Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 248

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245Archive 246Archive 247Archive 248Archive 249Archive 250Archive 251

Systemic bias

It continues to be very difficult to African American subjects to Wikipedia. For example Draft:Swayne College a historic institution recognized with a historic marker continues to be excluded despite its very long history and historical significance. Draft:Tarboro High may be small but has won 8 (EIGHT) state football championships and has several notable alumni. I have similar experiences with films and civil rights leaders. It's exhausting. And because these subjects are excluded from mainspace they don't get expanded and evwntually get delwted. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Perhaps Swayne College may be included if it were not for the fact that Draft:Swayne College doesn't have a single source about the institution itself. Three of the sources are about the historical signs marking the location, and the other is about the person it was named after. Im sure you've been here long enough to understand how verifiability and notability works. Here's a start (though it calls the institution Swayne School). Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Another Swayne school (I guess) was renamed Talladega College. This probably doesn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
These may be about the right school:[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion illustrates the huge problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The example given, an entry on a historic school for African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama established after the American Civil War and the first high school for African Americans in Montgomery that succeeded it. The original school was named for the Union Army's commanding general in the state who went on to lead the Freedmen's Bureau in Alabama. The school's principal and other notable figures involved are mentioned. It's properly sourced to an encylopedia article about the general that discusses the school and to entries on the historical markers at the site commemorating the schools' history, but it's still not enough.

Instead of allowong this manifestly notable and significant subject of African American history to be included on Wikipedia we have strange arguments documentation of the historical marker and what it says isn't coverage of the schools. And we have editors poking around trying to help on a subject that is best left to people with expertise and access to the historic sources that are often not widely and readily available online. This also consumes the time and effort we could be using to include other subjects excluded. And of course the confusion over Swayne School and Swayne College could easily be remedied with a disambig page and appropriate headers, but we can't create those because the subject is still excluded. It's an exhausting and discouraging struggle. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Another example is Draft:Yamekraw an entry that covers a historically African American community and the cultural creations that were inspired by it, a song and film. Again, editors find cause to exclude it. In this case we're told it can't cover the community and the song and other derivatives inspired by it. Why? Who knows.

In the case of a historic African Americam radio station in Miami I was told it can't be included except as a limited sectiom of an utterly unremarkable radio station that broadcasts infotainment or some such with different call letters because that station eventually acquired the rights to the broadcast wavelength. So it's not properly categorized or included. There's always a VERY good reason why we just aren't quite ready to properly include subjects of African American history. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there was systematic bias in how African Americans were covered (or not covered at all because of race) and it does make it harder to source the articles. I like that you make stubs, but how would you address the sourcing issues that are required to establish notability? Is there a seperate bar that you would suggest that exist for African Americans? A problem no doubt but how can we fix it? Do you have any ideas? Unbroken Chain (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's talk about the present. There IS systemic bias on Wikipedia against these subjects. Historians do write about them. People like Tameka Bradley Hobbs and Richard Bailey (historian). But those were hard to inckude and rejected too. So it's not just the schools, which excludes alumni, but also the churches, films, civil rights leaders, and authors. And when you exclude one part it makes it harder to include the rest. We're not even allowed to start entries on these subjects without a struggle. But dozens of relatively unremarkable cricket players are added daily. This is what white supremacy and systemic bias looks like. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Racism really sucks, I'm sorry it's so pervasive. How can we help address this? I meant my question seriously, what can we change or even codify that can help mitigate this issue? I'm definitely open to brainstorming some change. Unbroken Chain (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I've pointed out before what has worked in another area of under-representation, that being the Women in Red Wikiproject to improve the number and coverage of topics of historically important women, which have traditionally also been overlooked by systematic bias. But here, there's organized article drives that seek to get many editors involved including from academic institution to help build out. There certainly would be no harm to try to do similar for other under-represented areas. --Masem (t) 02:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore, I now have an editor threatening my ability to edit going forward if I submit any more of these subjects and another removing citations tonsubstantial coverage in drafts I'm working on. It's awful. It shouldn't be this hard to include these subjects and it shouldn't result in threats and attacks for trying to fix the problem. These are important subjects and we should be including them and expanding them not attacking editors who work on them.FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking this diff on your user page, other editors are trying to help your stubs as best they can and give you additional advice. That you turn around to call these as threats or attacks is very much assuming bad faith and can lead to blocks or other actions if you continue to express those views. Take their advice - build out your articles better with improved sourcing so that you can show these topics meet notability guidelines (as these editors have suggested) rather than try to create numerous stub articles that cause problems at the AFC system. --Masem (t) 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I've been told I'm not allowed to submit any morw of these subjects or I'll be blocked. Don't sugarcoat it Masem. You are part of the problem. I was attacked for adding entries on African American legislators. I was criticized that the entries weren't longer and didn't include information I don't have access to and may not exist. Many were formerly enslaved mind you. And I'm blocked from deletion discussions as well. When people comw after me to limit these submissions and prevent me from saving entries on these subjwcts let's call it what it is. They're not bringing kisses. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
You have not been attacked in any way, and you've been told in the past to turn down that rhetoric. You have been asked to work on making each draft/AFC more in depth and comprehensive before submitting because your contributions were flooding the AFC process, and thus they imposed the 20 article limit on you for this reason. I understand you are trying to cover people and other topics associated with 19th-20th century African Americans that have been overlooked, but we do need reasonable in-depth coverage of these (the same we ask for any other topic) and what other editors have been trying to guide you to do is put more effort into using resources available to you (which I should point out again includes the Wikimedia Library Card program that gives free access to lots of academic sources) to produce fewer but more comprehensive articles, which then would not likely have the same problem of being accepted at AFC.
As a completely alternate idea, for those topics where you have found minimal but insufficient sourcing, maybe you can put a page in your user space that simply lists these and the sources you've found, giving others a potential list of targets that could be expanded or that you can go back to expand yourself, rather than rushing out an AFC that is going to be rejected. --Masem (t) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi FloridaArmy, this is the first time I'm seeing your contributions, but I'd like to help out. In line with what Masem just suggested, I just did a wp:newspapers.com search and found some sources that should help get you over the notability hump for this article. I'm happy to do the same for other articles you're working on in the future. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: Do you have to the Wikipedia Library bundle? If not, I do highly recommend getting access. Like @Alyo: I have found sources in Newspapers.com for at least a couple of your drafts I reviewed and I very recently realized I have access to much more such as Proquest. S0091 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I try to draft things (usually on User talk:Drmies) by starting not with a book published through Lulu and some local newspapers, but with a historian, in this case two history professors (and others) published by the University of Illinois Press in 1975, annotating what Swayne School was in the papers of Booker T. Washington.

Swayne School was a school in Montgomery, Alabama founded by the American Missionary Association and named for General Wager Swayne.[1] It was later absorbed into the State Normal School for Colored Students.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Washington 1975, p. 209. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWashington1975 (help)

Bibliography

  • Washington, Booker T (1975). Harlan, Louis R.; Kraft, Barbara; Smock, Raymond W; Kaufman, Stuart B. (eds.). Booker T. Washington Papers Volume 4: 1895–98. The Booker T. Washington Papers. Vol. 4. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252005299.

Then I find other similarly good sources and expand, not even hitting save until I have multiple ones sometimes. Hmmm. A contemporary government report published in the American Journal of Education seems useful. And there appears to be another historian who hints at who Henry Duncan is. And then a University of Alabama Press book that mentions Frederick Wood Eveleth, whom another book states was a later principal.

Swayne School was a school in Montgomery, Alabama founded by the American Missionary Association and named for General Wager Swayne.[1] It was later absorbed into the State Normal School for Colored Students.[1]

The three-story school building was constructed by Henry Duncan and Isaac Frazier, dedicated on 1869-04-21, and comprised six schoolrooms.[2] Supplied school equipment included desks, blackboards, maps, tablets, and a US$200 (equivalent to $5,087 in 2023) organ.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Washington 1975, p. 209. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWashington1975 (help)
  2. ^ a b Barnard 1871, p. 324.

Bibliography

  • Washington, Booker T (1975). Harlan, Louis R.; Kraft, Barbara; Smock, Raymond W; Kaufman, Stuart B. (eds.). Booker T. Washington Papers Volume 4: 1895–98. The Booker T. Washington Papers. Vol. 4. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252005299.
  • Barnard, Henry (1871). "Legal Status of the Colored Population in Respect to Schools and Education in the Different States". American Journal of Education. 19. Washington: Office of American Journal of Education.

Further reading

  • Bailey, Richard (1999). "Cook, Elijah". They Too Call Alabama Home: African American Profiles, 1800–1999. Pyramid Publications. p. 89. ISBN 9780967188300.
  • Sherer, Robert G. (1977). Subordination Or Liberation?: The Development and Conflicting Theories of Black Education in Nineteenth Century Alabama. University of Alabama Press. p. 183. ISBN 9780817391119.

And so forth. I probably wouldn't even hit save until I had at least brought in things like Charles A. Duncan (or is this the Charles Henry Duncan that contemporary sources give?) from Sherer 1977.

Sometimes there isn't enough. Sometimes there is.

And now we know another reason not to bother with the Lulu author, aside from the fact that it's an almost reflexive "No!" when one hits one: The Lulu author was just copying Barnard, without attribution. (Other red flag publishers are things like Aquarian Press. vide Project:Articles for deletion/Lona (mythology).)

Historic markers tend to be totally unnecessary for actually historic things, because the history being properly recorded almost always has to precede the marker. Start from the actual historians.

Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Access in China

What do you think is to be done about the billion people in China who are blocked from accessing Wikipedia? Do you think China would ever change its policy and let people use Wikipedia? ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Due to the Chinese political system, having unfettered access to Wikipedia would amount to jail bait. They could be tortured and forced to confess even because they read the wrong article and told others about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course things can change. Marxism–Leninism and the Soviet Union seemed unlikely to ever change, right up to the point that it did. The same is true of South Africa, until it changed. How long it might take to change is another matter. It is also possible that technology will make it effectively impossible to block access just as it was impossible to block western propaganda broadcast by long-wave radio. MarcGarver (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any chance of a topical DYK for Yulia Tolopa?

So there's a full scale war in Europe again, Russia vs Ukraine. Some days ago, before the cold war turned hot, a couple of us wrote a reasonably sized article about a Russian woman who has been fighting (physically, on the battlefield, in combat), on the side of Ukraine, for most of the last eight years: Yulia Tolopa. I wanted to get it to Wikipedia:Did you know because I thought it might be rather relevant, and she has a very interesting story, even outside that. When I noticed it wasn't being reviewed quickly, I even asked if it could be reviewed earlier, given the circumstances, which I usually don't, and it is being reviewed. Unfortunately, a few people at that link think the war actually makes it not suitable for a DYK line, since it goes against the rule against taking a side in current events. And they do have a point. But, well, any chance for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? I humbly propose it would clearly improve the encyclopedia to have it visible, even as one line on the front page. And, well, if people think that means we oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine ... maybe we could risk that? Any chance? Jimbo, and people reading this page? --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

{{tps{}}, I mean in my humble opinion, in order to get IAR invoked, it has to qualify for the majority of the IAR sentence, that is prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I Havent looked at the request, but I would have to agree that not taking sides is generally a good thing. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it isn't necessarily "taking a side in current events" to feature more relevant content in DYK in response to what is unquestionably a huge news story. I have not reviewed the content of the DYK line itself, but I don't see how the fact that there is a current conflict would change anything really - if it's neutral, then it's fine, and if it is not neutral, then it is not fine no matter when it might be proposed to run.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I will announce that I am one of the people at DYK who thinks it would be inappropriate, but that I would like to see it run at some point, and wish it could have already, before saying: people who only read Wikipedia assume there is something special about putting articles on the main page, and often that it is an editorial decision of Wikimedia Foundation. In general, but especially in that context, featuring not just an article about but also a short fact itself discussing a Russian woman who is fighting on the side of Ukraine on the main page, to the general reader, suggests a Wikipedia promotion and so endorsement of Russians switching sides in this conflict. Jim, you see how that would be inappropriate? Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like she is not fighting this time.[3] --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy, you ask me every year for support, you might want to have a read - RfC 2022 invasion of Ukraine

Here is an RfC, that I opened and, and to which you should give some attention, in my opinion. Leaving it like that for a week in such a tense moment is not great. BR, Maxime Maxorazon (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia

Interesting article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. As mentioned on the talk page of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, apparently Roskomnadzor has threatened to ban Wikipedia due to the Russian Wikipedia article on the conflict (via zona.media, in Russian). How this effects editing on ruwiki in the future? Who knows. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I hope that it doesn't affect it at all. That is to say, I recommend warmly to the Russian (and Ukranian) Wikipedians to be brave and be neutral - this is the most powerful way you can support the cause of justice and peace. In the Slate article, I see this quote from someone: "This is Russian Wikipedia and we must interpret events from a Russian point of view". I disagree and reject that view most strongly. This is all - all languages - Wikipedia, human Wikipedia, and we must interpret events from a human point of view.
Of course that is often difficult, particularly in emotional contexts. But it is what Wikipedians know best how to do, and are best placed to do. It is our solemn role in the world to speak the plain truth about verifiable facts - and this will, I believe, be 10,000 times more powerful in the world than joining the ranks of bias and "information warfare".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
In reading that article I got a feeling of that same common error: The Russian Wikipedia is a Wikipedia written in the Russian language, it is not a Wikipedia about or of the country of Russia - anymore than the English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia about or for England. — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing Logo to support Ukraine

Hello Jimbo! On a similar topic to the above (Though not entirely related), Doc James has proposed Wikipedia change its logo to support Ukraine. I myself have stated that I am on the fence about this, however I'm notifying you since this seems like something you should be involved in or at least know about. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Remaining neutral by reporting the first draft of history in the making without expressing opinions about the events doesn't give Putin an easy excuse to shut down the Russian Wikipedia inside Russia. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I am thinking and observing. I do not think this is the sort of issue where my leadership is required or needed. It would be unusual; these are unusual times.
For me the important thing is the content of Wikipedia - that it be neutral and high quality across all languages, including the languages of the countries directly involved. Whether we should engage in some symbolic gestures is an important question, and an interesting one, and I'll stay out of it. But the most powerful tool we have is to speak the plain truth of verifiable facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. The discussion is closed per WP:SNOW now anyways. I myself would certainly not mind if Wikipedia had changed its logo temporarily, however I knew that there would also be issues of making it seem like Wikipedia isn't truly neutral (which is indeed a concern that was mentioned in the oppose votes). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

From local to global, elements of context for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine - let us vibrate our humanism together and shake the world!

Bump, facing adversity, need support

Portal:Go_and_see,_my_love User:Maxorazon/sandbox/goandseemylove Maxorazon (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Issue regarding the Taraškievica Belarusian Wikipedia (be-tarask)

Hey there! Thought I'd message you about some concerns of mine regarding the lack of neutrality on the be-tarask Wikipedia, and hopefully some other members of the community who know a bit more might weigh in on the issue. I ought to preface this with the fact I know the situation is politically volatile (especially given recent events), that I am in no way an expert in the subject area, and that my only desire is to seek neutrality on Wikipedia in all languages, however ambitious a goal this may seem at times.

Currently, its article on Alexander Lukashenko says in part:

Alexander Lukashenko ... is the head of the Russian occupation administration, a puppet, pro-Russian, authoritarian leader of Belarus who holds power by rigging elections and terrorizing Belarusians with financial, military, and informational support from Russia. ... On April 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned Belarus in the context of an alleged FSB attempt to overthrow the Lukashenko regime as a Russian-controlled territory in which Russia would determine what was a coup and what was not.

(At least, according to Google Translate). A similar descriptor is given on the "Lukashenko regime" article (which also exists in Ukrainian, but seems to use more neutral language).

There also appears to be a "Russian occupation of Belarus" article (does not exist in any other language, including standard Belarusian), which says:

The Russian occupation of Belarus is the de facto Russian occupation of Belarus, an open demonstration of which took place on February 24, 2022, when the Russian invasion of Ukraine took place, including from the territory of Belarus. The Russian occupation administration is a puppet regime of Lukashenko, its head is the proclaimed "president" Alexander Lukashenko. One of the main measures taken by the Russian authorities (the Russian Empire, the USSR, the Russian Federation) and its occupation administrations at different times is the continuous violent Russification of Belarusians. The term "Russian occupation of Belarus" first appeared in the autumn of 1917.

This seems to be promoting false histories and original research: Lukashenko is pro-Russian and authoritarian, but it is not an "occupation" regime in the conventional sense (at least, this doesn't seem to be how RS refer to the country/leadership). The link to 1917 and Russification also appear novel.

These are just two that caught my eye. I don't know whether this is new information, i.e. are there known issues with that site? (Taraškievica is a standard for the Belarusian language which is usually used by the diaspora, so it's not inconceivable that it is likely to attract anti-regime editors). If so, is this limited to a few articles or a more ingrained issue of ideological bias on the Taraškievica wiki in a similar vein to the Croatian Wikipedia situation? —AFreshStart (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. But I think it extremely important (and often quite difficult) that Wikipedia be neutral in all languages. Since I don't speak Belarusian or Russian, and since Google translate is often quite naturally lacking in nuance, I think it is important for us to encourage community members who do speak those languages as well as another language (typically, English) to thoughtfully engage and discuss and communicate what is going on. Even this is difficult because it is sometimes the case that a person with a fairly strong POV to come to English screaming that some small language Wikipedia is viciously biased but that's actually their own bias. So it takes a group of people to check each others work and biases in the best kind and thoughtful Wikipedia way to really answer the question: is this fair? Is this true? Is this appropriately handling the concerns of all sides?
I think we can hold both of these thoughts in mind: first, that neutral presentation of facts is always possible and always desirable and always our goal. Second, that even good people in emotional circumstances (bombs falling, Wikipedians personally in danger) will find it very difficult. We should expect (even if we wish it weren't so) that on some specific topics, the treatment in one language will vary to a disagree from the treatment in another language of a 'hot' topic. We can lament that and work to improve it, but we shouldn't beat people up if they are trying and finding it emotionally quite hard.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The main line of this argument reminds me that all people want peace in the world, even Vladimir Putin. I don't see the problem of user neutrality as relevant, but it comes from the political and cultural bias of the Wikipedia:Administrators who end up imposing their Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is the normality in Wikipedia.es (Spanish) with a very high number of administrators with socialist or communist leaning ideologies. I think Wikipedia should study and resolve this conflict of interests of its own Wikipedia:Administrators because the impact of a group of administrators cooperating in the same political direction is even scary.--Vicentemovil (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Something nice

You may be interested, User:BeenAroundAWhile, who will be 90 years around in April and started editing here when he was 73, just achieved 100,000 edits. 73 seems just about the age that many people may be interested in getting involved in Wikipedia, a vast untapped volunteer demographic of long memories and years of professional writing which BeenAroundAWhile symbolizes. I left him a congrats message for his 100,000 edit and maybe others may enjoy doing so. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia.es and Vladimir Putin

As you are a creator, you should know that Wikipedia.es (in Spanish) provides propaganda support and fake news under a supposed "neutrality" in support of Vladimir Putin's military aggression against Ukraine.see --Vicentemovil (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't seem to go anywhere, even after fixing the formatting...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For Wikipedia, Fidel Castro was not a dictator - "he was a Cuban Marxist lawyer, politician and guerrilla fighter"- but Batista was. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was "a Chilean military man, politician and dictator" but Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was "a Venezuelan politician and military man". Xi Jinping, besides being President of China "is a Chinese politician and chemical engineer, who currently serves as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China" and Nicolás Maduro Moros, besides being President of Venezuela "is a Venezuelan politician, diplomat and trade union leader".
Somalo, Javier (2022-03-05). "Putin, hombre muerto" [Putin, dead man]. Libertad digital (in Spanish). Madrid. Retrieved 2022-03-07.
Other opinions in the same line:
Boyer, Milagros (2021-02-22). "Tres evidencias de cómo Wikipedia oculta atrocidades del socialismo" [Three evidences of how Wikipedia hides socialist atrocities]. Panam post (in Spanish). LA. Retrieved 2022-03-07.
Ferrer, Pablo (2021-03-12). "Más censura en internet: Wikipedia eliminará los genocidios comunistas por considerar que es información "sesgada". O sea, crítico con el comunismo" [More censorship on the Internet: Wikipedia will remove communist genocides as "biased" information. That is, critical of communism]. Hispanidad (in Spanish). Spain. Retrieved 2022-03-07.--Vicentemovil (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This practice reflects the practice in reliable sources. As Sidney Goldberg explained in the Wall Street Journal, "[Webster's New World College Dictionary] can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party.""[4] It could have to do with the fact that Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were de jure dictators, while Stalin, Tito and Mao were de facto dictators. In any case, the practice pre-dates Putin. TFD (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As much as I detest the Spanish-speaking version of Wikipedia (there are way too many problems with that version to enlist them here, but they can be summarized as 'quantity over quality'), Boyer and Ferrer are talking about our article Mass killings under communist regimes and the respective AFD. Somalo's opinion is still true, though. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Aydroow (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I got your test.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive the shameless plug

But this is a WOW moment with a method to my madness. Like so many editors here, I appreciate advancing technology, and the importance of photographic images and video that helps shine a bit more "light" on the subject. Headline: "engineers develop squid skin-like, 3D-printed smart gel that changes shape under light". Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedian arrested

User:Pessimist2006, a prolific editor of the Russian Wikipedia, was arrested earlier today in his residence in Minsk for his contributions to articles about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as part of an effort to deanonymize and apprehend Wikipedia users in Russia and Belarus who run afoul of the infamous "false information" law in Russia.[5] (in Russian). Russian Wikipedia administrators are currently taking steps at re-anonymizing edits of other threatened users (and generally freaking out). I understand WMF is already informed on this development, however, I don't see any discussions on this topic on enwiki and would like to raise awareness of this here. Global preventive measures may be necessary to at least warn users from Russia and Belarus that they may endanger themselves by making edits that are now "against the law" in Russia.

