Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (events): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Survey: comment
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 111: Line 111:
*'''Yes''' Eggishorn is right, this sentence reflects widespread consensus and practice, and prevents unnecessary arguments. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 07:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Eggishorn is right, this sentence reflects widespread consensus and practice, and prevents unnecessary arguments. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 07:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per Eggishorn, this often-abused loophole should be eliminated. Sensational coverage typically encompasses people, media, fringe claims, etc. A clarifying sentence should also be added to [[WP:RS]]. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per Eggishorn, this often-abused loophole should be eliminated. Sensational coverage typically encompasses people, media, fringe claims, etc. A clarifying sentence should also be added to [[WP:RS]]. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''yes''' as the material in question seems to me to merit inclusion somewhere, and we are probably better off in the short run possibly having it in a sub-optimal location than not having it at all. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


===Discussion===
===Discussion===

Revision as of 19:42, 31 January 2018


RfC of interest

There is an RfC at WT:NOT relating to a potential policy change that would have wide impact, including on this guideline [1] Coretheapple (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding WP:NCRIME

Closed per WP:SNOW. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

@E.M.Gregory: I think I need more information on what is driving this. For example, would skinheads or bigots attacking an interracial couple deserve an article? -Location (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "only if an attack can be sourced to meet the usual standards at WP:EVENT or WP:GNG, of course", why make the change? Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering that, too. I think most arguments for keep or delete in these types of articles are centered around some aspect of the amount of coverage the crime has received rather than the motivation for the crime. FWIW: I think there is a similar issue in WP:PERP that attempts to define notability of a criminal by the subjective standard of what is unusual. -Location (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Location the motive behind this proposal without a doubt drives at making all terror attacks inherently notable. Whether Gregory considered other examples, such as the one you provided, or not is questionable, and, regardless, the current version of this proposal is far too broad to be accepted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Location suggests, there are local felonies that happen all the time that are likely tied to ideological aspects (racism would fall under that), but don't get wide coverage. Further, we should wait to make sure that ideological aspects are confirmed as the motivating driver for the felony, which takes time, and thus falls under normal NEVENTS expectations. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Far too little consideration was put into this proposal and it is much too broad for practical use. Furthermore, basing notability on a suspect's ideology is dangerous and Wikipedia should avoid this type of POV pushing in order to preserve what little neutrality is left in this topic area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not understand the context of this proposal or what problem it could solve. So far as I know, existing policies are meeting every need which anyone has voiced on these matters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Where there is an ideological motivation, this may lead to additional, broader coverage, which may indirectly lead to notability, but the proposal appears to want to 'bypass' normal criteria since any 'ideologically motivated' crime would be presumed AfD-proof if this passed. Is someone waving a knife in public, which could well be 'terrorist' (or might not) automatically notable? This is an ill thought-out proposal. Why don't we think of a whole list of possible crimes that are "very likely to be notable", (more than X dead? more than XX stolen, involving children or animals?). Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are number of issues with this proposal, making this proposal unworkable and unimplementable in any serious or consistent way.
  1. What is serious? That is a subjective standard, and will vary from person to person.
  2. What is a felony? That is a very US-centric term. It is not a term used in modern English law for example.
  3. What is a crime? That will change from person to person, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Different countries will criminalise different things, where is the meaning for this term taken from, North Korea, Iceland, Japan, Burkina Faso, the UN?
  4. What is meant by very likely to be notable? What is the criteria behind this, is there a time period to wait, is there a conviction count, is there media mass hysteria, is there a couple of conspiracy theories down the pub, and a few fringe people on the internet spouting about it? Where is the line drawn? This guideline should not be attempting to re-implement GNG or event already in place. This proposal would likely to fall foul of BLP due to the way it is worded. Likely is a very strong weasel word.
  5. What are ideological commitments? That is a vague term with little real meaning, designed to cover as much as possible to attempt to include as much as possible. This could lead to the inclusion of a chip pan fire, if perceived to be ideologically motivated.
  6. What is meant by prejudice against specific groups? This is again limitlessly broad, it could easily mean that chanting on football terraces is included. Two opposing sets of fans will have prejudice against each other based on the team they are supporting.
This is a retrograde step. So many questions are raised by this proposal, which make it unworkable, and is frankly trying to delete proof a set class of article/event/incident/happening. The bar for inclusion of articles of this nature should be getting higher. This proposal seeks removal altogether of the bar. This proposal turns Wikiepdia on its head for this class of article. Virtually nothing would be too small for inclusion for this class of articles. It makes opinion, conjecture, and hearsay acceptable. This proposal is far too broad. This would allow everything from chip pan fires, to nasty chanting on football terraces, to Saturday night drunken fights, to potentially have articles. This proposal, and anything even remotely similar to it, should never see the light of day. Sport and politics (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In peace time ideologically motivated crimes tend to be quite notable. However if they happen on a routine basis (e.g. snipers shooting on the Sarajevo market, or civilian deaths in Aleppo) they tend to be reduce to local news with scant international or national coverage (beyond covering the conflict at large, or particular human interest stories (a child who was captured in a photograph/video, compelling story, etc.). We should be guided by coverage. My view is that if an attack has been covered by enough sources for enough time, and particularly when the coverage is from good sources - it is notable. We could perhaps set more exact criteria for level of coverage required (with some discounting for newer events per RAPID).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and it looks like this is rapidly heading to WP:SNOW. The proposal is well intentioned and tends to be true. However it tends to be true because such crimes tend to get more news coverage. That makes the proposal redundant at best. If the crime doesn't get significant news coverage, there's no reason we should artificially elevate the notability. Alsee (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the state of Oklahoma stealing $500 is a felony, a theft of $500 should not have a wikipedia article, regardless of motivation, I think the existing notability criteria work much better. Also a felony in one state could be a misdemeanor in another. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC regarding WP:RAPID

