier proposal to redefine what counts as a minor edit (which means nothing without context) and a random !vote at the end. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, those four options do not accurately represent what editors in the previous (and still ongoing) discussion believe are our best options. Bots were barely even mentioned. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to request COMMENT so that if people have a different option in mind, they can suggest it and it can then be added to the RfC options. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We'd be more likely to get comments if we didn't provide a numbered list of options.

Even re-writing it into prose would encourage comments. Contrast the numbered list with "Some editors want to get rid of it, and others would like to keep it as-is, but there have also been suggestions that it should be hidden from most new editors, while remaining available to admins or other experienced editors, or that it should only be used by bots (e.g., when approved as part of the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval process for tasks that might flood watchlists but are unlikely to interest editors)." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We could also do something simpler, like keep the minor edit system, but allow any editor to mark any edit as minor. That would allow people who like it to use it but remove the arguing. —Kusma (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't all the arguing happening because other editors use it? Or did you mean that I could mark your edits as being minor? (The Database administrators might object to that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick glance over the previous discussion a few days ago, and I feel there's some support for considering the flag semantically equivalent to a part of the edit summary. I think not hiding minor edits by default would be more consistent with that, though I'm not sure it's actually worth breaking that out into a 4b or something. Also, extending what Kusma brought up a little, I wonder if it would be worthwhile giving people doing RCP a way to easily tag edits with s indicator of what it did similar to the canned edit summaries that see occasional use. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

And I just discovered that there was already an RfC two years ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There are all those editors above saying "Throw whole system away" or equivalent so maybe that's the only question that needs an answer from the community at large, should it or shouldn't it be thrown away (suitably phrased).Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's the question asked in the RfC from two years ago, which closed with a suggestion to poll restricting minor edits to autoconfirmed users (hence option 2). The discussion above also raised the issue of bots (hence option 3). I think given the prior discussions, the four options make sense. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you're brainstorming ideas, here's one: Rename "minor edit" to "typo fix". - jc37 10:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Renaming it won’t change anything. The abusers and vandals would still attempt to “hide” substantial edits by marking them as “typo fix” edits. And the rest of us would continue to have to pay extra attention to any edit so marked, for precisely that reason. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it really impossible for the system to identify minor-marked edits that are plainly bad faith? If they could be de-marked as minor automatically, or a filter created to list them for special attention, the rest of us could get on with marking edits as minor and not flooding watchlists with our obsessive need to italicise periodical titles, or whatever. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You could probably detect changes within a particular size range with reasonable accuracy, e.g., changing something in more than one paragraph, or changes that affect more than X characters. You could do something fancier in the visual editor than in the old wikitext editors, but I think something could be detected in most cases.

@Matma Rex probably knows what would be realistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, one realistic thing we already do is measuring the size of the change (the green and red numbers in page history), but that doesn't always identify change as minor (or as good-faith). I think the canonical example of this problem is a change that just changes a date – it's a one-character change, but it's not minor, and it could be bad-faith. Matma Rex talk 14:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Matma Rex Indeed! But is there really no way of automatically detecting that? There are very few reasons for changing numbers or dates with a minor edit designation (perhaps clearly typo'd years?). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I could see updating an as-of date when nothing has changed as being minor in at least some situations, such as where it is guaranteed that the change would see references to back that up but lack of change will not. The first examples that comes to mind are major disasters, updating an article from saying a 2004 event was the largest/most deadly/most costly/most destructive/etc "as of 2018" to "as of 2023" when no significant events of the type have occurred in the place in the intervening years is minor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So then a contentious WP:ENVAR change could be potentially marked as a "typo fix"? There's really no such thing as a "minor edit" unless you're restricting yourself to changes that solely change the source without affecting the article at all. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Something like Special:Diff/1178878685 is a minor edit that is not a typo but does affect the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Next steps

The previous RfC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. The closing statement precisely illustrates why it was right for WaltCip's botched RfC to be procedurally closed: By my reading I do see consensus to create a formal RfC about minor edits. Such a process would need to be well-planned, centrally located, and well-advertised. So, what next? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The next step is to carefully plan an RFC. As I see it the very first question to ask is:

Should the option of marking edits as minor be:

1. Retained as is
2. Retained, but modified in some way (e.g. limiting who can use it, changing definitions of what counts as a minor edit, etc)
3. Deprecated - existing edits marked minor will remain so marked but the option to do so will be removed.
4. Removed completely - the minor edit flag will no longer be displayed for any edit in the history of Wikipedia, this may or may not be reversible.

If the consensus is for option 1 then there is no point spending time on anything else. If the consensus is for options 3 or 4 then the process for deprecating should be initiated (what that process is and how long it will take, and whether we get a choice between options 3 and 4, should be established before the RFC). Only if consensus is for option 2 is it worth time working out how to modify it, so that should form a second RFC.

In terms of modifications there are at least two independent strands

• Who can mark an edit as minor (e.g. anyone, autoconfirmed editors, extended confirmed editors, administrators, people with some right (new or existing), etc).
  • Which options are technically possible to implement, what the process for implementation is and how long it will take need to be established before the RFC.
• What edits count as minor.
  • One option would be to collate a small list of mutually compatible options and asking people to pick which they think should be marked as minor.
  • I would suggest not allowing new options to be added during the RFC to stand a chance at consensus.
  • Ideally there should be some clear statement about what the current definition is (regardless of what people think of it)

Any other ideas should be collated and formed into independent strands, so that the second RFC has only a small number of questions (in the unlikely event I've thought of everything that would be two questions). Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who supported throwing the whole system out and still supports doing so, is there anyone who actually wants the fourth option of the minor edit flag will no longer be displayed for any edit in the history of Wikipedia? Keeping the tag there will be necessary, for example, for past discussions over specific edits being labeled as minor to make sense. I feel like the better selection of options would be:

1. Minor edits retained as is.

2. Retained but limited to certain users.

3. Retained with some other change.

4. Depreciated. Edits will continue to be marked as minor, but the option to do so will be removed. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the Retained but limited to certain users option. What "certain users" are we talking about, and what is the purpose of making minor edits a pseudo-right? Other than that, I agree with the three choices. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No change, change, deprecate. Levivich (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I don't know whether anyone would want that (afaik the question has never been asked), but it might be what deprecation means - it will depend how developers implement deprecation. Offering those four options wouldn't be very useful I don't think because 2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive and you'll get people arguing about the vagueness. @Levivich's concision of my list is a better first step I think (although the options should be more verbose than that, but less verbose than my offering).

@InfiniteNexus those questions should be workshopped before a second RFC (if the consensus is for change rather than no change or deprecation). The purpose of pseudo-right would be to grant it to those people who can be trusted to use it appropriately. It was just a suggestion for a change that might be possible and something that should be discussed in the workshopping for RFC 2. Similarly @Kusma's suggestion below is an option that should be presented in RFC2 if RFC1 decides change is desired. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I note that the "nominornewtalk" user right depends on an edit being marked as minor to suppress the normal talk page edit notification. Removing the ability for archiving bots to mark edits as minor would likely be annoying to people. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We could have the minor edit right only available to bots (even if that looks a bit redundant with the bot flag). —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire harm that can be done by the minor edit flag goes away if we remove the "hide minor edits" option from the watchlist. If that is done, then minor edits are just a decorative edit summary. It is also a smaller software change than removing the ability to mark edits as minor. I would like to see such an option in the RfC. —Kusma (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That might be a suitable compromise. We can easily write some JavaScript to hide the minor edits after this useful feature is removed. Certes (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

At a quick glance it looks like it would actually be a larger software change. Removing the ability to mark edits as minor should be able to be accomplished by simply removing the "minoredit" user right from appropriate groups. That's a configuration change, no code change necessary. But when I look at the watchlist code, I don't see any option to remove the "hide minor edits" option there. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Anomie, thanks. How hard would it be to change the default of that option? —Kusma (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean how hard would it be to change the rights of the groups here on enwiki? Not hard. Once we have consensus someone would file a task along the lines of phab:T344150, then someone would make an update similar to this (affecting this subarray).

