I'm faced with a possible edit war over an essay that I wrote about a year ago, Wikipedia: These are not original research. The dispute is over a couple of sentences concerning fixing obvious typos & misspellings in a quoted source. Another user wants to change this passage becuse he believes them to be "intellectually dishonest", & for some reason believes this essay is the equivalent of policy, while I believe his edits violate the point of this essay -- which was written as some thoughts about how to interpret policy.

AFAIK, this is the only place on Wikipedia where this issue is raised. Whether or not my belief is "intellectually dishonest", I believe replacing this statement with another sppresses one opinion on this matter; there is nothing keeping the other editor from writing his own essay on this matter.

If we consider the intent of WP:OWN, it could argued that I have no right to object to this change without creating a consensus to support my view that the original version of this passage is better. However, & probably more significantly, an edit war over how to deal with typos & misspellings in quotations does seem to qualify for WP:LAME, so I'd rather not push the matter to a 3RR incident (he has made two reversions to my one).

So what to do? Allow anyone to make changes to essays, even if it could be argued that this changes the meaning of the essay? Permit the original author to have special rights when it comes to edits to an essay? Is there a recommended course of actin to take in these situations? Or, since I came across this proposal, simply admit no one except me is interested in this essay, let alone my suggestion about quotation practices, & move this page to my own userspace where I can flip the bit so that non-Admins cannot edit it? -- llywrch 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's in general project space then anyone is fully within their rights to edit it, even if that causes a change in meaning. If you want it to be "your" essay you can try putting it in your user space, but even then WP:USER makes it clear that your user space still belongs to the community. Raymond Arritt 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it is in the Wikipedia name space then it's fair game. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Except to point out while if it were in your userspace, while technically it belongs to the community I don't feel people would be justified in editing it except if they felt what you wrote was somehow exceptionally harmful or misleading. In terms of moving the essay bear in mind that since you've put it in the wikipedia name space if other editors object they're fully entitled to revert IMHO. You'll have to create a new copy in your userspace linking back to the wikipedia name space for GFDL reasons (or alternatively simply put a copy of you version without anyone else's contributions) if you can't convince other editors to let you move it. Nil Einne 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, it's bad to have a direct link to a template inside a template (except for the maintenance "v d e" links at the top), since templates themselves are "behind-the-scenes" pages, right? -- NE2 03:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem actually, as far as I know. {{ birth date and age}} (or similar) is often used in infobox templates, for example. Adrian M. H. 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about stuff like Template:Streets in Toronto, where the links under "Other roads in Ontario" all link to templates. -- NE2 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I specifically know that the special template {{!}} is used in a ton of templates because of technical limitations. Turlo Lomon 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean; a usability concern rather than technical or procedural. I don't think that kind of link is a good idea at all, from the reader's point of view. They don't want to be taken to a template page; they will expect another article. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this specific case, it appears to be a problem with the template setup. The template should be corrected. Turlo Lomon 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The templates are now nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 16#Templates that link to templates. -- NE2 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not always a bad thing. However, I agree that these particular templates are pointless at best. Taking borderline cases to TFD for further discussion is a useful approach. >Radiant< 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I actually believe that templates inside templates are good, since it is much faster to navigate then via long list of provincial highways.-- JForget 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template transcluded in temlate: OK. Direct links to templates in article space (cross-space links):Bad. -- Qyd 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We are having a discussion on the talk page for the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article about the definition of a third-party source. The Aggie Band is a student organization at Texas A&M University, meaning it receives funding from Texas A&M. A particular fact was sourced from three different places: 1) a book published by the Texas A&M University Press, which receives some, but not all, of its funding from Texas A&M, 2) an article in the Texas A&M school newspaper, The Battalion, which has been named one of Princeton Review's top 20 college newspapers, but which receives some funding from Texas A&M, and 3) a video produced by the Texas A&M Association of Former Students, an alumni association which operates independently from Texas A&M and receives no funding from the university (although it provides funding to the university, including to the Aggie Band). Do any of these sources qualify as third-party sources, or are all of them considered to be self-published for the purposes of the article on the Aggie Band? Any guidance would be very much appreciated. Karanacs 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Intersting dilema. I would first ask whether the Band has any direct influence over the other three, and say not really. Then I would ask whether there are conflicts of interest caused by mutual benefits shared between the institutions and the Band; yes, but to the point of being non-ojective? No. If the Battalion has editorial oversight which is intellectually independent of the Music Department I'd see independence. However, I would probably be happier seeing some fully independent sources helping to demonstrate notability. -- Kevin Murray 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The a&m system has oversight over the band and the school paper -- meaning they are not third parties. Regarding the book, remember it is the author and not the publisher that matters. Finally, the citations called out say something completely different than what is in the article. But, these discussions are best had on the article's talk page... ThreeE 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The State of Texas has oversight over the University System, so sources from there can't possibly be true (another myth?)? I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but I am trying to make a point here. Association does not make a source unreliable. It certainly doesn't make everything they say "mythology".

As for The Battalion, it exercises independent control of the Department of Military Science (this band doesn't fall under the music department, though other bands DO fall under the music department). — BQZip01 —  ^talk 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that whether or not a source connected to University counts as "third-party" depends on what you are using the source for. If you are trying to demonstrate the notability of the band, it would be best to use sources not connected to the University. (Something easily done for this band.) If, on the other hand, you are trying to source information and meet the requirements of the verification policy, the university press and the school newspaper would count as "reliable" sources. They would cerainly count as reliable sources for topics not related to the University, so I don't see a problem with them being used for topics relating to the University. I would handle the Alum-association video with care, as it, by its nature would tend towards boosterism. Dsmdgold 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"I would handle the Alum-association video with care, as it, by its nature would tend towards boosterism." Fair enough. This video only supports the other two references. Is this acceptable in your opinion? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say just drop the video as a reference. Both of the citations it is used are supported by two other references. So it's not necessary, and if there's disagreement about it, it serves as little more than a point of contention. Vassyana 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me, but the discussion has shifted (please see talk page) — BQZip01 —  ^talk 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Hailey, Idaho includes this link to a Microsoft page with an aerial pictures of the community. Below the picture is stated "Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey." Is it permissible to upload this picture with a {{PD-USGov}} or similar tag? Nyttend 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Watching it load on my machine, it clearly loaded 6 smaller images and stitched them together. The six original images are separated by the boxed lines at [1]. The six separate images could probably be found, but better to source them directly from the USGS. Once they are found, then a wikipedian could stitch them together himself. GRBerry 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for an editor to run simultaneous Afd and Speedy on the same article? DuncanHill 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Can call for Speedy delete in an AfD, but should never use a CsD flag on an article already flagged with the AfD template. MrZaius ^talk 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened is that an editor prodded an article and then added an AfD as well. DuncanHill 12:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's on AfD it's ineligible for PROD. It can still be speedied unless the AfD disagrees. Nifboy 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is nominated for AFD, that automatically defeats the PROD. A CsD speedy deletion tag can be added to an article on AFD; however certain CsD criteria won't apply any more if the AfD has any keep opinions. GRBerry 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I have not done a policy item before, so here goes. Currently our deletion policy makes it far to easy to nominate an article for deletion [2] when all it actually needs is some love. All articles should first go through an "attempted retention" process. Here is my idea but I don't know how to start a new piece of policy.

All articles that do not qualify for speedy delete would need to go through the following process before they are allowed to go for a AfD.

Fix it - Can you fix it? Does it needs sources? Have you tagged it as such?

Yes? Then Fix it!

No? Merge - Can this article be merged with its parent topic? Can a group of articles be merged into one?

Yes? Commence the merge process!

No? - TransWiki Can we move this to another wiki with a compatable licence?

Yes? Move it then!

No? Delete - Commence the Deletion process.

Comments? Suggestions? Help? Fosnez 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. There are instances where an article is so bad, and the realistic chances that it's going to get the necessary amount of love is so low, that deleting it is the best option. Sometimes the harm done by a perennially bad article is greater than the harm of not having an article at all. But I'd mostly apply this to old articles, not to newly creates ones maybe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. ( Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal) Vassyana 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great thought! And while we're at it, let's get rid of all policies and guidelines but Neutral Point of View, Attributability, and Don't Be a Dick (and the copyright-based ones, I suppose). After all, every other rule we have is just a natural application of those three, or else a process meant to enforce them. (For instance, WP:N = WP:A, as applied to subjects that there is little or no attributable information on.) -- tjstrf talk 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not helpful or productive. Vassyana 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. Both ideas are great in a hypothetical perfect universe. -- tjstrf talk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Trifecta you have there. If we toss out everything else, I guess we could even drop the Ignore All Rules ... though possibly we should keep it, just to be sure we don't run into new cruft O:-) -- Kim Bruning 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally there are no extraneous rules to ignore, so you don't need IAR. Attribution doesn't really follow from neutrality though, so we can't cut it down to two. (Unless maybe NPOV follows from ATT? I'll have to think about that one.) -- tjstrf talk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to think today about wikipedias system that everyone can change everything. It works well if everyone have good intention to improve articles. But there is always users that want to destroy articles. This is often reverted by other alert users, but not always. And this takes extra time that may be better used.

Here is my suggestion or solution on this. Introduce a ranking on users and articles. An user got rights to edit an article only if certain preconditions occurs. The preconditions depends on a combination of the ranking for the user and article. A bad written article or a stub have more to win than loose to let anyone edit it. But a well written article has more to loose. Therefor only a higher ranked user should be able to edit this article. How the limits for this is adjusted is another technical thing. The user ratings may look like this:

1. Anonymous user. Can edit stubs (ranking 0).
2. Registred user. Can edit everything as user 0 can and edit articles with ranking 1.
3. When the user have created/edited 2 articles that is not reverted by another user with rating 3 or higher.
4. The user can revert edits done by lower ranked users. And of course edit higher ranked articles.

All users can set ranking of articles but a high ranked users have more weight. The articles ranking is similar.

1. A stub with little information.
2. Longer article but bad written or important parts is missing.
3. Good article, but some details are missing.
4. An excellent article.

-- D98rolb 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Wikipedia has no hierarchy! At Wikipedia everyone has the same authority (yes, even reformed vandals) This proposal is against the reason wikipedia exists; to allow anyone to edit. See Wikipedia:Five pillars-- Phoenix 15 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

True. It's a cool feature, but also part of the problem. I don't support this proposal, but I'd like to see some steps whereby editors would need to earn the right to do some things; especially, I'd like to see non-logged-in users be disallowed from adding external links; we spend a lot of time reverting hit-and-run spammers. But I don't expect that's likely to happen. Dicklyon 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a perennial proposal? The fact is that an open editing system will get an article up to about 70% quality (completely made up statistic), at which point a kind of stable equilibrium emerges between vandals/cruft-adders and dedicated primary editors of the article. Without stable versions or a trusted editor system article quality will only go so far. The problem with this system is that after a while the dedicated editors simply get too tired of continuously having to revert and just give up on articles where they know they have an uphill battle. I myself have left vandalised articles for weeks on end because frankly I'm sick of having to constantly revert in order to protect my good edits. Zun aid © ® 08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a move proposal being currently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. It is proposed to rename Wikipedia:Trivia sections#Proposed move to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous lists. Comments welcome. Mango juice ^talk 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a little correction, the proposed move is from Wikipedia:Trivia sections to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous lists. The proposal and discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections#Proposed move. Thanks.

Equazcion ( Talk • Contribs)

16:06, September 12, 2007

Why? -- Kevin Murray 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean why the move, read the proposal via the link above. Best not to fragment the discussion.

Equazcion • argue/ contribs • 20:17, 09/13/2007

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Non-language character usernames to explicitly prohibit usernames that consist of characters or symbols that are not in an alphabet or language character set. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A situation that's come up in two RFAs in as many months ( Crockspot and Number_57) - a user canvasses for responses to the RfA, unbalancing it and rendering it non-neutral.

In such debates the issue is not policy related points, but "what the community thinks". A large amount of smoke or heat raised via meatpuppetry or canvassing, or other disruption, can and does materially derail the fairness of such a discussion and change its result, possibly in a manner which wouldn't have happened if the respondents were more neutrally representative, and there isn't an easy recourse. Without getting into any specific case, canvassers are difficult to deal with under existing policy. They have disrupted an important activity, possibly seriously distorted the filling of important roles at admin or other level, but are unlikely to do so again on this page, and may not ever do so on other similar pages. Warnings are unlikely to mean a thing, and blocks are presently hard to justify since blocks are not punitive and there may be no future action to protect against. And yet to do nothing, says that such activity has a free hand by others.

To cover this exceptional loophole, I'd like to see discussion of the following approach as an exception:

Disruption of appointment and removal debates Wikipedia uses open debate to discuss suitability of experienced editors for various roles. These include for example, requests for adminship and de-admining, various elections and committees, and requests for permissions. In view of their importance, and the importance of debate neutrality, a user causing wilful disruption to these processes, including undue canvassing, is warned they are likely to be blocked for this even on a first occasion.

I think this loophole needs closing, and it's not easy to see how else to do it, or what other means might deter it. In best wiki style, open discussion seems the best way. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Candidates who unduly meatpuppet and canvass for their own nominations is one thing. People who are upset wit a particular editor's actions deserve to be heard. Admins should be uncontroversial and truly neutral. Anything designed to shut out people who have a legitimate beef with a person's actions is itself a threat to process. Wikidemo 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So if someone I and someone else have had negative dealings with has submitted an RfA, I can't contact the other editor so that we can both bring our evidence of inappropriate behavior to the attention of the community at large? And denying me that ability benefits the community? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I would like that idea. If I have a problem with someone who's running for RfA, sure I'll oppose them and say why, but I don't go round up everyone who dislikes them, any more than I would go grab everyone who likes them to support. If you know they also wronged another editor, just present evidence of that too, if the wrongdoing is serious, those who come to the RfA in the natural course of things will still be more likely to oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I (the hypothetically wronged editor) would do a better job of presenting my evidence than a peripherally-related third-party, which is the attitude I also take when it comes to presenting evidence for another editor. While yes, I don't think people should round up everyone under the sun to ensure an RfA fails, I can easily see such contact as being perfectly valid (as long as it isn't taken to an extreme), and think that punishing such communication with a block is all-around a Bad Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are degrees here, though. I don't believe that contacting one editor is in the same league as this on a current RfA, for example. ELIMINATORJR 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just sort of an outside (wikimedian) opinion here: English Wikipedia is rather notorious for having "compulsive voters" who hang out on XfDs, XfAs, and so on, so it might actually be contsructive to get opinions (either positive or negative) from people who are normally not a part of those processes. I don't know if it's still there, but I know at one time people even had pages listing their "criteria" for who they'll support, and since those folks tend to vote on every RfA, their criteria end up more or less defining the standards for what sort of person an administrator should be. -- SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Normal reasonable conduct isn't really seen as a concern by anyone. But actual disruption, such as undue canvassing, probably would be. It's actual disruption that's targetted, not "everyday RFX activity", especially when it makes a fair RFX very difficult to hold. In practice most admins can probably draw a reasonably consensus based line between the two, as witness everyday editorial conduct. Processes such as RFA can't be protected by the usual means of "discounting meat/sock views", and there is no clear way to address their perpetrators at present even if their conduct was wilful, or based on a "grudge", and a serious debate was derailed by it. So these kinds of discussions are fairly defenseless against canvassing campaigns by specific small interest groups to influence their results.