If I am not mistaken, this is the first case of a Wikipedia user being arrested specifically for their contributions. If so, this is a dark milestone in Wikipedia history. --illythr (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know Russian, so I can't read any of the messages, but I feel really sorry for Pessimist2006. Even if this wasn't the first case, it's still pretty sad. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 02:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I saw the editing by Pessimist, this user just very carefully analyzed and selected sources, this - practically - was his specialty. Of course, he did not introduce any fakes, on the contrary, he exposed them. This is real persecution just for ordinary work. This is a very dangerous precedent. (P.S. Jimmy, we saw each other when You came to Moscow: my photo, I asked You about Roskomnadzor: The first question on YouTube 29:00.) Lesless (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy, if there was ever any time for you to speak out forcefully about a world historical event that poses a grave threat to the fundamental values of this great project, then this is it. A week ago, the WMF issued a statement saying that it "will not back down" against Russian censorship threats. You have a unique position of moral authority in this matter. You must forcefully denounce Putin's repression of independent reliable sources of information about this war, and especially his arrest of a respected editor of the Russian Wikipedia. Failure to do so endangers the moral underpinning of this two decades long project. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Article in The Verge, 11 March 2022. -- Vysotsky (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Clearly as a warning against independent thinking, as the video of his arrest was published by pro-government Telegram channels associated with the security forces. (¨Видео задержания опубликовали провластные телеграм-каналы, связанные с силовиками.¨ (Zerkalo). Vysotsky (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I already stated at this talk page that Wikipedia is jail bait in some countries. You cannot assume that Wikipedia is safe to edit just because it does not do WikiLeaks. Citing Western mainstream media is a crime in many countries. Wikipedians from China, Iran, Belarus, and Russia should be blocked indefinitely, for their own safety. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia should appoint a Committee of Public Safety to decide who is allowed to edit... 13:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
No, seriously: I have sympathy for them, but risking their lives/liberty for the privilege of citing mainstream media is crazy upon deeper thought. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
In order to preserve their freedom, we must prevent them from exercising it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
You live in a free country, they live under Oriental despotism. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
And clearly they shouldn't be allowed to do anything that might make their despots uncomfortable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
As long as Jimmy Wales is not in charge of their country, Wikipedia should be biased for their safety. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Oriental despotism bad, Alabama despotism good... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the GOP. Opposed to Trumpism: yes, opposed to the GOP: no. Although I don't support the Christian right.
And this is the reason: if the GOP becomes a radical, anti-democratic party, US will have the same fate as Russia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
If the US were to undergo the same fate as Russia, would you advocate that Wikipedia block US citizens from contributing for their own safety? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Yup, since lone individuals who speak truth to power will always lose from their confrontation with the political police. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hence the failure of everyone everywhere to free themselves from despotism... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Again: concerns about the safety of Wikipedians come first, concerns about freedom of speech at Wikipedia come second. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In which case, I would like to propose you be banned from contributing to Wikipedia, for your own safety. And for everyone else's sanity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I live in a free country, I have no legal risk from editing Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump:If Wikipedia had physical offices in Russia, and people working there were being arrested and detained for using their offerings as intended, would you advocate keeping those offices open, or would you consider that irresponsible? Le Marteau (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I live in a country wherein charges of libel are dropped by default, and I'm citizen of another country wherein there is no such crime as libel. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This reinforces that editor privacy / anonymity needs to be absolute priority, trumping everything else. Especially important for Wikipedia editors because, except for anonymity, Wikipedia is the most intrusive privacy threatening website in the world, threatening lives, freedom, careers etc. . It is a permanent, publicly viewable, easily searchable database of everything the editor did and exactly when they did it for their entire Wikipedia life. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I write under my own name, so I'm not afraid of doxing. Many people do not like what I write and they have issued threats, but nothing serious has happened till now. Just in case, I have let the Police know about harassment outside of Wikipedia. This has nothing do to with legal threats against other Wikipedians, since the people who have harassed me are not Wikipedians. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Blackout

BLACKOUT? I was neutral on the SOPA blackout, and have not supported such things like it, but I might support a blackout, now. This kind of thing does seem existential.[6] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No. When Wikipedians are persecuted for being a source of unbiased information, stopping being a source of unbiased information is the worst thing you can do. The Russian censorship agency will have to thank you for your cooperation. --illythr (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
No. They will not thank us for bringing attention to their threat. A one day blackout is not censorship, nor is it stopping being an unbiased source of information - it is stopping the everything on the site for a moment, as a demonstration of a world without Wikipedia, done by editors withholding our labor. It brings attention to a grave threat. (The targeted editors account is globally blocked and locked by us, surely if there is anything like censorship, that does it.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The blackout for SOPA was meant to drive attention to the US govt for the possible damage that SOPA could do to the Internet, including its effect on WP. I can't see how such a thing would influence the US Gov't here in this case, since the gov't is trying to figure out what it can do to help already and not blind to the problems. Its the wrong form of protest for this purpose. --Masem (t) 18:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The U.S. government is surely not the only audience, nor is this a U.S. directed project -- the English Wikipedia is an English written project - and English is a World language. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
But who would be the target then? Russia? They would likely care little about a WP blackout given their activity already to date. --Masem (t) 20:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
No, the world is the target. This project goes across the world. Reporters have been pulled out of Russia, not because they don't want to report the story, nor to please the Russian government, but because the work becomes impossible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Telling the truth to the world is the goal. Almost any information provider in the world would let their readers know when one of their reporters or editors was jailed for providing neutral information. They would object strenuously. We need to do the same. I'll suggest any of the following steps. They are not mutually exclusive.

A) Ask the WMF to publish a statement on the WMF site or Diff. I assume they will do that anyway.

B) The individual language versions should each consider adding a medium sized banner mentioning the arrest and our objections to run for a week (or until Pessimist2006 is set free).

C) A full-day blackout including a simple message, e.g. "we support out colleague." Or

D) A one-minute blackout at 11:59 pm Moscow/Minsk time (6:59pm London. 3:59pm New York) reading, in part, "It's a minute to midnight in Moscow and Minsk" and include links to the presumed article Pessimist2006 was arrested for [7] archived here and we should have a proper translation into whatever language needed. This should be repeated every day for a week. I believe this message would get out to the whole world. "We support our colleague." Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Before determining what action if any should be taken, I suggest that WMF determine the full circumstances and seek legal advice. TFD (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure the legal team and Trust & Safety have been on the case for at least a day now. The Belarusian Organized Crime police that made the arrest do not have a reputation for subtly and they posted video of the arrest on a public Telegraph channel (now made private). The *Russian* law that the arrest seems to be based on was passed just last week. It makes speech that the government doesn't approve of a crime punishable by 15 years in prison. Nothing subtle about that either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that there is a solidly referenced Wikipedia article now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

With regard to the arrest of a Wikipedia editor in Belarus I am doing all that I can to make sure that he is released safely but taking what I consider to be highly reliable professional advice, going on a PR offensive is not likely to be productive and indeed may very well be counter-productive. My silence on the matter should not be interpreted as inaction nor a lack of caring - a knee jerk pronouncement is not always the best way to help in a very specific situation where other approaches may more likely prove fruitful.
On the more general issue of the tragic decline of rights of free expression in various places, I am happy to be publicly critical but me speaking out to say that journalism is a human right is not going to surprise or shock anyone nor change the course of human history. Sadly, the world doesn't really listen to me in that way. The question of blackouts does naturally arise, and in general I have been and will continue to be more supportive of carefully targeted blackouts by the community in an effort to protect the right to free speech and in particular the right of Wikipedians to write a high quality neutral encyclopedia without fear of criminal or civil penalties of any kind.
However, a very key phrase in what I just wrote it "carefully targeted". We have to ask ourselves in every case whether a blackout will be influential or listened to. We have had successful and unsuccessful blackouts in the past. I am very proud of how the SOPA/PIPA blackout prevented the passage of terrible legislation in the US. I am regretful that we lost the vote on the European Copyright Directive by 1 vote when we failed to blackout - I am 100% sure that a blackout would have convinced at least 1 member of European Parliament to change their vote and we would have stopped that particular nonsense.
In the current circumstance in Russia, it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that a blackout would do more good than harm. Given the war in Ukraine, and the incredible state-level pressure being placed on Russia by the international community (sanctions, etc.) I do not believe that Russia is very likely to say "oh no, Wikipedia is blacking out, we have to reverse our new draconian anti-free-speech laws." Indeed, given that they have - to my understanding - currently blocked Facebook, twitter, BBC News Russia, Deutsche Welle, etc. - and given that - again, to my understanding - Russian Wikipedia is doing a decent job of remaining high quality and neutral in the face of enormous emotion and potential legal pressure - I am surprised that Wikipedia isn't already blocked. I think it a testament to how popular and respected Wikipedia is that even in Russia, people understand that it is a force for good and that to block it is a very bad sign of a government gone wrong.
As ever, we should all continue to monitor the situation and reflect thoughtfully on the best path forward. It's important that even in emotional circumstances, we try not to become angry with each other - assume good faith and let's see how we can help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The more likely reason the Russians haven't blocked Wikipedia is that it's the main encyclopedia for Russians and the world.North8000 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, I doubt I will ever support a blackout as a matter of political lobbying, and getting votes. That strikes me as political hackery and a direct abandonment of NPOV. I could support a blackout, to protest and bring attention to a true threat to this work (if that happens to be in proposed legislation, so be it - I just did not understand whatever threat SOPA was, and I left that to others), -- because by any of us writing here, at all, we already assert, by deed, the value of this work, and that it should exist freely.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19, already says what we do here is a right. But we do not write to persuade, we write to inform, -- what others do with that information is up to them, and it seems to me, we should also only blackout to inform, what others do with that information is up to them (even if they are legislators). Human Rights organizations don't write reports or protest because they actually think the malefactor government will suddenly see the light, but because it is still important to let the world know, and to stand by the courage of one's convictions (here, our right to write).
In the end, what we have here, looks like a true threat: an editor of the English Wikipedia (and other projects) is under open coercion for writing here. Nothing on this site can be trusted if editors are subject to coercion. And we cannot honestly inform, if our editors are under coercion. Whatever, the Russian Wikipedia does, is up to its editors (if I were an editor of Russian Wikipedia, I might well be persuaded it's best to do something else than a blackout.) Now, if there is an argument that an EnWP blackout would endanger the editor further than that I would listen too, but saying the Russian government will not care, certainly does not do that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I find that words like unbiased are thrown too lightly, and risk becoming cartoonish. And, let's face it: Wikipedia is for bookworms, most Russians do not get their current news from Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

yeah honestly. Like who is gonna get their info on like Ukraine, purely from this site? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 19:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia never was marketed as a one-stop-shopping place for political information. Smart people use it as a beginning in their research, and use the provided sources to dig deeper and as such it is an invaluable resource. Le Marteau (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Quarterly Community Safety survey

Apologies for cross-posting this, I wanted to make sure that as many people as possible know this is going to happen, so people aren't surprised when it appears.

Starting the week of 28 March 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation will conduct a quarterly anonymous survey about safety perceptions among the English Wikipedia community members.

This survey responds to a Universal Code of Conduct community recommendation, and we encourage you to participate.

There are more details about the survey on the project page, and you can also leave comments.

Best regards, Community Safety Survey team –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

At WMF board meeting this week - saw your email briefly, didn't read it all. Will try to answer soon but no promises!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Waitroom

I'm watching your AMA on Waitroom currently. It's good to see and hear you again but it's a challenging format for people that are not comfortable with 1-1 conversation. Before that, I was attending a monthly Zoom call for UK Wikimedians and that has similar issues. Me, I prefer Wikipedia because I'm more comfortable writing and it seems more efficient. For example, you and others kept talking about "dow". I wasn't sure what this was but searched it out from the context and it seems to be an acronym for Decentralized autonomous organization = DAO. One can figure out jargon like that on Wikipedia because of the convenience of wikilinks which work because Wikipedia covers just about everything – even coal candy, which your AMA shifted to as a non sequitur.

So, in conclusion, I'm still preferring Wikipedia as a way of communicating but what did you make of the format?

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It was different and fun. I've suggested to the hosts that for the next one we switch to a 5 minute format as that's more in tune with me - I like to try to fully explain myself and tell a whole story and the 2.5 minute format was tricky for me. I don't think of "text versus video" as a comparison other than theoretically - they are just different forms of interaction. It's like "bicycle versus train versus airplane" - each is better in a certain dimension and not as good in others. Thanks for popping in and listening though!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
While I didn't see any of this (I wouldn't know how, when, or where; it's all new to me) my curiosity is piqued and I must know: what is the context and meaning of "DOW"? For me it's always meant Dow Jones Industrial Average and I can't grasp its meaning being "decentralized autonomous organization", so please, do tell. Thanks, and be well.--John Cline (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I provided a link to our article but here's an external explanation too: What are DAOs? Here’s what to know about the ‘next big trend’ in crypto. The individual segments of Jimmy's session are still available to stream (which is convenient) and the one where he started to talk about DAOs is The Future of Wikipedia. I suppose that Jimmy is into such stuff because of his recent experience of selling the first edit and his strawberry Mac as an NFT. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies — vernacular names in title bar — all languages

Dear Sir, as can be seen from wikispecies:Felis catus (or wikispecies:Dromiciops gliroides) we can now display in the title bar (in a position of course subordinate to the Latin/scientific name), for users of all backgrounds and languages, the vernacular name in their language / that to which the universal language selector is set. This is subject to consensus via a Request for Comment, which is likely to have one further week to run, and unlikely to attract more comments from current editors. Three individuals have expressed opposition, one (i.e., me) support. I feel that it is inappropriate and contrary to the Foundation's mission for three people to block the opportunity to make this site and its subject matter more accessible to billions of individuals in dozens if not hundreds of supported languages. If you feel the same, please could you make your view known at the link above. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like the objections there are pretty compelling. It didn't get repeated very much in the discussion (presumably because you are not interested in hearing it), but the vernacular name [of a species] in [a] language is not a thing and trying to set up any system around it will create enormous problems. --JBL (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Second case of persecution of Wikipedians in Belarus

Hello Jimbo! I'd like to inform you about the second confirmed case of persecution of Wikipedians in Belarus (the first one is Pessimist2006). Today, the office of the Prosecutor General of Belarus stated that its regional office in Brest sent the case of a "30-years old resident of Brest" to the court accusing him of "committing acts that discredit the Republic of Belarus" on several websites, including the "Internet sites of the foreign organization 'Wikimedia Foundation Inc.' (USA)" (links in Russian: Official site — possibly unavailable from outside Belarus; Official Telegram account). The prosecutor's office reported that the user distributed "deliberately false information about the activities of law enforcement and state bodies of the Republic of Belarus", but it seems that he tried to resist the propaganda in Belarus. The user can be sentenced up to 3 years of prison, although non-prison options are also possible. He seems to be arrested before the war in Ukraine began, and the known charges are connected with the politics of Belarus. I wrote an email to Wikimedia team with additional details. Best regards from Belarus, — Homoatrox (talk). 11:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in regular contact with the WMF and others about these cases. As I'm sure you can imagine, it's not really wise for me to say a lot publicly but I definitely appreciate you keeping me - and them - informed of anything we might have missed!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Airtransat236 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Some very specific WP-history

Enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I know Wikipedia is not meant to take a political stance, but can we not do any more to support the poor people of Ukraine? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WMF probably has enough in its coffers to buy the Polish jets that Ukraine wants. As far as I know WMF isn't part of NATO, so they could then gift them to Ukraine. Easy peasey. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy, Cullen328 said above "... if there was ever any time for you to speak out forcefully about a world historical event that poses a grave threat to the fundamental values of this great project, then this is it. A week ago, the WMF issued a statement saying that it "will not back down" against Russian censorship threats. You have a unique position of moral authority in this matter. You must forcefully denounce Putin's repression of independent reliable sources of information about this war, and especially his arrest of a respected editor of the Russian Wikipedia." I wholly endorse that statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Martinevans123, I am responding because you quoted me at length. I think that Jimbo replied in detail at 08:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC), and I, for one, appreciate his response and he made some points that I had not previously considered. The #1 issue here has to be the safety and best possible outcome for User:Pessimist2006. Jimbo pointed out a factor that I had not properly considered, that if we make the case of the arrested Wikipedia editor a major cause célèbre, that may well make the outcome more harsh for the imprisoned editor. Jimbo, I am sure that you remember that I have disagreed with you on certain occasions and agreed at other times, and that we might disagree in the future. When I read what you wrote taking what I consider to this be highly reliable professional advice, going on a PR offensive is not likely to be productive and indeed may very well be counter-productive then I can only conclude that you are taking this matter quite seriously and are relying on professional advice that I am not competent to offer. So, I will remain relatively quiet for now, but if the time comes when it is appropriate for Wikipedia editors and administrators to speak out in public forums, you can count on me for assistance, Jimmy Wales. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328, I do appreciate that and will remember it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328. Forgive me if you think I hijacked your comment for my own purposes. I think you might want to tweak your response above to show which bits are a quote from Jimbo? I read all of that thread above, but I'm not really talking about the arrest of a single Wikipedia editor. But rather the indiscriminate bombing of thousands of women and children, on the orders of a deranged despot. Perhaps people think that an online encyclopaedia need not worry about such nasty things. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The WMF raised its money from donors who were told it would be used to support Wikipedia and other projects, none of which include financing weapons. These donors are however perfectly free to donate money for weapons if that is what they choose to do. Any political action the WMF takes should relate directly to protecting its projects and editors. TFD (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely won't be funding any weapons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Well, I have an idea. Why don't we recruit all the wikipedia keyboard warriors to join the war in Ukraine, since Ukraine govt wants some foreign volunteers. We can do a small banner below that, in small font, to help Yemeni people maybe. - hako9 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I wonder if Jimbo's suggestion(s) will be as radical as your own. Perhaps we just all carry on as normal, adding our reliable sources, bickering about pronouns and blocking vandals. Just ignoring Putin's illegal and barbaric war on the Ukrainian people, while thousands of innocent civilians starve to death or get blown to pieces. It really doesn't matter, they weren't even contributing to Wikipedia anyway? C'est la vie? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC) [8]
Banal virtue signalling. Keep wikipedia out of this. Do some helping on your own account. Show the same outrage for the non blonde haired and non blue eyed people too perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Another, less radical idea. Our boy Jimmy can mint and auction some nft's to help the Ukrainian people. - hako9 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
(e/c) I see. I haven't done enough helping on my own account. I've got nothing against non-white people, thanks. Or shall we all just perpetuate Putin's "de-Nazification of Ukraine" narrative? If we all keep quiet, perhaps that nice Mr Putin will call his bombers and troops home. Zelensky has compared the Russian invasion of his country to Hitler's "final solution". I tend to agree with him. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully I don't add too much fuel to the fire, but I do think there may be value in answering the point hako9 was trying to make. You have described it as an immense moral failing that Jimbo Wales and/or the Wikimedia Foundation is not denouncing Russia for their invasion of Ukraine. Have you said the same for any other conflicts in recent memory, where the victims might not have looked quite so much like you? Have you asked Jimbo to officially denounce the genocide of the Rohingyas by Myanmar's military? Have you asked Jimbo to officially denounce the war crimes, ethnic cleansing and damn-near genocide of the Tigrayans by the Ethiopian and Eritrean militaries? Maybe you feel you do have good reasons to care about the Ukrainians but not the Tigrayans or the Rohingya people, but his point does have enough substance that a proper response might be informative to this discussion. Endwise (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I do denounce the actions that Russia is taking in Russia, and lots of other things. I think there is a very very valid question of when and where I should speak out and why. My own desire in life is to do useful and helpful things. In many cases, if the issue is some matter relating to copyright and open Internet, I feel that people do actually listen to me. In other areas, I don't think anyone is particularly listening. I am taking action personally in terms of things that I think I can usefully do, but I can't quite speak about them yet. (Not that they are super duper top secret or all that shocking or interesting really, but there's a time and a place for announcing things and talking about it here - where journalists read - isn't really the right venue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The things that Russia, i.e. Putin, is doing in Russia are bad enough (just ask Alexei Navalny for the next nine years). But the things that Russia, i.e. Putin, is doing in Ukraine are just a tad worse, I think. When the leader of a major nuclear world power says he's put his nuclear weapons on "high alert" (because of some loose comments by Liz Truss), many people might feel it was time to speak out, whether journalists were bothered to pay any attention or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall describing it in those terms and I'm not attempting to build any kind of "fire". I would wholeheartedly agree that the genocide of the Rohingyas and damn-near genocide of the Tigrayans, alongside the Syrian civil war and the plight of those in the Yemeni Civil War have been horrendous. It is not the case that I "don't care about the Tigrayans or the Rohingyas". It just seems to me that Putin's war on the people of Ukraine is much worse and has the potential to lead to much greater international conflict. I realise that is a personal subjective judgement on my part. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just a structural statement, but "failure to denounce" bad or wrong things that happened is mathematically the norm. If you took the last 100 bad things that happened, I'll bet that you / me have "failed to denouce" at least 99 of them. Especially the ones that were most obviously bad where such least needed saying. Wikipedia can do much more by doing it's job.....providing credible, accurate information. And getting involved where it can make a difference on things that directly jeopardize that mission. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both sides here. Yes, it's a horrible thing. We do need to do what we can. That does not mean that other topics are any less worthy of addressing. It's not a contest. We should do what we do, which is write Wikipedia articles. Good ones. That's why we're here after all. If the articles we write happen to be related to the war in Ukraine, that's great. Encourage that. But if they're not related, but still good articles, that's good too; the Ukraine war doesn't make the rest of what we do here at Wikipedia somehow less worthy. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Wholly agree. I have never suggested there is any "contest" here. I don't even see "two sides" to this debate. It was a simple question. Perhaps too simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Cool. I'm with you in spirit 200% North8000 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A statement by WMF is going to do absolutely nothing for anybody. A quiet commitment to keeping WP free of Putinist propaganda will go a long ways. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Carrite: Hear, hear! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and banning users

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Jimmy_Wales_and_banning_users regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov "Battalion" - Russian disinfo being repeatedly added by SPAs

Example diff: [9]

Peer-reviewed publications from the highest scholarly authorities, and articles/features from the most reliable news orgs, are deleted every time an edit - like this one of mine - is reverted.

A RfC is not needed when literally all the most reliable news orgs publishing in the English language (AFP,[1] BBC,[2] DW,[3] CNN,[4] WashPo,[5], Financial Times,[6] et al) plus the leading academic experts on the issue of irregular militias in the conflict (namely Andreas Umland (Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm; National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine) and Kostiantyn Fedorenko (ZOiS Berline, Humboldt University of Berlin) explicitly refute the propaganda emanating out of Moscow and repeated only on fringe online outlets, that the Azov Regiment of today, a 1,000-odd strong unit of the National Guard of Ukraine is a "neo-Nazi militia".

Through filibustering, wikilawyering, and outright deceptive editing, this disinformation has been displayed on Wikipedia for the duration of the war - giving credence and support to those who argue online Ukraine is indeed in need of "de-Nazification", therefore justifying the Russian invasion. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like an appeal to Jimmy is probably premature on this. I'm currently conducting a large-scale source review which will help clarify the issue, and so far it's looking like "with some neo-nazi elements" is the most widely accepted characterization. Everyone is welcome to contribute! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  2. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-04-07. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-04-04. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2022-04-03. Retrieved 2022-04-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Huntsville history

I'm happy to report that George Gilliam Steele is now in mainspace. Unfortunately Harvie P. Jones (Draft:Harvie P. Jones) didn't make the cut. I've been doing some work on Mississippi but hope to return to your native state soon. Cheers. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, I was able to find this obituary but nothing else. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Nice!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol on its last legs.

I very rarely post on this page, and even less since my retirement, but perhaps, Jimbo, you have some advice to give...

It saddens me enormously to see the huge, sudden current backlog. I spent years coaxing NPP into a desperately needed working function on Wikipedia and getting the WMF to improve the software. I don't want any praise for it - I just went and did what had to be done for the single most important non-admin process on the English Wikipedia, and of course I didn't do it entirely alone.

Time to stop once and for all from kidding ourselves that there are currently 711 New Page Reviewers, less than 10% of them are active in any way at all. '711' naturally leads one to believe "Ah, we have plenty of reviewers, why should I do any reviewing?"

It's also going to get much worse, a lot worse - the people who did the most work have now inevitably burned out, and it will continue to do so until someone finally takes on the challenge of co-ordinating it. It's been proven now beyond any doubt that NPP cannot fulfill its critical role without some form of management - not 'governance obsessives' or authority, but structured organisation by a person or people with the necessary skills and of course time, like Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere once had for NPP after I passed the baton on. But it's like following WP:PCSI to cite one example; on a broader scale, it's like adminship, isn't it? Or getting serious candidates of the right calibre to step forward at the Arbcom elections. Or wanting to be a regular part of The Signpost editorial team. Few people these days appear to be interested in taking on a bit of responsibility or showing some initiative.

