 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 March 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Boldly closing per WP:SNOW. Wide consensus that WP:NPOV only applies to "encyclopaedic content", which The Signpost is not. (non-admin closure) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since WP:NACAFD isn't big on non-admin SNOW closes, and I was going to make the same close, I'm putting the metaphorical admin stamp of approval on Ed's close. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team
This page is flagrant breach of a core policy: WP:NPOV.
Its title is: We stand in solidarity with Ukraine
... WHAT?
Ever heard of WP:NPOV?
Given the demographics of en.wp editors, I think it is very likely that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors do indeed support Ukraine. But NPOV is a core policy, and our job as neutral editors is to report accurately what the reliable secondary sources say, not to cheerlead for one side. Taking sides in an armed conflict undermines our core mission, and this partisan piece should be deleted unless it is promptly retracted.
And before anyone tries accusing me of being a Putin-apologist or similar, let me absolutely clear that I personally regard all invasions as criminals acts, including the current invasion of Ukraine. But as a Wikipedia editor, I set my personal views aside and work to uphold NPOV. I demand the same of other editors.
My objection here is simply that Wikipedia is not the place to to take stands for or against what we regard as great wrongs.
I am horrified that those who create the Signpost have so flagrantly trampled over one of our core policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the Signpost team should stop abusing Wikipedia as their soapbox. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) But it's not an article, and
WP:NPOV pretty clearly says
All encyclopedic content
(emphasis mine).. are you going to MfD User:TheresNoTime/Pointy? ~ TNT ( talk • she/her) 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose: I firmly believe that a retraction, signed by all the editors, would be better than an immediate summary deletion. Perhaps let the writers respond, first, instead of consigning this to the delete pile without their knowledge or their input? —
Javert2113 (
Siarad.|
¤) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ Javert2113: You can see Smallbones' response in this MfD below. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm sorry, did I just get knocked over the head or something? The Signpost doesn't create encyclopedic content, and it's not bound by our rules for creating said content. It should follow some standard journalistic practices, like fact-checking and marking its opinions as such, but newspapers aren't enjoined from having editorial boards. Anyone is free to disagree with The Signpost's viewpoint, but demanding a retraction for expressing an opinion is just ridiculous. As long as we're talking five pillars, what about the part in
WP:5P1 that says
Wikipedia is... not a newspaper
? Which other policies are we going to start holding Signpost articles to? WP:GNG, maybe? Or WP:RS and WP:OR, even for all inside-baseball happenings? Do the crosswords need to adhere to the Manual of Style? This is clearly marked as the viewpoint of Signpost editors, and I dispute the idea that they are never allowed to express any opinion on any notable issue. Maybe I'm misreading this argument or something, but I see no good reason to force the editors to retract this piece. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 21:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose As I read NPOV, it seems to apply only to
"encyclopedic content"
. It does not apply to Signpost content. I can forgive Smallbones for jumping on the political bandwagon, however inappropriate this piece is. It used to be that if you didn't like something in a publication you would write a comment saying so, not demanding a retraction on threatening the publisher. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Keep. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express their view in an editorial. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I've put my opinion in the comment section there. All other Wikipedians (and IPs) can as well. All I rhink I need to say here is that this is an editorial, and we are not in article space, but project space. The rules are essentially those that govern talk page, Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - the "from the editors" segment is, realistically, a soapbox for what the editors of the Signpost want to say (usually speaking for the newspaper as a whole, but not necessarily). Whilst this is usually in relation to the Signpost itself/wiki-related matters, I see no reason to limit it as such and this nomination seems incredibly hostile. In addition, as per TheresNoTime, this is a project-space page - NPOV is in relation to articles. Finally, the project as a whole has taken
far more drastic actions in the past - surely the SOPA blackout was
tak[ing a] stand against what we regard as great wrongs
? Remagoxer (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Strong Keep/Oppose deletion frivolous non-controversy. The Signpost isn’t a wiki article, it’s a community project, and this isn’t a controversial or divisive issue (especially since Putin and his minions hate WP for promoting those pesky “facts”) Are we going to go around policing user pages that support Ukraine next?
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- This whole nomination seems
WP:POINTy and borders on a violation
WP:CIR die to gross policy misinterpretation from an established user who should know better. I see zero support/delete and at least 7 keep votes in its short lifespan so I wouldn’t oppose a
WP:SNOW close.
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh look at that speak of the icy devil. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- This whole nomination seems
WP:POINTy and borders on a violation
WP:CIR die to gross policy misinterpretation from an established user who should know better. I see zero support/delete and at least 7 keep votes in its short lifespan so I wouldn’t oppose a
WP:SNOW close.