Its this kind of disruption that I'm thinking perhaps might need a line drawn making it clear it's not okay. As Seraphimblade says, if there is a problem, people at RFA will comment on it. Canvassing distorts the neutral sounding of representative views making it difficult to tell what the community as a whole feels. At present no visible barrier or deterrent exists.

That's a loophole we've seen exploited twice this last month. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this proposal is the most insane I have ever seen. Blocking otherwise good users for canvassing for a first offence, when they may not be familiar with RfX or understand the rules? Personally, I have long maintained that the existing guidelines on canvassing are too strict; the people best qualified to judge a candidate are those who've worked with the candidate in the past, and users shouldn't be prohibited from notifying others about an upcoming or current RfA. However, even if we keep the current guidelines, blocking for a first offence is completely and utterly ridiculous - do we really want to drive away even more contributors through over-application of petty rules? Walton ^One 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point; I'm not sure I agree with your analysis though.

The aim of RFX, as with any appointment or removal debate, is twofold. First, to solicit the view of the community as a whole - how do they see an editor. Second, to bring up any issues and evidence (positive or negative) relevant to that role. That is essentially the heart of the debate and its central purpose.

The problem with canvassing is, that it skews the sample of respondents to a non-neutral position. That is, it over represents editors who come from the view being canvassed. Although their view is valid, canvassing distorts the weight and balance of the final debate. That, and not "should others with experience be allowed to speak", is the problem.

If an editor has a dubious history, then when it is mentioned and evidenced by a contributor, if the community (and not one small interest group) believes it is important, they usually show absolutely no hesitation in asking, probing, and opposing if they feel it fit. That then is the neutral view of the community, as best we can obtain it. But if the debate is skewed by a number of contributors who arrive specificzally because they were told about it, and they were told specifically because it is believed they will oppose it, then exactly how neutral and representative of the community's view can that sample and debate be? The problem is that the debate is not intended to represent just contributors' views alone. It's intended to give a snapshot of how the community might see some editor. That's damaged if significant canvassing of a specific view occurs. Wilfully damaging of the neutrality of such a debate seems a bit important. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FT2, my point was actually that the "cadre of self-appointed screeners" (even demonstrably wise and well-intentioned self-appointed screeners) already skews the sample. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are an entirely different thing than someone dropping notes on wikiprojects or usertalk pages to get the attention of parties that know the user (again, either positively or negatively). If sockpuppeteering is a major concern, running Checkuser on candidates can at least ferret out the less sophisticated puppeteers.-- SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Side questions: 1/ Should one give free reign to wilful process disruption, meatpuppetry or canvassing at RFX and the like, and ignore it because the contributor is assumed to be an "otherwise good" editor? And 2/ should one describe the neutrality and communal representative-ness of a debate related to a significant role as "petty" and "ridiculous"? There's a couple of generalizations there that I'm far from sure about.) FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Ask the guy with the straw sticking out of his shirt :).
2. It's not so much whether neutrality is good, but whether the status quo is anything like neutrality.-- SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its understood that most editors have a consistent interest in some given article, page, or process. What's not okay is that because some editors have a specific interest in an article (or xFD, or RfX), therefore canvassing for one's own view there becomes harmless and acceptable. It would seem the community has rejected that logic, in general. We (communally) reject that logic on mainspace pages: if there is blatant canvassing of extra editors to stack one "view" higher it's not necessarily considered a genuine "consensus". We disregard it and consider it highly improper in deletion debates ( WP:AFD: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic").

The notion that because certain editors may be consistently involved in some article, page or process, therefore canvassing of this kind is appropriate to "overcome" that, is not how the community sees it in general, as best I can tell. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that's a bit circular. The "consensus" you are referring to is a consensus among those who avidly participate in these discussions. That might reflect the consensus of the community at large, but it might not.

With the XfA's in particular, you're also assuming that people would actually use their tools in a content and/or personal dispute. That would be a rather more serious problem, but I'd imagine it would be quickly dealt with. -- SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of the !canvassed editors, I think it should be noted that at least in my case, the !canvassing editor only contacted one other individual, and that I had already been referenced by the nominated editor in his remarks such that I should have been notified by someone. The existing guidelines at WP:CANVASS are quite well-written in their distinction between a few friendly notices and disruptive campaigning; had the notification been better phrased ("You've been mentioned here..."), I don't think anyone would confuse it for the latter. Tewfik ^Talk 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, Tewfik. If an "anti-canvassing policy" were to go into effect, self-appointed enforcers of that policy would zealously take up the cause. -- SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Contacting you wasn't the problem, Tewfik - it was the suggestion that you - and the other editor - should then go on and contact others. Looking at the RfA now, another editor from WP:ISRAEL has turned up and opposed (I'm not saying you contacted them, but you get the idea). ELIMINATORJR 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of blocking someone for a single (possibly inoccuous) act without even warning them? If they persist in canvassing after being informed of the relevant guideline, then sure, block for disruption. But I fail to see what is to be gained by blocking an editor who may have made an entirely good faith edit. Further, I don't know that it's even well established in consensus what constitutes "bad" canvassing. Some might find a simple talk page message to a relevant Wikiproject to be canvassing. Others may not. The proposed no-warning, first-instance block for this is far too draconian and I think likely to be non-productive. - Chunky Rice 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is way too bloated. The same information can be found in too many different places, but often each place contains some information that cannot be found elsewhere forcing users to search countless pages to find what they want. This mostly applies to articles about editing wikipedia not the encyclopedic articles themselves. Often there is a page in the wikipedia namespace, a page in the help namespace, a page in the category namespace, and a page in the template namespace that all relate to the same thing and should be brought together. I do not know if anyone else knows what I am talking about, but if you do and agree, please support my cause. The organization of these pages must be fixed. -- bse3 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples of this data fragmentation? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate reality that there isn't any overall coordination of content (who's in charge here, anyway?). There are plenty of examples in the editor's index of topics where where summary style hasn't been used the way it should be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know who is in charge here, right? You are. And I am. And she is, her, right over there. But she and I, the two of us are busy improving the encyclopedia in our own ways, probably equally mysterious or just boring to you. So it's up to you. Yes, you. Find something redundant? Fix it. Wikipedia:Be bold. That link is a very important description of how things are done around here. Good luck. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonEMouse ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask because Radiant and I have been having a -- we're too collegial to edit war so let's call it a discussion -- on the Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion page about whether it is okay for a single editor to summarily close polls on sight on guideline and policy pages. - Wikidemo 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are begging the question. Nobody is claiming that polls are banned. Your recent edits appear to be claiming that, once started for whatever reason, polls may not be closed prematurely for any reason. >Radiant< 11:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Background on edit wars over polls

I see a number of essays and guideline pages of varying credibility that talk about polls being bad, but nowhere do I see an outright prohibition.

Personally, I agree that polls are disfavored, are not conclusive as to consensus, and have limited application, there are some valid occasions to conduct them. Sometimes a properly conducted survey (with adequate room for comments, alternate proposals, and sidebar discussions) will help focus a discussion and break an impasse. Sometimes a poll wasn't the best idea to start with but it has evolved over time or has a lot of useful discussion. There are some cases where a poll isn't just within reason, it's the best way to approach things, like when a discussion gets to the level of considering exact wording of a policy everyone has already agreed to yet they seem to be fighting over that wording. Sometimes you want to ask everybody if they agree on the principle or not so you can tell if the debate is semantic or substantive.

Polling is not the same as deciding policy by vote. It is merely a question, one of many possible formats for discussion. Whether subtly, or through words, headings, asking specific questions, announcing facts, or laying out premises and ground rules, every editor not only says what he/she thinks but shapes the tone of the debate. Putting a question in the form of a survey is just one of many ways to do that.

For these reasons and others I don't think the material in a poll should be lightly discarded, and certainly not on an "open season on polls" approach where any editor can shut them down at any time. Closing down polls is an extreme step because it violates our normal prohibitions on editing existing talk sections, and on telling people what they can and cannot say on a talk page.

Closing polls is one of the more controversial and upsetting things I see on policy pages, which are unruly and uncivil enough as it is. When one person closes a poll someone else invariably opens it back up, and you get the sorry sight of edit warring on a talk page. I've often spent considerable time composing my thoughts to add to a discussion in survey format, in which five or ten serious editors have been participating for days, only to have one of our super-aggressive editors come from nowhere, shut the discussion down with a spurious reference to "policy is not decided by vote," and then attempt to unilaterally create policy by decree. Sometimes the very statement that policy is not a vote simply becomes a way of saying I am the boss of this page and I will not listen to you.- Wikidemo 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A question / proposal

With that in mind, I say we should decide whether polls are allowed or not on policy/guideline talk pages. If they are not allowed then any editor can and should shut them down as soon as they start. If they are allowed, then no editor should unilaterally shut them down while they are still active, at least not solely on the theory that polls are bad. I don't think the issue has been decided. If we can come to a decision that polls are forbidden then the various pages should reflect that, and we should probably put a master statement in WP:CONSENSUS. If we cannot demonstrate a consensus on the issue, none of these pages should by edit creep be allowed to say that we have. - Wikidemo 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they're sometimes useful, sometimes not, and after a bit of thought I don't think it's possible to easily codify the situations where they're useful. Thus I would suggest that they be allowed any time people wish to use them provided it is made clear that a poll, by itself, is not a demonstration of consensus (short of unanimity with wide participation). SamBC( talk) 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question

Nobody is claiming that polls are banned. Wikidemo's recent edits appear to be claiming that, once started for whatever reason, polls may not be closed prematurely for any reason. >Radiant< 11:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, prematurely implies no reason, in some senses - if there's a cause to close it, it's not premature. I think the gist is that they should be closed unilaterally for no reason other than "polls are bad". SamBC( talk) 11:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't. But neither shuold they be started unilaterally for no reason other than "polls are good". >Radiant< 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very often that they are - if people start forum-ish polls (like "What colour should I paint my house?" or such nonsense) then get rid of them per WP-is-not-a-forum, but when there's a discussion and people are trying to find consensus and exchange ideas, there's one worthwhile reason for starting a poll that can be assumed - a desire to sample opinion and stimulate discussion around a specific point.

Would you assert that, any and every time you've unilaterally closed polls (at least one poll I know of), you are completely certain that there was no reason to start one, and that the persons starting them didn't have a purpose in mind? Would you then, characterise your closing(s) as "don't do it like that, there's a better way"? SamBC( talk) 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just because the person who starts one has a reason and purpose in mind does not mean it's a good reason and purpose. People can and do start polls with "should we do A or B? please vote", entirely missing the point that people may want C instead. Your fallacy lies in the assumption that polls sample opinion, when they often pigeonhole it, and that they stimulate discussion, when they often stifle it. The bottom line is very simple: if people can unilaterally start polls, then other people can unilaterally end polls. >Radiant< 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I proposed this before but nobody commented on whether it should be a guideline. It's very sensible and is basically an extension of Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting. I don't see why it shouldn't be a guideline-- Phoenix 15 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply writing support or I don't like it etc will be enough-- Phoenix 15 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too worried by rule creep, but making another guideline about something that is already mentioned in an appropriate place could be described as that. A section shortcut for talk page formatting would be useful for reference, but I don't think that we need any more than that. Adrian M. H. 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people already do this anyway. After an irritating edit war in which someone kept removing my comments I decided to expand on what we already have-- Phoenix 15 10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

look, I'd really like more opinions on this-- Phoenix 15 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's got enough guidelines as it is. If this is already addressed somewhere, leave it at that. It's pretty much common sense anyway. Glass Cobra 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: orginally posted at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Problems with the embedded citations method; comments are welcomed there or here.

Background: WP:CITE says that there are three different, fully acceptable ways to cite a source: with a footnote (cite.php), using Harvard referencing (which uses templates), and with embedded citations (not the same as embedded links; this method requires both an embedded link and putting the full information about the source into a "References" section).

Immediate problem: The guideline doesn't say that the three methods can't be mixed on a single page, but IF they can be, nowhere is it discussed where to put the full citation information of the "embedded citations" method if a "References" section already exists that is being used by one of the other two methods.

Larger issue: How can the embedded citation method be considered co-equal to the others when it can't handle the citation of off-line sources??

Intersection of the two problems: What happens when someone wants to add a citation to an off-line source, and the article already has extensive citations using the embedded citations method? (The two choices seem to be: (a) mix methods, or (b) convert all the existing embedded citations to either footnotes or Harvard referencing.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Guideline pages (manual of style, citing sources) disclaim favoring one method or another, and discourage people from revising an article to change the mode of citations. Personally I like footnotes the best, using the templates. When people don't use templates they are often lazy and omit important information like the author's name or the title of the article. In-line citations don't preserve all the information and they're often sloppy. Harvard referencing is good but harder to use and most people don't do it right. If I'm adding a new reference to an article with in-line citations, a messed-up quasi-Harvard hodgepodge, or a "references" section at the bottom without proper in-line references, I will add a new "reference" section and do mine the right way. That doesn't upset the existing references, but I'll be darned if I'm going to be sloppy just because other editors have been. If there are a parallel reference sections you can call the second "Footnotes" or "Sources." The only thing it's really bad to mix and match is multiple citations to the same source. It would be awkward to have a single source appear multiple times in different reference sections/methods. So I gather all of the instances of that source and revise them to fit the page's best reference section.