The reviewers' talk page is at least a lively venue nowadays, but for many of the wrong reasons. Perhaps the few regular participants should start earnest discussions about putting right everything that's going wrong. Sorry to sound so doom-and-gloom, but it makes me feel that my and the efforts of a few dedicated editors over more than a decade were wasted. Do we really want to see WP degenerate into a morass of paid editing, spam, COI, POV, and other senseless junk? Are all the genuine reviewers doing all the grunt work now wasting their own time? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Adam in Hong Kong in happier times
  • Managing the huge flow of new content seems to be a perennial problem. The current climb in the backlog is perhaps a result of the arrival of Spring and the fading of the pandemic so that volunteers are more likely to tear themselves away from their computers. But there's one steadfast volunteer who had little choice lately and I was quite struck by their plaintive cry for help:

    Laptop seems to be toast and I cannot afford a new one.
    — User:Adam Cuerden 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have resolved this issue now but it goes to show how a comparatively small amount of resource might make a big difference to such volunteer activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The size of the queue strongly correlates with when our power reviewers get burnt out and quit. The current trend upward seems to directly correlate with a power reviewer quitting recently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes a little can go a long way. The person who posted here recognizes that, having also made this edit: Diff Quote:your retirement from NPP [...] there has already caused NPP to fall apart Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look at WP:NPP, and wow, that's a lot of words. That, in and of itself, is enough to keep a lot of people from taking part. Is this something a reasonably experienced editor can do just by being familiar with WP:PAG? If so, a banner at the top that says If you're a reasonably experienced editor, familiar with WP:PAGs, then you're probably ready to start doing this now. might go a long way to getting some more eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is something a reasonably experienced editor familiar with our policies and guidelines can do. However, they also need a special user right to do it. Ask at WP:PERM. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've advocated narrowing the job to just seeing if the article should exist. The current flow chart covers things that the millions of editors should be doing, not the dozens of active overloaded NPP'ers should be trying to do. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at it and agree, there's far too much in that chart that I can see scaring away potential NPPer's. The mechanics of how this would be done I don't know, but I read that and think that's one there's almost a two step job there, one that can be done by anyone with passing familiarity with our PAG on article expectations (eg notability, V/NOR/NPOV) and then a check from a more experienced editor to verify the more specific details like naming, etc, which is far less difficult for one in know and can be done quickly, but for one new to the area would be daunting. --Masem (t) 12:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It should be done through a user script, with a bar that loads on the top that says TRASH - NOT TRASH. You click not trash and it's patrolled. You click trash and then you get DRAFTIFY - AFD - CSD. I agree with North8000, the other stuff can be handled once we're sure it's not a pile of garbage, an attack page, or an advertisement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
We essentially have the trash, not trash, AFD, and CSD buttons already. That is built into the Page Curation toolbar that those with the NPP right get access to. Draftify is accomplished with the user script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
That should be the end of patrolling, and after that let the normal processes pick up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Part of the problem though is that there really isn't a "normal process". Most articles are lucky to get a few thousand views a year. The only formal process for marking a subpar article for improvement is NPP. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I support the idea of narrowing done, fairly dramatically even, what NPP looks at. But why did the chart get so long? One reason it got so long because people in the community got upset when NPP didn't do it and would use "it only takes a moment to do X" type arguments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a similar response to edit requests fairly often. "You could have looked up the source," or "you could have with the prose yourself." I try to push back on that, because few enough people patrol requests already. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe things like this easy-to-read flowchart seen near the top of WP:NPP may make interested editors run for the hills. Simplify the process (and the how-to descriptor rhetoric) and they will come. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm reasonably experienced at this point, have a fair grasp of PAGs, and I'm generally the right kind of smart for Wikipedia editing, and looking at that flowchart is worse than reading acceptance test procedures for milspec microelectronics. If NPP is a fairly stringent right it shouldn't need that kind of flow chart, and the whole page should just say "If you're doing this, you should know what to CSD, AfD, Draftify or mark patrolled."
ONUnicorn says above, the only formal process for marking a subpar article for improvement is NPP. That doesn't sound like "New Page Patrol," it sounds like "Articles for Improvement." If we want improvement patrollers who add cats and Wikiprojects (that will likely never look at the page, so that's a bunch of effort required of NPPs for no gain), then maybe there should be Page Improvement Patrollers (PIPs) who go around and add cats, and wikiprojects, and whatever other little things need doing. Then, the one tag or cat a NPP would add would be {{pip-needed}} and people who want to do that can. Then we'll make it much quicker and easier to go through new pages to weed out the attack pages, obvious spam, move things back to draft, etc. You knock the man hours of work down by a degree of magnitude and get the important stuff taken care of.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, and overload a process with things that aren't actually process related. The entire purpose of NPP is to make sure it's safe for search engines to index. Focus on that, and move the rest of the work out. Something unreferenced? Draftify. BLP unreferenced? CSD. No wikiprojects? Who cares, doesn't apply to making sure the article isn't an attack page, spam or vandalism. No cats? Who cares, hit it with {{uncategorised}} and move on. If you have to google search to see if there are refs, throw it back into Draft space. It's New Page Patrol, not Find References and Categories and Cleanup for People who Didn't Fully Write Their Article Patrol. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikiprojects that will likely never look at the page Adding WikiProjects is useful to make the page show up at ArticleAlerts when something happens to it (for example, a PROD). —Kusma (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Adding WikiProject banners for other WikiProjects takes away a simple job of the WikiProject members, and so the WikiProject goes inactive and no one looks at the alerts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe in the concept of Wikiproject "membership". For the Wikiprojects where I am still active, I rarely tag pages (and usually don't do anything except check article alerts). —Kusma (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
They usually have “membership” lists.
In WikiProjects where you are active, do others check alerts? Do others know you are checking alerts? Is there any talk, or signs of activity, for new editors who wander in?
What about WikiProjects where no one is active? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be changed in a "soft" minor decision at NPP. Just say that the primary task is the "should this article exist?" questions, and everything else is "extra credit" if the NPP'er wishes to do it.North8000 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • This prompted me to go and do an hour of NPP work, during which I got through about 20 articles. I'll note that I was going for quality over quantity, and made a fair number of edits to those articles along the way, thanked/chastised users, and disbursed two autopatrolled while I was at it (I think we should be more generous in handing autopatrolled out to folks who haven't requested it but are frequent content creators). I caveat that I sorted the new page feed by suspected B-class or better, which I personally quite like because that's where the good stuff is and then I get to give out lots of cups of tea as WikiThanks, which feels nice. To Radish's point, I don't think the chart is strictly necessary. As an experienced reviewer I don't even glance at it, and when I was learning I don't think I used it much either. I think we may have the bar set too high for NPP reviewer. Really, the goal is just that we aren't letting real garbage stick around, and that every new page at least gets one outside set of eyes to do the simple formatting/rating/tagging fixes that so often bedevil newbies. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    If someone is extended-confirmed, has created or moved a few articles to mainspace, that should be enough for autopatrolled. I've recently done Rosetta Lawson, Linda M. Morra, Lisa Winter (which was just on the main page). I shouldn't even have to ask for the permission. There should be some way to automate it, or a generated list of users with EC and 3-5 articles reviewed in mainspace. Right now WP:AUTOPATROLLED suggests 25 articles created before applying. That's bonkers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish - conceptually it comes down to what the community wants "patrolled" articles to represent, there is a pretty big gap between (a)an article that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, (b) an article likely to survive an AFD, and (c) and article that has some base level of quality. Right now it seems to be between b and c there. If we wanted it to just be (a) auto-assignment would be easier. — xaosflux Talk 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    You think it's bad now, when I started editing it was 75 minimum. I actually understand the reticence to a point, we've had instances of people churning out seriously problematic pages who avoided scrutiny for far too long (User:Darius Dhlomo for an old one, User:Carlossuarez46 for a more recent one), but I'm generally with you on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    Those are weird situations, because you have tens, or hundreds of thousands of articles being created. There needs to be a whole separate system set up for situations like that. Trying to make rules that apply to someone with 273,696 pages created, most of which I'm assuming were just substub junk, and also someone who's actually writing articles won't work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. I've also long thought automated creations need to have an entirely independent vetting process. It forces NPP reviewers to become jacks of all trades, which naturally invokes the second half of the expression. Just another thing that unnecessarily makes the process more arduous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    And whatever vetting allows one to create hundreds of thousands of stubs should be able to be pulled immediately for legitimate concern, not even a proven issue, until there is consensus to allow. As it stands now though, those type of creators need to have autopatrolled, or they'll break new page patrol, which means there's no vetting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think ScottishFinnishRadish sums it up with: If NPP is a fairly stringent right it shouldn't need that kind of flow chart, and the whole page should just say "If you're doing this, you should know what to CSD, AfD, Draftify or mark patrolled.”. In essence however, the page itself was written by a duo of ‘experts’ to be a catalogue of tips and tricks rather than being a TL;DR set of rules. NPP was clearly never required to be more than a binary decision: Either pass an article, or send to a non main space process such as PROD, CSD, AfD, or draft to await its fate. WP:AfC is the ‘fix-it’ venue.
Creating a user right in 2016 for patrolling new pages was a good move and has worked well to keep out (and uncover) a lot of users with another agenda (even autopatrolled users), as well as just importantly assuring some minimum standards of quality reviewing. There was no consensus to include the mega flow chart; it's been sufficiently controversial over the years that putting <!-- --> tags around it wouldn't need a consensus either. Newer reviewers have been placing too much reliance on it anyway, taking up to 30 minutes to patrol an article instead of 3.
And for anyone who wants a deeper but easier insight to the process, NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers, isn't the worst story about it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Even NPP'ers don't have autopatrol. Everybody needs a second set of eyes on a new article. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If that's going to be tenable, NPP has to be changed. There has to be some amount of this that can be foisted into bots, copyvio detection being a big one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm teaching at WP:NPPSCHOOL, graduated one yesterday, working on another today. There are over 18,075 pages to review in the NPP & AfC queue, which includes Redirects & AfDs. Perhaps a BOT can be created to work only on the stubs using a specific set of algorithms, and maybe another BOT that just kicks-back articles that have major issues. Atsme 💬 📧 02:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we have any stats about the sort of articles that end up at NPP? How many are one-liners (eg. geographic stubs), how many reach 1,500 characters, how many are unreferenced, etc.? Like ScottishFinnishRadish, I've also found the autopatrolled bar to be high. I create articles now and then, and have considered applying for autopatrolled (and my articles pass DYK so presumably they pass NPP), but I still don't think I've hit 25. I've also assumed my articles don't add much work as they should be an easy tick, but I would like to hear if that's actually true. (This also doesn't include redirects, which in my case are patrolled by a bot, although I do not know why.) CMD (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I was at about 17 articles when I asked for AP, and I got it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy and others might find this discussion enlightening as it discusses a big part of the problem and what volunteers are dealing with on a daily basis...and it barely touches the surface. NPP is not just about reviewing redirects and unpatrolled articles – we've long since been combined with AfC so we're reviewing drafts as well. NPP is considered by many to be the next step up to becoming an admin because of the additional user rights that go with it. Without some kind of assurance that our reviewers are qualified, we stand to risk an even greater disaster than a backlog. There's no question that the en.WP continues to grow globally. Figuratively speaking, some of what NPP deals with on en.WP includes material from/about non-English speaking countries, leaving much to be lost in the translation if we're not careful; it makes those articles much harder to review. For example, a substantial number of articles cite foreign language books and articles, and we also have to deal with sources behind paywalls, while dealing with context, and differences in terminology and definitions. NPP/AfC is not just about passing an article that meets WP:GNG – it's about having to deal with issues related to MOS, grammar, coherence, and compliance with our core content policies; it's not a cakewalk. I've been wondering if WMF could develop a program we could use as a BOT that checks grammar, something like Grammarly, and maybe it could also verify content (like Earwig checks for copyvio but with modifications that apply to verifiability). What we're dealing with now as a relatively non-automated group of volunteers is like a small island in the Caribbean trying to control against hostile invasions and protect itself with a volunteer army of 500+/- (admins with the necessary tools) against an onslaught of heavily armed paid marketeers, trolls, and COI editors from around the world, including automated article creation, removal of redirects, etc. And yes, we AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 10:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that most of the NPP issues can be fixed at NPP. One where it needs an external change (and I think a good change anyway) is to make it the norm that when the article isn't using a SNG way-in on notability (i.e. reliant on GNG), that the article creator/ editors are expected to find and include the GNG suitable sources. The idea of millions of editors creating titles dependent on GNG for meeting notability without including such sources, and then the overworked handful of NPP volunteers are required to search the world and determine that such sources don't exist before AFD'ing the article is ludicrous. And the NPP'er gets scolded at AFD if they don't do this. Finding and incorporating sources is what WP editing is about. It's a responsibility for the millions of editors, not the overworked dozens of active NPP'ers. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I'm even fine with automatically draftifying anything that doesn't make a claim to notability with at least 2 or 3 sources. I'd even go so far as to create a new CSD criteria for "New article (<180 days) with no sources." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that the answer is simpler and softer to create. Make it the norm that notability article-existence evaluations for articles reliant on GNG be based on sources that are IN the article. For example, NPP and AFD. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:BEFORE has always been in conflict with WP:BURDEN, and as is clear, BEFORE shifts the burden to overstretched volunteers. Straight to draft seems a reasonable idea, it allows for a chance for sources to be added while keeping the article out of mainspace. CMD (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
While I see there is often resistance to draftifying articles that have existed for a long while, this should definitely be the case for articles <180 days old. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I thin we're talking about slightly different things, which is fine. Mine is to simply to say that it's no longer NPP's job to "prove a negative"....that suitable sources do not exist. Or to put it even more simply, to say: references that are not in the article don't count. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we agree on that, the question is "what then?" If a NPP says there is no suitable sources in the article, what are they meant to do? The two obvious answers are AfD/Drafting, but perhaps NPP regulars may know more. CMD (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, if the article satisfies a SNG, then my idea never comes into play. But if not, then it's dependent the GNG route in and then, if there are no GNG type sources, there are many possibilities (merge, draftify, send to AFD, tag it for notability without marking as reviewed to see if the editor adds sources with a second NPP review after that) ....anything but "pass" North8000 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
If an article is unsourced, and newly created NPP should contact the creator and give them first op to cite the sources while letting them know it will be draftified. Usually, new articles go through AfC but some slip through the cracks and end up in mainspace unreviewed. A quick Google search by the reviewer won't hurt, and neither will helping the creator of the article if it is indeed a worthy, encyclopedic article. I would probably not waste a lot of time on an article that is promoting a new hamburger by MacDonald's or new attraction by Six Flags or the like - RECENTISM, etc. There are variables to consider. I agree with CMD and ScottishFinnishRadish about draftifying, if I understand them correctly; to draftify when an article is not sourced or poorly sourced, and if it's overall a bad article, AfD. BTW, that is already what we're doing. Atsme 💬 📧 14:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The art in NPP/AfC is knowing how much work to devote to a draft or article. At the one end there are reasonably understandable submissions on important subjects but with major problems, such as absence of sources, but in an area where sourcing is generally easy enough; at the other there are entries on utter trivia or topics that will never be included because it obvious that there would be no acceptable sources. As another factor, there are articles with style errors such as wrong use of punctuation or not following naming conventions, that will surely get fixed in main space; at the other there are repetitious poorly structured and poorly translated articles that few people would have the patience to work on. As a sometimes overriding factor, there are articles where the user is clearly around and willing to follow suggestions; there are unfortunately also those from poorly run editathons or class projects where the contributor is certain to never come back to look at it again. As an always present factor, there are errors one knows how to fix; there are also ones with complicated misformatting using features one doesn't know, orin fields where any one reviewer might do more harm than good. And above all, there is how much time and patience any individual reviewer actually has at the moment.
There is no point in trying to contact someone who undoubtedly will never be there; there is no point correcting articles on unencyclopedic topics or with a promotional purpose & unless you think they'll actually get improved enough in draft space, there is no reason to keep them around another 6 months and add unnecessarily to the workload at afc. The work cannot get done if every article is treated like a future FA. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at m:WikiIdea

 You are invited to join the discussion at m:WikiIdea. GUT412454 (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Today

How nice to hear you again (briefly) on this morning's Today programme, on the wireless, commenting about that nice Mr Musk investing so generously in Donald Trump's Free Speech device. You didn't even gloat over the fact that Tesla shares sank 12.2% overnight, wiping $126bn off the company's value. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Court in Russia

Jimbo, hello! You probably know that in Russia the Wikimedia Foundation was found guilty by a court (for the first time in history) and sentenced to pay a fine of 5 million rubles. What do You think about this? What did You (or the Foundation lawyers) expect when hiring a lawyer? Lesless (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes me think of the sovereign citizens who posted a $100 million judgment on the door of a Florida judge John Hurley. The public defender even asked him, "Have you started making payments on that yet?" At the very end end of one of the best sovereign citizen slapdowns ever. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
If everything is so predetermined, why spend money on a lawyer as well? Lesless (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I am trying hard to have an opinion about this, and failing. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Of course they cannot force WMF to pay anything, however they can block Russian WP, and at some point they surely will. Regards --A.Savin (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yo Jimbo

Yojimbo. So sorry, had to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lede or Follow (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Ha!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Question

You don't have to answer this question, but I wanted to ask you. Before you had the idea for Wikipedia, what were you originally going to do as a job? Toad40 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your question made me think of this excellent bit of an old movie: Spinal Tap closing credits. But more realistically, I was an Internet entrepreneur but before that I had been a futures and options trader and before that I was working on a PhD in finance and thought I would be a college professor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, ok! Thanks for anwsering my question. Have a good day! Toad40 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#RfC_on_Larry_Sanger's_criticism_of_Wikipedia

You may or may not find this one interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'll stay out of it. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Disgustingly sensible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Mobile App

Is there a mobile app for Wikipedia? Baudshaw (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there is some info at Help:Mobile access. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Second Chance on Fandom

User really in wrong place, asking the wrong person, as others have explained. Nothing further for us to do here!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jimbo I am 2021bss aka Bradley Snodgrass I am asking because I want a second chance on Fandom because I will not harass other users and not to violate the Terms of Use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2021bss (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really the right person to ask about that, nor is this the right place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
A user from Fandom called Dinosaurs20 told me to go on Wikipedia to apologize so I can edit on Fandom again without harassing others and violating the Terms of Use. 2021bss (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Dinosaurs20 was mistaken. You need to appeal to the admin who blocked you. Or you can report to Fandom, but they would rarely get directly involved, see [10].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I reported to them about you telling me that I need to appeal to the admin of who was the one who blocked me. 2021bss (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
However when I try to make a request to them they don't answer. 2021bss (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried to apologize to them but they said I ban evaded too many times. They not won't respond to my tickets anymore. 2021bss (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think you've received the only answer that can be given. Mr. Wales has no control over the doings within Fandom. ValarianB (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried to do what he told me to do can you situate it ValarianB? 2021bss (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like you wasted all your second chances with things like block evasion, and nobody on that wiki is willing to deal with you anymore because you have shown yourself not to be trustworthy. That's their call, not ours here in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
To make this more clear, 2021bss, Fandom and Wikipedia are not related, and the admins at Fandom wanted to get rid of you so lied and sent you here (or, maybe some user who also doesn't know how Fandom works suggested you contact Wikia, another name for the parent company Fandom, not that doing so would help you). You're not able to get another chance there if they're sending you here. Maybe you could try editing Wikipedia, if you follow the rules. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with a long-term problem user

Hi, Jimbo. There is a user who, for over a decade now, has uploaded drawings and digital artwork to Commons that depict young girls showing their underwear, showering, being spanked, or exposing themselves in other ways. This user then adds the images to various language Wikipedias. This image, for example, is used on the Dutch language Wikipedia article about simulated or "virtual" child pornography, but they are often placed on more innocent articles. Even when the user uploads images taken from old comics, they have often been altered from the original. In this example the colors have been changed, perhaps to highlight the child's underwear.

This user has had a number of different accounts, but they often include the pseudonym "Simon Kirby" or the the fictitious company "Landmark comics" in the descriptions. A partial list of accounts can be found in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Midnight68, but it does not include their current account User:JasonGlennHuntley or past accounts User:BlackshadeNine and User:SimonJKirby. I imagine that this is a case that Trust & Safety might want to get involved with, but I am less interested in blocking this user's current accounts than I am in getting images like this removed from Commons. There was a Commons deletion discussion in 2010 which got rid of some of these images, but the user just created a new account and carried on. Can you help at all? B. disruptus (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many images uploaded by this user that are questionable, but I would like to highlight File:FemaleGenitalia000.png and its variant File:FemaleGenitalia002.png. These images appear on 9 Wikipedia articles by my count. They have almost certainly been added to those articles by the user in question. I am not a physician, but I can tell you that this is not a depiction of the genitalia of an adult woman. B. disruptus (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that you may be familiar with this user from the "Spanking Art Wiki" on Wikia. B. disruptus (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I would definitely raise this with Trust and Safety directly if I were you. I'm with you - all of this screams "not here to build an encyclopedia" to me. I remember when Wikia kicked that wiki out for all the obvious reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Trust and Safety information is available here: meta:Trust and Safety — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this user has already been reported to Trust & Safety in the past with no result. ArbCom indef blocked User:Midnight68~enwiki in 2010. User:Midnight68 was blocked on Commons the same day for "Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikimedia". If Trust & Safety globally bans this dormant account, I'm not going to complain, but it does nothing to address the many questionable and fetishistic images created by this user and hosted by Commons. Perhaps Herostratus will remember this discussion from over a decade ago? How many years does it take to deal with this user? B. disruptus (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
An RFC on Meta to community-ban the user from all projects would, if successful, allow the Stewards to proactively block any new accounts they created. It would not deal with images on Commons, of course, but would at least help prevent future uploads. MarcGarver (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales and MarcGarver: I tried to create an RfC on Meta, but when I attempted to save it, it said the "abuse 23" had prevented it from saving. I tried removing the phrase "child pornography" in case that was the problem, but I got the same result. When I tried to ask an admin what the problem was, I found out that my account had been blocked by a bot as "vandal in user talk ns and other places", so I wasn't even able to ask for help. Is this how the system is supposed to work? I have left a copy of the RfC at User:B. disruptus/draft Rfc for Meta. If someone could copy it over to Meta for me, that would be great. Thanks! B. disruptus (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

While locking those accounts might have merit, I don't think that erasing and banning some cartoons serves the encyclopedia. Everything Wikipedians do everyday is illegal in some country (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, etc.).
Larry Sanger cried wolf about cartoons, we had this discussion years ago, and most images deleted due to his criticism have been reinstated. See Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I think we should all wait until someone actually starts a deletion discussion on Commons before getting into this any further. I do wonder, however, why you agree with banning the user if you see nothing wrong with the images they created and uploaded? B. disruptus (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@B. disruptus: The user was banned by the WMF, and I lack authority to overturn that decision. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: if you mean Midnight68 then I don't think they were ever banned by the WMF. At least that's what the OP appears to be suggesting. They were blocked by arbcom here (which to be fair, you also lack the authority to overturn). And I think they were blocked as an ordinary admin action on commons. (I don't know the blocking policy there but I guess maybe you could overturn it if you were admin and the editor made a good enough appeal.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ed Lee Love

I’d be happy to have some help with this draft on a Huntsville architect and preservationist. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You apparently reverted a previous version of this notice which was about Samual Riley Butler, and I went down a rabbit hole researching him. It was fun. You had said that he "owned a school in Huntsville" but I didn't see anything suggesting that - he was a Principal and important county official, but it is unclear that he owned anything really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This source says after he was principal of the State School in Huntsville from 1906 to 1908 he was the owner and principal of Butler Prepatory School in Huntsville. It appears to change names and operating structure several years later. I merged what I wrote up at Draft:Samuel Riley Butler to S. R. Butler High School once I determined there was no sourcing for the assertion he was a state legislator. I believe it was his grandfather Canada Butler who was a state legislator in Alabama per the same source. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Poplar Ridge, Alabama and it’s historical marketed Poplar Ridge School don’t appear to be covered although that’s where the Butlers were from. Not even mentioned at Poplar Ridge. I started a draft on Canada Butler. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Samuel Riley Butler’s brother James Edward Butler was also a state legislator. I thought it was interesting that Canada Butler was a Republican. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There are several other Huntsville related entries in draftspace.

"X was / is a [name of country] dictator" — protecting the integrity of Wikipedia lead sentences

When you opened Wikipedia on January 15, 2001, this may not have been an immediate issue, but as the initial entries about historical as well as current heads of state and national leaders began to appear, there was obviously a tendency among editors to describe authoritarians and totalitarians as "dictators". As time passed, consensus obviously coalesced around the concept that despotic leaders for whom WP:RELIABLE SOURCES have used the term "dictator" can be so described within their Wikipedia entries.

However, the issue currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dictator and kleptocrat ? is more narrowly focused upon the Wiki-voice of an article's lead sentence and the degree to which editors can compromise Wikipedia's objective and neutral encyclopedic form.

Needless to say, subsequent sentences such as, "historians A, B and C have described X as a dictator" should appear in X's entry, but when the lead sentence of the Wikipedia entry for Ferdinand Marcos includes the words, "...was a Filipino politician, lawyer, dictator and kleptocrat...", an encyclopedic red line seems to have been crossed, especially when his son, Bongbong Marcos, the president-elect, is described in his own lead sentence as "the second child and only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady and convicted criminal Imelda Romualdez Marcos", while his mother Imelda Marcos' lead sentence states, ...is a Filipina politician and convicted criminal who was First Lady of the Philippines for 20 years, during which she and her husband Ferdinand Marcos stole billions of pesos from the Filipino people...

The lead sentences of a handful of articles contain the form "X was a dictator", unilaterally inserted by individual editors, but the discussion provides examples of numerous other lead sentences, such as those for (in chronological order) Stalin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Peron, Papa Doc, Kim Il-sung, Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Saddam, Mengistu, Kim Jong-il, Gaddafi, Baby Doc, Lukashenko and Kim Jong-un, none of whom is described as a "dictator" in the lead sentence of his entry (the lead sentences for Ho and Tito even describe each as a "statesman").

Of course, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and, in an issue of this nature, it may not be always possible to be WP:CONSISTENT. No one is proposing the whitewashing of entries delineating despots and User:Masem has proposed an encyclopedic rewrite of Marcos' lead sentence, but there is continued insistence that because Time, The Guardian, the BBC, etc, have described Marcos as a "dictator", Wikipedia must follow suit in the lead sentence, without acknowledging the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource, not a newspaper or a media organ, and speaks in a neutral Wiki-voice within the lead sentence. The fact that various reliable sources used "dictator" may be certainly cited later in the article.