Or do you mean changing the default of the "Hide minor edits from recent changes" and/or "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" preferences for new users? The defaults for both are already off. Anomie⚔ 16:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Just a driveby comment from someone who uses minor edits a lot (both checking edit histories and marking my own edits), I would be surprised if the broader community were in favour of totally removing either the ability to mark as minor, or the useful-with-caveats ability to filter them out, but I personally might well support some sort of a middle option to limit ability to mark as minor to some group, especially if the right could be reversed if abused, and could see that reaching consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you browse the recent discussion about this, you'll find that a substantial amount of the participating editors do want it totally removed, myself included; this is even noted in the closing statement. And I would also not support restricting it to a curated subset of users, but I'm happy to let the proposed RfC play out on that one. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I read the original discussion. I'm trying (obviously not so successfully) to call attention to the fact that the majority of content editors on Wikipedia rarely if ever read Village Pump, they just get on with editing, often using minor edits contentedly. Any proposed RfC would, imo, be well advised to include more nuanced compromise options than "status quo" vs "nuke 'em from orbit". Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest a first RFC should have three options "keep as is", "keep but change in some way", and "deprecate". @Orange Suede Sofa it has also pointed out by multiple people that not everybody who wants to keep minor edits saw the first discussion as relevant to their views so they did not contribute. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also someone who focusses more on building content than hanging around the discussion pages. (With exceptions.) I'll use the "minor edit" flag not only to indicate fixing minor things like typos or dropped words, but if I make an edit & don't care if it gets reverted. Any RFC that has only the options "keep" or "nuke 'em from orbit" will get an automatic keep vote from me. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of present tense for old TV series

I understand that creative works such as books or musical compositions live in the eternal present, but, to me, e.g. "The Partridge Family is an American musical sitcom starring Shirley Jones and featuring David Cassidy" (see article The Partridge Family) sounds completely wrong, or misleading, as if the sitcom is still being produced. If other people agree, and there is some written policy about this, the perhaps the policy could be revised. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:8D1A:F39B:AA2D:F393 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The applicable guidance is MOS:TENSE: By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Use past tense for articles about periodicals no longer produced, with common-sense exceptions. Probably the best place to begin a discussion on it would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I can watch The Partridge Family on Roku right now if I wanted too. I am watching episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show with my wife, for laughs. Both shows are roughly 50 years old, and both are still being watched. Cullen328 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, each individual episode "is" but the series "was". But I also disagree with the idea of plot summaries being given in present tense. Fiction isn't written that way (or at least only a vanishingly small percentage is) and our recounting of the events of fiction puts us even further removed from the events of the work. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is good. Our material should never be confused with fictional content, and we have MOS:WAF guideline to help prevent erosion of the barrier between in-universe and out-of-universe writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, the lead could easily be edited to make it clearer that the series is old; I have attempted another version. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We write, generally "X is a television series that ran from YYYY to YYYY", establishing the past/present duality quickly. Masem (t) 18:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to use the present tense for works that still exist. The Odyssey also is one of two major ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, for example. To say that either was a television show, or was an epic poem, would sound like they'd been destroyed or transformed into something else, to me. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of lost works (including a substantial amount of Hollywood's earliest output), for which past tense would be appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I must admit to finding present tense for old TV shows to be odd, but I suspect that is because I grew up in an era where TV shows were much more tightly coupled to their broadcast date. Once that date passed, it felt very much like the show was a past event rather than an extant product. There are 1940s and 1950s shows that were never recorded, and no longer exist. I think it still makes more sense to think of these as events that were more than products that are. But for everything else, there’s a long term trend towards TV-as-product rather than TV-as-event. From reruns to home media to streaming, TV shows have become progressively more accessible on-demand. Today, there are streaming-native TV shows which have a release date rather than a broadcast date, and we expect them to endure indefinitely as cultural artifacts and objects of study, exactly analogous to how we think of books. Thus TV shows have become almost entirely productlike, with indefinite existence, and almost entirely un-eventlike. As a result of this trend, I think we are seeing a shift in language from past tense to present tense when it comes to TV shows, and although I still find it weird to hear “The Flintstones is…”, I think that weirdness may pass with my generation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think eternal present tense for fiction works perfectly, and that includes serialised TV shows, which are becoming more and more like feature films in recent years anyway. I find it less clear that present tense is appropriate for 1970s American game shows other than The Price Is Right. —Kusma (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of eternal present tense should be restricted to fansites like Memory Alpha. Television shows logically have three phases of life - before, during and after their original broadcast run. All coverage therefore neatly fals into one of thee three phases, buzz, reception and legacy. It follows therefore that a live encyclopedia should show the presence of mind to signpost to the reader what stage of life the show they are reading about is in. X is a planned, X is a, X was a. Edson Makatar (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

How is a television series different from other media which also have original runs, such as movies that have theatrical releases or books that have printing runs? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say the difference is, when there's an ongoing series, it's a continuing entity that is yet to be completed. A movie can be shown a bunch of times, but it's "in the can"; it isn't going to change certain meddlesome directors notwithstanding. An ongoing series is a living entity; what happens to it next season is not yet determined.

But that's an after-the-fact rationalization. The real reason is that this is how people speak of these art forms in real life. Casablanca is, but I Love Lucy was. That really is the tense that is overwhelmingly used in English, and when Wikipedia goes against this convention, it's jarring. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reliable data regarding this is how people speak of these art forms in real life? I know I'm just one person, but I say things like "hey, you should watch Blake's 7, it's an old BBC series..." where it's is in the present tense. I recognize that I'm just one person though, so I'd prefer to rely on broader data over individual assertions. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I might use the present tense in that context, too. I still find it jarring in an introductory sentence defining the term. Fair point on finding data; I don't really know how to do that, and a naive corpus search is not going to be very indicative because of this context issue. For myself, I can only report my reaction to the Wikipedia convention on these, which it seems a number of others share. --Trovatore (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The convention in literary analysis is to analyze the work of art in the present tense, outside of the events in the real world. The work continues to have its various properties, regardless of when it was published. When discussing a work in context of real world events, of course, the corresponding tense is used (Casablanca was a solid if unspectacular success in its initial run). I think there may be some implicit context in some situations when discussing TV shows, where the speaker is implicitly referring to its original broadcast release. Similar situations can arise with the any work, of course, including movies. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But TV series as wholes are not works of art; the individual episodes are. The series were continuing events at the time they happened, and if they've stopped, then those events are in the past. --Trovatore (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a whole is a creation by people, even if it's composed of individual articles. The broadcast airings of a show were events. As I mentioned, I agree some people may be implicitly referring to the (broadcast) release in some contexts: ...Casablanca was an A-list film .... isaacl (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the series as recurring events, comparable to say the Tournament of Roses or the Main Street Electrical Parade (I'm trying to think of one that has stopped; I thought the Electrical Parade had, but it seems it's been revived). I think everyone would agree that, if those stopped definitively, we'd use the past tense for them? We should use the past tense for I Love Lucy for the same reason. Lucy was never a unified creation; it was a recurring event. --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In a world where broadcasts are transitory and can never be seen again, perhaps. But in a world where works are published in an on-demand form, including physical media, shows aren't just one-time events. In addition, a work can both be transmitted as an event, and discussed in the past regarding that event, and also exist as a creative work to be analyzed, employing traditional conventions. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, this argument is an abstract linguistic/philosophical analysis, which is probably how the current WP convention originated. It's unnatural and jarring for native speakers, and that's the real problem, all the metaphysics aside. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you find it jarring, however I do not personally feel all native speakers find it so. Context applies equally well to Casablanca as other forms of entertainment, and there are some cases where "Casablanca was" is more appropriate than "Casablanca is", and vice versa. isaacl (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"All" native speakers? No, surely not. That's a pretty low bar. It's jarring enough to enough native speakers that it should be changed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't there a certain conflation here between the creative work itself and the event of its publication? Charles Dickens published Bleak House in a serial form between March 1852 and September 1853; during its publication, it was a recurring event. It is quite proper to say that the recurring event of the publication of Bleak House was, and that it will never happen again; but it doesn't make sense to me that for this reason we should say that Bleak House, the work of art, was; rather, we should say that it is, because it continues to exist.

To put it another way, if we had an article titled "Serial publication of Bleak House", it would be quite proper to say that "Bleak House was published serially from March 1852 to September 1853." In the same way, if the Rose Parade had stopped last year, it would have been proper to say "The Tournament of Roses Parade was an annual parade" etc. etc., because the Tournament of Roses Parade would have been a series of events that had ceased happening. We do not have an article about the Tournament of Roses Parade as a unified artistic whole, but if such an article could reasonably exist then it would seem perfectly reasonable to me to use the wording "The Tournament of Roses Parade is an artistic work" etc. etc.

Now to I Love Lucy. If we had an article titled "Initial broadcast run of I Love Lucy", then it would make perfect sense to me to use the phrasing "I Love Lucy was first broadcast from October 15, 1951, to May 6, 1957" etc. However, we don't have such an article; we only have a single article whose task is to combine information about I Love Lucy as an artistic work, and information about I Love Lucy as an event (i.e., its publication history) into a cohesive whole. From that perspective, I think the lead sentence of the article is quite workable: "I Love Lucy is an American television sitcom that originally aired [past tense!] on CBS from October 15, 1951, to May 6, 1957"; that is, I Love Lucy, the creative work, continues to exist and therefore is; but I Love Lucy, the set of television performances broadcast from 1951 to 1957, was a series of events that has ended.