One thing to note is that if you're looking at an article with inline, mixed, or poor citations, you're probably looking at an article that needs some help. If you can clean up the article overall, and in due course shape up the references and put them all in a better system, nobody ever objects to that even if the guideline tells you not to. I'm not sure we need a guideline for that, though. One can always just copy-edit on the down low. Wikidemo 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, but copy-edit on the what? A case of trans-Atlantic mistranslation, I guess! Adrian M. H. 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Down-low is a wonderful term; you should consider importing it. Also, you guys need to learn how to use the letter "z" properly. You know, utilize. Wikidemo 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Zed" is a wonderful letter, too good to waste on words like "utilise". Gwinva 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of categories already existing on Wikipedia so even if a new page may need a new category to be created but in absence of that it can be placed in closest matching broader category. Same goes for stub categorized pages, this will increase chances of finding the page and may lead to better categorization/maintenance else such pages are simply lost. Can this be ensured somehow. Vjdchauhan 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

You're basically saying that categorisation should be compulsory? SamBC( talk) 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

but newbies do not know about categories, and even for other people working in unfamiliar fields, putting on the wrong category or guessing at one is not really helpful. Equally important, the people who help WP by putting categories on articles also screen new articles for other problems. the absence of a category is a very clear marker that a page needs checking. DGG ( talk) 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with DGG, I was just trying to get clarification from Vjdchauhan as to what they were actually suggesting. SamBC( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to navigate categories? For example Category:WikiProject_Nintendo_articles has subcategories for articles based on importance and quality. Under each of these are further divisions. Is there a way to generate a list of all the articles included in all the subcategories of a certain category? In reference to my above example, how could I see all WikiProject Nintendo articles at once, without having to sort through lists of importance or quality? Another problem is that the links all go to the talk pages rather than the article. I know this is because the template that adds articles to this category is placed on the talk page to prevent clutter on the actual article. I also know that I could add a piece of code into the template that would add the articles to a separate subcategory that disregards importance or quality, but I want to know if there is a less tedious method of doing this. Seeing the articles in an easy to read list would be much easier. Is there a way to create "autogenerated lists" much the same way categories are created? I know this may be a lot to ask, but if it does not already exist (which I am quite sure it does not) it could be a good addition to the structure of wikipedia to provide easier browsing. This could either involve creating a new "list namespace" (now I am probably in way over my head) or revamping the format of category namespace (more likely possible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bse3 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to do that is using some of the toolserver tools. Try under the search feature, there's a link to a bunch of category tools. -- tjstrf talk 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The CategoryTree tag is enabled on Wikipedia and may also be of use. Vassyana 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana. I think that is exactly what I was looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bse3 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if a policy or guideline governing the use of templates on article talk pages already exists. If it does, it is either broken or is being disregarded all over wikipedia. My peeve is that several article talk pages are being laid waste with numerous templates, some of them from random wikiprojects. I cant think of any practical use these templates serve. Yes, I can think of some theoretical uses, but none 'practical'.

Some talk pages are being reduced to billboards to advertise wikiprojects, and worse, in some cases to push POV(even if only in the minds of those who add them). In some cases, these wikiproject templates serve no more than to simply mimic the categories listed on the article. Some of the templates are to wikiprojects manned by people who between them would hardly even have edited the article. Even templates like {{ featured}} serve no useful purpose in my opinion.

Can we decide to simply ban these wikiproject templates from talk pages? If that is not possible, can we atleast decide to compact them all in a collapsable box so that it doesnt get in the way and irritate people who dislike them and would want none of it? Or can all these templates be reduced to simple icons like the featured article icon at the top right of featured article pages? At the very least, can we get a bot to add {{ skiptotoc}} at the top of every talk page that has a template? Sarvagnya 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove them. They are a far more visual method of seeing what articles are under the scope of what project, and are much easier to access than scrolling down to the bottom of a page to peruse through (oftentimes) a jumble of categories. They also facilitate assessment; seeing and adding "stub" or "start" on a WikiProject template is again much easier than scrolling down to the bottom of the page, and the relevant cat is added anyway when the aforementioned template is changed. Furthermore, advertising is not a negative thing - WikiProjects would be happy with more participants, and that's a favorable result anyway. I also see no correlation between the presence of WikiProject templates and pov-pushing, unless you can provide a specific example. In any case, if the problem here is nothing besides your personal annoyance, and there's no actual problem arising from their use, then they should stay. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 07:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When I spoke of categories, I was referring to the categories on the article page... not the talk page. And the way I see it, talk pages are 'public' spaces. Just because 3 or 4 people got together and started a wikiproject shouldnt mean that they get to wave their placards in my face. For that we have the new banner ads. That probably would be a better place for advertising ('good' advertising you'd say). As for POV pushing with templates, the famous Indo-Pak fights on wiki are a case in point.

And its not just about personal annoyance. Real estate on talk pages should purely be for article related discussions. If there is any unavoidable meta-data that has to be displayed, it should be compacted and stowed away neatly and to the side so that people dont have to keep scrolling just to get to the discussion. I am just trying to get some opinions. I'd reckon there's a good number out there 'personally annoyed' with it and for good reason. Sarvagnya 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If those people were able to get a WikiProject approved in the first place over the designated scope of those articles, then they can parade their template as they please. As to your example, the pov-pushing would have been present regardless of the presence of the templates themselves; if there were no templates to war over, then something else would have become an issue. Besides, the real estate you are referring to is one extra second of scrolling down to the table of contents. If it was composing a significant chunk of a talk page, then it would be an issue, but that's not the case. Even at say Talk:Final Fantasy VII, it takes but a moment to move pass the templates. Again, I'm not faulting you on bringing your concerns, and I am certainly not disparaging you, but this seems, well, concerned over one second of scrolling time. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I confess I find the banners minorly annoying at times, but they are highly useful, which more than makes up for it. Additionally, WikiProjects are one of the best ways we've found to help deal with the issue of scaling the encyclopedia. If you don't personally find the projects or their banners useful, that's fine, but a large number of us do. -- tjstrf talk 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Larger issue is of templates as a whole.. not just the wikiproject templates. Even if you find them useful, would you atleast concede that they ought to be compacted and/or stowed away to the right side of the page.. so that they dont get in the way of me getting to the TOC. also how about a bot to add {skiptotoc}} to template infested pages? Sarvagnya 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the bot adding {{ skiptotoc}} to rather template-crowded pages, that seems fine. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are multiple WikiProject templates, {{ WikiProjectBanners}} is also a valid option for compacting them. Vassyana 10:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have a need for the several subarticles on notability ( Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines)? Looking over them, they seem to be little more than specific examples of the general notability principles, which would be more appropriate for essays than guidelines. At worst, it seems as though the addition of a few points, or clarifications, to the main guideline would completely cover this sprawling mess of rules. Why not just revise the main guideline, rather than having several separate guidelines? At least to me, this appears to be a very good example of instruction creep. Vassyana 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Notablity is a very tricky and contentious issue. I think it's useful to be able to find pretty specific guidelines for common situations, when such can be agreed on. Having all that info in the main notability page would, however, detract from the presentation of the main ideas. So I think it's OK, creep notwithstanding. Dicklyon 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Example Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures) Example Wikipedia:Inherent notability What I have seen recently are attempts to validate notability when sufficient reliable sources are not available to support inclusion per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Notability is a guideline, verifiability is a policy. I agree with Vassyana they appear to be instruction creep attempts. Jeepday ( talk) 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Having subject specific guidelines is useful for editors and deloads WP:N (per Dicklyon). However they should only exist to make the main guideline more specific to the subject at hand. The problem comes in when sub-guidelines try to circumvent WP:N by proposing inclusion criteria other than "significant coverage in sufficient 3rd party reliable sources". Zun aid © ® 08:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it lessen the load on WP:N significantly? As I stated, from my reading of the various subguidelines, they say incredibly little of substance (in a policy/guidelines/rules sense) beyond the essential formulation of notability. I really don't see how a sensible merging would result in more than a few statements being added to the notability guideline. Including notable awards and industry/field recognition would cover the vast majority of criteria contained in the subguidelines. We don't need ten(!) subguidelines to cover those two basic points. We don't even need ten essays to cover the material on how to go about practically judging notability. This really is the height of instruction creep. Seriously, nearly a dozen guidelines to explain one guideline (with more constantly proposed) is just over the top! Vassyana 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth running through the individual guidelines to see if we need them all, or whether some can be merged (eg religious figures into people), but I would not support a general move to delete or remove all...Notability does need to be explained, covered and defined in specific situations. An example would be fiction, where issues of in-universe and out-of-universe material apply, and the general notability guidelines are not quite comprehensive enough. It's not creep, but help for editors to understand what sort of articles are appropriate and encouraged on Wikipedia. Let's make it easier for editors to understand what is required in their field. Gwinva 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that all articles have to meet WP:V without regard to their notability. Some of the additional or sub Guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) provide for more detail to define clearer (more stringent?) notability requirements. Maybe if we defined some criteria that would define the minimal requirements for a fork on the notability guideline? Seems to me that the only possible reason for a fork is either clarify reliable sources or make more stringent requirements for a specific body then are already discussed in WP:N. Jeepday ( talk) 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you could define what the minimal criteria are for a notability guideline, some topics are just too complex to enable clear guidelines to be drawn up, even where there is a desperate need such as WP:Notability (software). I also agree with the proposal to have just one notability guideline because with the creation of certain categories, contributors can claim that a certain guideline does not apply to their topic. -- Gavin Collins 10:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that discussion on this issue is also taking place on Wikipedia talk:Notability#Policy rewrite proposed. — gorgan_almighty 12:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on WT:CSD#I8: wait one week to determine if waiting one week is still applicable or not now. All are welcome to participate in the discussion. — O ( 说 • 喝) 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A new criteria, "Relevance" was recently added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A single user has expressed a strong objection to the new criteria, which otherwise received strong support (also see here). Additional comments would be welcome to clarify consensus either for or against the addition.

Another additional criteria, "Credibility" has been proposed. After objections to the original proposal, a revision was made to the suggested criteria to address the concerns raised. Comments would be welcome to establish a consensus for or against the proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's stance on photos that are taken illustrate the packaging/labeling of a product? Some of them, like this one, are tagged with a free license, while others, like this one, are tagged as copyrighted and claimed under fair use. Do we have any hard-and-fast rules concerning cases like this? If not, I think we should--and re-tag all the photos as necessary. -- Crazy Legs KC 02:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In both cases you mention there are two copyrights at stake. The obvious one is the copyright to the photograph someone took of the product. That, presumably, is released to commons or is otherwise free. For pictures of 3-D products, whichever person or company took the picture has a copyright and you can't just borrow it. That would require a fair use claim, and Wikipedia would not permit the non-free use because you could always create a free image by finding the product in the store and taking a new photograph to donate to Commons. The second copyright is the product package itself. In both cases they are product are...not sure that there is an appropriate copyright tag so people mis-use the "logo" tag. Neither Jiff peanut butter nor Twix candy bars (the two examples) are ever going to donate these copyrights to public domain or commons, so you are usually going to have a non-free issue here. The Jiff image is deficient here. It needs a use rationale explaining why a picture of the Jiff bottle can should be used in the article about Jiff. That's simple and kind of obvious but it still needs one. The second is closer...it correctly (I assume) identifies that the photo itself is free because it has been released into the public domain but the photo incorporates a logo that is copyrighted. However, this image too is missing a use rationale. Hope that's clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I sort of get what you're saying, but let me try to rephrase my question, just to clarify: since these sort of photos incorporate copyrighted logos, should they (for the purposes of Wikipedia) be considered derivative works of the logos, and therefore non-free? I'd assume so, but would like clarification. Like you said, the Jif photo probably requires a fair use rationale, but if so, how can the photo itself be published under a free license? As it says on Commons, derivatives of copyrighted work can never become free work, unless permission is given from the copyright holder (and, like you said, they never will). I think we should have clearer rules about this, perhaps with a new fair use template. -- Crazy Legs KC 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

I am looking for details on Musical album covers. I took a few pictures (then cut and crop) of albums I own to add them (using the appropriate albums template), and added the indicated (c) notice about Album Cover (low-res fair use). But browsing around I saw several 'nominated for quick deletion' notes for album covers, without any more details than missing pictures. I want to be sure my pictures are OK and will be kept. Is my method OK? Should I add a note to release the image to public domain or is a simple note "Source: picture I took from album I own" enough? Thanks for the info. -- YegLi 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples? Album covers are appropriate to use in articles about the album, tricky and problematic (and only occasionally okay) elsewhere. Most album covers that get deleted are because they didn't include the right copyright tag, sourcing information, or "use rationale", not because the image is inappropriate. You can see some good examples of how they are used by browsing the articles about albums...but be sure to choose a good example with a "use rationale" and with a full statement of where the image came from. Most of the noncompliant images were not deleted and are still awaiting clean-up.

I suppose they where badly noted. Here are some examples: Motel_Capri, Break_syndical, Attache ta tuque!, La Grand-Messe. I have these albums so I could update with my own pictures, but I wish to be sure it will be OK. This afternoon I did It's Not Unusual (album) and The_Song_Remains_Insane. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YegLi ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The old ones are all deleted now. But I see the potential problem from the new ones. The album cover images look okay to use in the articles about the album, but it looks like you're missing a "use rationale" on the image page. This is a different thing than the non-free album cover, which you also need - it's still non-free even if you take the picture because the record company owns the copyright to the album art. Take a look at WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG for a discussion of use rationales, and/or browse the album articles until you see something that looks like "non-free media use rationale for xxxxx." You can use those as examples. Also be sure to describe the "source" information, how you got the image and what album/record company it's from. BTW, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a help page that's a little more focused for asking this kind of question. Wikidemo 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In the past two years I have seen groups of editors delete well referenced material from wikipedia.

These editors are not simply deleting one or two references, sometimes they are dozens. I saw one of these editors delete 8 cited paragraphs that he personally disagreed with, making the article a stub. These deleted references are not to web sites but scholarly books and magazine articles.

Is there any policy or any guidelines in place to stop this? Is any group policing this behavior? There are the toothless WP:Edit war guidelines, which only apply to one article and one person. Travb ( talk) 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Would WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS apply? Knowing some of these editors by their good reputations, I would suspect that what they are doing is removing sources they consider unreliable. We would need more specifics about the sources they are removing to know if they are acting properly or not. Blueboar 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require equal weight to all possible viewpoints; it requires due weight given said viewpoints representation in reliable sources (see WP:RS). Again, without knowing specifics as to WHICH sources are being contested, we have no means to judge them. The editors you name above, however, have longstanding and impecable reputations as good editors, and without any evidence to the contrary, I am likely to trust their judgement on the reliability of said sources. Remember, just because SOMEBODY wrote it down at some point does not make it reliable; while I would agree that articles on 9/11 should mention the most credible alternative hypotheses as to the events of 9/11, the article should not be set up so as to make it seem as though such hypotheses are more widely accepted than they really are. Mentioning crackpot theories may be valid if the existence of such theories is well documented; to claim that they aren't crackpot when most reliable sources consider them so however violates NPOV. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake to name editors. I removed them.

I don't really care much about 9/11 articles, I shouldn't have brought that up either, I removed this sentence.

I think I have already jinxed this question.