Hopefully, you can offer some guidance on the topic of using neutral, dispassionate encyclopedic forms in structuring Wikipedia's lead sentences or post a comment at the noticeboard to move the discussion forward. In any event, although in my 16 years of editing Wikipedia I had never consulted with you before, it seemed that June 1, 2022 might be a good first time. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's no biggie whether Pinochet, Marcos, etc. are described as a dictator in the opening sentence; there's a case for it doing it there, and a case for mentioning it later. The amount of heat this issue has generated is fuelled by editors arguing there WP:CLEARLY is One True Way mandated by the WP:PAGs. WP:CONSISTENT applies to article titles, not article content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
At least to myself, the reason this is a major issue here is that the idea "we must put what the person is notable for in the lede sentence" rather than "The lede paragraph as a whole should cover why the person is notable but should still follow the proper tone per NPOV", is that over the last 6-8 years, with the current cultural war out there, numerous editors across the board have been forcing these implicitly-contentious terms into lede sentences of numerous bios and other groups and claim that they must be there because they are sourced from RSes and that that's what the person is notable for. That ends up making the article read immediately like an attack article in tone, since we are stating, typically in Wikivoice, why this person is "bad", which is really a violation of NPOV, WP:RGW, and inserting moralization in to the writing tone. Its why I have been stressing that our policies and guidelines to good lede writing point out that we have a whole paragraph to include why a person or group is notable, and if that involves contentious terms, it is better to lay out why those terms apply briefly before rushing to include them, which in nearly all cases that I've tried to do that, improves the tone of the lede to be far less aggressive and more dispassionate, without removing any of the information that has been deemed neutral. Of course, each article is different, so yes, CONSISTENT does not apply across these, but the requirements of NPOV and tone of writing still do apply. --Masem (t) 12:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
When the opening line for Ferdinand Marcos is more critical than the opening line for either Adolph Hitler ("was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945") or Osama bin Laden ("was a founder of the Pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda"), then yes, something has indeed gone awry with WP:NPOV. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost article

The ongoing comments at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion may be something you might want to check out. Hopefully you can virtually march into the WMF top-brass virtual offices and ask them to at least comment on the page. Thanks (p.s. "WikiVegas 2023"!). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Midnight68 update

Jimbo, after my post here, a colleague contacted me to clarify the situation with Trust & Safety. Neither of us could confirm that Trust & Safety were aware of this user, although this is still my assumption. To avoid any doubt, I have contacted them myself. I have also added another unblocked sockpuppet to User:B. disruptus/draft Rfc for Meta in case any user in good standing would like to file it on Meta. Thanks. B. disruptus (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Founder rights

How often do you use the special rights given to you by the WMF? Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Not often, but I also don't consider them to be "given to me by the WMF" to be precise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of admin rights in Kz-wiki

Hello, Jimbo! Thanks for all your work. I am from Kazakh section. A little problem appeared there: one admin struck out all my writings on his talking page. Please say, what can I do in this situation? --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia court appeal in Russia

Hello, Jimbo. Today several news sources, e.g. [11][12][13], reported that WMF filed an appeal in a Moscow court challenging a lower court ruling that fine WMF $88K and ordered it to remove what Putin's government considers "disinformation" from several ru-wiki articles about 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given the recent actions of Putin's regime, the probability that WMF's appeal will succeed in Russian courts is pretty much zero. I am wondering what might happen if and when WMF's appeal is denied. Does the Russian government have the ability to enforce any kind of a fine against WMF? And does WMF have any property and employees in Russia? (I would hope not.) Do you think it is likely that Russia would block access to the entire ru-wiki (or maybe even to all Wikipedias, in all languages)? Or just to the pages about Russia's war in Ukraine? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

For many of these questions, your guess will be as good as mine. A few I can answer: The WMF does not have any property or employees in Russia to my knowledge. From a technical perspective, because we use https, it is not possible for Russia to only block certain pages - they have a policy option to block all of Wikipedia, or none. Which makes it very difficult to block Wikipedia because it is incredibly popular in Russia and it is well known for being calm and neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why the fine wasn't set at $88M, or indeed any other random amount that Russia felt like imposing, not that it would make any difference to the eventual outcome. Unfortunately, Mr Putin also seems to be "incredibly popular in Russia", although probably mainly among those who have never heard of Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. It's good that WMF has no employees in Russia, and let's hope that the government there won't try to come after individual Wikipedia editors directly, as it has done with Facebook and Twitter. Interesting what you say about https. I guess that makes it a little less likely that Russian authorities will block Wikipedia, although one can't really count on them acting rationally given their recent actions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

One question

Do admins have right to cross out someone's comments on their (admins') talking pages? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

My situation is not about deletion, it's about crossing out, i.e. demonstrative disrespect of my comments on distructive actions of one person. Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:TPO would suggest that an acceptable reason to edit others' talk page posts is "Personal talk page cleanup". This is usually taken to mean the ability to remove others' comments, as mentioned by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. However, we allow removal of comments on the basis that someone removing a comment from their user talk page means they have read and acknowledged it. I think the same logic would apply to striking it through instead. Pinguinn 🐧 10:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is answering questions an obligation of admins? If an admin strikes out question without answering should there be any responsibility? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Here at the English Wikipedia, we do have WP:ADMINACCT, which is policy, yes. I'm not sure anyone here can help you with issues on Kazakh Wikipedia, though. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that (I may contribute to this rules, therefore) this rules are active for all sections of the site, including Kazakh section? --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ерден Карсыбеков while things like the Terms of Use apply to all WMF hosted projects, in general: local projects govern their own policies for what is and isn't appropriate on their project. kkwiki has a community and administrators. w:kk:Уикипедия:Форум is a good place start if you want to ask about the practices of kkwiki. — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing some order to this issue. --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

hi

hello jimmy wales SusImposter49 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Hello.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
you are so inspiring sir, we love you (Uganda wikimedians) Stnts256 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Trust & Safety?

Jimbo, after I posted something here about ArbCom-blocked Midnight68, you said "I would definitely raise this with Trust and Safety directly if I were you. I'm with you". So I did. It has now been over two weeks since someone from Trust & Safety acknowledged receipt of my email. I've tried to go about this the right way, but it has not resulted in any action. I know that the board doesn't want to interfere with how Trust & Safety does its work, but when users like this continue to edit a decade after they were identified as problematic, something is wrong. This user's current account, JasonGlennHuntley is active as of a few days ago, adding fake lingerie ads and fetishistic self-created anime drawings to articles on smaller projects. I don't think this will reflect well on the WMF, or Trust & Safety if it ends up in the press. B. disruptus (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Jimbo, it seems that Jeff G. has asked for my account to be globally locked, because of my efforts to have Midnight68 banned. Huh. B. disruptus (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
No, for cross-wiki abuse, disruption, and wikihounding. Perhaps you would have better luck with a community ban.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
That's an interesting point of view, Jeff G.. Do you think that reverting JasonGlennHuntley's addition of an image of little girls flashing their panties was cross-wiki abuse? Or reverting this addition of a different image of little girls showing off their panties? Or reverting this addition of not one, but two animations of - guess what? - little girls showing off their panties? There is cross-wiki abuse here, but it isn't by me. And if by "wikihounding" you mean correctly identifying JasonGlennHuntley as an obvious sockpuppet of Midnight68, then I guess I am guilty of that. No one else seemed to have problem with it when I did it here on Jimbo's talk page or in User:B. disruptus/draft Rfc for Meta. Perhaps because it is so very very obviously the same person. You might not know that I have tried to start an Rfc on Meta to have these accounts globally blocked. I don't have enough edits, apparently. I have invited other users to start one, but no one has done so. Jeff G., would you like to start it? It's been over ten years since this user was identified as a problem and banned by ArbCom. Why are you helping them instead of trying to stop them? B. disruptus (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do you waste so much time with deleting some petty cartoons? tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Now you are beginning to understand why Wikipedia is getting increasingly disfunctional B. disruptus, and that also Trust & Safety is possibly the least effective and least trustworthy of all the departments in the bloated 500 WMF employees and contractors. I'm sure Jimbo has taken note, but you will have to do what everyone else does: disentangle the confusing structure of WMF staff and contact the right one. Perhaps you could also email a Steward, but I'm not sure that would work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You might be right about Trust & Safety. They managed to globally lock Addeodatus and delete a file named "A penis of a 14 years old teenager with penile synechiae.jpg" which they uploaded almost a year ago, but they didn't delete the article they created on Ukranian Wikipedia about children's underwear or do anything about the questionable image that they used. Trust & Safety are seriously lacking in follow-through. B. disruptus (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I have seen crusaders come and go. They think that however whoever isn't for them, is against them. They are not prepared to compromise, bow down to evidence or even present evidence for their claims (e.g. B. disruptus has accused several editors of being socks, but they provided no evidence for it). tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Later edit. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu:, I'm not really interested and I won't be doing any research into it. Investigating genuine suspicious activity and obnoxious users is a dangerous business and not good for one's Wikihealth (I learned the hard way). I was just making an observation, and I come to this page very rarely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact that entire categories exist for these types of images concerns me. I don't think I need to say why. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
B. disruptus has become particularly quiet after several requests to produce evidence for their claims.
I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm not saying they're right. I just state that they have reported some usernames without disclosing why they would be WP:SOCKS.
The fact that B. disruptus does not like those cartoons is not evidence of socking. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@B. disruptus:, I think you are lot more likely to get banned than Midnight68. Your list of contributions indicates that you are a new editor, and aren't disillusioned yet. For context, see pro-pedophilia movement on Google. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you should (regrettably) expect to see this view also represented in decisions on this website. If you can accept this personal risk, and think it is worth getting banned over, you have my support in trying to solve this problem, although I don't intend on getting banned with you. It could work out. It is still possible the people who run things will listen to you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover Don't worry about me. I'll be fine. ;) B. disruptus (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu I ignored your requests for evidence because you don't have a stake in this matter. I have provided evidence to Trust & Safety. They know what the problem is. Jimbo knows what the problem is. Many other people know what the problem is. They don't need me to connect the dots. Try reading the previous discussions for a start. B. disruptus (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@B. disruptus: It is usually considered not done to blame some editor without providing evidence. Also, I'm not pro-pedophilia and I don't think cartoons amount to pedophilia. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu I think it would be best if we don't discuss your views on pedophilia. No one has accused you of anything. B. disruptus (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply from Trust & Safety

Jimbo, I got a reply from Trust & Safety about my report. I hope it is ok to quote part of that reply (I assume it is a boilerplate text):

As you likely know, Trust & Safety Office Actions are a powerful but limited tool. We can only act in certain circumstances, when there is sufficient evidence to support a severe and final action against someone. We cannot act in cases where the community is capable of handling the matter, and we are not an appeal body for cases where the community has already handled a matter, but not to the satisfaction of an involved party. Given all of this, we are unable to take action in the case you reported.

In my initial report, I offered to supply more information if Trust & Safety had any questions. Since no questions were asked, I assume that sufficient evidence was provided. Trust & Safety appear to be laying this case at the feet of the Community. This is a case that spans ten years and multiple projects in several different languages. One of those projects has failed to act when they were given the evidence. This suggests that "the Community" (which is actually several disparate and uncoordinated communities) is incapable of handling the matter.

More to the point, Midnight68 was blocked by ArbCom, presumably with input from WMF legal. Didn't Trust & Safety inherit responsibility for all of those ArbCom blocks? And if not, why not? B. disruptus (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Friend, let me tell you as it is: fighting against erotic cartoons is a waste of time, since it does nothing to address real child abuse. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't mean we should be turning a blind eye to ethical and legal issues surrounding users uploading CP. If you find it a waste of time, don't do it. Simple. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess that more than 50% of the articles from English Wikipedia are illegal in some country. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. If you think that we should be hosting child porn because some countries label certain articles as propaganda, you're in denial and out of touch with reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
These aren't real children. These are cartoons, not real sex. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Enlighten me, how is CP in the form of cartoons encyclopedic? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't claim that these cartoons are encyclopedic. I'm only saying that it is phony moralism to consider these child pornography. Same as there is no real incest in porn films with "incest" in their title. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to debate with someone who is okay with CP being uploaded to Wikipedia in anyway, regardless of it's fictional or not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
We had this discussion in 2010, see Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons.
But now appears a newbie who is unaware that we reached WP:CONSENSUS in 2010 and begins to stir trouble again. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu I am very aware of previous discussions and actions relating to these areas. I came here to have a discussion with Jimbo about one particular problem user. Please let me do that without injecting your unwanted opinions. Thanks. B. disruptus (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@B. disruptus: As I told you, you may e-mail evidence to checkusers from Commons, if you don't want to discuss it publicly. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

After seeing [14] I understood the gist of the dispute (scroll to Andrei Kucharavy's answer). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Came across this via OP's post on a Commons noticeboard. Figured I'd respond here, too. We don't need to get into the legality of "lolicon" (or whatever you want to call this) to take action in this case. It's someone with a laser focus on spankings and young girls' underwear, who makes their own low quality drawings, fake comics, fake video games, etc., and has used sockpuppets to spam their own content all over Wikimedia projects. Because of the rigidity of "in use" arguments on Commons, and in part due to the built-up defensiveness to removing sexual images, when the files have been nominated for deletion, many have been kept. But this is definitely something the community can handle without T&S:

  1. Go undo the sock farm's spam
  2. remove Midnight68's images from being in use
  3. nominate them for deletion as out of scope
  4. block as a WP:DUCK any account that reuploads them in the future (Yann just blocked the most recent sock on Commons). As I just wrote on Commons, this is not some famous artist such that lots of people are going to stumble across their work and reupload it. If you follow the source links to Flickr, the images barely have double-digit view counts.

None of this needs to be based on the content being objectionable or arguments over legality; all we need to agree on is that the content is low quality Deviant Art-style fetish drawings, and that the only reason we have them is so the creator can spam them across Wikimedia projects. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know you... so thanks for no particular reason!

The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My German Wikipedia interactions

In mid-January 2022 wrote the edit I considered very important only in English Wikipedia: The edit about the importance of the aspiration test in Covid-19 vaccination [15]. Only after the German STIKO also recommended the aspiration test in mid-February I tried to edit it into German Wikipedia. (The study the German STIKO relied on had the same source, a study from August 2021.)

Why didn't I edit it in German Wikipedia? Because I considered that it would be counter-productive! This paradox should serve as the motive for my offer: An independent user from a non-German Wikipedia may investigate all my edits and interactions in German Wikipedia. There is so much to say, but all can be found in the data sets of Wikipedia.--Myosci (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Heads up, Jimbo; okay I'm not completely sure about this, but I think some editors are trying to make Mick Jagger into a featured article, or maybe about to. So if any inside connections (like what happened in the past) contacts you about anything negatively, you'll know why. (Again, sorry about the previous time.) Also, The Rolling Stones discography#Singles now appears to be deprecated, as vandalism appears to be persistent. I have been working on this on my own (please see here User:Discographer/Various–Music#The Rolling Stones), so hopefully this will get fixed up in the future. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok - that seems highly unlikely but sure. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki notification invisible - want help!

I have a notification, but don't know where. Do you know if somebody is able to check it to see where it is from, it seems java script doesn't actually work on my device that well. It making me go nuts, I should be enjoying my video game time but I can't let this go! -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r try Special:Notifications — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I did, on 17 different wikis, even in languages I don't understand. -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on Special:CentralAuth/L10nM4st3r it's likely enwikibooks or metawiki. There isn't a way for someone else to read your echo notifications. — xaosflux Talk 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Tried there. I think I'll ask my mum if I can borrow her phone for a minute and see that way. She herself is not an editor, but I think she might understand. Maybe. Hopefully. -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody ping me please? I want to see if I can remove the notification without risking the above. Thanks. -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
So, they were welcomes in wikis in languages I don't even know. Now I have two more notifs... I'm gonna go back to my mum, but not right now. (Damm you welcome bots!) -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Fuck welcome bots. -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@L10nM4st3r, perhaps you have the same problem that I have. I have described it here: mw:Topic:Wbnqf9bb8xtcbs3s (and mentioned a hacky and ugly workaround). I would argue that this is a bug in the small-screen versions of the adaptive skins, but I haven't been able to get anyone to listen to me. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: that workaround doesn't seem to work for me at all (I'll double check I wrote it correctly). I'm irritated they ignore it though. You have a point. And I'm not the only user with limited hardware/software capabilities. -- L10nM4st3r (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

2015 WotY winner

Would it still be unsafe for you to name the 2015 Wikimedian of the Year awardee? Maybe take a quick look at the article to see if there are any major mistakes or additions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I will look into it. I'm sure the memory of other Wikipedians is better than mine, so in terms of the awards listed there, I doubt I'll spot anything major!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A Bored Chinese Housewife Spent Years Falsifying Russian History on Wikipedia

See here: "Posing as a scholar, a Chinese woman spent years writing alternative accounts of medieval Russian history on Chinese Wikipedia, conjuring imaginary states, battles, and aristocrats in one of the largest hoaxes on the open-source platform." Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry her life was so sad that this was the best way she could find some fulfillment. She should've listened to this instead, would've given her some better ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder how we might better guard against this. Note well that such stories will be very much amplified against us by many governments around the world eager to block us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
A big risk is importing hoaxes from other wikis into English Wikipedia. They are far harder to scrutinize (and will get far less scrutiny) when none of the references in the English Wikipedia article are in English. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of term "conspiracy theorist"

I started a discussion here Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Conspiracy_theorist_in_lede_2 as it was the first time I have seen the term "conspiracy theorist" used on an article relating to a current member of an elected government. I don't follow the article subject but I have seen the term used a lot, and seems to be increasing.