This seems to be lifted almost wholesale from the theatrical convention: the specific run of a play at a theater was a series of events, but the play itself is an artistic work that continues to exist even if nobody is performing it. Shells-shells (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no unified artistic work called I Love Lucy. But again, that's not the real issue. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What about TV series that are revived, such as Murphy Brown or Will & Grace? DonIago (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

When they are revived, there are two choices: Make a separate article for the reboot (which would be in present tense), or restore it to present tense because it is currently going on. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Buildings have planning, construction, and completion phases, but we tend to refer to them in present tense while they exist. It's also worth noting that some television shows gain their highest popularity, and establish their long-term impact, after their initial broadcast run. CMD (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The same in the context of the Corporate world. We don't say Commodore is a manufacturer of computers. I believe for TV programmes that have finished it should be was, to show that it is no longer made. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TV programs are the outputs, not the companies. The comparison would be Commodore 64, "The Commodore 64, also known as the C64, is an 8-bit home computer..." CMD (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As previously put above by an other editor, the series is not the output, the actual individual episode of the series/season is. So the series/season is a "was" while the episode "is". Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with that argument. The series is indeed a creative work. It also is plainly incorrect in terms of the reality of television series production. A TV series is a long form work. Episodes are chapters. That's why series titles are in italics, after all. oknazevad (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Episodes seem comparable to installments of a serial novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sort of series that would naturally be thought of as a "creative work" as a whole is a very recent development, maybe starting around the era of Babylon 5. Anyone who wants to tell me that B5 is not "recent" can go straight to Z'ha'dum. The classic TV sitcoms were not like that at all. They were much more "once a week we'll entertain you". --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Without objecting too much to the premise, the idea that an (episodic) series might clearly constitute a creative work dates at least to Twin Peaks. And mini-series before that, but I understand that you are only interested in episodic television in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, correct. The present tense strikes me as natural for Roots. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not familiar with much old American television but the British BBC sf series Blake's 7 (1978–81) definitely had long-running elements, especially in its later seasons. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There was a long discussion and a long RfC about MOS:WAS in 2020; see here and here. There was no consensus to change the tense recommendation for defunct TV shows. I agree with those that argue for "was" but it was a surprisingly contentious RfC and I'm not sure I'd recommend opening that can of worms again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be very confusing to have one rule for most fiction (novels, films) and another for television. Much old television is still available via DVDs or the like. Blake's 7, to take a case that someone mentioned above, is still available and still watched and discussed. I'm a native (British) English speaker, and do not find something of the form "Blake's 7 is a BBC television series that was first broadcast between 1978 and 1981" at all jarring. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Even for some things that are not available, it would be weird to say "Marco Polo was the fourth serial of Doctor Who" but "The Edge of Destruction is the third serial of Doctor Who". That no copies are known to exist doesn't stop the serial from being at that place in the chronology, and should copies surface this won't change. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As another example, at the video games project, we keep to present tense except for games that were cancelled prior to publication l. So even for defunct online games, or games that ran on defunct hardware, we still use present tense for these as there are ways to make the games work today even if it takes effort. Masem (t) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that for video games. I have a problem with text like Tonight Starring Jack Paar (in later seasons The Jack Paar Tonight Show) is an American talk show.... Seriously, who talks like that? You can argue all you want about the availability of episodes (I haven't checked whether they are available and don't really care) but it just doesn't come across as natural English. --Trovatore (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There may be something to be said for the idea that a since-ended talk show, news program, or other such current-events-dependent series is more akin to a defunct periodical, which we do use past tense for, but for a scripted series the present tense is just as appropriate as it is for a film, book, play, album, etc. The series is a complete work that was produced in the past, but still exists in a viewable form. oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, these old series are not complete works. They don't have narrative unity, they don't have a story arc; there's nothing that holds them together. They're just bunches of episodes. But again, that's a retrospective justification; the real point is that people use the past tense to talk about them in real life, and the present tense sounds unnatural. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

IP, the original airing dates of the show-in-question, are within the page's lead. There's no way, a reader would think the TV series is being currently produced. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has given me a new sympathy for "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.". Schazjmd (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Size and consensus

Originally posted at WP:VPIL because I got my noticeboards mixed up:

Recent discussions at a good article reassessment and Wikipedia talk:Article size, among others, have led me to ask whether WP:AS, and more specifically WP:SIZERULE still has community consensus to be a guideline. Objections raised include that: it includes false assumptions about Wikipedia readers; that the ideas behind it are based on out-of-date products and technologies; that it includes "rules of thumbs", etc.

I have come here to gain opinions on how to phrase a sort of "reconfirmation RfC" on the guideline as a whole. I think it would be beneficial to have clear consensus on whether the guideline should retain its status, and if so should WP:SIZERULE be a part of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I think this is an interesting question, but I'm not sure you've put enough "handles" on it to help people get a grip on your question. So here's one:

• One of the characteristics of an encyclopedia article is its concise writing style (e.g., omit needless words) and brevity (e.g., an encyclopedia article should be shorter than a book). Should Wikipedia make any recommendations about the ideal maximum length of a Wikipedia article (NB: not lists, categories, or similar pages)?
  • If so, should Wikipedia make those recommendations based on:
    1. Word count (e.g., as measured by the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget)
    2. Number of sentences or paragraphs
    3. How many minutes it takes to read the article
    4. Byte size (shown in page history)
    5. How long it takes to load the page (more pictures = slower)
    6. Rendered page size (more formatting = bigger/worse for people on old devices)
    7. Something else?

My answers would be Yes and 1 + 3. Bonus points if we define this in terms of the tomat (unit) (after The Old Man and the Sea. One tomat = 26,000 words). I suggest that one centitomat is a long stub, one decitomat is a nicely developed article, and one quarter tomat is getting a little long. (ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm particularly curious whether these numbers feel about right to you.)

What would you suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It brings me no end of joy to see tomats catching on, but quick clarification, the unit name always contains the s and should be phrased so it always sounds plural. Also, according to the New York Times, it's about 27,000 words.[1] It is an excellent measure though, because it communicates the conceptual amount of reading in a way that many people are familiar with, rather than just word count.

Your scale seems pretty reasonable. If an article is running a quarter the size of a small novel it's definitely pushing out of encyclopedia article into a longer research work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The above comments are reasonable in general but there are plenty of exceptions where brevity would obfuscate the topic and remove important information. Some articles could be replaced with a couple of sentences that an expert in the field would understand but which would be a waste of time for anyone else. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There will always be exceptions, but in a lot of circumstances it would make more sense to fork the article and leave a summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Brevity is not a characteristic of an encyclopaedia article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the United States runs to over 300 pages - easily comparable to a small book. It's hard to overemphasise how wrong-headed that preconception is. And Wikipedia is not paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • #3 is also based on an equally invalid and assumption; only about 5% of readers read the article from top to bottom; about a third read the lead only; and the rest jump about the article, looking for certain specific information. (See Research:Which parts of an article do readers read?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

500/30 editing restrictions

In order to edit content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, an editor must have made 500 edits and have an account that is over 30 days old. Does this restriction take into account edits made by a user to Wikipedia in other languages? The issue does not appear to be mentioned at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict Burrobert (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Only edits on the English Wikipedia count towards the total. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The page says repeatedly "extended confirmed". This is an automatic user right given to anyone with 500/30 on English Wikipedia. Animal lover |666| 09:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually an important point IMO. I think with the user right existing, any reference to 500/30 should generally be taken as meaning you need to have the EC user right. Mostly this is a distinction without a difference since it's automatic but the right can be revoked if it's felt the editor was WP:gaming to gain it, as just happened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#EC permissions gaming. Editors who've lost the user right should be taken to not meet the requirements no matter that they may technically have 500 edits and been registered for 30 days. Of course this shouldn't be taken too far. If you know an account is a legitimate alternative account for someone with ECP EC, don't complain that the specific account doesn't have EC status. Yes they can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed and in some cases it is technically necessary and can reduce confusion but it's also unhelpful to complain if you already know. (BTW in about a week it will be 30 days since the 2023 Israel–Hamas war begun so I assume we're going to get a bunch of relatively new accounts now having EC entering into the area.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's EC that's important. I don't care whether someone has over 500 edits. I do care whether they deserve the trust that we typically give by default at that 500-edit milestone but can be given early or revoked for cause. Certes (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbpia is still a thing but WP:ARBECR applies to the topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point but I think another issue is that rules and guidance vary from one Wikipedia to another. But I think if the editor is experienced in another Wikipedia, the 500 rule could be lowered a bit. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

EC access requirements vs arbcom remedies vs when any of these are technically/administratively enforced has always been a sloppy mess. Arbcom has attempted to clean this up a few times, but as pointed above there seems to still be lingering artifacts / inconsistencies. In general any "500/30" specific rules are safe to ignore when ECP protection is actually in place; and administrators may also discretionally grant ECP to anyone they want. In practice, early ECP grants are rarely done - especially if the reason is that someone wants to dive right in to contentious topics, they are a minefield and anyone not at least moderately used to editing on the English Wikipedia is likely to run in to issues contributing to such topics. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

NB an update was processed at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict - clarifying that group membership not static numbers is the gating factor for that remedy now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the actual remedy in effect is at WP:ARBECR which doesn't mention 500 edits/30 days at all. Galobtter (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The problem

Decided to post this here instead of the NPOV noticeboard or MOS talk page as predicted this could generate quite lively discussion, as it historically has [2][3][4], but the 2023 Israel-Hamas war has again placed the spotlight on MOS:TERRORIST. The present policy rightfully encourages caution, but seemingly allows for the term's use in Wikivoice if consensus is reached in the sources. Nevertheless, the discussions on various Talk pages relating to the violence in Israel and Gaza plainly demonstrate the inherent problems of using the term in Wikivoice.