I am talking about the removal of references such as, for example, the New York Times and scholarly books. I just want to know is there a policy regarding deletions? (I don't think one exists) I am aware of WP:RS and WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. These sources being deleted meet all of these requirements. Travb ( talk) 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A diff or two might clarify the situation. It doesn't need to be an exhaustive list, just a couple of examples you feel are representative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at User:BernardL's user page. I thought that the sort of messages he has put up are not allowed on a user page - something along the lines of a user page shouldn't be used as a blog, platform, etc, just a place to tell people something about yourself.

What is the position of Wikipedia policy on this? John Smith's 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline regarding user pages is at WP:USER. If one wants to nit-pick, parts of this user page probably are in a gray area. Personally, I'd be inclined to leave it as is, but if you want to go to the trouble of analyzing the page in detail, and citing specific sentences and paragraphs which violate specific criteria in WP:USER, be my guest. Until you do, I suspect other editors won't be particularly interested in trying to force the user to change the page (or editing the page, and then engaging the editor in spirited discussions about the nuances and shadings of meanings in WP:USER). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious to be honest. Thanks for clarifying. John Smith's 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The borderline anti-semitic stuff is disturbing, but it's useful because it lets other editors know what his POV is. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see it as anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. I'm not sure such essays are a good idea on a talk page, but this isn't wrong enoguh to be concerned about. DGG ( talk) 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats the right way to handle a article which has been proposed for deletion? Walt Disney World resorts was proposed for deletion because it's a duplicate of other existing articles. Should it immediately be redirected to a more appropriate article or left as is so other editors have a chance to comment on the deletion proposal? It's been redirected and reverted several times.-- Rtphokie 03:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Afd should be left. If editors wish to redirect the article, then they can comment as such on the Afd itself. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a prod, not an AFD. -- NE2 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No longer an issue, it was converted to a merge proposal instead which is much better solution.-- Rtphokie 12:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposed addition to the Manual of Style. It pertains to the grammar rules concerning Dutch names; I believe that when omitting the first name of a person, there should be a rule that defines whether or not certain words that are otherwise in lowercase should be capitalized.

A small introduction: some Dutch names have words in them that are always kept in lowercase when writing out the full name. These are called tussenvoegsels. Some examples:

• Vincent van Gogh
• Theo de Raadt
• Willem de Kooning
• Rembrandt van Rijn
• Guido van Rossum
• Pieter van den Hoogenband

As you can see, the so-called "tussenvoegsels" are written in lowercase.

These tussenvoegsels carry certain special characteristics. For example, when omitting a person's first name, the first tussenvoegsel should be capitalized:

• During the Summer Olympics of 2000, Van den Hoogenband won four medals.
• This painting is an original Van Gogh.

This is a Dutch grammar rule that may seem a bit awkward at first to speakers of English. However, it is my belief that this is the correct way of writing Dutch names, and that we should create a rule that states this specifically. There is no existing English rule that overrides this characteristic. It should be noted that the Chicago Manual of Style recommends this as well (free registration is necessary to view the page).

Does anyone have questions or comments on this? I'd like to see what you think about this. In case there's a positive response, I'll be bold and make a new page on the Manual of Style that explains this rule in more detail.

There are some things to note, however:

• This does not only pertain to Dutch people. Theo de Raadt, for example, was originally a South African and is now a Canadian. It pertains to Dutch names, which can belong to people of any nationality.
• Some people choose to "transform" their tussenvoegsels into actual middle names when they emigrate to another country. An example is Dick Van Dyke; this is an evolved name. The true Dutch version would be "Dick van Dijk". The described rule does not pertain to these localized names. After all, the "Van" in his name is no longer a true tussenvoegsel.
• The German word "von" does not apply to this rule.
• Flemish names—that is, names of people from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium—also do not apply. (suggestion by Flyguy649)

Of course, if there are any questions about this, feel free to ask! —msikma ( user, talk) 13:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• That is a very well written and presented argument. I have absolutely no knowledge pertaining to this subject other casual life experiences. Base on Msikma's description and my experience I think it is great proposal. Jeepday ( talk) 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. Just be sure that the person is Dutch and not Flemish. In Belgium, the tussenvoegsels are always capitalized. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're right about that, good thing you mentioned it. :) —msikma ( user, talk) 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problems with a policy, but am unsure how an average editor may determine nationality of names. It might merit some sort of list or guideline. For instance, what nationality is "Von Stein"? Is "von" always German? Some time ago, a user changed that name to "von Stein" on some, but not all, of the pages related to the murder of Lieth Von Stein (for instance that of Chris Pritchard, his stepson), and I standardized spelling to the media usage. (I note the user there removed capitalization in all instances, even when the tussenvoegsel was stand-alone.) Are there different usages than Flemish & Dutch? If "von" is always German, is it capitalized when leading?-- Moonriddengirl 14:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're right in that there needs to be an easy way of checking whether a name is Dutch (Benelux) or not. I intend to clarify that in case there is a need for an actual guideline. It's not difficult; there should not be a need to check whether it is a Dutch name at all unless these so-called "tussenvoegsels" are present, which should make things a lot easier. And to be honest, I am not entirely sure what the deal is with German names. The Chicago MoS, which recommends said standard for Dutch names, does not suggest something similar for Germanic names, as seen here (again, free registration required to view the page). —msikma ( user, talk) 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or... check out The Sound of Music article, where the family of Captain von Trapp are referred to as "Die Trapp-Familie (The Trapp Family)". Wonderful resource, Wikipedia... LessHeard vanU 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, "van" is almost always of Benelux origin, which is why the Belgium exception is important, while "von" is Germanic. Also, FYI, my username is simply an ongoing pun and has no Netherland connections... LessHeard vanU 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. For reasons, see detailed discussions at:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Naming convention for Dutchmen
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive03#Sorting of surnames with independent prefixes

A related current instruction reads ( Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category):

People with multiple-word last names are usually sorted by the first capitalized element, though this is a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies. But for coding reasons the first letter of each word is capitalized in the actual sort text. The French and Spanish "de" or "du" and German "von" are usually not sorted on, except for some examples living in English-speaking countries, like Corne Du Plessis (D). But the Italian "De" or "Di" usually is sorted on. Dutch/Flemish/Belgian/South African names are especially unpredictable. Often, historical European figures with local names are treated differently from modern figures with the "same" name living in English-speaking countries - thus Anthony van Dyck and Steve Van Dyck are sorted on D and V respectively. Some examples: "Ludwig van Beethoven → Beethoven, Ludwig Van", Otto von Bismarck → " Bismarck, Otto Von", Giuseppe Di Stefano → " Di Stefano, Giuseppe", Jan van Eyck → " Eyck, Jan Van", Guy de Maupassant → " Maupassant, Guy De", Martin Van Buren → " Van Buren, Martin, and "Jean-Claude Van Damme " → Van Damme, Jean-Claude".

Messy, confusing and over-all unhelpful: it tries to derive a rule ("...usually sorted by the first capitalized element...") from something that is thoroughly unregulated in English (WHEN does one use capitals for secondary words in last names in English? - I've defied English speakers to point to consistent rules on this, which thus far nobody has been able to produce). My contention: it is better to have no rule than a rule that is so messy, unintelligible and doubtful that it reaches a point of not being helpful.

The thing is not helped by importing rules from other languages: these rules almost certainly do not apply in English. Certainly not when these rules are applied differently in different regions (Netherlands, Flanders,...) using the same language. English grammar does not know any rule (not for proper names nor otherwise) that makes a capitalisation depend on a preceding word (like e.g. a first name). Trying to introduce such rule (based on the concept "tussenvoegsel", unknown in English grammar) in the English language via the Manual of Style of the English Wikipedia, would be some sort of original research (or worse) wouldn't it?

Also, despite Mskima's contention there's no "easy way of checking whether a name is Dutch (Benelux) or not" - in order to make his new rule feasible one would even have to distinguish on a more detailed level between "Dutch names, which can belong to people of any nationality" (to which the new rule is supposed to apply) and "names of people from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium" (to which the new rule is supposed not to apply). There's no way (simple or otherwise) by which an average English speaker could distinguish between "a Dutch name of any nationality" and "the name of a person from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium".-- Francis Schonken 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the piece of text that you just quoted, it is certainly false to state that the capitalization and sorting conventions of Dutch names are unpredictable. It occurs to me that whoever would think that simply is not well-educated on the matter. If you look closely, you will find that there is a distinction between the so-called "tussenvoegsels" and actual middle names. It's for the same reason that Jan van Eyck becomes "Eyck, Jan Van", and Martin Van Buren becomes "Van Buren, Martin". Do you see the difference? Van Eyck's name contains a "tussenvoegsel", while Van Buren's does not. The "van" in the former is not capitalized, while the latter is. That's as easy as it gets: simply check whether the word is capitalized or not. If it is not, then it is a "tussenvoegsel". I don't see what's so unpredictable about this, but maybe I'm mistaken. So, I don't think it's a very "messy" rule; it's simply the way it should be.

As for the assumption that I am trying to push original research, I think that this is untrue. I have shown before that the Chicago Manual of Style recommends exactly what I have just described. There are many weighty literary works that utilize the rules that I have described. Looking up news results, for example, about Ruud van Nistelrooy (who was in the news lately for having rejoined the Dutch football squad after a dispute with the manager), shows that almost every single time his name is mentioned without his first name, the "van" is capitalized. Of course, there are a few that don't, but that can be attributed to the fact that this simply seems to be a relatively unknown rule.

When I discussed this issue on my talk page with NicM, he was skeptical about the rule as well, but as the discussion went on he noted that many properly copyedited publications use the rule I described. Take, for instance, this Forbes article about Theo de Raadt. I personally think that Forbes is a weighty specimen. Going back to the example of Ruud van Nistelrooy I used before, we find that the publications using the proper version are also authoritative. Take several BBC articles, for example: [3] [4] [5].

For this reason, I think that the primary issue you raise—that this seems to be a rule that has no place in the English language and is not backed by any authoritative source (thus making it original research)—is not true.

As for checking whether names should fall under the rule or not (depending on whether it's a Flemish name): that should mostly be as simple as looking up under which conventions a person was named. While I agree that this can't always be easy, one could possibly fall back on the scope of the article (does the article belong to Belgian matters?) or simply use the most popular version in other sources until someone figures out whether it should or should not fall under that rule. I don't expect many editors to want to do that, of course. You say that most (English-speaking) editors will not be able to distinguish between the two, but in reality, there are many rules that editors routinely ignore; most of the time, it doesn't matter too much because sooner or later, a copyeditor or Dutch-speaking editor will show up to fix the article.

So, I still think that this rule is of use to the English Wikipedia; if not only because the best publications that I could find consistently use the right version, which we currently have no rule for. —msikma ( user, talk) 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Re. "it is certainly false to state that the capitalization and sorting conventions of Dutch names are unpredictable": What do you mean? In Dutch? In English? When you say "Dutch" do you mean the language, or do you mean "from the Netherlands" (note that you are replying to a quote that reads "Dutch/Flemish/Belgian/South African names are especially unpredictable")? Anyway, the quote is from a guideline in English Wikipedia: I didn't write it, and I would not write it in a guideline because it is unhelpful (that's exactly the point I tried to make). Besides that, I gave legion examples that "Dutch/Flemish/Belgian/South African names are especially unpredictable" in English writings:
  1. Examples of inconsistencies in the 1984 Encyclopaedia Brittannica are given in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Naming convention for Dutchmen
  2. That the sorting order in indexes of printed books can be "unpredictable" is exemplified by, for example, the UK-published book ISBN 0701134097 which I used as an example in Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive03#Sorting of surnames with independent prefixes
  • Again, I must point out that it has no relevance whether we are using Dutch or English. A Dutch name is a Dutch name, no matter which language you place it in. Just because we are talking about Marco van Basten in English doesn't mean he doesn't have a Dutch name. And it is certainly true that the names are predictable, as I had previously said. Which inconsistencies would you be talking about? In my opinion, it's quite obvious that it is as it is published in the Green Booklet; how I described the (simplified) rule just now in my proposal.
  • I may also quote from that same page that the inconsistencies found in Brittannica were mostly not mistakes: "most of the people you mention have an uppercase "V", which means they are either Belgian, or "foreign" (i.e. not Dutch anymore). That Van Buren and Van de Graaff are listed under the "V" is appropriate." (written by User:Eugene van der Pijll on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Naming convention for Dutchmen)
  • I'm still confident that such cases, while prone to misunderstanding, can be resolved with some research in time. —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Van" in "Van Buren, Martin" is not an "actual middle name" as you call it. Middle names are not used for sorting names. Wikipedia is not suggesting that, nor steering in that direction. In Wikipedia names are generally sorted ON THE LAST NAME, so "Van" can only be the first word of "Van Buren, Martin" (as a collation sort key) if "Van" is part of the last name (that is: in English, irrespective of collation rules terminology used in other languages).
  • Martin Van Buren is not Dutch, nor does he have a Dutch name. His name originally used to be one, but his family moved to the United States at some point. That's when the word "van" lost its status as "tussenvoegsel". You are correct that "Van", in this case, is part of the last name (which is "Van Buren", not "Buren, van"). This name does not apply to the rule I outlined. —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Re. "As for the assumption that I am trying to push original research": I never assumed that. I only implied that original research (or worse) would be the result. I went from the assumption you had not foreseen that result thus far.
  • Ah, okay. I'm sorry I jumped to this conclusion. Yes, you're right that in some dire cases, original research could be used to prove that a person's name falls under this rule or not. But I don't think that this will, in practice, be a big problem, because if one is notable enough to be written about in Wikipedia, it would probably be easy to figure out exactly whether or not this rule should apply. It probably should not be called original research anyway. To me, it simply seems that figuring out whether someone has a Dutch name is part of encyclopedic research. We probably don't need to cite our findings in the text anywhere. —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the CMS link. Finally, the "consistent rules on this, which thus far nobody has been able to produce" have been produced! You're never wrong when you follow the Chicago Manual of Style. However the practical point is (for example): which of these names follows the French rules (quite complicated in CMS [6]), which ones the Dutch rules: "De/de Winter"; "De/de Duve"; "De/de Ghelderode"; "D'/d'Hondt"? - my consideration is a practical one: average English speakers don't know which is which. Even native Dutch speakers and native French speakers wouldn't know half of the time. All the complications you add to the rule you propose - the ones that make it necessary to distinguish between "Dutch names, which can belong to people of any nationality" (to which the new rule is supposed to apply) and "names of people from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium" (to which the new rule is supposed not to apply) - do not come from CMS, nor do they solve, nor even alleviate, the difficulties the CMS leaves us with their simplified "Dutch names" - "French names" distinction. Note that in Belgium the distinction between "Dutch names" and "French names" is not made when it comes to spelling (as said: many of the names would require an expert to determine whether they are in fact "Dutch" or "French"), and they're usually spelled the same in the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking part of Belgium (compare the official transcripts and translations of discussions in the federal parliament of Belgium: as far as I know names are spelled the same on both sides of the page, e.g. "Victor D'Hondt" on p. 2 of [7]). The CMS gives no clue how to handle this, when translating to English. Also "usually capitalized when only the last name is used" (my bolding) does not have much of a fixed rule, and the "collation" issue is altogether avoided in the CMS for Dutch names (while for some of the other languages such collation rule suggestions can be found in the CMS).
  • You're right: the CMS is not exactly conclusive when it comes to the details. But that's okay; we can fix this! :) If we take the name D'Hondt as an example (which, in any case, would not apply anyway due to being Flemish), we find that the "D'" part is not a proper tussenvoegsel, and thus should not apply to this rule. The Tussenvoegsel article describes more or less all that are currently in use. While it's true that making this distinction is often difficult, edge cases like this usually don't come up in non-Flemish names, when one considers that we can almost immediately conclude that people who moved out of a Dutch- or Afrikaans-speaking region don't apply to this rule anymore. If I'm correct, Flemish names treat words that are not the first name as part of the last name; so there would be no question as to whether "D'Hondt, Victor" would be correct. I think that a rule would be able to sufficiently capture this. In case of uncertainty, the rule does not have to be applied. I personally see this rule as a minor style fix to some articles, anyway; something that one does when the article is on the verge of reaching A-status. It would not matter much if it takes a while for it to be decided whether to apply the rule or not. —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe I was too extreme in suggesting that the "Dutch" capitalisation rule has no place in English. CMS seems to have taken some of it. Like you, I don't think it a good idea to apply that rule in English where native Dutch speakers would not apply the Dutch rule. CMS does not leave that much room. Nor is there any sign that average English speakers could practically apply that distinction. Anyway, the Dutch collation rule (omitting the "Van", "De", "Vander", etc. when sorting alphabetically) seems not to be supported by CMS for the English language (I'm sure they would have mentioned it when they thought that a good idea).
  • Yeah, that bothers me too. I made this rule specifically for pointing out that names like "Theo de Raadt" should become "De Raadt" when omitting the first name, though. Collation was not in my mind when I wrote this. I do think that the Dutch collation rule should apply in this case, but perhaps this is material for a later VP proposal. :) —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• For article names (provided that appropriate redirects are in place where necessary) you are right, the issue isn't urgent and can be solved any time. For collation in categories (which is rather the topic of the guideline discussions I referred to) I have a different opinion. When you're looking up a name on a category page it can be quite frustrating if you can't find the name on the place where an average English speaker would expect it to be (so: no "Dutch rule" for category sorting in English Wikipedia, there's also no support whatsoever from CMS here). -- Francis Schonken 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a troublesome issue. Also because it appears to be very natural for an English-speaking person to look up Van Basten under the V. I have yet to find any conclusive reference for this. We probably should leave it as it is until someone does. —msikma ( user, talk) 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen this issue after a dispute with another user. He, and other editors kept referring me to an earlier village pump discussion [8]. According to the user I was in dispute with, his interpretation of that discussion was 'We do not say "x murdered y" or "x was convicted of murdering y", we say "x was convicted of murder"' [9]. The precedent or 'consensus' supposedly established in this discussion was the justification certain editors used for reverting my edits. He suggested that I reopen the issue in this forum if I wished to change the 'consensus', so here I am.