According to Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage that the the usage of the term is "always derogatory". However, WP:BLPSTYLE says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I thought I would post here about this as it might attract more non-political editors to comment to the above RFC. I wonder if we are using derogatory terms in an increasing manner as society uses them more in an increasing manner. Shall wikipedia follow that trend? I suppose we will, but thought it an interesting point to discuss. If some RS (normally we dont need more than ten sources to create a WP:CITEBUNDLE and the resulting appearance of vast quantities) use derogatory terms, will we follow that? Shall we also use terms racist, rapist, sexist, pervert, etc? Where do we stop? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent question well worth some thoughtful chewing. The first thing that I'll note - just as a starting point mind you - is that at least "rapist" is actually pretty well defined and objective in the case of criminal convictions. We might compare 'fraudster' in the case of Bernie Madoff as a potential model. That is, I think that in general we probably don't call people 'fraudster' without pretty serious reliable sourcing which is normally grounded in a conviction.
But 'conspiracy theorist' isn't generally a crime and therefore it may be much harder to pick apart 'this is a reliable source but with a partisan agenda' (quite common these days) from 'this is just an obvious statement of fact by a reliable source'.
I should add, for completeness, that in ordinary speaking I personally have no problems with calling MTG a "conspiracy theorist" without qualification. But I do agree with you that it is a valid question whether Wikipedia should. It's worth reminding ourselves that there's a wide range of ways that we can handle this, many of which stop far short of Wikipedia asserting that she's a conspiracy theorist. ("sometimes described by major newspapers and political opponents as a conspiracy theorist" is a quick first thought.)
And finally, I'm taking no position on this issue as it relates to MTG - I'm just agreeing with you that this is an important discussion for Wikipedia to have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I have spoken at lengths about the mentality of how we go about readily dropping terms like "conspiracy theorist" or "far right extermist" or others all related to the current cultural conflict since 2016, and it does come down to two major issues. First is making sure the term is due to include based on a source survey to determine how often the term comes up. Too many of these ledes often come down to cherry picking from a few sources and not proving (on a talk page for example) that the term applies that much to make it necessary to use the term in the lede. This is not the case for MTG since there's a good deal of sources to support "conspiracy theorist". The second is simply the ordering of information in the lede, as unless the only thing they are known for is what the negative term applies, we should never lead off in the first sentence with that term. Later in the lede, and ideally with build up or explanation of why the term applies, absolutely is appropriate, but instead we have too many articles that stick this term in the first sentence (with the justification that they're notable for that so it must be in the first sentence) and when those terms are added, immediately turns the tone of the article negative and into an attack-like one, no matter how neutrally the rest may be written. Holding back a sentence or two with the added explanation helps to significantly improve tone and impartiality of the article even while keeping the negative terms in place. We can write about a person that is frequently seen in a negative light in the sources (like MTG) without adapting those sources' stance on the person. --Masem (t) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
"And has been described as a conspiracy theorist by X" in a reliable source deals with this. David Icke also hates being described as a conspiracy theorist, but if you say that the world is run by an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, it is going to lead to doubts and criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
certainly keeping these terms out of Wikivoice helps, though convincing editors this is a saf, conservative option is difficult to get agreement on, as editors are often letting their own opinions on these figures show through. But it is also still about placement and not pushing these points as early as possible in ledes that still we have problems with. --Masem (t) 13:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe Dave doesn't like it because he's actually a Superconspiracy theorist? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
On behalf of all inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings I find it quite repulsive and very much a conspiracy to believe we rule the world (tongue in cheek). It is a super thought though. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah yeah, certainly cheek. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! It is obvious we have some raving lunatics in politics and they promote all kinds of strange theories. Today we have fox news on one side and cnn on another side, both at times promoting false narratives. I too dont have a strong opinion either way of this MTG subject (hadn't even heard of her until this Late Show incident where I guess they were breaking in to interview her), just thought I would raise it here from a higher level perspective and start some longer term dialogue on the matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We have policies that cover this issue. If numerous reliable sources describe someone as a conspiracy theorist, or as a promoter of conspiracy theories, then it is appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. It's non-neutral to present a widely understood reality as if it were simply the opinion of "critics" or of "some commentators". For whatever reason, a lot of editors understand this principle in the abstract, but are unwilling to apply it specifically to right-wing US politicians.
    Perhaps it's just difficult for many of us to accept that the promotion of false or bizarre conspiracy theories is no longer disqualifying for elected office—in fact Republican politicians are essentially required to parrot lies about the 2020 Presidential election (at a minimum) as the price of their candidacies. But that shift in US right-wing politics doesn't alter our basic policies and editorial responsibilities. MastCell Talk 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    The attitude behind this comment is part if the problem, it is based on a WP:RGW idea that we need to expose on a pedestal politicians, advocates, and other individuals who are typical outside the typical norms seen by a left-leaning media by assuring the negative tone found in the media is repeated on WP articles so that readers are assured they know they should not trust these individuals. Which is nowhere close to NPOV policy or BLP standards.
    I don't call for whitewashing away well-established criticism, but we absolutely need more decorum of how to determine when it is appropriate to include these types of terms, how to include them, and balance that with otherwise basic and consistent facts you'd see on a comparable article. Eg Just reading on the MTG talk page there is a clear and wrong effort to hide away the fact she is an elected member of Congress and instead devote the article to her apparent right-wing leanings and conspiracy theories. As an encyclopedia, our focus should be on what can be said objectively about her and her Congressional career before trying to build up the case of how the media sees her. Instead, we have a proverbial witvh hunt to expose as much negative traits as can be dug up. And this is not the only article with these problems.
    I appreciate that many editors are angry and furious at people like MTG for what's been happening in politics and other events, and that us their right to be upset at them, an issue since 2016 at least, but this cannot enter into how we write articles. Editors are more and more failing to leave their emotions at the door to be able to write neutral articles in both content and tone. Masem (t) 18:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's not based on a "RGW idea", and I find RGW misused as a thought-terminating cliche in a lot of these discussions. It's based on the idea that we represent reliable sources accurately, honestly, and proportionately, even if they say things that upset our personal sensibilities. There is an "RGW idea" here, but it's yours—it's the idea that regardless of how clearly reliable sources identify these things, we are somehow obligated to water down and bowderlize their language. It's a complete misunderstanding of what encyclopedic writing looks like, and what our policies require.
    I also object to your framing. You're using the calm-down-you're-too-emotional gambit ("many editors are angry and furious" etc.) to suggest that the people you disagree with are driven by irrationality and emotion while you are the voice of reason. That's lazy, cheap, and fundamentally an incorrect reading of the concerns here. MastCell Talk 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Many reliable media sources are WP:BIASED and use phrasing intended to please their audience and cast aspersions against those they are biased against. I think Masem's point is that we should account for that and that yes, it absolutely is our responsibility under WP:NPOV to "water down" their language (or at least attribute it) when they are clearly demonstrating their bias. Le Marteau (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think Masem's point is that we should account for that ? The very wording of WP:BIAS is that we do not account for that, you're gutting your own point here. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thus isn't about systematic bias (which we actually do try to minimuze) but the policy WP:BIASED which does say we account for bias in individual sources, stating what they say in attributed form. We can't pretend that across the board most sources have become more emotive and passionate in reporting, but that does not change their overall reliability. We just need to be more aware that these news pieces are not speaking in a neutral voice, and attribute claims rather than blindly accept things as facts. Masem (t) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    We can't pretend that across the board most sources have become more emotive and passionate in reporting - you seem to be pretending exactly that, though? I think you meant to put a "not" in there, but if so then I strenuously disagree in strongest possible terms. That is your personal emotional reaction to reading sources you disagree with on a gut level, not something based in any sort of policy or fact; you need to focus on reading sources impartially rather than reflexively labeling anything you disagree with as emotive and passionate. To the unclean all things are unclean; it is your own strong emotional feelings on these subjects (and on the media as a whole) that has tainted your views and led you to these sweeping denouncements of high-quality sources. You need to reassess how you view coverage and our responsibility to accurately reflect it. And if you refuse to do so, and believe you can support your sweeping claims of bias in high-quality sources, WP:RSN is that way; as far as I know you've repeatedly failed to get a consensus behind the gut reactions to neutral, high-quality sources you are expressing here. -Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Accountability journalism is well established in RSes thanks to the AP, an d encourages journalists to inject personal feelings into news reporting as to hold the people and groups they write about accountable [16] That is an inconsistent approach with NPOV. It doesn't make those sources unreliable, but it does expose potential bias that we absolutely must factor for. We can use these sources and accurately reflect them without the emotive part of accountability journalism entering in in wikivoice. But instead we get editors seeing this accountability pointed out by RSes and jumping on that as fact. Masem (t) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Again, if you feel that the AP should be considered generally biased, you know where WP:RSN is; but I see nothing in the link you made that is inconsistent with NPOV. Is your argument that we cannot cite sources that discuss the "how" question referenced in there? Your objection seems to be to the term accountability journalism, which presumably evokes an emotional reaction of distaste on your part; but we cannot weigh your gut reactions equal to the reputation of the associated press. If they say that this sort of reporting - the "how" question, more specifically - is a central part of coverage, we have to take that seriously; we cannot say "oh well that wording pisses Masem off, better be careful about citing the AP in the future." Neither do I see, in a quick search, any indication that this focus on accountability journalism is in any way controversial or treated as evidence of bias or unreliability in other reliable sources - numerous high-quality academic sources seem to be praising it and describing it as essential for neutral and accurate coverage. If necessary (especially if this would genuinely put the matter to rest), I will start an RSN question over whether the article you linked is enough to consider the AP generally biased... if you feel the bias you're alleging is more specific, specify so I can specify in the RFC. But I would expect you to generally drop this line of argument in the future if said RFC conclusively found that the AP can generally be treated as unbiased... and if you object to my proposal for an RFC, I'd like a specific explanation as to why and what question you feel would do better at settling this. You've been making this unworkable argument over and over again with no conclusion, and an "is the AP generally biased?" RFC seems like a good way to put at least part of it to rest. --20:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Bias is not equal to unreliability, I never equated it with that.
    Accountability journalism is absolutely a real thing [17] and has moved past just the AP as a value desired by major papers (NYTimes, WAPost). But it is also important to understand there are long-term financial motives behid accountability journalism as to find other forms of digital journalism [18].
    Accountability journalism is not necessarily bad in of itself. It is a form of investigative journalism to find who is accountable rather than to focus on post-event news. Eg from The Nation, using accountability journalism to point fingers at governments not doing their effort to fight climate change. But with accountability journalism is the need to better connect stories to readers and that means more persuasive language and ways to engage the emotions. That is something WP cannot do, as that is effectively RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The media may want to press blame at those in high level positions like MTG that help feed the far-right-wing extremism views though accountability journal rather than just say far-right-wing extremism has risen. PER RGW, Wikivoice cannot take the position that MTG fed the far-right, but we can add facts (such as often repeating stories propagated by QAnon), and we can say with attribution that she is seen as far-right and as a conspiracy theorist, if those are not UNDUE facts. But we can't say the latter as fact in Wikivoice.
    And this is where RECENTISM also comes into play. We should be writing from the 10+ yr view, focusing more on sources far distance from the events reported. Academic works ten years out generally can be presumed to be impartial and thus if they end up summarizing MTG then as a far-righter , then that's a good reason for us to follow in WIkivoice (though UNDUE still applies). What happens on an article like MTG and with accountability reporting is that there's a scortched-earth approach to the media that doesn't care how "bad" they make people (within the limits of defamation case law), as long as they are associating with their audience, they are happy. That's not our goal, and thus why we should be absolutely taking short-term media reports with a grain of salt (using attribution rather than wikivoice) until we have longer-term sources that will give us a more impartial picture that we should be working from to stay impartial ourself.
    And yet to further add, our systematic bias has downselected the majority of "good" RSes to those that are on left and almost none on the right. We need to be aware that this overall bias greatly influences how editors writes on figures like MTG. We need to be more neutral than the bulk of most sources to meet NPOV, and hence why we have to be fully aware of what issues exist with even the best RSes and simply avoid stating subjective statements in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 00:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    All I'm reading here is your personal feelings and opinions on the media. The sources you're citing don't back you up at all - the CJR piece specifically criticizes the Associated Press for not adhering to its accountability journalism standards by wording coverage of an attack ad in a wishy-washy way that obscures the truth. Likewise, the 2016 paper you cited says literally the precise opposite of what you claim - it is about the fact that accountability journalism is more expensive to produce and requires people willing to pay for it due to its higher quality and commitment to factual reporting on complex subjects. You would have seen that if you'd so much as read the first sentence of the abstract - The declining supply of high-quality accountability journalism, also referred to as investigative or watchdog journalism, can be viewed from an economic perspective as a pricing problem. This costly journalism has never paid for itself. Accountability journalism is, per the CJR source you provided, about ensuring accuracy in complex situations even when there are many competing claims and counterclaims, not about trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Likewise, per the 2016 paper, the commitment to it among high-quality sources (despite it consistently failing to pay for itself) is about their commitment to standards, not about the sort of money-chasing you (emotionally and baselessly) speculate about. Clearly you have passionate feelings about the media and its coverage, and you see Wikipedia as a place where you can WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in cases where high-quality sources have stated facts that you disagree with on an emotional level; but that is a completely inappropriate way to approach sources. The people you are arguing against here are, on the whole, dispassionate editors who leave their feelings at the door; you are the one who is bringing their feelings into it again and again, raising baseless, emotionally-charged appeals to your personal opinions about "accountability journalism" and your gut feelings about the high-quality media landscape in order to argue that we can downplay what the sources say. In any case, we can, at least, find a consensus about whether the AP News commitment to accountability journalism renders it biased (WP:RSN is frequently used for such RFCs), so I'll open the relevant RFC and we can hopefully finish this. Finally, I will point out that in most of the cases at hand, academic sources are if anything more firm in their wording than breaking news ones; you are far more likely to see someone described flatly as white nationalist or a conspiracy theorist in an academic paper than in the New York Times or the Associated Press. EDIT: RFC started here if you want to reply or if you feel I mischaracterized your position. Your position here is, to me, sufficiently indefensible that I feel it's important to reach a point of clarity on it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    The reliability of AP or any source that uses accountability journalism has nothing to do with the issue, as bias does not equate to unreliability. Any RFC for adding to RS/P is not at all needed for this discussion.
    My whole concern is that using the same language and tone of mainstream media leads to articles that are not aligned with NPOV's requirement of impartial dispassionate writing. We have to summarize majority views in sources, but that summary needs to make sure the the right majority view is identified per UNDUE,that we write it in a neutral form (with attribution, most likely), and that we should not be overly focused on short term coverage that could have a bias due to neatness of events, in favor of long term, more academic sources. I have zero emotional stake in this outside oily making sure we stay neutral in our approach. I could care less about making someone like MTG smell like roses, as that is nearly impossible with sources, but we can and should make sure our article on her does not have the same tone as a media hostile to the person. That through several years we have failed to maintain that standard across the board and that it is likely only to get worse if so we need to make sure it is addressed now is my only goal, which I may be passionate about. There is nothing about RGW outside of WP's scope, but making sure internally, we work to correct the tone and language problem, fixing that great wrong within wikipedia. No whitewashing or downplaying of where there is valid criticism from a majority of sources, but all for presenting that in a way I'd expect EB would report. Masem (t) 01:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    The RFC is about the bias you have alleged the AP has, not whether it is reliable. That is a reasonable thing to ask; we should not repeat the same circular arguments over and over. If the RFC finds a clear consensus that the AP is generally unbiased, and you repeatedly continue to argue that we should treat it as generally biased, I'd expect you to face sanctions for WP:BLUDGEONing a settled topic of discussion. If you think there's a consensus that the AP is biased, or if you think that there's no consensus, you should make that argument; but if there's a clear consensus that it is generally unbiased then you should eventually stop making arguments that you know have no support - it's not appropriate to repeatedly filibuster an already-settled discussion. Do you disagree? I don't understand why you are reluctant to settle this via an RFC - you say your gut tells you the AP is biased, and on emotional level you feel it is biased against MTG in particular; but we decide things based on consensus, not based on your gut or your emotions. Your gut feeling that the AP is biased is a simple up-or-down question, one that is extremely important to establish one way or the other given how frequently we cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    Its exactly that editors are angry and upset with what is happening in the news, and that sources support this anger on how they report it, that is at the heart of this problem. It is very very easy to take the word of reliable sources aligned with one's ideals as plain fact, and present WP content in the same tone and approach, but that's not an encyclopedia is written.
    I will say that near every case where I have seen problems in the neutrality of the article, they can resolved with reordering of information and putting more statement that are pulled from RSes out if Wikivoice, without losing that information. That MTG is seen as a conspiracy theorist isn't something that can be downplayed, but in terms of tone and impartiality, it should be stated without explaining why she is called one by the media, and that requires a build up of information before it is introduced. But I know too often when it is suggested that certain things be moved or put into attribution/out of wikivoice, editors get passionate that calling out the BLP in those negative aspects must be the priority of the article, and that's not good. The tone of you earlier statement is right along those lines. There is a difference between that, and what we should be doing by include aspects that clearly are DUE to include but respect out NPOV need to write that impartially and dispassionately. That is easily done if one steps back, leaves their feelings at the door, and look at the big picture about how we approach most articles. Masem (t) 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's similar to how we deal with criminals. We don't (usually) refer to them as felons, but as X who was convicted of X. We can do the same here. If RS says that someone espouses some theories, we can put that in, but not necessarily label that person as a CS, unless perhaps that person is only notable for the CS and not for anything else. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    There are cases where sources overwhelming support nonattributed uses of terms, like Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist, though when and how to apply is a wholly separate discussion. But as to continue on Jones, he is also factually a radio show host and other, more objective career aspects. We shouldn't come out of the gate to say Jones is a conspiracy theorist but can build up to that after establishing how he got to be considered as one, that's a tone issue. Masem (t) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    How we word it is based on the sources; and for Jones, it is extremely well-cited. The problem here is not with the sources or with how we use them, but with your own fundamental belief that most high-quality mainstream sources are biased and your desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by downplaying things they say that you personally find particularly objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I think the opposite is true. MastCell is saying that we should cover what the sources say, in an accurate and neutral manner, according to our policies. To me, your argument strikes me as saying that you want to WP:RGW by "correcting" what you, personally, feel is an inappropriate use of language in the sources. You constantly make this argument and constantly push us to ignore or downplay sources based on your personal feelings, and it's never going to be accurate or convincing - our responsibility is to go with what the sources say, without judging or trying to "correct" them. No matter how strongly you feel that the sources are wrong, and no matter how severely they differ from your personal gut assessment of the subject, it's inappropriate for you to constantly push for them to be reworded based on your opinions like this. And more broadly, you've repeated this over and over and over across multiple venues without convincing people - perhaps it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK already and accept that we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE even in cases where that goes against your gut feelings, and even in cases where you feel the sources are committing some great wrong that you personally wish to use Wikipedia to right. I appreciate that you are are angry and furious at sources that you personally feel cover their topics unfairly or which mistreat people like MTG, and that's your right, but you must stop trying to push that emotional response into articles - you, more than any of the people you're discussing, are showing a consistent inability to leave your emotions at the door. You need to base your arguments on what the sources say, not on how you feel about them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • MastCell, you wrote: "Perhaps it's just difficult for many of us to accept that the promotion of false or bizarre conspiracy theories is no longer disqualifying for elected office—in fact Republican politicians are essentially required to parrot lies about the 2020 Presidential election (at a minimum) as the price of their candidacies." (bold added)
Daniel Dale, CNN's chief fact-checker, has written an insightful article about this requirement for Trumpian GOP politicians to lie. It's a political litmus test, a shibboleth: Lie as litmus test: Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake calls it ‘disqualifying’ for rival not to declare 2020 election ‘stolen’ If a GOP politician tells the truth about the election, they are too reality-based and thus disqualified to win GOP votes from the deceived Trump base. This situation is now seen as a serious national (and international) security threat. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality means information should be presented in the same way as the body of reliable sources. Articles don't say for example that George W. Bush is is a politician and Christian fundamentalist, Obama is a politician and African American, or Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK and a great-grandmother. All those statements are true and significant to the topic and they may be referred to that way in some articles in some reliable sources. But I believe it violates weight when they are described in that way unless that is how they are usually described in reliable sources.
I would reserve the term conspiracy theorist for people whose notability derives from being conspiracy theorists, not otherwise notable people who happen to believe in or promote conspiracy theories.
The tone does suggest to me RGW. The article Adolf Hitler does not describe him in the first sentence as a conspiracy theorist and murderer, because there is no need to discredit him. A polemical tone might actually make readers question the fairness of the editors.
TFD (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Well... we also don't have editors routinely arguing that reliable sources are biased against Hitler. We do, however, have a bunch who predictably argue that reliable sources somehow become unreliable, or at least in need of editorial massaging, when they report unflattering things about US right-wing politicians. We've literally had dozens of versions of the following dynamic:
  • [REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN]: <does something widely considered racist>
  • [RELIABLE SOURCE]: A Republican politician did something widely considered racist.
  • [MASEM]: See, reliable sources are biased against Republicans!
(I'm using Masem as a stand-in here, but there are plenty of others who can be counted on to take this exact approach to sourcing). MastCell Talk 22:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I would likely argue along those lines (not as aggressively) but only to the point of saying "so do we need attribution and or how should provide it, and has that action had significant impact on their career (is it due or just cherry picking?)" In other words how to neutrally include that information, which is policy.
There are other editors that take what is the problematic next step saying "its biased so we can't use it!" And that is something I agree we can't question. Bias doesn't change reliability unless it is a long term issue (fox news). And those editors do not help the overall discussion on such articles. Which can inflame those trying to write as best they can. Masem (t) 22:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason that "conspiracy theorist" is such a charged term is because many people live in the simulacrum#Philosophy. At some level, many people understand that living in unreality is wrong. Yet they keep doing it. So they need to deflect the guilt onto someone else. Conspiracy theories by definition are independent worlds of simulacra. Even true conspiracy theories (such as Oswald conspired to kill Kennedy) also become a form of simulacra or escapism since the vast majority of people who study them participate in the escapism. Those who believe untrue conspiracy theories are a perfect scapegoat for people who live in the simulacrum to deflect their guilty and shameful feelings. They externalize their feelings on the target. The disingenuous character of the externalization can be felt by the tone of the writing, similar to Shakespeare's The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Wikipedia has the potential of being a half-way house to rehabilitate people who are living in a simulacrum and get them to come back to reality. Deflection and externalization fall short of its potential.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Mastcell, I do not want to misrepresent you, but doesn't that come down to we don't need to discredit Hitler, because that is no longer an issue, but we have to discredit modern right wing extremists, because they have followers? That to me is advocacy. I think the best approach is to relate the facts in a dispassionate tone, explain what experts (not journalists) say and hope that readers exercise critical thinking. TFD (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
No, again, I think you have the RGW polarity reversed. We are free to accurately convey what reliable sources have to say about Hitler, because he has no apologists among the (serious) editorial core here. On the other hand, we are not free to accurately convey what reliable sources say about current US right-wing politicians. We are constrained by their apologists among the editorial core, who have a fixed idea of the "right" way to describe these people and who discount any sources that go beyond as "biased".
It's really simple: accurate reporting that reflects negatively on a Republican politician is not evidence of bias. Nor is accurately conveying such reportage evidence of bias among editors here. Some people are really invested in pretending otherwise. MastCell Talk 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
We can accurately summarize from reliable sources but we cannot adopt their tone. Except that's what happens in this race to include every slight that the media calls out against a person. That's the RGW issue at play. WP can't take a stance that we need to call out nor apologize for these people. Masem (t) 17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
We are required to mirror the content, context, and "tone" of reliable sources. That's editing 101. Substituting our own personal ideas of appropriate "tone" for those found in reliable sources is a textbook policy violation, and a form of tendentious editing—yet that is exactly what you advocate. MastCell Talk 18:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Content and context yes. But NPOV is clear we do not mirror tone, via YESPOV. We are to write impartial and dispassionately, and that means we cannot adapt the tone taken by sources. We can respect what the tone that exists ("MTG is frequently crotized by media for her beliefs") but we cannot write with that tone. Masem (t) 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I think Masem is right. We should adopt the tone of encyclopedias, textbooks and other unbiased sources. We would also be constrained by WP:LABEL. In a case that I think takes LABEL to beyond reason, Osama bin Laden is not even referred to as a terrorist, even thought that was what established his notability.
But even if Mastcell is right, we would only refer to someone as a conspiracy theorist if that was how they were routinely referred to in reliable sources. And that is only the case for people like David Icke or Alex Jones.
Also, while it's clear that Qanon is a conspiracy theory, the term tends to be used more loosely in journalism than academic writing. It has come to mean any accusation that goes against mainstream opinion, even when the main criteria of a conspiracy are not met. By current standards for example, someone who thought that Saddam Hussein might not have had weapons of mass destruction and based their claim on reasoned analysis, would have been labelled a conspiracy theorist.
TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Politics aside, what is she “best known for”? What significant things has she done or accomplished in the House? Doug Weller talk 20:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with tone. Just because MTG may be best know for supporting conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that must be the first thing said about her, which is where tone comes into play. I absolutely expect that to be included in the lede and body, and likely a major portion of the article at the end of the day, but leading with that as if everything else about her is fringe is not how to write a neutrally-toned article. The fact that she is a Representative should be the priority, and then after that, building into why she may called a conspiracy theorist and why she is disliked by the media. No policy requires lede with the.mist notable thing about a person, only that should be clearly introduced in a neutral tone. Masem (t) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You may agree with each other, but as the RfC in question is to be swinging towards inclusion, I'm sorry to say but you two may be out of step with current trends around here. The reality of 2022 is that major figures in a mainstream American political party have embraced viewpoints that are widely and broadly held to be conspiratorial fantasy. You can't hide behind neutrality when discussing these sorts of things anymore. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not have any trouble with saying she promotes conspiracy theories, my objection was to saying she is a conspiracy theorist. My reasoning is that our description should reflect how she is normally described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This is where a source survey needs to be done. I know there's a FAQ on the talk page there, and points to about 8-10 sources that explicitly use "theorist" rather than just "promotes conspiracy theories", but given how many sources talk about MTG (GNews gives me 400k+ sources), this is potentially cherry picking. There needs to be a better justification that a good fraction of the RSes covering her routinely use "conspiracy theorist". (Here, Gnews gives less than 4k for "marjorie taylor greene" "conspiracy theorist", which I would say means that is not a routinely used term, but this is a quick and dirty evaluation). Masem (t) 00:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:, she is best known for her jail inspection report, secondly, she is known for being one of the best in the House currently at fundraising, thirdly, she is known for proposing bills that others would probably be afraid to propose because they are too controversial. But once she proposes them, others co-sponsor them. None have become law yet, but things could change in the future. Fourthly, she is known for co-owning a large construction firm, and that she previously owned a fitness gym business. Fifthly, she is also known for being one of the most harassed members of congress at the present. Some people think they can get away with messing with her or her office in ways they don't do to the others, because it would get them prosecuted.
Media about Greene divides roughly along the local / national lines. Local oriented media focuses on fundraising, details of primaries and elections, and bills. National oriented media focuses on a lot of stuff that is covered in detail in the article, and overall she is not portrayed so well in national media as in local media. Most if not all editors to the article are not from her district or the surrounding area, so they are exposed to the national media.
So what kind of readers should articles be for? National or local? Or what balance between the two should be reached? On lower-volume days, I expect most readers are local. During controversies that make national media, most readers are national. This is an issue relating to a lot of articles, not just this one.
I expect that readers who voted for Greene attribute the article's slant to xenophobia. It is against the good faith rule to directly accuse xenophobia unless it is really serious, but there is no way to make readers assume good faith. When readers see the emperor wearing no clothes, they are like the child, while editors are so sophisticated with their internal culture.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover I'm not sure how you are measuring best known. I also think we should pay attention to sources, not where the readers live. I doubt very much she is best known for her jail report on the Jan 6 rioters, or any of the others you mention. That looks more like your opinion than a survey of sources and we should try to keep our political opinions out of this. I don't understand you comment about xenophobia although I know she's been accused of it. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
...one of the most harassed members of congress at the present.. and the rest of your opening paragraph there is absurd, and demonstrably false. What we have here, now exposed, is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editor. ValarianB (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was an opinion question, because "best" is subjective in this context. If I broke a rule with my last post, I expect the talk page's owner will join you in rebuking me. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
In line with what ValarianB wrote about your first paragraph, it's pure Spin (propaganda), ergo "reframing or modifying the perception of an issue or event to reduce any negative impact it might have on public opinion." Maybe you should seek a job working as her spin doctor. Unfortunately, it's not in line with NPOV or RS as it very carefully and selectively ignores so much and flies under the radar with the rest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
NPOV also says we don't take the tone or spin of RSes in how we write neutral content. We can discuss with attribution when the media calls people out in negative terms when that falls under WEIGHT, but we should not be framing it the same negative stance by these sources, which is what is happening here. We are to write objectively, impartially, and dispassionate, but that doesn't mean we also whitewash. PUBLICFIGURE us clear on that. Masem (t) 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a term that is always used to disparage an allegation or the person making it. More importantly, it is commonly used for cases where there is no allegation of a conspiracy. And also selectively on what superficially appear/ can be claimed to be allegations of fact but are really matters of opinion/take (e.g. "Big pharma is out to overcharge us"). With the Walter Cronkite era being over, we can no longer blindly rely on "sources" (who are now actually combatants) for baseless choices of disparaging terms. Thirdly embedding a an established fact as a noun-ification of a person in a prominent place in Wikipedia is a wiki-editor action to say that that is the main defining attribute of the person. I.E putting in "Joe Biden is a plagiarizer" can be claimed to be just a statement of a sourceable fact but in reality is the wiki-editor converting that mere fact to being the defining attribute of the person. The problem can also be reduced by focusing on putting content in articles rather than characterizations. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's worth reading the article Sagan standard. This is usually quoted as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". David Icke's claim that the world is run by interdimensional reptilian beings is undoubtedly an exceptional claim that requires exceptional evidence. QAnon, Pizzagate etc also fall into this category. The term "conspiracy theorist" may be seen as lacking NPOV, but to comply with WP:FRINGE it has to be made clear that some theories are widely regarded as either unsupported by evidence or discredited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The rule about fringe content posits a minimum standard for labeling conspiracy theories/theorists, but what should the maximum standard be? This is what the people writing on the Rep. Greene article's talk page are figuring out. I'm not sure there is any general rule at all for this, so the outcome could set a precedent for other articles. Maybe when this is all said and done, WP:FRINGE could be expanded?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
A way I would consider what's happening on MTG's page is that the amount of effort to go into trying to spell out how much of a conspiracy theorist is is far outweighing the effort to document the fundamental data about her that should seen as the base, objective data that any Wikibio should be including. Which is where that becomes a RGW problem, because regardless of how much is written about negative traits about a person, our goal should not to overemphasize this over the basic encyclopedic information, and lead into why these negative traits about a person exist. Masem (t) 16:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The lead has 331 words, 267 of which are negative. After the lead, but before the notes and references are 9,812 words, 6,135 which are negative. Early life and education has 96 words, none negative. Early career and activism has 390 words, 205 which are negative. U.S. House of Representatives has 2,365 words, 907 which are negative, Political positions has 6,146 words, 4,607 which are negative. In popular culture has 369 words, 347 which are negative. Personal life has 173 words, 69 which are negative. Altogether out of 10,143 words for both the lead and the rest of the article, 6,402 words (63%) are negative. The Adolf Hitler lead has 670 words, 180 words are negative. For the rest of the article with 12,677 words, 3,132 words are negative. Altogether out of 13,347 words for both the lead and the rest of the article, 3,312 words (25%) are negative.
Going over it makes me compare the Wikipedia Hitler article with one from an older print encyclopedia I read some time back. The Wikipedia article is nicer to him than it would have to be, especially near the beginning and middle of the article. By percentage of negative content, the most negative part is at the end, following Masem's goal of leading into the negative traits. In contrast, the print encyclopedia article described him as "evil" at the top with no qualms about making a moral judgement. I suppose an older encyclopedia, written close to the events at hand, is going to be less distanced and neutral than an encyclopedia written long after the events. That could also explain why a present day politician gets an article that is 63% negative, while a politician who has been deceased for 77 years gets an article that is 25% negative. Another factor is that this is an English website instead of a German website; the German Wikipedia article on Hitler is considerably more negative than the English article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
You missed the main reason which is pervasive in Wikipedia. Hitler is not involved in / considered to be on one side of American Politics.North8000 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
While the problem is pervasive in US politics, you can find similar issues with application of contentious terms in bios/blps of people associated with it. Eg I've seen it on articles related to Poland and what happened there in WWII, I've seen it in the Israel/Pakistan issue, etc. Just that its far easier to find sources on how US politics is reported. Masem (t) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, the general case statement is that where there is a real world contest/dispute, and the combatants think that they can further their cause by what gets in Wikipedia, there is an unsolvable (under current policies and guidelines) conflict at Wikipedia to make the article biased one way or the other. So there are many such cases in Wikipedia, American Politics is just the largest scale of them. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The idea that Marjorie Taylor Green's article is more negative than Adolf Hitler's is frankly idiotic. Treating this nonsensical claim as a starting point for serious discussion emphasizes the extremely poor quality of dialogue here. MastCell Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
You are ignoring the tone aspect here. Yes, broadly, MTG is nowhere close to the negative aspects of Hitler, but the Hitler article approaches the topic in a far more neutral, dispassionate manner due to language choice and wording without downplaying the crimes against humanity. MTG's article presently is written to highlight her negative traits above anything else. This is something that can be fixed through tone adjustment and language reordering without losing the media's criticism of her. It just can't be WP's position to treat her as a "bad" person. Masem (t) 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Except that all mainstream RS treat her as a loony bad person because that's what she is. No accomplishments but outrageous controversy. We just document what they say because they are reliably telling us the truth about her. It's really that simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Except of course we are not supposed to write anything about BLP or topics in general in a disparaging manner regardless if the tone that sources take. It is absolutely possible to take a neutral tone in writing such an article but that does require keeping both personal and sourced-based emotive perspectives out of the writing process. Masem (t) 21:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict, responding only to previous post) Masem made the distinction between including negative coverage that was in sources and an wiki-editor decision to tilt/spin the article in the negative direction, and there are a lot of discretionary ways to do the latter. You seem to be arguing that the latter is also OK based on the editor's take on the sources overall. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
No, sorry, I'm not going along with this line of assumptions, which are bizarrely out-of-touch even by the standards of Jimbo's talk page. Adolf Hitler's article says that he was responsible for the murders of over 6 million innocent people. For genocide. In the lead, in the first paragraph. If you think the "tone" of Marjorie Taylor Green's article is somehow more negative than that, I think we lack a foundation in a shared objective reality and further discussion is pointless. MastCell Talk 22:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Its the establishing tone. Hitler's article starts out with objective statements, and then quickly gets an overarching summary of his rise to power as to establish why he was reasonable for those deaths. All without engaging in any negative terms. It is a dispassionate introduction to one of history's most resented figures without including an ounce of that resentment in the statements. Whereas MTG's article is basically immediately leading with calling out her conspiracy theory and far right associations without building up to those those points. It is immediately hostile to the topic and shows full on resentment for her. WP can't show that type of hostility (Moreno for a BLP) even if that's the only way sources present that. It is absolutely possible to write a lead para that still ends up talking to her conspiracy theory and far right aspects while being objectively neutral to those elements. Masem (t) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Just as Hitler's article says he was responsible for the murders of over 6 million innocent people, so should MTG's article say she is known for conspiracy theories. But just as the Hitler article does not call him a murderer, so the MTG article should not call her a conspiracy theorist. In fact, Hitler was a bigger conspiracy theorist than MTG having created the Big Lie of the Stab in the Back and many other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which had catastrophic consequences and received most of his income from his book that promoted them, but the article does not call him a conspiracy theorist or an anti-Semite for that matter. I don't see why we should use emotional wording when it comes to modern U.S. politicians. TFD (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes @The Four Deuces:, I agree with all you said! -- Python Drink (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well Jimbo. Due to years of observation on many topics? I very much know how this discussion will end. Gonna keep an eye on it, to see if I'm correct. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason Hitler's article is brought up is that Hilter himself is considered one of the most "evil" persons in humanity's history, and yet the article represents a dispassionate, neutral tone that still covers the atrocities he did under his rule and why many academics would classify him as one of the most "evil" persons, and yet never uses wikivoice to disparage him. That's the standard we should be going for for any topic, including bios and particularly BLPs of still active persons. I've explained how it is really easy in these real-time conflicts to allow personal thoughts and alignment with the same from the media to make it seem like simply repeating what the media says is "right", but one needs to step back, think about ten or more years out, and how the article looks to someone well outside that real-time conflict. Masem (t) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Godwin's law states, "As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person/s being compared to Hitler or another Nazi, increases." That isn't happening here. It is constructive however to compare the tone of MTG's article with that of another politician, whose actions were the most evil in history. Furthermore, he is on of few politicians who have no supporters in mainstream literature. If I had used Stalin as an example, someone could argue that we use a neutral tone because some academics still defend him, at least in part. TFD (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with TFD above, we dont need to be labeling people regardless what they did. We can simply be encyclopedic about what they did, and the reader can make up their own label (for those readers that need labels, not everyone needs labels to understand a concept). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
So what PAGs will be used to justify a ban on the use of certain common English words, even if many RS use them to describe certain people? You're pushing a very radical idea. Will Wikipedia use bots that instantly block editors who mistakenly use these forbidden words, like when Facebook instantly blocks users? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf that doesn't seem to comply with NPOV, at the very least. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Its a great point you make, and I am glad you make it. You raise what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. We dont call people names to create some false balance, we report on the events that have happened and readers can do their own name calling in their heads. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf that's not how I understand NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
NPOV WP:VOICE clearly says Prefer nonjudgmental language Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a huge gap in using wikivoice to identify people with negative, subjective terms, even when many RSes use the terms freely, and using attribution of some sort to say that that has what they have been called. The latter is fully in line with bot the content part and tone part of NPOV. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
That is what we are discussing here, if there is a place for this judgmental language. You are arguing if the judgmental language is used in RS it is kosher to use in the article and I am saying it is not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
In Wiki terms, that broad common statement has many possible meanings, some are encyclopedic and some aren't, some are things prescribed by Wikipedia's prescribed uses of sources and some aren't. IMO going with the latter is a common contributor to bias/NPOV problems. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, but thems is the policy. If enough RS say it we have to say it, to not do so violates NPOV which is clear, we represent what RS say. We do not give equal weight to non RS views. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing about equal weight here, but all about presenting the correct tone, and using attribution rather than wikivoice. WEIGHT does not say we give up impartial writing to include something widely said in RSes. Masem (t) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven, the beginning of your post seems to imply that that overly broad statement is policy; I don't agree. The rest of your post was a complex blend of interrelated things and implications that some establish the others....too hard to respond to.North8000 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Sigh… there are times when I think we should have simply adopted a “NO BLPs” policy early on in WP’s history. Would have saved us a LOT of headaches. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I've often thought to myself that there is a set of topics (maybe 2% of Wikipedia) which we are not equipped to get right, are the sources of unsolvable drama, which aren't trusted and which tarnish the reputation of the other 98% of Wikipedia. And that it's tempting to think about giving up on covering those.North8000 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What I see happening here is a failure to clearly communicate nuances. "Labels" can also be very precise and accurate "descriptions", and we don't avoid/forbid the use of the proper and accurate descriptions used by RS just because someone calls them a "label". Of course we don't add unsourced or poorly sourced negative labels, but that's not at issue here. When labels are used as accurate descriptors by the majority of RS, we can use them in wikivoice because they are the most accurate descriptors. When they are controversial (among RS), we attribute them as the opinions of the sources. This is already policy, so why the push to forbid the use of common English words just because someone thinks they are a "label" when they are also accurate descriptors?