Although Terrorism scholars recognise a distinct phenomena to which the term applies, the problem for an encyclopedia is that its actual lay usage is extremely value-laden (except, of course, when referencing or quoting third party usage) and vague. Our own article on Terrorism offers such a broad definition that it escapes all utility. Scholarship is increasingly recognising the inherent definitional problems, or questioning the label's usefulness.[5]

I anticipate some of the counter arguments (based on those I've come across in the various discussions). Firstly, that terrorism is not a biased or value-laden label. I think the contentious discussions around the label disproves this point. Secondly, that it improves articles to include the term. And third that to not use the label gives such-named groups/individuals plausible deniability about the nature of their act(s). But, if the third is true, the first cannot be.

Working proposal

The Provisional Irish Republican Army article offers, in my opinion, persuasive precedent for how we should use the term. It discusses who designated it, and the fact news orgs routinely referred to the PIRA as "terrorist", all the while maintaining a neutral point of view by avoiding using the label in the narrative voice. As such, I propose a change to our MOS:TERRORIST. Of course, I welcome suggestions, but as a working start I propose the wording be amended to read:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

[...]

For the terms terrorist, terrorism, or freedom fighter: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term.

If adopted, I realise this does mean slight edits to the wikivoice for an extensive number of articles, most notably the September 11 attacks, but these articles don't lose anything by replacing the word. In any case, the term is applied inconsistently across articles: used for the Jaffa Road bus bombings but not the 2016 Jerusalem bus bombing despite cited sources using the term. Yr Enw (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the present material says: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. It does not thereafter discuss terrorism further. So, this is a proposal to add the For the terms terrorist, terrorism, or freedom fighter: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term. language as a new sentence, and to remove terrorist, or freedom fighter from the opening sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is an important topic. Regarding Hamas, it is designated a terrorist organization by the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia, the UK Japan, Israel and Paraguay. In context of English Wikipedia, it is apparent that most English speaking nations have designated the organization as terrorist.

I think it is important to differentiate between militias and terrorists. This is important also for the inverse reason, so that the term militia does not come to encompass such a huge sway of organizations, thus weakening the word militia itself. Indeed I find it odd that units that served in the American Revolution are considered militia, and organizations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas are also considered militia.

Thus, I argue in respect to the Neutral Point of View issue, that just like Al Qaeda and ISIS can be argued to be freedom fighters or militia for some people. They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are.

And one more thing for now, an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia can trust in rapport to the fact that it is trusted to reflect information and the values of its readership. If Wikipedia would decide to stop calling organizations such as Al Qaeda or ISIS or Hamas for this matter, terrorist; I fear Wikipedia would have lost itself in its readership.

In summary, I argue that we must designate and refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion2

• Comment: Still thinking on this, but I my initial sense is that it's an oversimplification. The 9/11 attacks qualify as terrorism under every known definition of the term, but that probably is not true of every single thing that various sources apply terroris[m|t] to. I think what we need to be concerned with is whether the preponderance of the sources, the vast majority of them, agree in using the term. "I can find it in some source somewhere" doesn't equate to a WP:DUE viewpoint, but the idea above seems to encourage injection of "quotations or third-party uses of the term" without much consideration for that. As a side matter, I want to be very clear that BBC News is under rather concerted attack in [Western] public opinion for avoiding labeling Hamas's, well, terrorist actions as terrorism, and dancing along a thin and to many very inappropriate both-sidesism line. (The short version is that the fact that Israel probably has some things to answer for in regards to its treament of Palestine and residents thereof doesn't make Hamas massacring a music festival and going on a rampage of child-decaptiation any less a bunch of terrorism. Terrorism is a collection of techniques of pursuing political violence, and doing it in the name of "freedom fighting" doesn't make it magically become non-terrorism.) If WP joins BBC is beating around the bush on this, we're going to be inundated with both on-site disruption and off-site criticism in published sources. That's not a reason to do one thing versus the other, but it is something to consider and, potentially, to be prepared for. Anyway, I will agree that our lessons in how to write about the Provisional IRA are probably going to be of value in dealing with this situation in the Middle East.
  PS: There is a somewhat related RfC (of sorts) open at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC Proposed Addition to "Contentious labels" section. Making much sense of it will require reading the thread immediately above it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I don't disagree with the caution of the current policy, I think it needs to be tightened and certainly wouldn't advocate injection of quotations or third-party uses of the term without agreement in the sources. My thinking is that the policy needs to explicitly eliminate use of the terms in Wikivoice, but equally not to allow backchanneling a smattering sources that then falls foul of WP:DUE. This isn't, as I hope I had made clear above, to say I (or WP) think(s) there's no such thing as terrorism, just that the label is too loaded to be used neutrally and too contentious to be used consistently. Yr Enw (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with this, recently both of the UK and US governments placed pressure on the press to follow government policy such that if the government declared an org as terrorist then the press should follow and then presumably we would follow the press.

  Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think if we do that, we then compromise on impartiality. Yr Enw (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, to NOT follow the sources would be inserting our own partiality on the situation. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I emphasise again I have no problem quoting and referencing such sources. My problem is explicitly with using the terms in Wikivoice, as is done in the Jaffa Road bus bombings article. Yr Enw (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Quoting the proposed addition: these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term - That's what in-text attribution is; it is, or should be, already covered by MOS:TERRORIST. DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the application of that particular sentence is the crux of the issue really. I have no issue with the formulation of MOS:TERRORIST except that recent edit disputes have demonstrated that can seemingly be interpreted to allow use of the terms in Wikivoice as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. Therein lies the problem from my perspective. Perhaps I should be clearer about that and the proposed wording be adjusted to specifically and explicitly address this. Yr Enw (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd point those people to WP:NPOV, which says: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. NPOV says we're supposed to attribute "John Doe is the best baseball player", so how could we not attribute "John Doe is a terrorist"? But MOS:LABEL being ignored is a problem, and, as you say, any fix should address that directly - DFlhb (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess that example goes to my point though, to say “John Doe is the best baseball player” in wikivoice would be absurd. It would likely read something like “John Doe is recognised as the best baseball player”. Likewise, “X is/was widely recognised as a terrorist organisation/attack”. Yr Enw (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any issue with the way MOS:LABEL treats the word "terrorist" specifically. If we were to make any change to it, it'd be for (slightly) liberalizing the wording. In practice, we do use MOS:LABELs in Wikivoice if the sourcing is so overwhelming the label can no longer be said to be contentious, and I think we should formalize that. Loki (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  It seems we're both on the same page when it comes to recognising that, in practice, MOS:LABEL when read in combination with WP:INTEXT allows for use in Wikivoice, albeit we have opposite opinions on how to address that. Like I said to @DFlhb above, I think this is the crux of the issue. Yr Enw (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yr Enw, we've got a handle on giving credit where it's due based on the sources we've got. But there's still a head-scratcher about those lists and categories with some pretty hot-button labels in their names. It seems like Wikipedia is slapping those labels on things without attribution in wiki voice. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That appears a slightly separate point to the one I was trying to make, but I agree with you the lists and categories is something that needs to be addressed by an revisal of the MOS too. Yr Enw (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• How about we add a rule that when someone's part of a group known as a 'terrorist' organization, we make sure to mention that? It could go like, 'John Smith, a member of Brave Hearts, which countries Harmonia and Technoville call a terrorist organization.' And when we first bring up Brave Hearts on a page, we do the same thing. Just keeping things clear for the reader, no bias intended. What do you think about this idea? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that reflects with due weight how the subject is discussed in reliable sources, sure, but not as a hard and fast rule. With figures like Nelson Mandela, it would give undue emphasis to primarily describe him by referencing the fact that some governments at some points in time labelled him as a terrorist.--Trystan (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I totally get what's going on with the whole Mandela case, but I'm kind of unsure about how to go about evaluating sources. Lately, it looks like sources are tossing around the word "terrorism" in quotes only, like it's open to interpretation. This isn't just happening on Wikipedia; even the big names like the BBC are doing it. For instance, the Prime Minister and the Royals are calling it an 'act of terror,' but it's being reported as an 'attack.' So, how do we figure out which sources are trustworthy? Doesn't it put the editors in a tricky spot, having to decide what qualifies as atrocities and what doesn't? Infinity Knight (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, how do we figure out which sources are trustworthy? the usual way.

  Doesn't it put the editors in a tricky spot, having to decide what qualifies as atrocities and what doesn't? Plus ça change, consensus and all that. Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, it appears that then OR and POV would have a significant influence.