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 March 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Boldly closing per WP:SNOW. Wide consensus that WP:NPOV only applies to "encyclopaedic content", which The Signpost is not. (non-admin closure) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since WP:NACAFD isn't big on non-admin SNOW closes, and I was going to make the same close, I'm putting the metaphorical admin stamp of approval on Ed's close. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team
This page is flagrant breach of a core policy: WP:NPOV.
Its title is: We stand in solidarity with Ukraine
... WHAT?
Ever heard of WP:NPOV?
Given the demographics of en.wp editors, I think it is very likely that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors do indeed support Ukraine. But NPOV is a core policy, and our job as neutral editors is to report accurately what the reliable secondary sources say, not to cheerlead for one side. Taking sides in an armed conflict undermines our core mission, and this partisan piece should be deleted unless it is promptly retracted.
And before anyone tries accusing me of being a Putin-apologist or similar, let me absolutely clear that I personally regard all invasions as criminals acts, including the current invasion of Ukraine. But as a Wikipedia editor, I set my personal views aside and work to uphold NPOV. I demand the same of other editors.
My objection here is simply that Wikipedia is not the place to to take stands for or against what we regard as great wrongs.
I am horrified that those who create the Signpost have so flagrantly trampled over one of our core policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the Signpost team should stop abusing Wikipedia as their soapbox. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) But it's not an article, and
WP:NPOV pretty clearly says
All encyclopedic content
(emphasis mine).. are you going to MfD User:TheresNoTime/Pointy? ~ TNT ( talk • she/her) 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose: I firmly believe that a retraction, signed by all the editors, would be better than an immediate summary deletion. Perhaps let the writers respond, first, instead of consigning this to the delete pile without their knowledge or their input? —
Javert2113 (
Siarad.|
¤) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ Javert2113: You can see Smallbones' response in this MfD below. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm sorry, did I just get knocked over the head or something? The Signpost doesn't create encyclopedic content, and it's not bound by our rules for creating said content. It should follow some standard journalistic practices, like fact-checking and marking its opinions as such, but newspapers aren't enjoined from having editorial boards. Anyone is free to disagree with The Signpost's viewpoint, but demanding a retraction for expressing an opinion is just ridiculous. As long as we're talking five pillars, what about the part in
WP:5P1 that says
Wikipedia is... not a newspaper
? Which other policies are we going to start holding Signpost articles to? WP:GNG, maybe? Or WP:RS and WP:OR, even for all inside-baseball happenings? Do the crosswords need to adhere to the Manual of Style? This is clearly marked as the viewpoint of Signpost editors, and I dispute the idea that they are never allowed to express any opinion on any notable issue. Maybe I'm misreading this argument or something, but I see no good reason to force the editors to retract this piece. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 21:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose As I read NPOV, it seems to apply only to
"encyclopedic content"
. It does not apply to Signpost content. I can forgive Smallbones for jumping on the political bandwagon, however inappropriate this piece is. It used to be that if you didn't like something in a publication you would write a comment saying so, not demanding a retraction on threatening the publisher. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Keep. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express their view in an editorial. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I've put my opinion in the comment section there. All other Wikipedians (and IPs) can as well. All I rhink I need to say here is that this is an editorial, and we are not in article space, but project space. The rules are essentially those that govern talk page, Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - the "from the editors" segment is, realistically, a soapbox for what the editors of the Signpost want to say (usually speaking for the newspaper as a whole, but not necessarily). Whilst this is usually in relation to the Signpost itself/wiki-related matters, I see no reason to limit it as such and this nomination seems incredibly hostile. In addition, as per TheresNoTime, this is a project-space page - NPOV is in relation to articles. Finally, the project as a whole has taken
far more drastic actions in the past - surely the SOPA blackout was
tak[ing a] stand against what we regard as great wrongs
? Remagoxer (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC) - Strong Keep/Oppose deletion frivolous non-controversy. The Signpost isn’t a wiki article, it’s a community project, and this isn’t a controversial or divisive issue (especially since Putin and his minions hate WP for promoting those pesky “facts”) Are we going to go around policing user pages that support Ukraine next?
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- This whole nomination seems
WP:POINTy and borders on a violation
WP:CIR die to gross policy misinterpretation from an established user who should know better. I see zero support/delete and at least 7 keep votes in its short lifespan so I wouldn’t oppose a
WP:SNOW close.
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh look at that speak of the icy devil. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- This whole nomination seems
WP:POINTy and borders on a violation
WP:CIR die to gross policy misinterpretation from an established user who should know better. I see zero support/delete and at least 7 keep votes in its short lifespan so I wouldn’t oppose a
WP:SNOW close.
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.