So back to "nuances". If you're talking about "wikivoice", say it and we can agree. If you don't say it, then you seem to be pushing censorship and advocating refusal to use the most accurate descriptors/labels used by RS, and that attitude violates a whole host of policies, especially NPOV.

This push just smacks of censorship and protectionism. We go by what RS say. Censoring or neutering words used by RS because they might offend someone's sensibilities violates our NPOV duty to avoid "editorial bias". Note it is editors, not sources (and thus content), that must be neutral and unbiased in our editing. Don't get in the way of what RS say. Don't launder it through your personal opinions and biases before placing your interpretation of what RS say on the page. Don't take flavorful and accurate descriptions and turn them into flavorless, uninformative, and unnuanced blah content. Tell it as it is in the way that RS do. Use attribution when in doubt. This is NPOV101 newbie stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This is generally all correct but the one issue that come up is that bolded line about using attribution. Using attribution should be considered the default for nearly any use of a label or term with subjective or contentious or have negative connotation but instead we often see editors racing to use WP:SPADE to use these terms in wikivoicd (as the case for MTG) just because they found a few sources to support it. There can be a point where a significant fraction of sources use the term that SPADE would apply and we can state it in wikivoice without attribution, like with Alex Jones and conspiracy theorist, but that should be only after a source survey is done to verify this, and not because editors have found two or three source. (Which on that case if the opinions of the RSes meet WEIGHT, they can be.included with attribution). Masem (t) 16:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out before, reliable sources do not routinely label MTG a conspiracy theorist. See for example, "Rep. Greene questions whether July 4 shootings were 'designed' to get Republicans to back gun control." (NBC News, July 7, 2022) They merely refer to her as a Representative, even though the article is about her pushing a conspiracy theory, although they do not call it that. Labelling people is considered politically incorrect. See for example, "Why It's Time To Stop Labeling Ourselves And Those Around Us" or "Why It's Dangerous to Label People." This is the type of behavior we expect from people like MTG. We should show respect to others, even if they hold irrational views, not sink to their level. TFD (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Not only that but sources on BLP's should receive extra scrutiny, even when that source is generally reliable to be used in other cases. When adding information to a BLP we should be extremely cautious and write responsibly. The views of minorities (in regards to the number of sources) should not even be included in the article at all. Beware of biased, malicious or overly promotional content. We do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly(my emphasis) described that way in reliable sources (when other sections of WP:BLP are applied this infers a majority of sources). Everything I stated above is taken directly from WP:BLP. We intentionally treat BLP's different from all other articles written on Wikipedia because of the potential impact our articles can have on the individual lives of the living human subjects. When it comes to public figures, WP:BLP states that "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." When you apply that to other areas of WP:BLP then you can start to see a bigger picture. We want to get things right but when in doubt, do no harm. --ARoseWolf 17:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought that this discussion had died out. Now that I have the attention of so many accomplished editors, I'll give you unsolicited advice: Please work on the Hitler article. Reviewing it for the word counts made me angry. He was more evil than the article depicts him. I don't want middle schoolers (who are inevitably going to be plagiarizing it) deciding to sympathize with and imitate him. A good place to start with for bringing out his evil character is the German Wikipedia. Even without knowing German, Google translate can give you a good standard for comparison; it can bring to light various ways he was evil which the English article omits. I weighed about doing it myself, but I haven't felt up to it (yet). Maybe I still will. In particular, the half-paragraph discussing his leadership style comes back to me from time to time. It struck me as having similarities to Wikipedia. I suppose it is to be expected, since it is common enough for defeated powers to rub off on their victors.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's the thing...WP should present an amoral view in wikivoice with any morality (ike Hitler was evil) present as statements with some type of attribution to take it out of wikivoice. Wikipedia does recognize that the stance "Hitler is evil" is the near universal majority opinion from across many sources, and so we're not going to include any fringe view that really goes against that, but we still have to approach how we present that moral view in an amoral voice. That's why the current article is well written as it avoids moral claims in wikivoice but still readily gets across history's view of him. Masem (t) 04:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
And to add, while they desire to make sure schoolchildren don't try to imitate Hitler, we are not here to right great wrongs. We have to be more sterile about it. Masem (t) 04:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Seeing as Hitler has now been namedropped 23 times here, I'll add that, as a schoolchild, I had some theories about the 23 enigma. Conservative teachers called them delusional and liberal educators appraised them as imaginative, but nobody was crazy or lazy enough to chalk my tangled web of lies up as anything to do with a conspiracy. Nowadays, the word gets prefaced around like the Dickens, and I'm convinced there ain't no wall of text high enough to get to the bottom of why. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That's another issue that needs discussion, the overuse of the term conspiracy theory. The COVID-19 lab leak theory for example was called a conspiracy theory in news media, although it was more accurate to say that it was pushed by conspiracy theorists and formed part of various conspiracy theories. Something should not be labelled a conspiracy theory unless that is how it is supported by expert opnion.
Epiphyllumlover, what serves school children best is an article that reflects what they read in their textbooks. In any case, Nazism is one of the few political movements that has no defenders in reliable sources, which is why it frequently comes up. But the vast majority of political groups have varying degrees of support and we would have to adopt a position in order to have a consistent tone. We could for example use the positions of the U.S. government but they are subject to revision, for example recently with MBS.
TFD (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the 23 enigma, but followed your link to the article about it. It is numberology, not a conspiracy theory, but on Google it is sometimes considered a conspiracy theory.
"Wikipedia is amoral" redirects to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive. The Hitler article (in my opinion) ranges in tone from condemning to amorally banal to tragic. I want to shift the amoral sort of banal closer to the loathsome sort of banal used in the German language article, and for there to be less or no tragic. The 25% negative part would grow in percentage. This should not affect the comprehensive nature of the article, so I should be in compliance with the comprehensiveness essay. In an earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 007#The Wikipedia must be amoral/polymoral, FT2 answered the question to say that Wikipedia is not amoral, it is polymoral. I speculate that if you all more or less agree with FT2, you will be okay with these changes. Yet a polymoral approach could at times make tone challenging to follow.
I don't think FT2's answer violates the comprehensiveness essay because the question he answers is not quite the same as the one addressed by the comprehensiveness essay. This also fulfills the "righting great wrongs" part of the tendentious editing essay, because there are already "mainstream media" sources and and information "published in books from reputable publishing houses" similar to the ones used on the German Wikipedia which can be used to improve the article. Also, I don't see there being any great societal changes wrought by narrowing the negativity gap between the articles on Hitler and Greene. Greene's article was still 63% negative and she still won the primary, so a better Hitler article would not stop a hypothetical copycat from rising to power. It would help with following the textbooks, which try not word things in a way that could be interpreted as tragic.
Part of why I brought it up was to gauge your opinion prior to deciding whether to use time and effort on the Hitler article. From your responses so far it looks like I'll be on my own if I feel up to it, but I don't expect to get in trouble.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikivoice cannot take sides, so I want to shift the amoral sort of banal closer to the loathsome sort of banal used in the German language article is absolutely not appropriate. (Each language Wiki has different policies, so what the German wiki does doesn't affect the English wiki) I mean, look at the EB entry [19]. It is similarly amoral, though it does cover many historical views of Hitler (eg it presents the "polymoral" view of Hitler). Our article does the same. This is where we need to be per NPOV, as any other shift evokes WP:RGW. Masem (t) 16:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We all agree that Nazism was bad, but what positions do you recommend we take on fascism, socialism, capitalism, Islamism, American exceptionalism, Russian nationalism, abortion, capital punishment or anything else where reasonable psople can hold differing opinions? TFD (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Masem, maybe I could start an RfC on the Hitler talk page for an WP:IAR just for the Hitler article? The IAR would ask for an exception to RGW, limited to adding in negative items about Hitler that are described in one or more other encyclopedias. The items would need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The end result would be that Wikipedia's treatment of Hitler would be brought to a par with the other encyclopedias.
TFD, what I expect to see on the other articles is some sort of polymoral approach, given that editors don't agree. The Hitler article came to my attention because I went over the whole thing to make a word count of negative content. The word count came out lower than I expected, so I compared it with the German Wikipedia, which was more negative.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
No, IAR is only used to improve the encyclopedia, and its established to change the tone to include a more negative tone is against NPOV/RWG. And from your point about word count, that's now heading into NPOV issues with false balance. Again, read what the Encyclopedia Brittanica article reads as, and that's the model we want to shoot for, not what the German encyclopedia does. Masem (t) 19:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The EB article has negative information about Hitler that isn't mentioned on the English Wikipedia article. Could I go through the EB article, find secondary sources for each additional negative thing, and add it to the Wikipedia article?
The ending of the WWII section on the EB article is well written in that it closes with reflection on the circumstances of Germans instead of the circumstances surrounding Hitler's last days and death. This contrasts with the end of the section at Adolf Hitler#Defeat and death, where the circumstances of Germans are mentioned at the top of the section, but not at the close. The way the EB puts it makes it harder for a reader to perceive Hitler as a tragic figure. The German Wikipedia is similar, see the material referenced with #447 for the closure referencing Hitler's victims. I would also like to use the same rhetorical method on the English Wikipedia. Would you be okay with that?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The comparable section to what you appear to be looking at the EB article is what is in ours in the Legacy section, not the Defeat and Death.
And no we don't need to add more negative information to our Hitler article, particularly given what you've stated your goal is. Our article explains how most works considering him evil and the like. And the German article has coatracking issues, eg as translated the line that includes ref [447] is basically "According to Hitler's last will, Dönitz initially continued to fight and rejected an overall capitulation. On 8 May 1945, however, the unconditional surrender of the Wehrmacht took place, with which the Second World War in Europe ended. Worldwide, more than 66 million people lost their lives." as a part around Hilter's death, whereas our article states "the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre of World War II" as part of Hitler's legacy (and in the lede) which is more appropriate. So there are tonal problems from the german article you can't bring over. Masem (t) 20:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I see it is a "no" then. Thank you for thinking it through. Your link was to the last section of the article; I had used the sidebar on the EB article and was looking at the second-to-last section, where the narrative covers Hitler's death at the bottom of the section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
MTG promotes conspiracy theories, like space lasers and whatnot. Then RS call her a "conspiracy theorist," so we do too. It isn't complicated. And there's a consensus on this. Andrevan@ 07:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
What? The 50kb of text in this thread served no useful purpose? DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
People have been publicly "just saying" about space lasers, blue lights and trippy coincidences(?) since well before 1977. What's weird/funky/troubling in the MTG arc/article/saga is how zero of nine inline citations actually call her Camp Fire message a conspiracy theory. Baseless, bullshit or based in antisemitic conspiracism, yes, but "conspiracy theory" is apparently from some "sufficiently clever" editor seeing a pattern in the headlines, connecting dots in the text and jumping to a conclusion somewhere in their very own subconscience. OR, in nerdspeak. Anyway, I'm not defending her, Nazis, neo-Nazis, racists, rapists, ravers or Republicans, just "hating the game". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, George W. Bush "was the first convicted criminal ever elected president. His crime was a twenty-four-year-old state misdemeanor, and even that almost cost him the presidency." [20] (Brian C. Kalt, Yale University Press, 2012) So why doesn't the first line of his article call Bush a "convicted criminal?" Because, just as very few rs refer to MTG as a conspiracy theorist, very few rs refer to Bush as a convicted criminal. TFD (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, George Washington's lead doesn't even suggest he had a Jumonville affair, much less reflect the widely accepted opinion that his murders of ten innocent men started several major wars. Good thing, too. Think of what would happen to the schoolchildren who plagiarized that in their reports! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I haven't seen the sources about Bush, but that seems to be whataboutism. As for MTG, "Marjorie Taylor Greene Suggests 4th of July Shooting Was Orchestrated by Democrats. The conspiracy theorist who once pushed the idea that the California wildfires were started by a laser beamed in from space is, lest we forget, a sitting congresswoman. [21]" "congressional conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene[22]" "Marjorie Taylor Greene Is Terrified of the Media Watching Her Testify Under Oath[23]" "Republican QAnon candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene's win highlights coming 2020 crisis. Will the GOP ignore the dangerous conspiracy theorists that even now are being retweeted approvingly Trump? Or will it take this threat to democracy seriously?[24]" "Conspiracy theorist and congressional representative Marjorie Taylor Greene[25]" " Right-wing conspiracy theorist and anti-abortion advocate Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., b"[26] "The country has never once shut down. Not a single school has closed,” the conspiracy theorist wrote."[27] "Conspiracy theorist's rise to Congress"[28] "The conspiracy theorist from Georgia hates vaccine mandates so much that she’s praising the Nation of Islam" [29] "Jews fear what follows after Republicans applauded Marjorie Taylor Greene. It is chilling that rather than condemn the conspiracy theorist’s espousal of antisemitic nonsense, her party supported her"[30] Andrevan@ 17:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Make sure you are including only RSes (Rolling Stone is questionable for politics), non-opinion pieces, and not quoting headlines or other non-prose material like picture captures.
But key is this is an example of cherry picking to get a result you want. A full source survey needs to be done to see how often/frequent that RSes across the board call her a conspiracy theorist. Unless there's a clear majority of sources that do that, then we have to treat "MTG is a conspiracy theorist" as a claim that needs to be attributed. This is what TFD has been stating. Masem (t) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. She "once pushed the idea that the California wildfires were started by a laser beamed in from space". Not every kooky thought a conspiracy theorist tweets facebooks then deletes is a conspiracy theory. Sometimes a brainfart, controversial remark or simple lie is just that. No secret illegal plot needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, whataboutism is "a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation." It certainly does not mean we cannot compare how similar subjects are treated in Wikipedia and other tertiary sources. In this case, I am asking you why MTG should be treated differently from any other notable politician.
Meanwhile, your examples are cherry-picking. Yes, just as I can cherry pick sources that call Bush a convicted criminal, I can cherry pick sources that call MTG a conspiracy theorist. But in both cases, we should describe her the way rs normally do.
TFD (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The bottom line is that there's a discussion on the talk page where there's currently a consensus to call her a WP:SPADE in Wikivoice based on the copious RS that call her that. I'm offering you sources because you claimed RS didn't call her that, but clearly plenty of them do. You can quibble about which ones should be used or not. That's a job for the article talk page. But you'll have to disagree and commit because there's a clear consensus on the talk page that the RS do in fact call her a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't have to be the majority of all sources about her that call her that, just a sufficient number. I am not the one pushing a POV on this, y'all are trying to wiggle out of what the RS clearly say. Andrevan@ 18:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That is not the bottom line and "y'all" ain't the Hulkster, brother! You come in here claiming a Facebook post about frickin' laser beams is a conspiracy theory, without even a clue as to the nature of the supposed conspiracy, and now you want to disappear in a puff of smoke without providing evidence for your basis and lump me in with alleged wigglers? With all due respect, bah! But fine, whatever, leave. No, seriously. It's not your fault. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
"While Greene didn't use the phrase "Jewish space lasers" in her post, she did lay out a conspiracy theory claiming that the 2018 California wildfires were possibly caused by "lasers or blue beams of light." She also claimed the wildfires would benefit an international banking firm with a Jewish family name." .."Greene's conspiracy theory was just one of numerous extremist conspiracy theories that she voiced support for on social media before joining Congress." [31] Andrevan@ 19:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
None of which posits a conspiracy. If you and some Newsweek columnist infer one by reading between the lines, that's on you two. Assume for a second powerful people do have top-secret potentially incendiary space devices. By labeling all talk about them, however vague, hypothetical or small, as a conspiracy theory, one suggests these powerful secretive people are criminal masterminds. It's entirely possible these systems are designed for altruistic, peaceful or merely defensive purposes. You don't know, I don't know, most congresspeople don't even really know. And this nutjob didn't claim to know. Just briefly wondered and had it blown out of proportion for almost four years by her political opponents. Bullshit is all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be using a narrower definition of conspiracy theory than the one everyone else is using. For example, Greene's theory that the Rothschilds are somehow part of a secretive cabal that has a laser to ignite wildfires. She doesn't need to lay out exactly how they are conspiring or with whom. It's still a conspiracy theory. "Marjorie Taylor Greene’s space laser and the age-old problem of blaming the Jews - Why conspiracy theorists always end up pointing the finger at Jews — and why that’s a problem for the GOP."[32] "Marjorie Taylor Greene penned conspiracy theory that a laser beam from space started deadly 2018 California wildfire" [33] And needless to say, a secret cabal igniting wildfires would indeed be a pretty serious criminal conspiracy. Andrevan@ 00:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Assuming her ponderous block of text is a conspiracy theory, the only named conspirators are Brown, Peevey and Kimmel. The latter seems like a Jewish name, though Jimmy Kimmel is Catholic and my Googling finds little corroboration. She also names three companies, only one of which remotely suggests "Jewish bank". She says it might have been intentional and that it might have been accidental. By disregarding everything except the Judaism and willfull destruction bits, you and the opinion writers who target your demographic turned it into what you wanted it to resemble. Ever since Trump was elected, there's been a concerted campaign to conflate conservatives, conspiracy theorists and racists into some vague threatening mass of Them. This is more of that, only thinly disguised as a legitimate concern for the overall health of Congress. You focus on whatever negative aspects of whichever lone scapegoat you want, it's a free world. But I've had enough of this shit and now choose to learn what makes the other 530 federal representatives tick. Good day! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You are way off the map on this. MTG doesn't need to name the conspirators for it to be a conspiracy theory. Trump and MTG have both pushed conspiracy theories, and reliable sources continue to describe their behavior as such. From the big lie on the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election to QAnon to 9/11 truth movement to vaccine hesitancy, these actors are entirely responsible for their own ideas, it's not a witch hunt or some kind of scapegoating exercise.[34][35][36][37] We even have an article called List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. You seem to be advocating that those folks are being scapegoated unfairly, but that cannot be in Wikipedia unless you have reliable verifiable sources for this. You seem to be advocating for some kind of systemic media bias fringe theory. Sorry, that has no place in Wikipedia. I advise you to drop this line of inquiry and focus on productive concerns. Andrevan@ 15:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You're really helping to demonstrate the bigger problem that I described above that is not only a problem with MTG but with the mass of those often criticized by the media (mostly alt and far right targets for obvious reasons). You (and based on the talk page) really want to make sure MTG is labeled with "conspiracy theorist" and you are doing your best to claim a handful of sources to support that. But this is "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like nails" situation, in that if you are deadset on including that label, you are going to use any shred of sourcing to support that.
If we are going to use labels, they should fall naturally out of a demonstrated survey of sources that show it to be frequent enough, and not from the dozen or so that have been hand picked to support it. Again, using a poor man's survey of GNews hits, there are currently 184k articles that match "marjorie taylor greene", but only 3k (1.6%) of them match "marjorie taylor greene" "conspiracy theorist" and 10k (5%) that match "marjorie taylor greene" "conspiracy theory" and 14k (~8%) that match "marjorie taylor greene" "conspiracy theories". That's nowhere near the frequency I'd expect to say that "conspiracy theorist" falls out of the sources easily. That's at a level that UNDUE absolutely applies, that we should be documenting what is said about her and conspiracy theories with sourced attribution. But a more complete source survey (to make sure these articles are reliable, and then actually assert MTG is a conspiracy theorist) should be done to make sure.
But if you come at it with the prior assumption that she is one, then that's going to taint the survey. And given the attitudes of a large number of editors on that talk page when they speak of her, I can see many potential issues if their opinions about MTG are not checked in at the door. Masem (t) 01:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, and you're failing to WP:AGF. The reason why I want to label MTG as a conspiracy theorist is because that is what she is best known as, and widely described as. Pure and simple. Andrevan@ 01:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I have stated that the article should follow rs and say she promotes conspiracy theories, and not use a label that is found in less than 2% or articles about her. And why do you assume that anyone who insists that all subjects be treated the same necessarily supports any of them? TFD (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
There's nowhere that looks for a numeric threshold of the number of RS before it becomes possible to use them for a description. There are many, many sources. More than enough. Andrevan@ 00:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
UNDUE absolutely applies here. You have to demonstrate it is a majority viewpoint, and that requires verifying a majority exists, which requires a source survey. Masem (t) 01:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You are misreading WP:UNDUE - it does not prescribe some kind of mathematical scheme to determine proportionality over a threshhold, it means you shouldn't give WP:FRINGE too much weight or real estate. There's very little about that which applies here. MTG's main claim to fame is her status as the representative from QAnon. The sources overwhelmingly cover her as such. It is entirely DUE. Andrevan@ 01:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Determining proportion requires the source survey mathc. The viewpoint "MTG is a conspiracy theorist" is yet proven by showcasing a few handpicked articles. Masem (t) 01:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No, that is not how it works. We don't need to have a conclusive read that >50% of all possible sources use the exact phrase "conspiracy theorist" in order to know that she is widely known as such in RS and it's a majority view held by scholars, commentators and other folks putting stuff into RS. UNDUE is a policy about ensuring we don't actually give a lot of space to things like conspiracy theories. MTG is widely known for being a conspiracy theorist, it's one her main aspects of notability, it's hard to find a source that DOESN'T describe her as some kind of fringe anti-Semitic character. That is her defining, prominent, aetiological, eponymous trait. The idea that we need to comprehensively determine all mentions of her and then slice and dice to see if it comes out 50% or 37% calling her a "conspiracy theorist" is wrong, and not how it works at all or has ever worked. Andrevan@ 01:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You are taking a very selective reading of UNDUE here. The first line of UNDUE calls for looking at proportion of sources to include viewpoints. It applies to being able to access what the majority opinions are as well as to eliminate the fringe positions. So you have to show your work, which you haven't done. In addition, you still are showing my point that you appear unable to separate your feelings about her and how to write neutrally on WP, when you say That is her defining, prominent, aetiological, eponymous trait.. You must show your work, not just plead your case that "we must do this because she's a bad person!" That's NPOV overall. Masem (t) 03:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've already shared about 10 or 15 links. "Ms. Greene won the primary election for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District in August 2020, after rising to prominence by posting unabashed support for President Trump and for QAnon, a movement tied to the baseless conspiracy theory that a group of global liberal elites run a child sex ring that Mr. Trump would stop." [38] "For freshman representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, it’s to have a platform from which to spout every unhinged thought that comes into her brain"[39] "Marjorie Taylor Greene, the infamous U.S. representative from Georgia" [40] "Earlier this year, Greene was stripped of her committee seats after she perpetuated antisemitic stereotypes, pushed baseless QAnon theories and called for violence against Democratic leaders on social media. "[41] "That's because virtually everyone in this northwest Georgia congressional district already has an opinion about Greene, whose extreme rhetoric has left her stripped of committee assignments in Washington and her personal Twitter account permanently banned. In her first term in Congress, Greene has emerged as one of the most prominent voices of the GOP's far-right fringe, touting racist and antisemitic tropes, engaging in conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and vaccines and embracing former President Donald Trump's lie that the 2020 election was stolen"[42] I'm sure I could find about 50 or 100 more that all talk about the same thing as pertaining to MTG. I mean have you even watched a late-night talk show or talked to a coworker. Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think because there's already an established WP:CONSENSUS in the article that it should be the way that it is. It was even added to the talk page header of the article. This entire conversation is a moot point. Just accept the fact that Ms. Greene is widely known as a conspiracy theorist and proponent of QAnon. It's not my opinion of her, it's a fact. I've never once said she was a "bad person" and I have no idea what you are quoting there. Andrevan@ 03:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, it is not the number of links, but proportion of them. I've pointed out that at best, about 8% of the sources via Gnews speak to "conspiracy theory/ies/ist" related to MTG. Just repeating or adding links doesn't help. For example, I could easily pull a good dozen to qualify a person like Biden negatively by using sources like Wall Street Journal that are on the right. But I know no way that that dozen reflects the majority of sourcing about Biden. That's the same that needs to be done about MTG. And you should be restricting these to news articles, not op-eds or the like. I'm absolutely sure lots of op-eds call MTG a conspiracy theorist, but that falls under RSOPINION and certainly wouldn't be appropriate to call MTG one in wikivoice under BLP. Masem (t) 04:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't go around in circles on this any longer. I've explained that a) a substantial number of references about MTG call her a conspiracy theorist or similar, referring to her infamy in promoting conspiracy theories, in fact the majority of references that I've seen to her pertain to conspiracy theorizing or the like (it's not a percentage of Google News links, and it doesn't have to be exact wording of the phrase) b) UNDUE is about FRINGE theories, and the majority position is not a percentage, and proportion is not a mathematical rule, it's description of whether or not the majority of scholars or commentators in sources hold a certain view - some sources won't explicitly call MTG a conspiracy theorist but that doesn't indicate that they don't think she is or somehow detract from the ones that do c) there is already a consensus on the talk page about the copious sources that describe her as a conspiracy theorist. I'm not offering op-eds for proof of any facts. You can discount whatever sources you want, I haven't even edited the article text at all. I could pull sources all day long and it won't be enough for someone because they just don't believe she's a conspiracy theorist. However one can't come on Wikipedia and be on a crusade trying to correct this; one needs to just let it go. Think of it this way. If 5 physicists write a paper that proves the double slit experiment acts as a quantum eraser, and then 30 more physicists write papers about a different aspect of the double slit experiment, that doesn't mean that we can't call it that just because 85% of papers didn't. "Conspiracy theorist" may sound pejorative but it's a factual term, it's just a description of a behavior that MTG engages in. Just because many sources didn't mention the quantum eraser, that doesn't mean it's not a majority view. It'd be another situation entirely if the sources were split about whether to call MTG a conspiracy theorist. But what we actually have is that sources that call her a conspiracy theorist, and some that just call her an extremist, or a Republican congresswoman. Simply because some sources didn't use that specific term for her, doesn't mean it's not a majority viewpoint that it's an accurate descriptor. Those sources aren't taking the position that she ISN'T a conspiracy theorist. Andrevan@ 05:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
On UNDUE I urge you read it again. It is nowhere close to only being about FRINGE, it about balancing viewpoints, which can include making FRINGE views are discussed only minimally, but also speaks to making sure equally weighted viewpoints from RSes are balanced appropriately as well. To give an example, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is clearly a disliked decision from the bulk of the media, but there are clearly a large fraction of people and groups that have praised that decision. It's not equal, nor is that side FRINGE, so its finding where the balance sits. And that absolutely falls under UNDUE.
On that basis, we are talking viewpoints, meaning anything with a subjective bent, which includes naming MTG as a conspiracy theorist (In contrast to naming her as a Representative, an objective fact). And if we're going to give the weight of that subjective assessment as fact in Wikivoice, rather than in attribution, you better damn well have proven out that a majority of news, non-opinion sources use that term while discussing here. Now yes, I would expect that this should be limited to sources while she was an elected official (when she gained notability) and that means some earlier sources before her election would not be considered, and of course, where she is only mentioned in passing, those can be ignored. But articles directly about her as an elected official and presented as news is what you need to look at; most of the sources you have given here as well as used at the talk page for MTG fail that (being opinion or non-RS for politics). Otherwise, you are creating a pathway that any editor just needs a handful of sources to insert disparaging material about a BLP as fact claiming that there's sufficient sourcing about it. You need to show that being called a "conspiracy theorist" falls out from news reports about MTG. This is certainly not a hard barrier - we call Alex Jones factually a "conspiracy theorist" because there's a majority of non-opinion sources that use that term about him. And if you can't find that, you can still call her a "conspiracy theorist" as a DUE opinion, but as an opinion requiring attribution. That should be the default view here when writing about ANY BLP (as well as to other groups written negative by the media), but the problem is that just too many editors want to reflect the public opinion as fact. We can factually say what the public opinion is but we can't write it as fact.
Nor is there an expectation for the opposite, to show sources that specifically deny her being a conspiracy theorist. The term is contentious by default and thus it should already be considered disputed until you can show that a majority of non-op sourcing supports that. Also there is the expectation that you can't prove a negative.
All this is about making sure we approach topics that may be despicable to us as editors with a impartial, disappassion approach, and while sources may want to lead us to use the same disparaging tone that the media uses, we simply cannot do that. And we need more editors to be thinking along this lines before the situation gets worse (which I can see if the GOP win the midterms, for example). We can't be a participant in this culture clash, we should be a neutral observer. Masem (t) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Multiple editors have urged you that in fact the source record describing MTG as a conspiracy theorist does exist and is well-attested, not an opinion but a clear fact, far beyond the standard needed. The current consensus poll on the talk page is running quite strongly that way. Your desire to exclude certain sources from before her election is not rooted in policy, nor is this a math game as I have stated repeatedly, nor is there a policy basis that this term is "contentious by default" and therefore it is "considered disputed." Au contraire, it is currently supported by a consensus of editors and therefore the dispute should be considered settled. She can be a representative, and a conspiracy theorist, a Trumpist, an extremist, and she is all of those. Many sources also call her "QAnon proponent" which is equivalent to "conspiracy theorist" as well. We are not using a disparaging tone. We are simply describing what Greene has done in the preponderance of sources: promote and offer to the public novel theories that are relatively beyond the pale of a normal theory (e.g. "Greene peddled conspiracies that mass shootings were false flags and "staged"" [43]). Your example from Dobbs is not relevant here. Dobbs is a firestorm, controversial decision with a lot of angry opinions on both sides. Greene is a woman who is generally described as a conspiracy theorist. Nobody is going out there and saying that the crazy theories offered by Greene are in fact factual, and that's she's not a conspiracy theorist. If they were, they'd have to be relegated to an extreme fringe land like your Alex Jones, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche et al, because of WP:UNDUE, it's there to relegate fringe to the fringe. It's a clear majority view that Greene is a conspiracy theorist. "Conspiracy theory-espousing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene " [44] "Those accusations, critics and the White House have noted, echo an obsession of QAnon conspiracy theorists. " [45] "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the conspiracy theory-peddling Georgia Republican"[46] "Greene also casually referenced a baseless conspiracy theory that the Texas massacre was a false flag operation. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and several QAnon influencers posited without any substantiation that the mass shooting was a staged event,"[47] QAnon supporter/promoter Marjorie Taylor Greene "[48] "QAnon Supporter Who Made Bigoted Videos Wins Ga. Primary" [49] "How the “QAnon Candidate” Marjorie Taylor Greene Reached the Doorstep of Congress" [50] "'Dangerous' QAnon Supporter Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Appointed By Republicans To House Education Committee" [51] "Twitter Just Suspended QAnon-Boosting Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene" [52] "Challenger to QAnon supporter bows out of race in Georgia" [53] "President Donald Trump on Wednesday congratulated Marjorie Taylor Greene on her congressional primary victory, endorsing a Republican candidate with a history of racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic remarks and who has embraced QAnon conspiracy theories." [54] "Marjorie Taylor Greene wins House race, bringing QAnon believer to Congress" [55] "Trump calls QAnon conspiracy theory supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene a GOP 'star' after Georgia win" [56] "A QAnon caucus? Fringe conspiracy theory advocates aim for Congress" [57] Andrevan@ 01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If one cannot see the non-impartial, non-dispassionate, disparaging tone that the current MTG article is written as, particularly compared to Hitler's article or pretty much any other political BLP that's on the liberal side of the spectrum, that's a problem, and one needs to step back and review it without personal bias on the matter while comparing to other articles on WP. And local consensus can be overridden by global if it came to that. It is completely possible to rewrite the MTG article in a manner that stays neutral but doesn't miss any of the existing beats in there (eg no whitewashing outside of taking out a few minor points that are just creating a laundry list of "bad things" she's done, or making a better overall narrative about it, for example, I can see many ways to compress her views on LGBTQ in a manner easier to follow without losing the main point, she's opposed to LGBTQ rights). Editors also need to keep in mind RECENTISM and the 10-yr aspect. All those details on her page are overkill to still get the point across that she holds certain ideas, which sources state make her a conspiracy theorist with attribution.