  It's possible to envision small editorial teams forming local agreements in specific topics where unconventional viewpoints dominate. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Totally, in the world of terrorism studies, they've been going back and forth on what the heck "terrorism" even means. It's like trying to separate real terrorism from other political violence - a real brain teaser. The whole terrorism lingo and how we think about it have been under the microscope of scholars, always changing.
  But hey, check this out, some new scholars are diving into the topic of "International Terrorism" after those wild Hamas attacks on Israel. They're not holding back on using the word "Terrorism" in their titles. They're also pointing fingers at some "international terrorist actors" and naming names. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think this is bad idea. The suggested change says: ...these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term. This contradicts the first and most important part, i.e. "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject.... It the term was widely used by multiple sources with regard to something, it should not be placed in quotations. For example, we can not write that person X was a "racist" ("...") if multiple RS have described him as a racist. Same applies to other terms. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying, but as I had also said to an earlier comment: any such comment would likely read something like, “X is/was widely recognised as a terrorist organisation/attack”, and likewise "X is/was widely recognised as racist." I don't think the label loses power if framed that way. Yr Enw (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  But is that sort of distancing really appropriate in all cases? Sometimes we should state things plainly. I think we can safely say that the founders of white supremacy organizations "are" racist, and not merely that they "were recognized as" or "called" racist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying, but in the case of "terrorist/m" it's so charged that I think there is no way to 'state things plainly' without getting into murky territory with regards to neutrality, assuming "terrorism/t" is a universally agreed definition, which it isn't. I don't personally think it loses impact caveating in as such, it is - after all - people who apply these words to things. Yr Enw (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a rule disallowing 'wiki voice'; all the information provided could be attributed since Wikipedia primarily rephrases its sources. Wouldn't this approach make Wikipedia more neutral and precise? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I completely agree. I'm unsure if I have just been obscure in my explainations, bc it seems a lot of editors are against exactly this. Yr Enw (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Infinity Knight, we don't attribute every statement to a source because that would be non-neutral. Consider:

  • "According to Democratic Party, Joe Biden is the current US President" – and according to Donald Trump, he's not.
  • "According to the American Medical Association, HIV causes AIDS" – and according to Kary Mullis, it doesn't.
  • "According to algebra textbooks, algebra is a type of mathematics" – and according to some students, it's a particularly fiendish type of torture.

  We use wikivoice when a mainstream POV clearly exists (Barack Obama is US citizen, Al Capone was a gangster, Benedict Arnold was a traitor) and we are reporting that mainstream POV. To do otherwise is to imply that these are not widely agreed upon facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @WhatamIdoing: Wikipedia basically condenses and rephrases what it finds in its sources, and it can attribute the content to those sources. That'd be both impartial and precise. Some other contributors pointed out that the need to censor what sources actually state can introduce bias into Wikipedia. The word 'terrorist' can function as both a label and, at times, as a factual description. The guideline seems to overlook the latter. Now, how can we attribute the term 'terrorist' in the Hindustan Times content within the existing framework without introducing bias? Infinity Knight (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is that source the only one that uses that label? If not, why do you want to attribute the label on this source alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Label"? Could it be a factual description? What's the right way to use the word "terrorist" when rewording the Hindustan Times source? Any ideas from other sources? Infinity Knight (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Infinity Knight, the HT piece that you linked is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Why would you be using that source at all? I don't think we need to worry about "rewording" that source because I think we should be citing secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  "[It is not] always easy to distinguish primary from secondary sources. A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".

  HT goes through Israeli sources, and it's pretty obvious that the audio of the call is connected to the IDF. So, I have some reservations about labeling this source as primary. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing I agree with this point (that attributing some statements can lead to neutrality issues), except that I don’t think it should apply to any use of the terms “terrorism/t” because they are specifically called out for challenge in many academic sources. So the notion it’s “calling a spade a spade” just isn’t correct Yr Enw (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  When most of the sources are using the term terrorist, and there is no significant disagreement, then we should feel free to use that term, too.

  The challenge in academic sources is about defining the edges. There is no significant disagreement about the core. Consider the debates in astronomy about what constitutes a planet: There have been debates about whether Pluto is a planet, but there is no disagreement about whether Earth is a planet. We don't say "Oh, there is disagreement about the cutoff point – okay, we give up; nothing can be called a planet in wikivoice!" The same logic applies here: There have been debates about whether certain groups are true terrorist organizations, vs (e.g.,) criminal gangs or political groups with unorthodox publicity methods. The fact that some are dispute doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us from labeling the undisputed other individual groups as terrorists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The academic debate isn’t simply about the “edge”. That might be a legal struggle by governments, but discussions in academia im talking about are about the very notion of “terrorism” as a term full stop. To use the planet example, academics aren’t talking simply asking “does x and y constitute a planet”, but rather to the core of “what even is a planet?” And “does the concept of planets in and of themselves help us understand?” And of course many are now saying “no” - See Stampinzky [6] for example.

  nb - ofc im not actually talking about planets, nobody doubt the utility of that term, just transplanting the example Yr Enw (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Funny coincidence that you'd link to Stampinzky. The rest of the book is also an excellent read. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've read Stampnitzky. She doesn't argue against using the term. Instead, she argues that the people trying to come up with a single, universal, apolitical, amoral definition don't understand what the term means. She argues that this word means that the speaker has identified an "enemy" (someone who's the "them" in the us-versus-them thinking) who is using overt violence for political purposes in illegitimate or out-of-place contexts (e.g., shooting random people in a nice part of town is "out of place"; shooting people in a combat zone is expected).

  For example:

  • Drug cartel murdering someone who stole from them: "Enemy", but not "unexpected" or "political", therefore not terrorists.
  • 9/11 hijackers: "Enemy", "out-of-place violence", and "political", therefore terrorists.

  Her main point is to say that if you call someone a terrorist, you are saying that the action is overtly violent, that it is perpetrated in an atypical or abnormal context, and that it is primarily public and political in nature. This is not an argument against using the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies. The structure of my message was unintentionally misleading. Stampinzky is an example of scholars asking the question as to whether it’s possible to define it. For scholars more explicitly saying no, perhaps see [7]. I’m not sure what she offers can really be said to be a definition, although yes I suppose it’s “this is how people seem to define it”, which is a definition of a definition, albeit it’s so extremely broad that, even if we agree she accepts that definition, isn’t the very notion of “(il)legitimate” highly subjective that it escapes all utility? Yr Enw (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  My argument being: analysis like hers underscores, to me, the need for extra caution with slapping unattributed labels around Yr Enw (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is an elephant in the room. On a linguistic level, I'm not sure how the UK Prime Minister and the Royals can freely use the term "terrorism" when it lacks a clear definition. How can they expect the British people to fully understand what they're saying?

  When we look at current scholarly research, experts and international law scholars provide detailed explanations. The labeling of celebrities by world governments is a subject of extensive discussion, but scholars, when analyzing the available sources, tend to use the term in a factual, unattributed manner. They talk about what they define as "the world of international terrorism" and the interaction of major terrorist groups in that realm. So, it doesn't appear that there's a consensus among scholars that the term is so poorly defined that we should eliminate it from our vocabulary.

  This perspective should be taken into account in the guidelines. In some cases, the term could be used as a "LABEL," as seen with Mandela, while in other cases, it could be employed for factual description, as is the case with Bin Laden, for instance. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  “(il)legitimate” highly subjective that it escapes all utility might be WP:FRINGE. Just a quick look at scholarly sources shows that the term is used without attribution in factual contexts, for instance in research about social interactions within certain celebrity groups, see "Identity, International Terrorism and Negotiating Peace: Hamas and Ethics-Based Considerations from Critical Restorative Justice" as a random instance. This isn't just a theoretical matter, see QFT; it's a practical one. Real governments invest significant resources in legislation and funding for counter-terrorism activities. For everyday people, this term has utility, and leaders use the term to communicate with their audiences. Regarding the guidelines, stating that the term is exclusively a label can be misleading and should be clarified. I share the concern about the potential for bias due to label misuse, and we already provide a warning about this. However, it has been argued that the current approach can also introduce bias in some cases. So, we need to strike a balanced approach. Any suggestions? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not entirely sure there is a way to strike balance between the two perspectives. We either don’t use it (as I suggest) or we do (and potentially invite this debate each and every time). But perhaps someone else has an idea Yr Enw (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Restating the problem & formal RfC

The above discussion appears to me to have ironed out the crux of the issue:

1. MOS:TERRORIST restricts the terms to "in-text attribution"
2. According to WP:INTEXT, "in-text attribution" includes use in Wikivoice can be used when there’s consensus in RSs.
3. For me, the problem is solely about using the terms in Wikivoice (ie. not quotations or referencing third party use).
4. Because the definition of these terms are highly contested, RSs cannot be said to use or define the terms consistently.
5. Therefore, I believe use of the terms "terrorist/terrorism/terror attack" in Wikivoice should be explicitly eliminated.

As such, perhaps a useful way of proceeding is to open a formal RfC below, to gauge whether there is appetite for any such change at all. Please note, this poll is not about any particular policy wording. It is solely about whether there should be any change to MOS:TERRORIST.

This poll has now closed.

 Not done There is clearly no consensus for change. I remain of the views expressed, most specifically that this will continue to lead to Talk page punch-ups until a clear interpretation of the guidelines is reached/adopted/enforced. Am keeping the discussion open, however, in case of further constructive comments. Yr Enw (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST is a link to a section that covers many things... Not just terrorism. Is there a reason for using this particular link and not the actual name or the more general links? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate that, I was only using it as a shorthand because my focus is on “terrorism”, as opposed to the other contentious labels Yr Enw (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And, for what it’s worth, even if we were to eliminate wikivoice use of any of those terms (I say, once again, I’m not talking about referring to third party use of the term) I don’t feel it loses impact. Saying, “X is widely regarded as racist” for example. Yr Enw (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, I think it would be a grave mistake to restrict the use of the term terrorist/terror attack/terrorism. Several points

Point 1) In respect to the Neutral Point of View issue, that just like Al Qaeda and ISIS can be argued to be freedom fighters or militia for some people. They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are.