Closed as no consensus for adding the proposed disclosure.- MrX 18:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:RAPID is perhaps the most antithetical policies on Wikipedia. According to RAPID it is best not to rush to create an article:

It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.

However, in the same breadth, it advices us not to rush to delete articles. Writers completely disregard the first section of the policy but regularly apply a rationale at AfD similar to this: "Per RAPID. Let us wait for more reports before deleting the article". When we allow this "logic" to flourish at AfD, we are encouraging editors to disregard the criteria outlined by WP:EVENTCRIT in favor of their good ol' ace in the hole: "Keep... well because RAPID".

Comments

  • If I was an editor at that time I surely would have voiced my support. I am open to other possibilities; RAPID's current form, as you already demonstrated three years ago, contradicts itself and undermines the rest of WP:EVENTCRIT. As an essay (or a redirect to one) it will have less weight at AfD and, in practice, would require participants to consider the rest of the criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for hijacking your Rfc. Your point that editors should put more effort into considering WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE is spot on. I think having those contradictory statements makes that section completely useless as a guideline because some people rush to create articles and other people rush to delete articles citing whichever essay justifies their actions. Although I'm not sure it is a good idea to open up a third Rfc, I could see an Rfc formatted something like this: "Regarding the subsections 'Don't rush to create articles' and 'Don't rush to delete artices', do you prefer to 1) Keep both subsections, 2) Keep 'Don't rush to create articles' and Delete 'Don't rush to delete articles', 3) Keep 'Don't rush to delete artices' and Delete 'Don't rush to create articles', or 4) Delete both subsections." -Location (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location no, no, it is quite alright -- I actually prefer your proposal. You said exactly what I was feeling but was too cautious to write. It is impractical to keep a guideline editors only half-follow and hold in higher regard than the rest of the criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RAPID is referenced frequently at AfD, and almost exclusively in reference to the "don't rush to delete" part despite its [debatable] self-contradiction. IMO, the need for the "don't rush to delete" as well as deletion [of current events articles] itself is made somewhat obsolete by the draftspace, giving a page time to show lasting significance with lower stakes. I.e. I think most articles about current events should start in draftspace and/or be moved there. An issue with this proposal is that it tackles the conflict here, to some extent, but not the bigger tension over, on one hand, basic policies and guidelines that want secondary sources and lasting significance (for Wikipedia to be a lagging indicator of significance and to report the best possible information/sources), and on the other hand the simple fact that things that people do turn to Wikipedia for information about current events and we often do a pretty good job of dealing with them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what we write here, people *will* create an article 18 seconds after the event, and people *will* be reluctant to delete it.
    Alternate Proposal: Draftify. And how about adding that duplicate creations can be merged with the existing draft and CSD G6 speedied as redundant? Alsee (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the WP:BREAKING news guideline as it now stands is functional. It properly discourages both rapid creation and rapid deletion of articles. But it recognizes the functionality of creating articles on major events as they happen. When an event like the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville or the 2017 Westminster attack happens, a labor supply of editors shows up to build an article and monitor it for NPOV. Reliable sources are easy to locate and, importantly, we supply something that out readers want and expect. WP:BREAKING properly and usefully cautions editors to be wary of RAPID creation of articles on breaking news stories that may not prove to be notable, and to be wary of RAPID rushing of articles on current events to deletion. Certainly, a great deal of editorial time has been squandered arguing about articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings, when waiting would have clarified notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:BREAKING really discourage both rapid creation and rapid deletion of articles? As far as I can tell, articles are rapidly created by people who ignore it and then those articles are rapidly nominated for Afd by other people who ignore it. It's a guideline that favors people who ignore guidelines. -Location (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RAPID is fine as is. Trout whomever creates insignificant articles (Wikipedia does however actively encourage creating highly notable articles in real-time - e.g. Grenfell Tower fire which was on the main page immediately). If, however, there is an article that seems of no lasting significance (despite copious current coverage) - the best thing to do is WAIT - it is much easier to evaluate at AFD that there is no lasting coverage when we are in the future and looking back at 3-6 months of coverage as opposed to speculating on how coverage may or may not develop. There is absolutely no harm in letting the article sit there, and mop it up at a later date.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was hoping to see more observations, not the usual regulars who typically apply one side of RAPID to keep news articles. Of course you would oppose; it allows you to ignore the rest of WP:EVENTCRIT!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted ජපස edit