Now, for example, that CNN article is an example where a non-opinion RS is expressing that MTG is a conspiracy theorist, as well as the list presently at the top of her article. But again, from a simple Gnews search which shows only a fraction of the articles about MTG also mentioning something related to conspiracy theories, that cannot be taken as a majority fact in wikivoice. It can be said with attribution until proven that it is a majority fact. There's potentially 180k some articles about MTG out there, and you have given maybe up to a hundred sources (though I've not checked those recent ones) -- that's not enough, because by that logic, I can dip into the opinions over at Fox News and Breitbart (via RSOPINION) to write negative stuff on liberals. (Obviously, no I will not be doing that at all, because I recognize the bounds here). Or as another example, "Donald Trump" has over 73 million Ghits, but "Donald Trump" "idiot" has over 110k. By your logic, I could use 100 of those latter ones to go over to Trump's page and call him an idiot in Wikivoice. Which of course, no, we can't do because 110k articles are less than 1% of the available sources there. I *know* this is a popular opinion about Trump, but no way I would add it as wikivoice without a large majority of sources.
This whole issue is pointing out the mindset among far too many editors across the AP2 topic area (at least) about how to use sources today in regards to keeping WP out of the debate over these people. We need to take a much more middle ground approach until we can look back at this period without the influence of the cultural conflict to be able to read events without implicit personal or source bias. We do it for every other topic area, but this one fails to be adhered to. Masem (t) 01:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree. There is no test in policy or precedent which requires you to determine how many articles there are, and divide how many say a certain thing, to determine whether that's a majority viewpoint. It's a majority viewpoint amongst the RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED, which is not 180k. Furthermore, because the majority of sources that mention MTG describe her as a conspiracy theorist, a QAnon candidate, or the like, and no reliable sources contradict that information, it stands as a majority view for Wikivoice. You're fabricating logic out of whole cloth here, that is never how this worked. Andrevan@ 01:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a majority viewpoint amongst the RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED that is a terribly bad metric, because now I can play a game of being super selective of which sources I want included to claim "Oh, this view has a majority". Again UNDUE says at the front Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (my bolding). You have to consider all the possible viewpoints from RSes out there, not what you've included, otherwise you are gaming the system. And the only way to determine what is a majority is to determine the proportion of coverage of that viewpoint, as bolded above. This is pretty straight forward NPOV policy. Masem (t) 01:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Both of your analogies make no sense. You certainly can't use Breitbart as a source, nor would I use Jacobin, Occupy Democrats, Alternet or Raw Story. I only want to use agreeable acceptable RS. Also, "idiot" is not a descriptive term, it's a pejorative, insulting term, and your example obviously falls flat because in fact most reliable sources do call MTG a conspiracy theorist. By your logic, we need to calculate all of the websites, books, blog posts, unreliable and unusable sources, and then only describe things as what has more than 50% of that? That has NEVER been how this works. " in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There aren't 180k reliable sources for inclusion about MTG, that 180k number includes all the Rolling Stone or op-ed articles you've objected to, plus trivial mentions, unreliable outlets, plus plenty of duplicate syndications of AP articles in local paper. Even if there were that many RS, if 100 articles describe her as a conspiracy theorist, and hundreds of thousands took no position on her being a conspiracy theorist, that doesn't mean she's NOT a conspiracy theorist for Wiki purposes, because MAJORITY VIEWPOINT is not a statement about math but a statement of CONSENSUS OPINION BY AUTHORS, which is nigh-universal that MTG is a conspiracy theorist. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts" - clearly, it is. The UNDUE policy is about WEIGHT in the article reflecting the WEIGHT in the sources, not about quantifying each statement by its prevalence in Google results. It says you should determine the majority view as it exists in published reliable sources, take a representative cross section of sources, to appropriately support and reference article text in the page, written proportional to said views' overall acceptance by the reliable source record, and then treat the article according to that understanding so that weight is accorded proportionally to the weight reflected in the source record as referenced - NOT play some kind of game with a threshold in Google's results or any other number you might play around with. Nor does every article on a topic or person need to mention things that everyone accepts about them, for them to be credible for inclusion - omission is not a conflict or a contradiction in the sources that necessitates the treatment of a minority view. What, exactly, are you claiming is the minority view? MTG is a reasonable normal political rhetorician, and not someone who pushes conspiracies? Where are the sources for that? Your math and logic are tortured and nonsensical. Can we please stop. You need to drop this. Andrevan@ 01:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No, you are making very dangerous claims about the UNDUE policy that are not how we approach sourcing on any article, not just MTG, to push any viewpoint you want by what cross section of sourcing you pick. You are required to consider the whole of published sources, that's in the first line, not the cut you want, otherwise that's cherry picking. Additionally, I don't see how you can call about "proportion" without looking at some basic survey of math and inclusion. You can't handwave "here's 100 sources, its the majority" because there could be only 150 sources (which would be true) or 150k sources (which would be false).
I would also point out the line you highlighted: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts So where's the other tertiary reference sources to substantiate this claim for MTG? News articles aren't reference texts? This is why RECENTISM is important and considering the 10-yr idea, because maybe in 10 years we *will* have reference texts that factually state her as a conspiracy theorist. Masem (t) 03:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not cherry picking to pick a representative cross section of references that reflect the mainstream view. That's exactly what we do, make sure the cross section of sources can support the views in the article that represent the mainstream views that are verifiable and reliable. We sit down to write the article, read the sources, discuss the sources' reliability, and add them to the aritcle if they are reliable. You are on a WP:SOAPBOX, and you are the one making dangerous claims like a global consensus overriding a local consensus, or this magic math equation you've created, which has no basis anywhere in policy. "Reference texts" in this case is synonymous with "published reliable sources" and in time, we will certainly add actual books to the article when they are written, IN PROPORTION to their MAINSTREAMNESS but we won't just add a bunch of crazy polemical screeds by Bill O'Reilly or another fringe right wing commentator just because we read it. Because THAT is cherrypicking: false balance. FRINGE says you have to EXCLUDE (or properly attribute or have in reduced proportion) minority and unreliable viewpoints, that is not cherrypicking. You are the one inventing practices that we do not do on any article: we do not calculate numbers like 100 sources that use a phrase out of 180k total sources listed on Gnews. That is not prescribed anywhere. What you do is develop the article incrementally, continuing to keep it in sync with the MAINSTREAMNESS of the view in V RS. You are failing to WP:AGF by assuming that any time editors add sources to an article proportional to their weight as accorded by policy, that it is necessarily gaming the system and cherrypicking. That is a novel and very dangerous claim. Andrevan@ 03:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "When editing Wikipedia, it's not cherrypicking in general to miss contradictory or qualifying information from a different source than a source that had information already being used, because we don't expect editors to be familiar with all of the possible sources that could be cited on a topic. Therefore, to have gotten information from one source without acknowledging that it was contradicted or qualified in another source is not a valid criticism of an editor's work in Wikipedia as cherrypicking. However, an article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject. This does not require using every source that exists, just that the sourcing cited be reasonably representative of the range of sources that exist. This applies regardless of who edited it in the past. While an individual editor is not required to know all of the significant sources on a subject, it is helpful if you do, or if you know at least some of them. Therefore, if you are familiar with a different and unused source that should be used, feel free to edit an article consistently with the different source, if the source is otherwise eligible to be used in Wikipedia."Wikipedia:Cherrypicking#Multiple_sources
  • "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." WP:PROPORTION
  • "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • " we can only report what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion" WP:RGW
  • "Some editors may find that independent input through a third opinion or request for comment is always biased against their sources, wording or point of view. The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute (despite no other editors agreeing). If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." WP:NORFC
  • "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. " WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH
  • "In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact—e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton."" WP:EVALFRINGE
  • "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them" Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality
  • " It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority." Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view Andrevan@ 03:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    I have never proposed to create a false balance or the like - I used examples where a false balance can be made by using the way you want to approach UNDUE, but I would agree that we should not create a false balance.
    The slice of sources used in the article should possess the same relative proportion of viewpoints in all reliable sources that exist for a topic. And I won't get into RSOPINION's role here, but even sticking with only mainstream sources, if there are three positions, A, B, and C that have, roughly 45%, 30%, and 25% of the viewpoints out there, then our coverage of A, B, and C should still match that 45/30/25 breakdown. In the case of calling MTG a conspiracy theorist, I've shown that maybe at most 8% of sources have the viewpoint she is, and the other 92% are absent any statement (not even denying) - that 92% of sources do not opt to opinion on MTG's connection to conspiracy theories is a viewpoint too. So that means our article should reflect that 8% proportion that claim it, which is nowhere near enough for us to be using the term factually, but enough to include and document with attribution. But what you said about It's a majority viewpoint amongst the RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED which is not following because you've claimed to be limiting yourself to those sources that you feel are appropriate to include and not considering what exists beyond that. That is the definition of cherry picking. You simply cannot ignore the bulk of sources that exist beyond what are cited and just cite only those that you feel support your position because you haven't then made any attempt to reflect the proportion that is actually out there.
    And everything you quote supports my position here, particularly when you hit NPOV. The only piece of P&G that may come into play could be the essay WP:SPADE (which I have seen quoted) but you still have to proof that that is a majority position before we can consider it a spade. Masem (t) 04:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No, everything I just posted shows why you are in the wrong here. It describes exactly what I said, that you are not responsible for knowing all of the sources in total, or calculating the exact proportion: it clearly says "rough proportion" and it goes into keeping the balance proportional to the mainstream view, exactly as I said. You are trying to right great wrongs and you fundamentally believe the media is biased, that they "didn't like" Dobbs. "You, as a Wikipedia editor, are free not to edit an article if you believe the field of study has a bias that you are unable to counterbalance. Someone else can do the editing. In most major fields, most people believe in the internal consistency of their agreed-upon premises and main body of knowledge. An outside critic may find an inconsistency or conclude it's all nonsense, and a source outside the field and criticizing it may be citable in the article about the general field for a point of criticism, but otherwise probably does not belong in Wikipedia. For example, a grace-of-a-deity view does not belong in most descriptions of mathematical method or theory. But, as an editor, you may subscribe to any view you wish and you may decide what to edit and not to edit, as you wish, as long as articles retain NPOV." Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Give it up. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority." It is NOT a viewpoint that some sources fail to mention conspiracy theories. That is NOT contesting the viewpoint that she is a conspiracy theorist. You do NOT need to research all possible sources, you just need to know roughly if the majority of mainstream sources agree with the view, WHICH THEY DO IN THIS CASE. The policy clearly shows you only need to know the views' prominence or prevalence in sources that we have DEEMED RELIABLE FOR INCLUSION. I am not saying you just pick ones that support your POV. You have to choose a REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SECTION OF THE VIEWS THAT EXIST. By your logic if it's 1995 and there are 100 sources about OJ Simpson, and 20 call him a murderer and describe his crime in depth, and 80 talk about his NFL career, we have to treat him being a murderer as a fringe minority viewpoint. That is crazy. 92% of sources don't think MTG isn't a conspiracy theorist. Almost every source about her that is reliable and that we plan to use, talks about her status as the Qanon representative. Andrevan@ 04:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how reliable sources present it, saying anyone is a conspiracy theorist is controversial. It may be uncontested (I know there's a sliver of sources that specifically do not consider MTG a conspiracy theorist but that is clearly the fringe view) but it remains controversial implicitly by the term itself so it better not be presented as fact unless you have clearly shown that it is reported in a majority of sources. And I don't expect one to go through all 100k-some sources on MTG, but to do a reasonable, unbiased sampling of 100-200 articles that consensus agrees capture the cross section of viewpoints on the topic, even those that are not planned to be used as sources. And while there's a few problems with the OJ example (he has since been acquitted so we can't call him a murdered), at the time that he had been convicted as one, that is non-controversial , uncontested statement of the objective determination from the court of law, so of course we'd have called him a murderer (prior to acquittal) but that's not a viewpoint that needs to be balanced nor his former career as a football player. This applies to viewpoints, which means entirely subjective assessments (like being called a conspiracy theorist). Masem (t) 12:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is where again, you are out of sync with the consensus of editors and policy. "Regardless of how reliable sources present it" is a dangerous way to begin a sentence. "Conspiracy theorist" and "murderer" are both descriptions, not subjective opinions. Yes they have some negative connotations but they are not opinions. "Conspiracy theorist" refers to someone who pushes or creates novel conspiracy theories, such as Alex Jones, and MTG. You seem to be letting your own opinion color the facts here. MTG's uncontested, unbiased description in sources is that she is someone whose primary political rhetorical technique is creating fringe, unverified theories such as that a shooting was a false flag attack etc. The viewpoint that MTG is a conspiracy theorist does not need to be balanced with another viewpoint because no real RS or serious commentators are saying that MTG is not a conspiracy theorist, because it's so obvious from the source record of factual events that she is and does. If you agree with my OJ example, that he should be labelled as a murderer because it's a majority view that is uncontested despite not appearing in the majority of sources mathematically, which was specified to be in 1995 and not today, then you agree MTG should be labelled a conspiracy theorist. You seem to be reacting more to your emotional response to the negative connotation of the term, and your idea that the media are biased, but that is not in-line with policy or precedent on this. You also seem to be misinterpreting the idea of balancing viewpoints in sources. Nowhere in policy does it say that for "controversial" viewpoints they can only be included if in a mathematical majority of sources. The policy is about whether the majority of RS hold a view - if that view is not contested in RS, it is essentially unanimous. If we agree that MTG's conspiracy theorism is generally uncontested in RS and only fringe sources attempt to contest this fact, we are done here, please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Andrevan@ 12:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As opposed to "murderer" where there is an objective determination (someone convicted in a court of law of murder), there is no objective determination of what is a "conspiracy theorist". There is no body that makes that determination, nor a specific quantitative measure. How many "theorist" dies one need to peddle to become z conspiracy theorist? Who decides when a topic is a conspiracy theory? "Conspiracy theorist" is entirely a subjective term and of course contentious. It is certain not a term that we can introduce in wikivoice if no sources use it based on our opinions that someone that supports wacky ideas must be one. Masem (t) 13:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The reason why "murderer" can be used is NOT because of a court or some body making a determination (note: as pointed out, WP:BLPCRIME does have an innocent-until-proven-guilty rule, but it does not change the point I'm making Andrevan@ 15:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)). You are completely off the map on how Wikipedia works. It's literally because of the RS and V. WE ONLY WRITE WHAT RS SAY. We decidedly are not writing it because of a court. Same thing for "conspiracy theorist." The majority of RS either use the term, use a similar description with the same meaning, or do not mention it. Only very few partisan fringe sources rebut this in any way, possibly none that are RS. YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THE SOURCES WHATEVER THEY LEAD TO YOU WRITE. This is Wikipedia 101. I am shocked that a user who has been here so long could write such statements so conflicting with standard policy and practice. It does not matter if you or I have some idea of how to define conspiracy theorist or any quantiative measure or what topics are conspiracy theories. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT RS CONSISTENTLY REFER TO MTG AND HER THEORIES AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, and there is a CONSENSUS of editors that this is DUE based on the COPIOUS UNREBUTTED UNCONTESTED RS! It is not CONTROVERSIAL from an RS basis, it is only controverisal because you are fighting it due to your POV pushing and anti-policy anti-consensus idea to correct bias. And I can't believe that after going back and forth for hours, you are reverting to a demonstrably false statement such as "if no sources use it based on our opinions that someone that supports wacky ideas must be one." I have provided a huge amount of sources in this thread alone and there are even more on the article talk page itself. My opinion is not relevant, just the viewpoints reflected in RS. You have offered nothing to rebut this or any sources that say otherwise, in fact you admitted that any sources that rebut this will probably be partisan fringe and unreliable. Please, please, please, abandon this futile crusade. Andrevan@ 13:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
if RS happened to call someone a murderer but there was no conviction, we absolutely would not call them a murderer in wikivoice or even with attribution. We do not blindly follow the sources (the whole point of YESPOV).
And at the end if the day I am clearly not saying that we need to scrub "conspiracy theorist" from MTG's article, but simply that it should be stated as attributed claims because it is not a term used by the majority of sources. It follows from both NPOV and BLP policy by staying within a middle ground without losing that significant viewpoint from sources. May 10 years down the road the sourcing will better support saying it as fact, but right now. Jumping on that term in wikivoice is inappropriately blindly accepting subjective assessments by the media which goes against NPOV policy. Masem (t) 13:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You are just WRONG! WP:NOTLEAD WP:RGW giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth "If there's an almost universally accepted viewpoint and a tiny minority one, the minority opinion may be ignored in favor of the viewpoint held by the majority, and the majority viewpoint will be described as fact. " WP:!TRUTHFINDERS "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." MTG being a conspiracy theorist appears in a majority of sources, NOT INCLUDING SOURCES THAT DO NOT MENTION IT EITHER WAY BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING NO POSITION ON IT, and is an uncontested assertion in RS. If RS called OJ a murderer and there was no conviction, we would call him a murderer too, because we FOLLOW THE SOURCES and not do WP:OR! You don't get to figure out what you think the interpretation of the court is, you FOLLOW THE SOURCES WHATEVER THEY SAY! "Murderer" is also "controversial implict by the term" but there is no policy that terms with negative connotation should require a higher standard for inclusion, UNLIKE say an attack term like "idiot" which is a subjective value judgment, "conspiracy theorist" is just a term that you happen not to like because you don't like the tone, that is however not a reason to give it a higher standard than any other RS statement. Conspiracy theorist is a descriptor that comes with a series of facts and we are NOT at liberty to interpret them differently than how the consensus RS interpret them. GET OFF THE SOAPBOX! Wikipedia needs to be unbiased and that means REPORTING WHAT THE SOURCES AGREE ON OR DO NOT AGREE ON. All the sources generally agree MTG is a conspiracy theorist, and you have NOT REBUTTED THIS! Andrevan@ 13:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
WP: BLPCRIME disagrees with you with respect to murder. Calling someone a murderer is alleging someone is a criminal, and we do not do that in wikivoice without a conviction. And even then we don't discuss it if the person is a low profile individual. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That is a fair argument. I should choose an example that isn't a crime per that policy. The logic for MTG though still applies since we are not putting a crime descriptor. Andrevan@ 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is where again, you are out of sync with the consensus of editors and policy. "Regardless of how reliable sources present it" is a dangerous way to begin a sentence. "Conspiracy theorist" and "murderer" are both descriptions, not subjective opinions. Yes they have some negative connotations but they are not opinions. "Conspiracy theorist" refers to someone who pushes or creates novel conspiracy theories, such as Alex Jones, and MTG. You seem to be letting your own opinion color the facts here. MTG's uncontested, unbiased description in sources is that she is someone whose primary political rhetorical technique is creating fringe, unverified theories such as that a shooting was a false flag attack etc. The viewpoint that MTG is a conspiracy theorist does not need to be balanced with another viewpoint because no real RS or serious commentators are saying that MTG is not a conspiracy theorist, because it's so obvious from the source record of factual events that she is and does. If you agree with my OJ example, that he should be labelled as a murderer because it's a majority view that is uncontested despite not appearing in the majority of sources mathematically, which was specified to be in 1995 and not today, then you agree MTG should be labelled a conspiracy theorist. You seem to be reacting more to your emotional response to the negative connotation of the term, and your idea that the media are biased, but that is not in-line with policy or precedent on this. You also seem to be misinterpreting the idea of balancing viewpoints in sources. Nowhere in policy does it say that for "controversial" viewpoints they can only be included if in a mathematical majority of sources. The policy is about whether the majority of RS hold a view - if that view is not contested in RS, it is essentially unanimous. If we agree that MTG's conspiracy theorism is generally uncontested in RS and only fringe sources attempt to contest this fact, we are done here, please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Andrevan@ 12:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As opposed to "murderer" where there is an objective determination (someone convicted in a court of law of murder), there is no objective determination of what is a "conspiracy theorist". There is no body that makes that determination, nor a specific quantitative measure. How many "theorist" dies one need to peddle to become z conspiracy theorist? Who decides when a topic is a conspiracy theory? "Conspiracy theorist" is entirely a subjective term and of course contentious. It is certain not a term that we can introduce in wikivoice if no sources use it based on our opinions that someone that supports wacky ideas must be one. Masem (t) 13:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The reason why "murderer" can be used is NOT because of a court or some body making a determination. You are completely off the map on how Wikipedia works. It's literally because of the RS and V. WE ONLY WRITE WHAT RS SAY. We decidedly are not writing it because of a court. Same thing for "conspiracy theorist." The majority of RS either use the term, use a similar description with the same meaning, or do not mention it. Only very few partisan fringe sources rebut this in any way, possibly none that are RS. YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THE SOURCES WHATEVER THEY LEAD TO YOU WRITE. This is Wikipedia 101. I am shocked that a user who has been here so long could write such statements so conflicting with standard policy and practice. It does not matter if you or I have some idea of how to define conspiracy theorist or any quantiative measure or what topics are conspiracy theories. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT RS CONSISTENTLY REFER TO MTG AND HER THEORIES AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, and there is a CONSENSUS of editors that this is DUE based on the COPIOUS UNREBUTTED UNCONTESTED RS! It is not CONTROVERSIAL from an RS basis, it is only controverisal because you are fighting it due to your POV pushing and anti-policy anti-consensus idea to correct bias. Andrevan@ 13:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP supersedes everything when it comes to biographies of living persons. Using the analogy of OJ Simpson that was brought out, if 20% of sources call OJ a murderer and 80% talk about his football career we absolutely DO NOT label OJ Simpson as a murderer in the lead paragraph of the article where most other labels are present. But we may include that he was a football player and perhaps the position he played. We can say that a particular source says this or that about him and attribute it accordingly within the body of the article and even may mention that he was tried for those murders in the lead but we do not label OJ Simpson as "murderer" in Wikivoice. And we do not infer that even though a majority do not mention him as a murderer they believe that he is. Strictly what do the RS say exactly. We do not infer, connect dots or try to combine sources to say something they do not expressly state verbatim. And when I go to the article on OJ I see we did not label him as a murderer. "Orenthal James Simpson (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed "Juice", is an American former football running back, broadcaster, actor, and advertising spokesman." We followed BLP rules adequately. Following the sources and saying what they say is important. We do not withhold negative or positive information about a subject but our BLP policy does tell us to use extreme care and caution and take extra steps than we would with other subjects because we are writing about another living human being, regardless of whether we feel they are reprehensible or not. We are to use only the highest reliable sources possible and minority opinions among the sources shouldn't be included at all or should at the very least be attributed properly. Labels, like those mentioned in the first sentences of the lead paragraph must be what a majority of sources say they are commonly referred to as, whether that's a title at birth, a profession or career choice or actions they have done to cause them to be labeled something like "convicted rapist", "serial killer" or even "philanthropist". We don't label someone a philanthropist because they say they gave money away or even because they did offer money to charities and such. It is only when a majority of sources refer to them as a philanthropist that the label is able to be applied here on Wikipedia. We can still mention that they gave to charities and even attribute that where possible. --ARoseWolf 13:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding my hypothetical OJ example, which was set in 1995. If 20 sources described him as a murderer and 80 sources described his NFL career, and no sources rebutted the murderer description, we absolutely could describe him as a murderer in Wikivoice, because RS did so. We do not need to attribute statements which are uncontested in RS, these are majority views. The football sources aren't contesting the murderer description, they are not weighing in either way, so the murderer description could still be a majority view without a mathematical majority of sources. I was not commenting on the actual present state of the OJ article. As far as MTG, there's no BLP argument against the term "conspiracy theorist." That is just a simple description of what she is and does. Our opinion on how reprehensible or not is not relevant here. "Philanthropist" can be discussed too. Bill Gates is clearly called a philanthropist in Wikivoice. We don't need to qualify this. "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American business magnate, software developer, investor, author, and philanthropist.", DESPITE the fact that many sources don't mention that Bill Gates is a philanthropist but only discuss his computer work. Andrevan@ 13:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The murderer example is a violation of WP: BLPCRIME. To put it simply, without a conviction there are no reliable sources that a person is a criminal (and calling a person a murderer is calilng them a criminal). That's because the only authoritative source is the criminal justice system. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Per BLP we do have to qualify everything responsibly and cautiously. This includes labels and descriptors. They have to be qualified by high quality reliable sources. I'm not saying this has always been done but it's there in the policy. I am sure we can pull out many examples where this is the case but that's like someone saying that we should keep/delete an article because another similar article was kept/deleted. Wikipedia is about consensus building. The reality is if consensus says that "conspiracy theorist" belongs as a description in the MTG article then it will be in the article, period, meaning everything we are saying here is just our own opinions, which is okay but doesn't have any real bearing on that consensus gaining discussion. No matter what, the winner is the encyclopedia when consensus is gained. There is no winner or loser in these type opinionated discussions so getting frustrated or upset and resorting to discussing other editor's motives is pointless. --ARoseWolf 14:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree that we need to follow policy carefully and follow the consensus of editors. Currently you can review the RFC on Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene which is discussing the consensus. In this conversation I have repeatedly agreed with your point that if consensus is such that "conspiracy theorist" belongs, it will be there, period. That is the case and continues to be the case. Andrevan@ 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hm, that is a valid point, given the text of BLPCRIME, so my example is inaccurate/a bad analogy since I used "murderer" which is a crime. BLP doesn't trump NPOV, RS, and V though, we must use all of those policies, and we can't protect MTG from "conspiracy theorist" on BLPCRIME grounds. As pertaining to MTG, "conspiracy theorist" is not a crime and we are not presumed innocent of "conspiracy theorizing" until proven guilty. Let's look at the philanthropist example, if 20 sources describe Bill Gates as a philanthropist and 80 describe him as an entrepreneur, that doesn't mean the entrepreneur sources are rebutting a majority uncontested view that he is a philanthropist. Andrevan@ 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It is expected that if they are commonly referred to as something then a majority of sources will include it. That is only in the case of labels and does not apply to what information may be included in the BLP article. BLP doesn't trump NPOV, RS or V but clarifies how those are to be applied to BLP's specifically as opposed to non-BLP articles or statements. Because it clarifies and specifies it can seemingly contradict the broader more vague policies and guidelines but in reality it doesn't, it just more finely determines the parameters. An article may not be about a film producer being a producer but it is expected that if they are commonly known as a producer the majority of sources, whether related to film producing or not, will state this. That is the definition of common knowledge which is what the common the policy references. This is how I view BLP but, again, consensus trumps everything and I accept what consensus says even if I disagree. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I generally agree with the principles you're outlining, as well as the importance of consensus, but the part we have been going back and forth on in this discussion is the "majority of sources will include it." It is NOT a requirement per policy that a mathematical percentage >50% of sources must use the exact term "conspiracy theorist" for that to be a majority viewpoint. A considerable preponderance of sources do include this or refer to it. Those that don't take a position on the term "conspiracy theorist" are not contesting the majority viewpoint. I also want to point out, while I did have a logical error in not acknowledging the WP:BLPCRIME "innocent until proven guilty rule", Kyohyi is still incorrect "the only authoritative source is the criminal justice system." BLP is a policy to protect living people from certain types of things - quite reasonable - but the sources for this information are still the same RS/V sources, they can just be challenged on a BLP basis if that applies. And quoting Masem, "there is an objective determination (someone convicted in a court of law of murder), there is no objective determination of what is a "conspiracy theorist". There is no body that makes that determination, nor a specific quantitative measure. How many "theorist" dies one need to peddle to become z conspiracy theorist? Who decides when a topic is a conspiracy theory?" The answer who decides: RS/V (not a court, because it's not a crime), and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS WP:NOTLEAD WP:V applies. Andrevan@ 14:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the closure of the discussion here: [58] Andrevan@ 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive lawsuit