Point 2) An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia must be able to decide on such issues according to a set of parameters. For example, if the US, UK, Australia and Canada accept an organization as terrorist then it ought to be considered as such since they make up more than 75% of the Native English speaking world. (The rule should be if countries representing more than 75% of native English speakers consider an organization terrorist than it should be done so)

Point 3) What you are proposing would make the 9/11 attack not a terrorist attack but an "attack by militia"; it would make the Charlie Hebdo attacks, militia attacks; everything will be militia attacks! This would really be simply absurd.

Point 4) Potential for disastrous effect. Wikipedia has power, all who control information have power. By removing the terrorist label, we run into the dangerous ground of potential legitimization of groups. Wikipedia is read by millions, we have a responsibility to ensure that some organizations are labeled as terrorists and are not legitimized in some manner by us.

Homerethegreat (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your comments and for adding to the discussion. To just tackle the points you raise:

1. "They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are." The problem is that this seem to fly in the face of WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. The NPOV policy "says nothing about objectivity." The point being, we are not - as WP editors - the arbiters of what does or doesn't constitute terrorism. We report what reliable sources say, aiming to reflect the general consensus in media and scholarship as best as possible. So, to me, that means attributing use of the term (ie. "X says Y is terrorism") but generally not interpreting acts as terrorism in the narrative (Wikivoice). This isn't to say we don't think it's terrorism.
2. "An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia must be able to decide on such issues according to a set of parameters." Agree, but the parameters of verifiability are not simply "what governments say". They are far from neutral actors when it comes to applying this specific set of terms, as well.
3. Disagree. I have said elsewhere, and evidently need to say again, the issue is only when in text attribution is avoided in favour of Wikivoice.
4. See above numbered point. I'm not advocating removing it.

Further to the point about objectivity, while this really gets into the domain of the Problem of universals, it should nevertheless be pointed out that even eminent terrorist scholar Bruce Hoffman, who spent an entire book trying to pin down a definition of terrorism, still had to acknowledge at the start of the book that - in reality - the term is never used neutrally and becomes inevitably subjective.[8]

If the issue is one of losing impact by not using the term (or that "terrorism" should be used bc it's a strong label), I just disagree. I don't believe there's any such loss by simply sticking some citations at the end of a sentence. But that's just me. Yr Enw (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey (MOS contentious labels)

I'm not convinced that there is actually a problem that needs solving here. When the majority of reliable sources say X is/was a terrorist (organisation) it would be an NPOV violation not to include that description in our article. If the sources are using it with inconsistent meaning we should say that - iff we can do so without engaging in original research. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We probably wouldn't be able to do that without engaging in OR. But, like I said above, the problem I find arises solely with use in Wikivoice, not with the mentioning of it. I am not saying we shouldn't include that description in our article, just that we need to be cautious how frame that description (and, in my opinion, not use Wikivoice). Yr Enw (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC approach :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC and other entities who are unwilling to call terrorism terrorism are taking intense criticism and in some cases seeing loss of contributions, or so I've read. The optics of this proposal may not be ideal. Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can appreciate if that turns out to be the case. The irony is that whole thing really underscores how un-neutral a term it is! Yr Enw (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe it represents how little tolerance most people have for a media outlet trying to protect the feelings of people who are willing to kill children for political reasons by making sure that they don't use the "T-word" to describe the murderers. Reminds me of https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1982/08/26 in reverse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your comment underscores exactly how value-laden the term is, though, because you assume that by not using it you're 'protecting the feelings of people who are willing to kill children for political reasons'. That exemplifies the biases that have been imbued within it. That act is so clearly wrong and immoral without needing to get bogged down in labels. And hey, I am not even saying don't use it, I'm saying don't use it in wikivoice. Yr Enw (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If "the act is so clearly wrong and immoral" – if, in short, there is no significant doubt about it being an accurate description, and when this is a typical categorization made by reliable sources – then we should call a spade a spade, and a terrorist a terrorist.

Here's how this conversation appears to me:

• You: We shouldn't call people names, even when they murder children for political purposes.
• Other editors: Um, you know that the general public, which includes our readers, is strongly criticizing the few other websites who've taken that self-censorship approach?
• You: Yeah, our readers hate it when we accurately describe terrorists as being terrorists. We just shouldn't call people names, even when it's totally obvious that they really are terrorists.

I understand that you dislike name calling, but I find your argument non-existent and your assertion unconvincing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a total mischaracterisation of the arguments I have advanced. I have said from the start that there is substantial scholarly literature attesting to the problems inherent in this specific term. That is the motivation behind seeking a more restrictive policy in its usage. If my actual arguments simply go unaddressed, I don’t think we are going to get any further here. Yr Enw (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice how we're not calling it a terrorist attack in wikivoice, because the sourcing doesn't support it? By definition, it's not totally obvious. Nor do we call Hamas, Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban "terrorists" in wikivoice. May I remind you that WP:BLP applies to groups, even those we don't like, and also applies in this namespace? DFlhb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems many editors equate "not using in Wikivoice" to "saying/believing it doesn't exist". But the latter isn't relevant to the question of style, it belongs in the domain of the Problem of universals. Yr Enw (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia editors are instructed to replace the word "terrorist" with "militant" which has slightly different meaning, thus introducing bias. In the Wikipedia world, we usually roll with the idea that a word's just a "label," but hey, that's not always the case. No one even talks about it when we're using the term to describe actual facts, and we don't even think about that possibility. The way we talk totally shapes how we see things, you know? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Instructed? Sources use militant all the time, as well as fighter, gunman, etc depending. Here's an AP report of today, here the killer is a "settler" and we have "Hamas militants infiltrated Israel on Oct 7". Nothing there about Hamas attack being by "terrorists" or the October 7 events being "terrorism". Bias? Same goes for 7000+ dead, mostly civilians, half women and children, in Gaza, that's not "terrorism" either, it's "self defense". Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

See Yr Enw suggestion above: "militant" is a much less problematic term (eg. "A Hamas militant boasted to his mother of 'quote whatever he says', widely denounced as a terrorist (citation x, y, z)") I'm cool with going along with the sources and using the term they're throwing out, like "militant" if that's their lingo, or "terrorist" if that's what they're saying. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's my position as well, the trouble starts when MOS TERRORISM is cited as a reason not to, then it requires in depth source analysis every time to see what's what. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The term 'terrorism' is the elephant in the room: an obvious, significant, and often uncomfortable issue or topic that people are aware of but choose to ignore or avoid discussing. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook approach, too, for the record. DFlhb (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And the Agence France-Presse approach too. I've noticed Le Monde has largely adopted this too, though silently. It's rather remarkable that we would be less cautious than our news sources, to say nothing of academic sources. We're supposed to be more formal and clinical than them; it would be an anomaly for the roles to be reversed.

• News is highly selective in which acts of political violence are presented as terrorism, according to this paper.
• These words have always been tricky; the subject of controversy. “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” “Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s statesperson.” These recurring phrases have become clichés in journalistic and political commentaries. They mean that using these terms is never neutral. (emphasis mine) from the UNESCO handbook for journalists
• Ariel Merari, professor at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Tel Aviv University, from the above handbook: “Terrorism has become merely another derogatory word, rather than a descriptor of a specific type of activity. Usually, people use the term as a disapproving label for a whole variety of phenomena which they do not like, without bothering to define precisely what constitutes terroristic behavior.”