I do not believe, as some editors do that there is a NPOV issue here. Surely the words killed, killing mean any form of non-natural death. When we use words like murder, executed, assassinated etc. anyone reading the article realises that the person was in question was killed, but we are using a term which is more specific, more accurate and more factual. Obviously, we need to have a source to prove that a person was convicted of murder or a person was sentenced to death. Killed is an accurate term to refer to someone who was death was caused by someone convicted of manslaughter, because that word presupposes their was no intent in the act of causing death. When someone was sentenced to death by a court of law , it is common sense to say, e.g. ' Hans Frank was executed', not 'Hans Frank was killed'. When someone was killed by a person who was convicted of their murder, then we should say, for example ' Holly Wells was murdered', not 'Holly Wells was killed'. I do not agree with the user that "we do not say "x murdered y" or "x was convicted of murdering y"-in my last example x is Ian Huntley an y is Holly Wells. We have to ignore the fact that some users are clearly uncomfortable with applying this common sense to articles where moral guilt is less obvious in some people's opinion than in a case like Huntley's-that has no relevance to 'NPOV'. The articles I were in dispute with were about the victims of a person convicted of murder, Thomas McMahon, who was a member of the IRA and thought his political convictions justified the murderous acts. That doesn't change the fact that just like in the Huntley case, McMahon was found guilty of murder, and therefore his victims were murdered, not merely 'killed'. Deus Ex 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. - Crockspot 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still adding POV to articles in that way, it's not neutral. "x was killed" - fact. "y was convicted of murder" - fact. "x murdered y" - opinion of a jury, or in some cases a single judge. I've yet to see a single reason why "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder" is not sufficient. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. I guess this one is a little too subtle for me to be any great help. - Crockspot 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. "Thomas McMahon was found guilty of murder in 1979" is not a point of view, it is a fact. Any opinions you or others have over the efficacy of the criminal justice system doesn't have any relevance in an encyclopaedia unless there is specific controversy about the legitimacy of their conviction . If someone was found guilty of murder, it automatically follows as a point of simple logic that their victims were murdered. Your opinion over what you think is 'sufficient' doesn't have any relevance either, in fact you are introducing your own POV rather than following simple and clear facts and their corollaries. Deus Ex 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said, not what you incorrectly think I said. I say "y was convicted of murder" was a fact, contrary to your assertion. But "x murdered y" is not a fact, it is an opinion. In the Republic of Ireland such cases were handled by the Special Criminal Court, so it's the opinion of three judges. In Northern Ireland such cases were handled by Diplock courts, so it's the opinion of one judge. I'm not introducing my opinion at all, how is saying "x was killed" an opinion - it is a fact. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Even "x was killed" could be both POV and OR. Compare instead "Whoptysplash County Coroner Dr. Saw Bones gave expert testimony that, in her opinion, x died as a result of homicide commited by another person". <ref>''The Whoptysplash Daily TattleTale'', February 31 1900, p.1 </ref>. LeadSongDog 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Hackney's last point: I understood your point, please understand mind. If you accept, for example, that "Ian Huntley was convicted of the murder of Holly Wells" is a fact, not an opinion then you logically should accept the corollary of that fact. The statement "Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells"-which from your argument above you say is an opinion rather than a fact-must be accepted as fact since you accept the statement "Ian Huntley was convicted of the murder of Holly Wells". The difference between those two statements is syntactic, not a difference between fact and opinion. I don't understand your point about the differences between the two courts you mentioned. Both the Special Criminal Court and Diplock Courts are legitimate branches of the criminal justice systems in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Their convictions are not merely the opinions of judges or juries, they are the lawful, legitimate actions of the government which it is not our job as encyclopaedia writers to question unless there is a specific controversy about, for example contentious evidence used to reach a conviction. Deus Ex 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In some extreme cases quite possibly, but those will be special cases. Sally Clark shows perfectly why a conviction doesn't make "x was murdered by y" a fact, or even x being murdered a fact to begin with. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To grasp why extreme care is needed, see todays news here [10] LeadSongDog 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The example provided by LeadSongDog and Sally Clark show exactly why the verdicts of courts are not facts, they are opinions. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? They are facts until proven otherwise-that's why the government has the right to send people to prison. Do you know anything about basic legal principles? I'm talking about the conviction specifically-it is not an opinion that someone is convicted of murder and sent to prison. Anyway, these are completely misconceived arguments considering what my original point was. I said specifically I'm not referring to causes where there is established controversy over the conviction-clearly those specific cases need to be qualified. I agree with LeadSongDog, care is needed in some cases, but in the majority we can use a general rule. Please ignore this issue and address my main point. Deus Ex 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm 100% serious. "y was convicted of murder" is a fact, but as those two examples show that does not make "x was murdered by y" or even "x was murdered" a fact. By stating "x murdered y" as fact we are breaching NPOV. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified by your continued use of 'NPOV'. When we have a concrete source, for example a reference that says "Ian Huntley was convicted the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman" in this case, like the majority, where there is no specific controversy of the legitimacy of the murder conviction, why are we restricted syntactically? Why is it not 'NPOV' to say in a cause with no controversy over the conviction that Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman? Deus Ex 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They are findings, not facts, not opinions. The finding is the opinion of the justice system as of that date, which carries the force of law in most countries, but is only considered infallible (so far as I know) in the Vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog ( talk • contribs) 20:53, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The findings of the court, the case summary, can be described as opinion, but a criminal conviction is not an opinion, it is an act of the justice system. That is a fact. And where there is no specific controversy attached to a case, there is no reason to question a conviction, especially in an encyclopaedia. Deus Ex 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem with saying that "x murdered y", especially when it is a better technical phrase to say that "x was convicted of murdering y". Unless x has admitted to murdering y, in which case, I think, an exception can be made. But is that the only problem you have with Deus Ex's argument, One Night? Because it seems to me he has a legitimate point for the other examples.

In particular, the sentence "x was murdered" does not refer to the person accused of killing x, but it does refer to the manner in which x died. I think that "kill" implies that the victim has been deprived of life; but "murder" implies much more under the law, particularly referring to intent and malice, which can be conclusively determined by the manner of death. Stanselmdoc 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Not really. This is a neutral encyclopedia, we should not be judging whether convictions are correct or not. We should state the facts as they are known - "x was convicted of murder". We should not under any circumstances use that to state "x murdered y". Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:American murderers is relevant here. To say "x murdered y" is not verifiable either, all that is verifiable is that "x was convicted". It's also a leap of logic we shouldn't make to even say "y was murdered", as Sally Clark shows. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points Stanselmdoc, thank you for taking the time to read my argument. Yes, I agree "x was convicted of murdering y" is a better technical phrase, but we can't allow that to prohibit the use of "x murdered y". Whether an offender has admitted murdering a specific person cannot be relevant, because people can make false confessions or refusal to confess to murders that undeniable evidence proves they committed. The existence of court conviction is proof enough to make an assertion that "x murdered y" in an article. If their is significant documented controversy, then we should be more limited in our assertations. Deus Ex 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"The existence of court conviction is proof enough to make an assertion that "x murdered y" in an article" - wrong, it is not neutral. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And where's the rationale or argument to back up this sweeping statement? Why do you think it's the job of an encyclopaedia to doubt or question whether convictions are correct or not unless there is significant documented controversy about the case? I don't understand what your continued use of 'neutral' is supposed to mean. Deus Ex 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple - policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. You cannot present the opinions of courts as facts. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The encyclopedia should simply, accurately record the conviction by the court. That does not mean saying the court is right, wrong or creative. The original "x was killed" runs afoul of assuming homicide (incorrectly ruling out the possibilities of suicide, death by misadventure, or even miscarriage of justice.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog ( talk • contribs) 21:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

When did I say we should we apply this to cases where there is significant doubt or controversy? Can you please read what I've read. Deus Ex 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hackney, this has clearly stopped being a serious argument on your part. Read my points rather than presenting your own warped versions of them. I'm talking about the act of conviction and the legitimacy of criminal convictions in general, which should be accepted by any serious encyclopaedia. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy has nothing to do with that point. By citing NPOV I suppose you mean we have to take into account all views, not matter how bizzare and flawed. You've stopped addressing my points specifically. By your bizzare reasoning, nothing is a fact. Deus Ex 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no you're mistaken. "x was convicted of murder" is a fact, "x murdered y" is not a fact simply because a conviction has been gained. I don't see why you can't understand this fundamental principle. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand that 'fundamental principle' because it's based on completely flawed arguing regarding cases in an encyclopaedia where there is no documented controversy over the legitimacy of the conviction. Your use of crass phrases like 'erm, no you're mistaken' shows how personal and shallow your argument really is. Deus Ex 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stepping back, is there anything WRONG with simply reporting the W5 on the ACT of conviction? LeadSongDog 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to your "crass" comments directly above my calm reaction to your provocation. Can you show me one person that has replied here that agrees with your "x murdered y" position? I can't see any, but I can see more than one editor agreeing with my position. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is more people agree with you than me so therefore your argument is correct? Given the tiny number of users that have contributed to this discussion, that it a ridiculous comment. Deus Ex 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Just you seem to be attempting to portray me as some sort of lone voice operating from a bizarre viewpoint, whereas the converse seems to be true and needed to be pointed out. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are losing sight of CIVIL. There's no need to be dismissive of each others arguments. LeadSongDog 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One user, LoneSongDog has agreed with your view unequivocally, out of the 3 total outsider contributors to this debate. I suppose to you that is an unbreakable consensus, but I would rather wait for more people to join the debate. I call your viewpoint bizzare because it denies the legitimacy of criminal convictions in cases where there is no documented controversy. As a side argument (NOT my main argument), why is it that in other respectable publications like other encyclopaedias and quality newspapers, editors don't automatically deny the legitimacy of convictions. Why can't you use common sense, there's no conflict with NPOV here. Deus Ex 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My viewpoint does not deny the legitimacy of anything. My view is we state unequivocally that "x was convicted". As an neutral enyclopedia we do not take sides and assume that the verdict was correct or incorrect, merely state what the verdict was. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the job of a 'NPOV' encyclopaedias not to accept a conviction as correct unless there is documented controversy to the contrary? If there is no evidence to back up a point of view, like 'the Earth is square', it isn't a valid point of view that needs to be considered. In all articles we are 'taking sides' when dealing with facts. There is no evidence that life exists on Mercury, so that point of view is not expressed in the Mercury article. There's no evidence that the verdict which convicted Ian Huntley of murder was incorrect, so why take a point of view that has no evidence to back it up into consideration? Deus Ex 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand not stating murders as unequivocal truth (not using X murdered Y), but what could possibly be wrong with "x was convicted of murdering y" that would be improved by "X was convicted of murder" without stating the victim in the murder X was convicted of? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Hackney's description of WP:NPOV is not quite correct. WP:NPOV does not mean we have to be neutral about whether X murdered Y, it means that we should be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". If all sources assert that X murdered Y, then so can we. Similarly, Verifiability in the Wikipedia context means not that we can prove 100% that something is true, but merely that the reliable sources agree that it is true.

I've no clue why "X was convicted of murder" is better than "X was convicted of murdering Y". -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the problem Hackney has with the argument, Jitse. His problem isn't with what the courts decide, but that the statement "x murdered y" cannot be logically deduced from a court ruling. Whether he is right or wrong, I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the argument.