I reverted ජපස edit because clearly the intention of this guideline is primarily for events, as its title tell us, and because ජපස, jps (talk), edited this guideline to apparently fit his/her/their argument in an article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Buell), something which I think is problematic. Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 19:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is problematic? The WP:WIKILAWYERing you were doing is problematic, but this guideline has been used like this for years and years. (Look at the back links if you don't believe me.) As policy/guidelines are descriptive rather than proscriptive, it's a good idea to let people know that this is how it used so they don't make the same mistake you did. jps (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcomed to post your suggestion for the guideline change you proposed in this talk page and request comment if necessary. Thinker78 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-answer. The suggestion is already seen and proposed in the history. As you are the only editor with a stated objection, make ths objection clear here. jps (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The removed text is actually completely fine to include, as often editors may be inclined to make events related to BLP (for example, in the recent months, a number of articles on sexual misconduct allegations to noted individuals. Those should be treated as events for notability, with the careful application of BLP for appropriateness.) --Masem (t) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:What about its application to determine notability of a person as in the case mentioned earlier of Buell? Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Directly applying NEVENTS to Buell's article is probably not right, but I stress that BLP facets that are described in this edit also still apply to the notability of individuals. So it's still perfectly sound advice. --Masem (t) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda WP:COMMON sense, is it not? If events cannot be notable due to sensationalism, then neither should anything else. The point is not that anyone is evaluating whether someone is notable per "events notability". The point is that WP:SENSATIONALISM redirects here, and there is no reason to constantly reinvent the wheel. jps (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point to a certain extent, but I don't agree with you that was the case with Buell's sources, at least not all sources. I say 'certain extent' because if magazines cover the story of Oprah eating at a restaurant, that may be sensationalist, and that event—Oprah eating at a restaurant—should probably not be included in Wikipedia, but the article can be used to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, because the magazine will not feature an article of John Doe eating at a restaurant, so such article could help prove that Oprah is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If you want to make a point, you need to compare borderline notability cases. Sensationalism happens for a variety of reasons, to be sure, but your example makes no sense because no one would use such a magazine article to argue that Oprah is notable. jps (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Context matters though. Thinker78 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really ought not to because if the only source you had was that magazine article (or even a series of dozens of magazine articles) that only provided a story about a meal at a restaurant because of some lurid detail, you would not win that argument. So if this is your actual objection (and I'm having a hard time assuming good faith that you're being honest about your own hypothetical), then I contend you have a view of notability which is extremely warped with respect to what the standard practice here is. I think you should show me an actual example that indicates the community consensus is towards your understanding. My example is to look at the backlinks to SENSATION which have a lot of references to indications other than events. jps (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is simply that you disagree with me, which is fine. As you can see in the discussion in Buell's AfD, other editors agreed with me. Seems to be that opinion is divided about notability. Thinker78 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a third opinion here that says there is no problem with my text. Until you provide an example of someone disagreeing with this text, I think we should reinstate. jps (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with User:Thinker78. The patch added by User:ජපස is, at a minimum, in the wrong place. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about a new sentence in WP:SENSATION

Should this edit be reinstated? jps (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Discussion

Please refer to the backlinks to WP:SENSATION to see how the guideline is actually referred to in discussions. My opinion is that the new editors are sticking to slavishly to the perspective of wikilawyering and that this wording will help clarify. jps (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)&oldid=823356590"