There is far, far more from that handbook, and from other papers, all the way from Becker's original labelling theory paper, up to today. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The section is about contentious labels in general, not just the label terrorist. Is the objection to the entire idea of contentious labels or just this specific label? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this specific label requires singling out for particular treatment. Yr Enw (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Then this isn't a discussion about MOS:TERRORIST is it? You've just used that link to make a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your comment? The MOS has a specific caveat about pseudoscience, for example, that’s what I envisioned when I said singling out, given how contested the term is (more so than “racism”, for eg) Yr Enw (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So you're challenging the inclusion of terrorist but not freedom fighter, denialist, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support eliminating wikivoice for them all, but I’m singling terrorism out for specific mention because, as I have said in the “discussion” (and the “problem”) section, there is a specific recognition in the scholarship about how loaded and contentiously defined the term is. Yr Enw (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose- I'm with Thryduulf here. When the overwhelming majority of RS say X, we can and should say X. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per GRuban and Thryduulf. If and only if the majority of sources say X, we must as well. Andre🚐 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Also feel that it's not the time to have such a discussion, even were it warranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Contrary to the OP, nothing in the manual of style is policy, thank goodness. Our articles have to mean what the sources mean, but we don't have to use the words the sources use. Whether to use the word "terrorism" is in fact a matter for editorial judgment, although our judgments should be based on what the most reliable sources say.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment, that's quite informative and makes sense. This really does seem to come down to editorial subjectivity, which - in my opinion - is a neutrality problem when it comes to this set of terms because we are making a judgement as to what we think the sources mean. Yr Enw (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  We have to know what the sources mean. Someone who doesn't know what the sources mean shouldn't be editing the article, under any circumstances, ever.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  When making a statement like "X was a terrorist attack" without directly attributing the use of the term (which is the only thing I have an issue with here), are we not inevitably making an editorial judgement? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Yr Enw (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yea, it is an editorial judgement, that's the point, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't this inevitably lead us to a potential punch-up between pro and anti "using the term" every time "terrorist" is put in any article? Yr Enw (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ahem, civilized discussion, yep:) Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's what underpins my desire for an explicit position, but I can understand why we may not get one. It's just frustrating to see this has seemingly been a point of disagreement for 20+ years on Wiki. Yr Enw (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are loads of iffy labels, and that "terrorist" is contained in a short list named specifically, it's not doing us any favors in my book. It just gets folks all riled up 'cause of their different takes on things. So, I'm on board with setting some clear rules, or else this chaos just keeps rolling on. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• There is no consensus in reliable sources about what the definition of terrorism is. Therefore, I see it as something that is almost never acceptable to use in wiki voice. I also don't think it conveys any information to the reader besides just describing in plain English what a "terrorist" attack consisted of or what a "terrorist" organization is up to, which we should already have in the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  As the BBC reporter expressed it, while dealing with a comparable issue of "word choice," there are moments when certain freedom fighters engage in deeply troubling actions that indeed merit the label "an act of terror". Infinity Knight (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The problem still arises as to what measure determines when an action crosses into "an act of terror", on which there is seemingly little (if any) agreement. Yr Enw (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In most cases, it's important to focus on what really went down, rather than the political statements that were made. There are scholars and international law experts that break it down for us.Infinity Knight (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Contentious labels only bog us down Yr Enw (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Contentious labels" is a guideline. I mean, the whole deal about giving credit when sources don't see eye to eye is already baked into those core policies about being neutral, reliable, and verifiable. In a sense, this guideline simply serves as an explanation of how to implement those fundamental policies. I think "Contentious labels" works fine and plays a key role, explains why not to use a pejorative term used by opponents to portray something or someone negatively. But tossing in political terms as examples in "Contentious labels" just gets editors all riled up about politics instead of making Wikipedia better. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Supporting @Infinity Knight.

  Generally speaking, I suspect it will continue to be the source of lively discussions (or civilised discussions as per @Selfstudier) as it was in the past ~two decades unless there will be a practical resolution agreed by the community.

  As I see it there is an internal conflict in MOS:LABEL concerning the classification of organisations/individuals. It starts with Value-laden labels – such as calling an organisation a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I argue that it might be misleading to include terms like "racist" and "sexist" alongside "terrorist" because these terms differ in terms of formal categorisation. For instance, there are well-established lists - albeit with some variations - for defining terrorist organisations/individuals in different countries or unions, such as the UK, US, Australia, and the EU, just to name a few focusing on those that are especially relevant to the English speaking world. These lists have clear and practical criteria, like "initiation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act or an attempt to carry out or facilitate such an act."[9] However, there are no equivalent lists for categorising individuals or organisations as racist or sexist of course. Moreover, in the Value-laden labels reference in MOS:TERRORIST the example of 'terrorist' is taken from a source dated to 1944 - quite historic for our current discussion I'd say.

  Wikipedia serves as a platform for people to access common knowledge in a digestible format. Therefore, it's essential not to shy away from defining certain groups or individuals as they are according to major official listings, i.e terror organisations. Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just a couple of (gentle) counterpoints to some of the points you raise at the end:

  • I don't know what 1944 source you're referring to, I don't appear to be able to see that. But, even if that's the case, there are plenty of contemporary sources attesting to the problems baked into the label.[10][11][12]
  • On your last point, "Wikipedia serves as a platform for people to access common knowledge in a digestible format. Therefore, it's essential not to shy away from defining certain groups or individuals as they are according to major official listings, i.e terror organisations". On the first part, I agree. WP is a platform for common knowledge in a digestible format. On the second, if we think avoiding or attributing the term is "shying away" then doesn't that betray an inevitable bias attached to the term?

  I can't seem to find a better way to articulate the points I've been raising in this discussion, except to say that the problem arises, to me, solely with regard to unattributed use of the label.

  Yr Enw (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support use of term Terrorist - There are actions that must be referred to what they are. 9/11 is a terrorist attack. If you give "both sides" an equal voice then it would be in essence legitimizing the action since it would be referring to Al Qaeda potentially as Freedom Fighters considered terrorist etc.

Sometimes there is no choice but to use the strong term - terrorist. According to international experts, world leaders and ordinary people the Hamas attack on Israel on the 7th of October targeted civilians, over 1000 civilians were killed, 229 civilians were kidnapped. Of the 1000 civilians killed, many were mutilated, burned, raped... It's the truth, can we really deny that it was a terrorist attack?