And I'm a little upset with both Hackney and Deus Ex, for losing sight a little of the argument, and for resorting to counting the number of editors who "agree" or "disagree" with one side. In fact, I don't agree or disagree with either of you. I'm only trying to decipher which parts of the argument I find objectively correct. Whether or not that means I end up siding with someone has nothing to do with it.

I like the phrases "x was convicted of murder" and "x was convicted of murdering y" better than "x murdered y" because they are the more technical statements. "The existence of court conviction" is not proof enough to outright say "x murdered y", though NOT because it is POV. It's not POV, it's just a misleading statement. The language itself forces the reader to conclusively argue that x definitely murdered y. Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Laci, but that does NOT mean that he actually murdered her. HOWEVER: it DOES mean that Laci was murdered. It's not a "leap of faith" to state that someone was murdered, when forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously. The few exceptions to this do not dictate that we cannot say "y was murdered", but rather that in those exceptions, we should say "y was presumably murdered". Stanselmdoc 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we've had some new input into the discussion. In Hackney's view which he argued during the dispute over the Thomas McMahon and Nicholas Knatchbull articles, "The agreement for convictions is "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder"" [11]. I'm glad we seemed to have moved beyond the idea of not being allowed to say "x was convicted of murdering y" and only being allowed to "x was killed", then as a separate statement "y was convicted of murder". I think we should never be using the using the word 'killed' to refer to someone who was clearly murdered. As Stanselmdoc says above, "forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously". Using killed instead is, whether the writer's intentions are good or bad, a euphemism and inaccurate. Avoid euphemism is very important, it a clear example of not using NPOV. Stanselmdoc, regarding the use of "x murdered y", clearly we see differently here-my argument is that we should be allowed to use it where there is no significant controversy attached to the murder conviction. But I am prepared to compromise if it means a majority will support the change to the 'consensus' that users Hackney and Padraig used as the sole justification for reverting my edits. Under the old agreement, we should say, for example " Holly Wells was a British schoolgirl who was killed in 2002. Ian Huntley was convicted of her murder". In a new agreement, we should say " Holly Wells was a British schoolgirl who was murdered in 2002. A criminal trial convicted Ian Huntley of her murder in 2003." The same applies to less clear-cut cases, e.g. Pat Finucane (solicitor) we should be able to say "Pat Finucane was a Belfast solicitor who was murdered in 1989. No-one has been convicted of committing his murder to date" Deus Ex 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with the positions argued being argued here is that they break WP:NOR and are at best lazy about WP:V. It's not so much about the POV in kill vs. murder, although that is clearly a hot button too. This is an encyclopedia we're working on. Just get the attributions right and the wording of quotations pretty much becomes automatic. LeadSongDog 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When done properly, this doesn't break no original research. There will be reliable secondary sources that report someone was murdered (in a generic sense) or x was convicted of of the murder of y. "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" ( WP:NOR). Not breaking verifiability is easy, just follow the guideline ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" WP:V. I.e. a reliable source like a report from an established newspaper or news service. Deus Ex 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"forensic evidence and autopsies can conclusively prove that someone was murdered deliberately and maliciously" - no, they cannot. They can determine whether someone was killed "deliberately and maliciously", but they cannot determine murder. Little else has been said to rebut any points about WP:NPOV and WP:V, I will reiterate that we do not assume a conviction is right or wrong, only report that a conviction occurred. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to speculate what the definition of someone killed "deliberately and maliciously" is? That's what Stanselmdoc was getting at: the common, not legal meaning of the word murder, murdered. Deus Ex 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll change my original point, they can't even prove that someone was deliberately killed. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the case either. I'm sure there are many sources that prove forensics can prove whether someone was deliberately killed. Here's a modest example, written by a professional pathologist: "Autopsies are performed [by pathologists] in two situations: at the request of clinicians (with relatives' consent) to determine the cause of death..." [12]. He states determine the cause of death, not speculate on the cause of death. If pathologists can determine the cause of death, then they must be able to determine whether it was deliberate or not, except in obvious exceptions like someone killed by a motor vehicle (the intentions of the driver are unknown). I'm talking about the common meaning of murder again, not legal or specific to a suspect. Deus Ex 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of "diminished responsibility"? It's quite common when it comes to manslaughter verdicts, which as you may be aware are different to murder. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "diminished responsibility" is a legal term that applies to cases where a offender has been judged to be mentally incapable when committing the act. As I said above, I'm referring to the common meaning of murder-not the legal meaning, or a specific legal situation like diminished responsibility. If someone has been found guilty of manslaughter, the we would say that they were convicted of killing x, not murdering x, obviously. Deus Ex 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what, if any, point you are attempting to make. On one hand you're talking about whether forensic scientists have said it was murder, then you are changing back to your position of convictions. Neither of which rebuts any of my points to begin with. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument is: when we say "x was convicted of murdering y" we mean obviously the legal meaning of murder in what jurisdiction they were convicted in. We need a source to say a conviction was reached. When we say "y was murdered", we mean the common, dictionary definition-I think that's obviously to a reader if we don't name a person as a murderer. We use the phrase "y was murdered" only when there are sources to back up that assertion, i.e secondary sources referring to a pathologist's report. Deus Ex 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case we're back to WP:NPOV. If a pathologists report says that, we report that they did say that. However we don't just use "x was murdered" without any qualification. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you agree we should be allowed to say "Holly Wells was murdered [footnote to a source describing pathologist's/coroners report]" or "according to the coroner/pathologist, Holly Wells was murdered"? I don't think there is a specific NPOV issue here. In most articles with citations and references, we are relying on the findings of experts like scientists, historians, statisticians to be not inherently biased or 'NPOV'. Why make an exception for pathologist and coroners? Deus Ex 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with that, if done correctly. To see how all this came about to begin with, look at the Norman Stronge article. There's now a reactions section there, that says who said what about his death. Historians are not inherently biased or 'NPOV'? Sorry, but if that was the case why do they not all agree? Why do historians have opposing viewpoints? One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry historians was a bad example, consider scientists, doctors, they are more similar to pathologists and coroners. Deus Ex 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Investigators can't determine murder? Whole legal systems base themselves around the notion that investigators can objectively determine the difference between killing and murdering, hence this whole discussion. If they couldn't determine the difference, then a legal difference (manslaughter v. murder) wouldn't even exist!

I don't see it as an NOR or Verifiable issue at all. I approached the argument linguistically - the word "kill" has broad connotations (the loss of life unnaturally), while the word "murder" has much more specific connotations (premeditation, manner of death, etc). I don't think that that is POV: there are lots of synonyms like that (slender/thin, house/home). It's not a matter of original research - we should not have to "prove" someone was murdered. Our job is to write down the conclusions of the coroners and crime scene investigators. If their conclusion states, "x was murdered", then logically we should be able to say that as well. Stanselmdoc 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:NOR and WP:V is that editors shouldn't prove anything in an encyclopedia. We should identify the sources (usually secondary and usually credible) that allow the reader to examine other writers analysis for themselves. If the document cited says Bloggins was intercoffinated by a frumious bandersnatch then the article should report that, not make up new analysis. LeadSongDog 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with that summary. I hope this replaces the previous agreemen]]t regarding killed v. murdered. Deus Ex 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's basically the same as the previous agreement. Nothing in the previous agreement stopped anyone saying "The New York Times referred to his death as cold blooded murder". One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. In the new agreement we are allowed to say y was murdered, in the old agreement we were only allowed to say y was killed. Read your explanation of the old agreement on my talk page. Why would we cite a sentence like "The New York Times referred to his death as cold blooded murder"? We would use the NYTimes as a secondary source referring to pathologists report to back up the statement "y was murdered". Deus Ex 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to your own words, the current "agreement" on usage of the word murder is "The consensus (which is in line with WP:NPOV) is to use killed to describe the death of somebody (unless a source is being quoted directly, in say a "Reactions" section), and to use murder when describing a conviction (eg "x was convicted of murder", which is the actual charge)" [13].

I am not talking about statements where, to use your words "a source is being quoted directly". I'm talking about describing the death of someone directly. The existing 'consensus' on that is to only use the word killed, regardless of the situation. That is not the same as the suggestion that Stanselmdoc and I are putting forward. Read my paragraph that begins "My argument is:" and Stanselmdoc's that begins "Investigators can't determine murder?". The only continuity between the existing viewpoint and the new one regarding describing someone's death directly is agreeing with the usage of "x was convicted of murder" (meaning convicted of the criminal offence of murder). In the new view, we are allowed to say "y was murdered" when qualified by a source to directly describe someone's death, not restricted to saying "y was killed". We are using the common, dictionary definition of murder in this "y was murdered sense". I have compromised and dropped the 'x murdered y' argument. I don't intend to contribute to this discussion any more because I cannot make my situation clearer. You can read through what I've written already regarding specifics, e.g. why I think we can take pathologist's reports as fact. Deus Ex 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that we can take pathologist's reports as correct, you should see The Goudge Inquiry. If, on the other hand, you mean that we can duly cite the reports as extant documents, I'll agree with that. LeadSongDog 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That refers specifically to giving a cause of death in infants. Determining the cause of death in infants obviously has significant documented controversy attached, I've heard of several cases myself. In deaths of adolescents and adults there is not the same general amount of documented controversy to not take pathologists reports as fact in general. In any case, the crime of infanticide often applies for those kinds of cases which is not the same as murder. Your argument could apply to not taking the findings of any practitioner of a science as fact, just find some different examples. It isn't strong enough to not take findings of pathologists as fact in adult cases as a general rule. My and Stanselmdoc's argument is to accept the conclusion of pathologist/coroners in general (obviously being more limited in controversial cases) and logically from that we can say "y was murdered", citing the report that makes that conclusion. Deus Ex 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read Stanselmdoc's argument.

Our job is to write down the conclusions of the coroners and crime scene investigators. If their conclusion states, "x was murdered", then logically we should be able to say that as well.

He didn't say accept the conclusion. You did. I don't think that has any place in an encyclopedia. LeadSongDog 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you don't think accepting conclusions by educated investigators should be in an encyclopedia? I think I just got confused, sorry. I don't understand what you're saying about my argument. Because I'm definitely NOT saying "We can choose whether or not to accept conclusions offered to us by experts." I'm saying the opposite: we should accept what they conclude, since it's not for us Wikipedians to decide. Of course, this still applies only to those cases which do not incur vast amounts of controversy. Stanselmdoc 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you have said what you previously hadn't. I still respectfully disagree. I don't think as editors we should accept or refute those conclusions. I think we should report them and leave the acceptance or refusal to the reader. We simply are not in a position to know (let alone certify) if any given document we cite is correct or authentic. LeadSongDog 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But in other contexts, we don't just "report" experts findings, we present them as fact. The statement " Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system" (contained in the Wikipedia article about it) is the findings of scientific experts using scientific instruments and methods. The statement " Herbert Clutter was murdered" (when qualified by a secondary source referring to a pathologist's report) is also a conclusion reached by scientific experts using forensic materials and tests/techniques. Are you suggesting we should merely "report" that experts believe Alpha Centauri s 4.37 light years from our solar system, rather than stating that Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system". Why leave a reader who likely has little knowledge of the subject matter to "accept or refuse" the judgement when it is substantiated by conclusions made by experts? That is certainly not the job of encyclopaedia, where articles are written from the POV of an reader ignorant of the subject matter for obvious reasons. Unless there is significant documented controversy, why not accept scientific experts' findings as factual? In any case, Wikipedia articles are not set in stone. If findings that had no reason to be doubted at the time are occasionally found to be wrong, we can simply change the article. Deus Ex 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, LeadSongDog, about saying I said something I previously hadn't. However, while I did say something I previously hadn't, but I have not changed my argument - I've merely clarified my position as it has developed. And I still see Deus Ex's argument about qualified experts. Stanselmdoc 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Stanselmdoc. They are interesting examples that Deus Ex chose. The Herbert Clutter article is based on a single (quasi-novel) source document. The Alpha Centauri article says 4.37 ly, but the reference cited says 4.36 ly and goes into considerable discussion of the variation in that figure. As a reader, I can figure these things out in short order because the refs are cited and made readily accessible. If there is no controversy on the topic, cited sources will agree and the reader will not be confused. LeadSongDog 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're reading significance into my choice of examples when there is none except to illustrate the argument. They could be replaced by other examples easily. I didn't look at the Clutter article, it came into my head randomly-if the article is based entirely on In Cold Blood, its obviously very badly written, because that is a novelisation of a real event. I'll use a better example instead Theo van Gogh (film director) as a random choice.