I trust the WikiMedia Foundation is throwing some kind of support toward the Internet Archive with respect to the recent lawsuit. I know I won't have to argue here the incalculable value to research and verification that its lending of copyrighted materials affords us. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Faulconer

Ted Gioia is complaining about the deletion (redirect) of this biography on Twitter. He says "I'm making a public statement of support for composer Bruce Faulconer—whose music is heard & loved all over the world. Trolls had his Wikipedia page deleted because he composes for animated film. Somehow @Wikipedia bought into this. Please like this post & show him your support!" I did a search and couldn't see an abundance of reliable sources written about his life which we require for biographies. There's a few sources like this but enough for a biography? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Faulconer will be relevant for anyone wanting to look into this further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
He's still complaining and just wrote an article about it, calling it a "Kafkaesque" nightmare and that our system is rigged against Bruce. He has one of the best music history libraries in the US, if he has the sources we would welcome it. I couldn't see anything substantial about his life online, can a few others look? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just emailed him privately and hope to settle him down on this. I spoke to him a while back on a jazz history article looking for some resources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Huntsville history

I would be happy to have help with Draft:Sherman Industrial Institute. Details on Central Alabama Academy would also be helpful to include. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

More generally I was stuck by learning about County training schools (Draft:County training schools). I just went to look the subject up but it is still in drafspace and not even mentioned in the training school entry. We have a long way to go on Wikipedia. So many inportant subjects, ao many pieces of the puzzle are excluded. Reading about places in the south like Camden, Alabama and Beatrice, Alabama it is as if African Americans do not exist. And while we have articles on the views of past presidents the subject of Biden’s views and his history in regards to African Americans continues to be censored. We must do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a topic like County training school (which is entirely different from the British training school so should not be conflated with that) likely fits better as a section within School segregation in the United States, and having a redirect to that section, rather than a separate article if you can't find much more information about it. --Masem (t) 03:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You’re right that the subject should be noted in the school segregation article and that it is different from British training a schools which is why a disambig is needed there. That entry currently does not reflect a worldwide view of the subject. It needs inclusion and expansion along with the rest of the history that has long been excluded here and elswhere. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also an issue of Redlinks. When these subjects are excluded they either can’t be linked or show up as redlinks in other entries. So in any article on a community with a teaining school such as Draft:Method, North Carolina, there must either be no link or a redlink which many Wikipedians hate. So it’s a compounding problem that these schools, communities, historical figures, buildings, and other subjects are excluded. It makes it that much harder to add a new one. So for Method we don’t have an entry on the community, its school, the people involved, and can’t even link to the type of school. And the response we get from User:Masem is typical. There’s always cause for exclusion. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As has been explained several times, we have our hands tied due to the lack of reliable sources that cover African American aspects from before ~1970 or so. That's not a problem WP can overcome, that's the systematic bias of the sources at hand. We'd love to include more but quality sourcing is a key factor for all information to be included in WP. Quantity is not preferred over quality here. --Masem (t) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

List of serial rapists

Mr Wales, I came across a page here last week called List of serial rapists. The first thing that I noticed about it was that lists the "serial rapists" by the number of victims (generally women, of course). It looks like a scoreboard. That didn't set well with me at all, so I went back a few days later and removed the column called "proven victims". I left a note on the talk page explaining what I had done and why, but my removal was reverted. As you can see on the talk page, the people that edit this page want to keep the "proven cases" column for various reasons including, to quote one editor "it would be far too complicated to rearrange the entire list to be in alphabetical order".

Let me briefly outline some of the many problems with this page:

  • If it is sorted by number of victims, it automatically looks like a scoreboard, whether that is the intention or not
  • "Proven cases" is not defined and it is easy to see that the numbers listed are anything but "proven"
  • "Rape" is a very loose word. Does rape mean sexual assault of any kind? Does it only mean penetrative sexual assault?
  • The definitions for sexual assault charges differ between countries and even between jurisdictions within countries
  • The list contains people who have been charged with sexual assault but not convicted

Right now, the list includes actor Danny Masterson. He is listed as having four "proven cases". Based on his Wikipedia page, Danny Masterson has been charged, but not convicted. I don't know how long he has been listed or who added him, but something seems terribly wrong here. I'm sure there are other cases like him on the list.

The page was up for deletion before, but it was kept. As a result of the discussion it was renamed from "List of serial rapists by number of victims". Yesterday on the talk page, one of the frequent editors suggested "renaming the article to 'List of serial rapists by number of victims' or something to that extent". I don't think that they see the problem with this and outside of a small group of likeminded editors, no one seems to be paying attention to this page.

Mr Wales, I don't expect you to do anything about this personally, but I find this page absolutely disgusting and I needed to say *something* even if it has no result. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While I think documenting the number of victims is hard to avoid (there are those that may have had 2 or 3, and then those with dozens, in the same manner as serial murders) it is definitely a problem to default sort that list by the victim count. Alphabetical or chronological is far better, even though a reader may end up sorting on victims. Masem (t) 19:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I might agree with that if the "proven cases" column were defined as the number of victims and that number was documented. Clearly, if there are people in this list who have not been convicted, then the "proven" in "proven cases" means absolutely nothing. It is an undefined field that each editor interprets on their own. How can you vote to keep something that has no definition? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, and if someone has been charged but not yet convicted then of course they should not be listed under such a directly defining title. I've never seen the page but, if this concern about people being listed without conviction is accurate, hopefully others more familiar with it can correct this literal biographical injustice. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely cannot include those (living or dead) not convicted of rape. And it would be ;est for those that have been victim to only include the number of cases they were charged with, not estimates of other unnamed victims. Masem (t) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I've deleted Masterton from the list which, yes, showed that he hasn't been convicted (his page states that his trial date is August 29, 2022). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Only 2 thoughts. First, obviously no one should be listed on such a page unless there is a conviction unless there are very strongly compelling reasons. Second the default sort should absolutely not be on number of victims as a matter of human dignity for those victims. Chronological seems most useful to me since alphabetical ordering isn't really that useful when pele can just "find in page" when looking for a particular name.
I am tempted to say don't even make the numbers column sortable but I can imagine some legitimate research uses such as finding cases of a similar magnitude etc. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_248&oldid=1141875704"