This debate may determine the course of Wikipedia. Please think through this. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt there will be a resolution. And certainly unlikely in favour of my arguments. It's a very old debate that crops up every so often (see the links attached to my OP). I don't know how else to express the points I've been trying to make, but it seems they are still being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I'm not, for example, saying we can/should deny the 7th Oct attacks were terrorist. Yr Enw (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these big RfCs with tons of folks jumping in are really doing much good for Wikipedia or its content quality, you know? There are better ways to put all that energy to work for the common greater good. The guideline's current wording doesn't acknowledge that "terrorism" isn't always meant to slam something or someone. Just look at who we should credit for using the term "terrorist" in that Hindustan Times piece, for instance? Infinity Knight (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You might be right. The motivation behind sticking an RfC here was bc of the obviously wide ranging implications of any such changes for thousands of articles. But perhaps it’s better served by individual talk page discussions, after all Yr Enw (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I get what you're saying. I wasn't aware of that before, the individual reported as the current Hamas military leader, as reported by FT, is the same person responsible for the 1996 incident described as "terrorism" in Wikipedia's voice, you previously referred to. When rephrasing, how should we attribute the term "terrorist" for the individual mentioned in the Hindustan Times article? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends in what context we're saying it, I think. If we're describing him within a narrative of the incident itself, "militant" is a much less problematic term (eg. "A Hamas militant boasted to his mother of 'quote whatever he says', widely denounced as a terrorist (citation x, y, z)"). But then we could say X, Y, and Z denounced him as a terrorist (if it fits the article) and the actual incident can be attributed as terrorism according to X, Y, Z. Yr Enw (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Widely described by whom? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever citations follow it in the sentence? Yr Enw (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad, it's not quite clear what you're getting at here. Are you thinking of using "described by Hindustan Times"? Or maybe "Kyiv Post" or something else? We've already heard from a bunch of angles why this could introduce some bias, even though I get that the intention is to keep things fair and square. The concern is valid, sometimes people use "terrorism" to diss something or someone and make them look bad. But there are situations when it's just straight-up facts. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. Yes, I would either say: "described by (whoever)" or just more passively say "described as" with citations at the end. Because it's implied "described as" means by the sources cited at the end of this sentence Yr Enw (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone pointed out that such wording might come off as biased, even though the original intentions are well-meaning, and thus it could harm Wikipedia's credibility. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, though, there is no way to avoid bias I don't think Yr Enw (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing to ditch wiki voice altogether was one idea we could get behind. But I'm not convinced there's nothing we can do about it. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the position but it is not set up as a policy, so can be overridden case by case. In other words, the usual WP thing of getouts, letouts and constructive ambiguity. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There also appears to be no consensus to establish "ditching Wikivoice" as a policy, either Yr Enw (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it would be possible to ditch it completely but a tightening up might be doable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a better discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch? Is it a matter for the ArbCom?? I genuinely have no idea how we'd achieve it. But, like we discussed above, it seems this is going to be a persistent issue until there is something done. Yr Enw (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Could start at MOS and see if could get some agreement. It's content question, I guess, it doesn't seem to be a V question, nor OR, leaves NPOV. When is it/Is it neutral to use the word "terrorist/terrorism/terror" in Wikivoice? Could be a question worth asking at the NPOV noticeboard, idk. Tricky. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yr Enw: Thanks for digging into this topic. I don't really have a strong take on what the next steps should be, but I'm on board with the idea that this is a recurring problem, and it's in everyone's best interest to figure it out. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier @Infinity Knight Thanks both. This survey closes tomorrow anyway, with the very likely outcome of no consensus, so something to mull over after that. Yr Enw (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Take care, and give me a heads up if you're doing some serious thinking. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think after the numerous attempts at explaining what I was trying to say here, collaborative drafting of any RfC/noticeboard comment/etc would be beneficial. Yr Enw (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also good would be RS using the phrase "widely described" or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it followed the Loughinisland massacre, for instance, it would be "member of Hamas". Yr Enw (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Terrorism" is a word that has potential legal meaning - many police forces are given more powers to investigate when an event is considered terrorism. As such, we should not be using the term in the short-term in Wikivoice (w/o attribution) just because a majority of press sources use it. If it is declared terrorism by the appropriate authorities, that's fine. In the long-term well after the event has occurred, then the metric of using significant uses in normal reliable sources as to use it without attribution is then fine. --Masem (t) 13:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a lawyer, but according to WP:COMMONNAME, we want our content to be easy to understand for regular folks. "Terrorism" is a common English word, and we all know what it means. In general, Masem, your argument seems to keep ignoring the fact that terrorism does exist, and it's not always about people using "terrorism" to trash something or someone. There are cases where it's just stating the plain facts. And so far, I haven't come across any guidance on how to handle such situations. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is, I don't agree that "we all know what it means" because it is not applied consistently and academic scholarship (which form part of our RSs) don't agree on any single definition. By very nature of being a contentious, value-laden term (as MOS:LABEL calls it), it doesn't have a definition that we all know and agree upon. Wikipedia isn't about determining whether or not "terrorism exists" but about reporting what people say (with citations, of course0. Yr Enw (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a legit legal puzzle. Hindustan Times appears to understand the word meaning, and so do the UK Prime Minister and the Royals. The list goes on. The deal is, "Terrorism" can sometimes be just a label, but it ain't always the case. The guideline ought to make that super clear. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC is occasionally able to capture the meaning of the term "terrorism" when reporting on the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, for instance. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal. If the preponderance of independent reliable sources use a term like "terrorist", then WP needs to use it also, or we're simply engaging in a PoV and OR dance to avoid going along with sources, for reasons particular to individual editors' sensibilities, and that's just not what this project is for. If there is some kind of discrepancy between definitions of "terrorism" as used by these sources (and they result in any sort of meaningful categorization difference with regard to the case at hand) then that can be explored in the article body. But this seems unlikely anyway. If pretty much all the sources are agreeing to use the term "terrorism" then whether they intend a meaning nuance that differs from someone else's exact definition really isn't material. It would only be relevant when a bunch of sources use "terrorism" and bunch do not and call it "freedom fighting" or something else. If an editor here is convinced that somehow the term "terrorism" shouldn't apply to a particular case, against the consensus of the reporting of the whole world, then they can go somewhere else and write a blog post about it. This isn't ContraryOpinionPedia or BothSidesismPedia or NeverUseATermThatSomeoneSomewhereMightNotLikePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point, though how do we practice this in light of MOS:TERRORIST ? In-text citations all the time? If that's the case, there's no problem in my mind. Yr Enw (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, there were like, tons of debates on climate change and the whole scientific consensus thing. "going against the worldwide reporting consensus," how do we figure that out? With that, I wouldn't be against adding something like that to the guidelines, just thinking out loud here. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  going against the scientific consensus is a factual claim (and a correct one, which we should include per WP:PROFRINGE); not a label. That's what WP:INTEXT tells us to use in wikivoice, and we indeed should say it in wikivoice. DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for simplifying it. How can we implement WP:PROFRINGE, WP:INTEXT, and MOS:TERRORIST when we're rephrasing Hindustan Times? Can you provide a neutral rewording that avoids introducing any bias? This is purely a thought exercise. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The same outlet uses the term "militant" elsewhere, while CBS News calls him a "Hamas fighter", and only uses the word "Terror" in its headline. Substituting "terrorist" for "fighter" or "militant" is one option, since the "terrorist" label isn't universal in sources. I think sources that discussed the labelling issue agree that "militant"/"fighter" are unbiased replacements for "terrorist". The Times of Israel presents it as: Foreign Minister Eli Cohen plays a recording of what he says is a Hamas terrorist bragging to his parents that he “is proud that he has the blood of 10 [Jews] that he murdered.” That would be another option, "BBC-style"; conveniently attribute the label as part of attributing the accuracy of the recording. Bear in mind a recording is only a "factual claim" if it's been independently verified, though that's a separate issue, and I've seen no reason to doubt this recording. DFlhb (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC sometimes employs the term "terrorism" without providing attribution, such as in their coverage of the Ariana Grande concert bombing in Manchester, for instance. And here is another Hindustan Time article, where they appear to be referring to Hamas's attack as a "terror attack". I suppose the person in question made a phone call home during that attack. What would be the correct way to attribute the use of the word "terrorist" concerning the individual making the call home or should we just ignore the sources that use it? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Attribution of the word terrorist about that individual is exactly what my comment addresses. DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to have grasped what I was trying to get at in my post more than most others. May I ask, incidentally, do you have any suggestions on how we might advance this? Is it worth a post in the MOS talk? or NPOV noticeboard? Yr Enw (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's advanced by making bold edits, and seeking consensus on talk pages if need be. DFlhb (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can’t help but feel that’s just going to lead to endless debates with conflicting interpretations of the existent guidelines, of the kind that led me here in the first place Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS contentious labels)

According to WP:INTEXT, "in-text attribution" includes use in Wikivoice. I do not understand this statement. WP:INTEXT describes in-text attribution as "the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source". It then goes on to give several examples where not to use in-text attribution, because it would be non-neutral or otherwise misleading, but that doesn't alter the fact that in-text attribution involves explicitly attributing the wording, which is the opposite of wikivoice.--Trystan (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I had potentially misunderstood those examples as saying wikivoice can still count as ITC. So, if that’s not the case, okay. What I’m saying though is that with the word terrorist/terrorism there is an inherent neutrality problem when in text attribution is avoided in favour of wikivoice. Yr Enw (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I read MOS:TERRORIST as saying avoid or attribute (even if widely sourced) and I am fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So am I, but it doesn’t appear to always be attributed in practice. For example in Jaffa Road bus bombings and, ofc, the September 11 attacks. Yr Enw (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give examples of how the lead sentences of those two articles might read were your proposal adopted? Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Something like “X was widely recognised/condemned as a terrorist attack”, following an article like 1996 Manchester bombing, but for September 11 in the lead (for WP:DUE) given the prominent association of the attacks with that term. Yr Enw (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The "widely recognised" language doesn't provide in-text attribution. In-text attribution sounds like "was called a terrorist organization by Alice, Bob, Chris, David, Eve, Frank, and many others". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I was envisioning the "widely recognised" sentence to have a bunch of citations at the end. Yr Enw (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Or an alternative demonstration of widely recognized. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, "was called <names>.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}" is at risk for getting a {{by whom?}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to allow Wikivoice if the perpetrator is as well included in the UN consolidated list (AQ, IS being the most notable). Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• When we're using the strongest labels -- "evil", "terrorist", "terrorism", "act of terror", "extremist", "fundamentalist", and other words at that level -- I'd prefer it if the in-text attribution came before the label. So we'd get The British government called this an act of terrorism, and not An act of terrorism, in the British government's view.—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. In-text attribution cannot be applicable to article names and list articles such as List of terrorist incidents in London. Hence, it is imperative that the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus on a precise definition of 'Terrorism'.
  2. Moreover, it would be absurd to label the events of terrorist attacks such as 9/11 as a 'Militant attack' —a euphemistic term that grossly understates the gravity of the tragedy. The notion that this incident was not a terrorist attack is a fringe view and does not align with the mainstream understanding and historical narrative surrounding the events of that day. September 11 attacks uses the wording 'Islamist suicide terrorist attacks', Britannica describes this as 'the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil in U.S. history' and there are few people who would contest this characterization.
  3. The above arguments apply to 'acts of terror' and 'terrorist organizations'. I'm not talking about moral judgements such as "evil" which are non-encyclopedic and should be kept outside of the scope of this discussion, in my view.

  Marokwitz (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Terrorism can sometimes be thrown around as a sort of diss by folks trying to paint something or someone in a bad light. But there are times when it's just plain facts. Take this person reported by Hindustan Times, for example. Hindustan Times didn't hold back on the title. So, just rattling off the names of countries where governments have spotted these global celebs and put them on a list, well, that's a little one-sided, since that list doesn't even include countries like India or Ukraine, to kick things off. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "Terrorism" is a label often applied by the strong to the weak, the strong having the assumption that the use of violence on their behalf is justifiable, legitimate self defense and that violence opposing the strong is "terrorism." Plus, too often the use or non-use of the word "terrorism" is political. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think that U.S. government called the IRA a "terrorist organization." Why not? Our politicians didn't want to lose the support of voters of Irish origin in the U.S. Likewise, I doubt that we in the U.S. are going to call actions by Israel or Israeli citizens against the Palestinians "terrorism" although some acts of violence against Palestinians in the past and probably more in the future may deserve that designation.

  Also, we are horrified when a gunman shoots civilians in, for example, a grocery store, citing as a reason its help to enemies. But we are less horrified when an airplane drops a bomb on a grocery store and kills civilians citing as a reason its help to enemies. That's just collateral damage or military necessity.

  All that is by way of saying that a definition of terrorism is impossible. However, I don't oppose the use of the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" provided that it is cited as the view of a reliable, non-partisan source. Certainly the recent Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians qualify as terrorism. We should also, however, ensure that the motives and political aims of the "terrorists" are explained. We shouldn't let the strong dictate what we say about the weak. Smallchief (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.