I don't understand what argument you are saying is your position in you latest post. My last post was responding to when you said "I don't think as editors we should accept or refute those conclusions. I think we should report them and leave the acceptance or refusal to the reader. We simply are not in a position to know (let alone certify) if any given document we cite is correct or authentic" So, logically according to that argument, you disagree with using statements like "Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our solar system" [citation] or Theo van Gogh was murdered [citation] in articles because that inherently accepts the conclusion of an expert, rather than reserving judgement to a reader. So if we should never accept or refute the conclusions of experts, we have to write articles like this: "Astrophysicists believe Alpha Centauri is around 4.37 light years from our solar system [citation]/according to the report into Theo van Gogh's death, he was murdered [citation]. I don't agree that this should be the case because I think we should present scientific finding as fact unless there is significant, compelling controversy. It also makes for clunky writing and encourages people to believe every possible point of view, every interpretation is equally legitimate. Deus Ex 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that slightly clunky writing is a small price to pay for wp:v particularly when the alternative is potentially harmful. If I quote an incorrect report and fail to properly attribute it, do I inspire some lunatic fringe to revenge a supposed murder? If I paraphrase too high a flashpoint for kerosene do I cook some amateur chemist? I'm not terribly happy with the Theo van Gogh article either. While it lists sources, it is pretty loose about attribution. If you keep citing examples like these, I'm going to be awful busy fixing them. I'll give you Alpha Cent. Nobody is likely to build a spaceship that goes 0.01 lightyears too far without first checking the distance in primary sources. Except maybe NASA, but they'd try to do it on a shoestring and mess up the unit conversions anyhow. LeadSongDog 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on "X murdered Y" vs. "X was convicted of the murder of Y": we have to remember that those are two separate facts, they are not one and the same. I believe that in most cases we should favor the latter, because it will be much more easily sourced: for example, coverage of the trial. However, "X murdered Y" (without further qualification) would be fine with me if we can attribute it to sources: although most writing about crimes tends to be very careful because of libel issues, there are probably some cases where sources are willing to go beyond mentioning the conviction and actually conclude that the murder did in fact take place. If this is the case, and the sourcing is good enough, and if there are not actually opposing opinions (merely examples of hedging), I think it's fine to write X murdered Y. Without direct sourcing, though, I think it's inappropriate to use the "X murdered Y" wording without qualifying it. Mango juice ^talk 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying Y was murdered and citing a source should be fine, as long as it has been determined by the relevant scientific process. Saying X murdered Y follows logically from X was convicted of murdering Y is completely different and a logical fallacy. A jury is not the equivalent of a scientific expert, and neither is a judge. I think this is an especially sensitive issue considering many of the X's in these articles are still alive and therefore fall under the intense scrutiny required by Biographies of living persons. Ardent ^†alk _∈ 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mango and Consequencefree, for your contributions to this debate. However, with all respect, the question of allowing "x murdered y" has been dropped in favor of a compromise. No one is arguing for it any longer. Stanselmdoc 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every supposedly murdered person was murdered. Some died of natural causes, some committed suicide, some planted false evidence of their demise and ran away, and in some cases dingos ate the baby. Some people convicted of murder were framed, or a confession was tortured out of them, or they were victims of racist prosecution, or mistaken eyewitness identification, or a managed lineup, or of misleading expert testimony. It is not unreasonable to say that if Mr. X was convicted of murder, then he is a "convicted murderer," and he could reasonable be placed in a category of "murderers." The trial court's verdict is a reliable and independent source, but it is not an infallible one. If DNA evidence, a deathbed confession, or other findings later exonerate Mr. X, as happened for Anthony Porter, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez then the descriptors would have been wrong if it stated with certainty that they were murderers. It seems a bit less encyclopedic to say that for the In Cold Blood Case Perry Smith (murderer) and Richard Hickock "committed the robbery and murders on November 15, 1959" without the qualified phrase that they were "convicted of having murdered..." or that " Charles Starkweather (November 24, 1938 – June 25, 1959) was a spree killer who murdered 11 victims in Nebraska and Wyoming during a road trip with his underage girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate." It does read marginally more encyclopedic in Hawley Harvey Crippen where the article avoids stating as absolute fact that he killed his wife, and just states the conviction as the fact. There are always revisionist historians writing books asserting that various famous convicted murderers were really innocent, so generally the possibility should not be forclosed that the person who did the time (or paid with his life) did not do the crime. In Bruno Hauptmann there many qualifiers to indicate that the Wikipedians maintaining the article doubt his guilt in killing the Lindbergh baby, and he was just as convicted and executed as the In Cold Blood killers or Starkweather. If a soldier was courtmartialled and shjot it is more encyclopedic to say "he was convicted of cowardice and executed" than to say "he was executed because he was a coward." Edison 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that isn't the point of contention, apart from your opening sentence, "Not every supposedly murdered person was murdered". We're referring to describing the cause of someone's death, not the person found responsible for perpetrating that act. The point is should we be allowed to say "x was murdered", meaning the common definition of murder, i.e. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Previously, a user referred to an earlier discussion where he claimed the consensus was to only be allowed to say "x was killed", regardless of the circumstances or evidence. Obviously, we wouldn't make an assertion like 'x was murdered' in a case where there is documented significant doubt or controversy over the case of death. But in cases without doubt or controversy over the cause of death, when the report of a coroner and/or pathologist says "x was murdered", i.e. x did not die from disease, natural causes, by accident don't you think we should state that in Wikipedia, not "x was killed"? Deus Ex 13:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this. It's not just correctness that's at issue here. We must CITE these statements. Readers expect the Who, What, Where, When, Why and How answers, but the encyclopedic writer at best reports what has already been written. "X was accused by W of shooting Y on Date for reasons unknown. (citation) At trial in Tombstone, Judge Bean's court heard several minutes of arguments from Pro and Con before he found X not guilty by reason of both X and Y being already dead the day before the shooting, but nonetheless fined X's estate $5 for littering. (citation) Public reaction was uniform disappointment at missing a good hanging. (cites)" LeadSongDog 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

?? I've been saying all along that we should cite these statements, your opening point makes no sense to me. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a court-reporting service, we don't need to write prose like you do above. Just take the pertinent points from the case, like the cause of death, e.g. murder, manslaughter, infanticide and cite it. If we are citing a coroner's report that says "x's was murdered", then we can make that point in an article about x. Deus Ex 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Prose style aside, perhaps we're disputing over the intent of some pronouns. When you say "we can make that point" do you mean that
a. We can make the point that "x was murdered"
or do you mean that
b. We can make the point that a coroner's report says that "x was murdered"<br?> I would have no real problem supporting the latter which presents an objective fact, but still oppose the former. LeadSongDog 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If an editor discretely changed "X murdered Y" to "X was convicted by a xxx county jury of murdering Y", I wouldn't object -- the edit makes the tone slightly more neutral without impeding the flow or making things wordy. But insisting that policy should prohibit saying "X murdered Y" in an article is another matter. THere is a danger of imposing an unrealistic perfection on policy that does more harm than good and will result in unreadable and ultimately uninformative articles. Most facts pass through multiple hands, and requiring a complete trail can be unworkable. One can only compound attribution so far. Legal convictions are facts; there is no need to be endlessly picky about them. -- Shirahadasha 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Murder is defined as meaning unlawful killing. See here for many different unbias definitions for murder: [14]. All paramilitary killings during the Troubles where unlawful and thus should be classified as murder as the killings where premeditated. Mabuska 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Unless you also have evidence to prove the perpetrators were of sound mind at the time of the killing, it's an assumption. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(was "This Image is the property of Chris Prisciandaro. May be used with explicit written permission (request from chrisrocco777@msn.com )and is imperative that credit be given.")

What should be done about cases like Image:278overheads.jpg, where someone uploaded it with a GFDL tag but later added unfree conditions? Can it just be reverted? -- NE2 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that GFDL is not revokable. So I'd say that reverting back is fine. However, the image isn't used anywhere. It may be easier to delete the image in this case under WP:CSD#G7 - author (uploader)'s request (this is reading the change in licensing on August 12 by the user to mean that they wish to delete the image as a user's request and then re-upload it the image with a different license). Mind you, Wikipedia doesn't want non-free images. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? It's used on Interstate 895 (New York). -- NE2 05:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And apparently it's past my bed time. You're right. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Moot point, the signs are copyright, the photograph is a derivative work. This is the same as a photograph of a painting. It should be used under fair use or not at all(unless I am wrong). ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be very complicated in this case, as the sign isn't the only thing in the photo, and the sign may well be the creative product of the US Federal Government (I don't know whether it is or not, but it's more than conceivable). AIUI, whether copyright comes into play actually depends on how the photo is used, if the sign itself may be considered copyright. Certainly in the UK such signs are simply considered signage representing true facts, and therefore not covered by copyright (as I once had it explained to me). SamBC( talk) 13:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interstate sign design was developed and created by the federal government, and therefore public domain. The GFDL is irrevocable and the user agreed to the license by uploading under it. While the legality of irrevocable clauses, outside of work-for-hire, is highly questionable, the GPL/GFDL and Creative Commons licenses have been upheld as valid licensing schemes (though that particular point has yet to be addressed in the courts). Additionally, a plain photograph (or other "simple reproduction") of a public domain or other work outside the protections of intellectual property law is generally not considered a work protected by IP law. As a caveat, IANAL. Vassyana 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if the sign design is PD, then the image is and shall always be GFDL. We should keep using it. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if the original GFDL statement was valid, then it stays GFDL regardless of what the contributor says. SamBC( talk) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The signs were "designed" by the New York State DOT, but really they just took a bit of text and "plugged it in" to the standards. I doubt anything in the design of the signs is eligible for copyright, except possibly the Interstate shield, which is public domain. But this is a "red herring"; some of his photos, like Image:Del Mem Br.jpg and Image:Throgs Neck Bridge from approach.JPG, aren't of signs. I'm going to revert his licensing change. -- NE2 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Image:EndOfTaconicPkwy.JPG? He uploaded it with "Permission to use this image outside of Wikipedia may be acquired from chrisrocco777@msn.com", but also a GFDL/cc-by-sa template. -- NE2 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Permission outside of Wikipedia is entirely outside our jurisdiction, and he's certainly welcome to make the insistence that people ask his permission, though we can't do anything about people ignoring his request. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that another site can use images under GFDL without needing further permission. The permission requirement is not compatible with the GFDL. ( SEWilco 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

I suggest we forward this to Mike Godwin and/or someone at the Free Software Foundation and see what they think. There is a more general problem here that we have generally ignored - that is, whether adding a template to an image description page is really enough to release something under a particular license. For now, it might be best to delete the image since we don't want to keep "free" images around that may really not be free. In situations where someone attempts to "revoke" the GFDL on a text contribution, we need to hold our ground, but for most images, pretending that we allow the user to "revoke" the GFDL isn't really a problem. --- RockMFR 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone uploads an image under the GFDL (or similar) but later decides they didn't really want to do that, then historically Wikipedia usually deletes the image. Wikipedia may not be required to do so, but this is seen as something of a courtesy to people who in many cases don't really understand what they were agreeing to. I'd suggest that may be reasonable here too. First though, someone ought to go talk to the uploader about this situation, which no one here seems to have done. 136.152.153.227 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If somebody adds restrictions that are incompatible with GFDL at the same time they place the GFDL template there, then it could be taken as either an failure to understand the terms of GFDL, or simply as ambiguity. Both cast doubt on the GFDL status. After all, if both were stated at the same time, and they contradict, then which is valid? I agree that Mike's expert advice would be handy here. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If an image is uploaded without a proper GFDL license, or with contradictory terms, it should simply be deleted. Conditions that are in addition to GFDL are not acceptable. Thus, Image:Del Mem Br.jpg, which had BOTH the GFDL statement on it and ALSO added conditions, when it was first released, should be deleted. I agree that a contributor can't take back his original release if he made one, but in this case he didn't make a proper release. For diplomatic reasons, it might be good to have a conversation with the photographer, because he should be aware of our peculiar licensing needs. IANAL, EdJohnston 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That one initially said "public domain" and "may be used with credit"; while those are not compatible with each other, both are compatible with our policies. -- NE2 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to revisit that old debate, Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. The proposal last time was, "Should non-admins be given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is legally required to remove)?" Despite the parenthetical exception, for some reason much of the debate bogged down in issues related to copyvios.

I recommend that we further narrow this to only allow reading of deleted articles by logged-in users, and that we clarify that there would be two classes of deleted articles: (1) copvios, libel, and other stuff that we're legally required to delete, and (2) all the other stuff that's deleted. Only the latter could be viewed by non-admin logged-in users. The former would remain accessible only to admins.

One purpose of this is so that if an article is put on AfD, numerous votes are made in favor of deletion based on the actual content of the article (as opposed to the notability, etc. of the subject), and then at the last minute major revisions are made to make the article no longer deletion-worthy, but it is deleted anyway due to the delete votes placed on the original article, then a user could retrieve the markup and restore the revised article.

(Cross-posted to Wikipedia_talk:Viewing_deleted_articles

Captain Zyrain 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me is it has repeatedly been said, AfDs are not votes, but I see them treated as such quite often. We have had Featured Articles deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, despite multiple sources, reviews, etc. This would be a nice feature to have, but I agree only logged in users should have visibility. Turlo Lomon 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I and many other admins, especially those listed in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles will undelete any article in class (2) and either userify it or email it to an established user requesting it in good faith to improve or to check on the validity of a deletion. Not that this is the complete answer--but the dilemma here is how to provide some appropriate access while still accomplishing the purpose of deletion. DGG ( talk) 03:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think that when a new user's article is deleted, we should provide notice on their talk page that they can get it undeleted by an admin, and give them that list linked to above. (If they've already been notified once of this, it can be forgone.) But we should make sure new users who experience AfD are aware of this option, so that they don't just quit in disgust thinking, "All that work for nothing." Captain Zyrain 09:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most (or more) of that info is in the pages linked to on the MediaWiki notice on articles that have been deleted, MediaWiki:Newarticletext (specifically the linked page Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?). I disagree with any sort of notification requirement, mainly due to the loopholes and enforceability of such a guideline. I also disagree with giving non-admins the ability to view deleted revisions. This would make deletion almost pointless, as anyone with an account could see the page and it would greatly increase the need for oversight on things like libel and other occasions where only specific revisions are deleted, which are now adequately removed through regular deletion. Mr. Z-man 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have experienced is a Featured Article getting deleted for WP:NN which was clearly meeting guidelines. I was not directly involved, but have been asked to help with assisting in this matter. Turlo Lomon 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? What FA was deleted? Postdlf 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perennial proposal. >Radiant< 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough and incomplete draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures, Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures). Please feel free to edit, improve, and/or comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures). Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Reasons for creating a guideline include the fact that the existence of religious figures is sometimes a matter of religious belief (so clarification of the nature of the sourcing is necessary); religious figure who are important within notable denominations sometimes lead relatively private lives; and a need to clarify when religious sources are appropriate and when external sources are required. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, however, if a figure doesn't exist beyond a religious textbook wouldn't that make him a de facto fictional character and as such, wouldn't that mean we would write about him as a fictional character (e.g. instead of saying "he moved to [insert holy place]", we would say "[insert religious peoples] believe he moved to [holy place from before]"). Am I making sense? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 01:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV prohibits a claim a religious belief is false or de facto fiction. We might say "according to (religious source) he moved to [holy place from before]" and "according to (academic historian source) (...whatever)." One purpose of the proposal is to avoid forcing the world into a "Wikipedia says it's fact"/"Wikipedia says it's fiction" duality. Best, -- Shirahadasha 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see or understand the need for a separate guideline here. Vassyana 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Yes, "according to (religious source) he moved to [holy place]"seems the best way to go about this-- Phoenix 15 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wy is BIO not adequate for this purpose? -- Kevin Murray 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that religious texts are not always considered independant third party sources. However, I don't see a need for a seperate guideline. WP:BIO contains guidelies for specific groups of people such as atheletes... why not just add a small section for religious figures? Blueboar 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

While of course the proposal needs a lot of work, I definitely see the value of a separate notability guideline on this subject. In religious contexts, persons and characters often take on a lot more significance than they would in secular contexts. Religious texts are usually imbued with almost magical symbolic power, and it's almost a guarantee that figures mentioned therein are considered notable by that religion. If some deity spoke it, surely it must be notable to those who worship that particular deity. I think we can make some valuable generalizations on this basis, and turn it into a guideline. WP:BIO is useful to some extent, but many clearly-notable Biblical and Quranic figures wouldn't meet that guideline. COGDEN 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? How would a Biblical (or Quranic, or Vedic, etc.) figure ever fail notability? Every single minute passage of the Bible has been analyzed to death countless times. -- tjstrf talk 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures)

I really don't think this is all that necessary. Criteria 1 and 4 are redundant to the main criterion. People which 2 applies to are pretty much considered inherently notable as is (being in the Bible, Qur'an, etc, how much more notable can you get?). Same for criteria 3. I dislike 5. This is basically like letting the religious group choose who is notable. Without original research, how are we to determine what an "important figure" is in the religion without sources (which would make this criterion moot)? Mr. Z-man 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Z-Man. This is a perfect example of WP:CREEP. Can the proposers point me to an article or XfD discussion where this guideline would have added something beyond the general notability guideline? UnitedStatesian 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But a religion (not just a "religious group") can also be regarded as a field and co-religious experts as experts in that field. Notability is determined with respect to a field in many other cases; WP:PROF lets academics determine which academics are notable; WP:FICTION lets literary critics determine which literature is notable. Only sports and politics might pass general notability guidelines. Disagreement with whether religion should be treated the same way may stem from disagreement about what a religion is. Should it be regarded as an organization to be treated something like a corporation, or a field of experts to be treated something like academics? The answer likely depends on whether one likes religion or not. Without guidance, AfDs of religion-related articles are likely to reflect people's attitudes towards religion in general or particular. The proposed guidelines clarify that certain matters require evidence from outside the religion while other matters are satisfied by evidence from within it. One could agree or disagree with the proposal, but having guidelines is helpful to enable AfDs to be run consistently. -- Shirahadasha 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

end of copy

• This seems like a potential magnet for ongoing religous debate. The notability of religious issues is absolutely subjective on a personal level. -- Kevin Murray 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's possible to do a more objective approach, at least where organized religions are involved. Best, -- Shirahadasha 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly is there a separate talk page? Can that just redirect to the main page? Might prevent some confusion/duplication of effort. MrZaius ^talk 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for topics like this one. Talking about the village pump policy page. Wikidemo 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That answers that :) (Although it doesn't seem to reflect many of the uses of the talk page) MrZaius ^talk 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, a lot of the uses reflect the misunderstanding that discussions should always happen on talk pages. There's a reason for a seperate talk page, but it does get misused. *shrug*. SamBC( talk) 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This "behavioral guideline" seems to have sprung up a couple of months ago. I have serious concerns with it, one being that the discussion under point #7 is out of sync with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and the associated reliable sources. How does such a guideline take effect without broad community input and with substantial deviation from established policy? Raymond Arritt 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the page over, and saw what your possible concern is. I think the example is a good one, but an incomplete one. The specifics were "music journal". The reviews of the band could be on a website, newspaper, etc. and the person questioning the source discounts those on the basis they disagree with those being reliable sources AFTER the rest of the community has agreed that they are. We are currently having this problem with RPGs. Turlo Lomon 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• If the example is poor, feel free to replace it with a better example. The point that "gaming the system" is inappropriate stands. >Radiant< 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course "gaming the system" is inappropriate. As noted above my specific concern is with item #7 regarding reliable sources. Note that it includes reference to scientific theories as well as music. People have begun using WP:GAME to argue that peer-reviewed journals have no particular value as sources compared with newspapers and the like. Raymond Arritt 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't look like there was any discussion about this having become some sort of policy or guideline between the time it was a redirect to WP:POINT and the time it appeared, fully formed, from the head of Zeus, as it were, back in July. Corvus cornix 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate that this has guideline status with virtually zero input from the community. Downgrade it to an essay until there is an established record of widespread input/discussion and consensus. Zeus indeed! R. Baley 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) Exactly how many "policies" or "guidelines" are out there. Apparently this too (link: Wikipedia:Revocation_of_GFDL_is_not_permitted) was policy (up to) a few days ago, for what looks like almost a month. R. Baley 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good day to discuss the relative notability of RPG related articles, as today’s featured article is Dungeons & Dragons.

I have recently nominated some RPG related articles about books of gaming instructions for deletion which I think are bad examples of fancruft, because the articles have not provided evidence of notability. Current AfDs include:

• GURPS Bio-Tech
• GURPS Discworld
• GURPS Infinite Worlds
• Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe)
• Minor Powers of the Star Fleet Universe
• StarCraft: Uprising
• Xorkaelians

In my view there is a large group of RPG articles whose contributors seem to have completely ignored the guidelines on notability, verification and original research. Examples of these groups of games included:

• Exalted
• D20 System —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• GURPS
• Star Fleet Universe

The articles seem to follow a common pattern: they feature cover artwork, contain lots of in universe description of the characters or scenarios relating to the game, but are devoid of independently sourced analysis about the game’s development, relative merit or context.

I think the creators of these articles who hold these games high esteem have good intentions, in that they want to create a record of their favorite games that will endure beyond the life of the game and their related web sites. However, their affection for these games has blinded them to into thinking that a summary of the game and a few links is all that is need to establish notability, with the result that these articles will at some be either consolidated or deleted. They wish to emulate the success of the Dungeons & Dragons article, but without going through the rigorous process of editorial review.

Some of the nominations for deletion have been successful, and others have not, but have at least resulted in the supporters of these games to add some evidence of notability. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I would like some feedback as to whether this approach is appropriate: whether it is not appropriate to challenge the supporters of these articles by putting them forward for deletion. -- Gavin Collins 09:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It lies on your prerogative. If you believe that the users who commonly edit those articles possess the ability to add sources that would make these articles pass WP:N, then by all means let them do so. Certainly, an Afd is one of the great instigators towards article improvement, and cause for rather drastic escapades, but it is not entirely necessary. That said, don't be deterred if you believe an article is suitable for deletion. In the end, the page can go to a user's userspace for fixing until it can suitably pass WP:N. Personally, I believe it lies on a case to case evaluation and your assessment of the situation. Even so, if you are acting in good faith, then be bold and do what you believe is improving Wikipedia. Now, let's bring on the deletionist and inclusionist masses. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How dare you exclude the essentialists! :-P (Though I admit, in this case, there's not a whole lot of difference between essentialism and deletionism.) Vassyana 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting that GURPS, as a whole, is not notable would seem rather excessive. Between the various editions and supplements, it's attracted a huge number of awards and nominations, and the game is in the Origins Hall of Fame... within RPGs, you don't get much more notable. Would you suggest that RPGs are inherently non-notable unless they are present in the mass consciousness (like D&D)? SamBC( talk) 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to such an excessive point of view myself. However one award by itself is not sufficient evidence by itself of notability - just a flash in the pan. What seems to be the problem is that there are no analysis and discussion supported by secondary sources to establish relative merit that would put these games in context. Worst still, most of these articles speak only of the game characters and scenarios in such a way that they are being used by the fans as platforms for original research and POV forks from articles that are referenced, like Vampires, Start Trek or D&D. -- Gavin Collins 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) it is when we are discussing books. Other sources are being worked on, but they do exist. Turlo Lomon 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, I have already asked you this question, or variants thereof, elsewhere, and never got an answer. Can you give a single, explicit example of such "original research and POV forks from articles that are referenced, like Vampires, Start Trek or D&D"? You might be right, but I do not understand what you are referring to. -- Goochelaar 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, I appreciate your concerns about the quality of some of these articles and their lack of sourcing/in-universe style. I do believe, though, that most of them are notable, just in need of work, and would prefer to see you direct the effort you put into AfD'ing them into improving them. However, my comments yesterday on your talk page [15], which you suggested would be better put here on the VP, were more directed at the point Goochelaar makes: the way you're going about this is very unproductive and quite confusing. You keep referring to policies/guidelines such as WP:POV and WP:NEO in these discussions in relation to things that have nothing to do with those concepts ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Magellanic Cloud (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Powers of the Star Fleet Universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xorkaelians), you accuse everyone of having a conflict of interest ( [16], [17]), and you fail to respond to repeated questions about these things. Some response on these points would help me understand your viewpoint and reassure me that I'm right to assume good faith about your deletion nominations. Pinball22 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Elequently stated, Pinball. I would like to point out that I am also starting to get concerned about Gavin's behavior. He states that he is focused on repairing Accountancy articles, yet for the past few days, he has been targetting RPG articles almost exclusively for deletion. [18] Turlo Lomon 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will asssume you are already familiar with WP:POVFORK. There are many articles about the Star Trek television series and films. Take for example the article about Klingons; it is not the best article in WP for sure, but at least the article contains references to the episodes from which these fictional people derive. Contrast this with the article Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe), which seems to have been entirely made up from original research, as there are no references at all. In my view it forks from the original article, so that the contributors could ignore the requirement to cite the source material. Why the contributors have done this, I am not altogether sure; perhaps they wanted to create their own proprietry in universe, induldge is some creative writing, pad the article to make it appear to be substantial or notable, or to promote a book or game by making it sound interesting & lively. Even if we assume the contributors acted in good faith, the SFU version is no longer of encyclopedic value as it too far removed from its verifiable source. I think this is unreferenced material is refered to as fancruft. It seems to me that fans of RPG are not interested in the notability or verifiability guidelines, and I think this should be challenged. -- Gavin Collins 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question about that particular article, the primary source(s) are a series of publication published by Task Force Games/Amarillo Design for the past 30 years. -- Donovan Ravenhull 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good, Gavin, I think we've found the root of one of the problems! As Donovan says, these aren't some kind of fan reimagining of Star Trek, they're a long-running series of commercially-produced games set in an expanded Star Trek universe. If you didn't realize that, I can see how you might have misunderstood what they were about (and some of the articles do fail to make that sufficiently clear and need to more explicitly cite the books they're referencing). Does this make more sense to you now? Pinball22 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, if we are going to apply these standards to RPG/gaming materials, then we need to initiate AfD on Aslan, Harry Potter (character), Paul Atreides, Indiana Jones, and even James T. Kirk. There is an abundance of articles on Wikipedia that describe aspects of fictional works beyond a direct description of the works themselves. And while many of these articles do cite sources beyond the source materials, in nearly all cases those cites tie back to either the fictional setting itself or discussions with authors/actors and such. You cannot directly talk to Susan Pensive or Darth Vader, so it is not possible to get truly independent sources for them.

So, the question becomes, do we wipe ALL such articles from Wikipedia, or do we accept that Wikipedia is not a printed publication that can survive having some bloat factor when dealing with popular culture. Yes, there are fansites available for much of this material, but for some of it, there is not. In addition, there are those who may wish to learn about some of these subjects who are comfortable reading on Wikipedia, but are hesitent to go to a fan-site.

As for the Star Fleet Universe (a entity which has existed in published fiction since Star Fleet Battles was born in the mid 70's and has been in publication since), I have considered working with others to create an SFU wiki, independent of Memory Alpha (who show a low opinion of anything outside the primary canon of films and television) and Wikipedia. But even so, I feel that having some of these articles present on Wikipedia is to a benifit to all involved. Maybe a few could be trimmed down, and maybe the Xorkean article is not notable enough (it is barely mentioned as a future subject) to currently warrent inclusion, but to declare all information beyound a basic description of the base games is a bit to far.

-- Donovan Ravenhull 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, I am not sure how to say this without seeming horribly rude, even allowing for the fact that English is not my first language: you are completely missing the point. An article such as Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe), for what I can see, is not a fork from anything else. It is not an essay or rant about Klingon Empire in itself; if it were, you would be perfectly and completely right. It is about a game setting, which happens to be set in a variant of the Star Trek universe. Just as the primary sources for Klingons are the TV episodes, the primary sources for the (admittedly way overlong) Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) article are the game manuals and other material published for this game, which are credited indeed. The original research was performed by the authors of those manuals and books. -- Goochelaar 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, using AfD to instigate clean-up of an article is an abuse of process. If an article is keepable, but needs clean up, you should improve it, not nominate it for deletion to try and get others to do it. - Chunky Rice 14:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that using AfD to force others to fix an article is at best disingenuous, and many other editors object to this practice as well. As an editor, you should fix a problem if you see it. If you can't fix it, then you should describe what needs to be done on the talk page, and possibly place a tag on the article. Creating an artificial deadline just to make a WP:POINT is disruptive, and not consistent with the collaborative community concept that Wikipedia was founded on. Dhaluza 11:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This turns the debate onto a different point, everyone has different interests and competences with respect to producing a stable version. The various templates can be, and are, used as a pointer that an article just isn't up to scratch. I've noticed that across the board articles can sit with templates for a long time with none of the regulars really addressing the points raised. Now one could take the initiative and just get on with it, or find some method of prompting those who do, or should, have ready access to sources to do something about it.

I'd agree that AfD is a fairly drastic option, but it's quite a good way of getting those who are better able to resolve the issues to do something about them.

Frankly if an article needs improving in terms of substantive content, but lies outside ones field of interest or knowledge then I see no need to go back to first principles with respect to the topic when other routes exist.

ALR 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dhaluza's point, it is doubly disingenuous to suggest that, when no sources are available to back up a case for note (as is the case with many, if not all) of these articles, AfD is not warranted. That's the whole point of the NOTE guideline - to give us grounds to nominate unsourced cruft for deletion. Plainly a good faith effort has been made by some, myself included, to locate independent, verifiable sources, but most of these don't even warrant cursory mention by good sources, much less full coverage. MrZaius ^talk 12:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just have to comment that the original poster seems to dismiss, out of hand, the notability of the Origins Awards, describing them as "trade awards" in an attempt to suggest they aren't worthy of satisfying the notability criteria. They are "trade awards" in the same sense that the Oscars or Grammy Awards are "trade awards". It just happens that the Oscars are more "popular" and well-known as they deal with the film industry, and are shown on TV each year. However, as we all know, obscurity is not grounds for deletion, or arguing against their notability. Origins Awards have been given out for more than thirty years and are amongst the highest awards that RPGs (and RPG supplements) can acheive. You can find the criteria for how they are selected at the website of the Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts, & Design[ [19]. Several of the articles that the original poster have nominated for deletion have had these awards noted, and clearly referenced, in the articles at the time the articles were placed as AfDs. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, by critising the validity of what sources are there shows a basic mis-understanding on the industry at large. These aren't multi-billing dollar industries, but they are the top businesses and products in their field. I believe this whole thing could have been handled much more ambiably by just notifying us on the project page of specific articles of concern instead of just nomindating a half dozen or so a day for AfD. We are in the process of cleaning up articles, and the scramble is just causing aggrevation. Turlo Lomon 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft and Role playing games (Section Break)

I can see a pattern emerging here; because it is often aserted that these games are notable, it must follow that it is wrong to nominate them for AfD. However, I am not sure that their claim to notability is being examined in a sober fashion. I know that both the games and the award are held in high esteem, but just the same notability is not inherited; just because D&D won the award, it does not follow that all other winners are notable. What I cannot fanthom from the award sites, the launch announcements and the articles themselves (which incidently cannot be classed as reliable secondary sources) is why some people think they are notable in the absence of context or analysis. For instance, the origin award gives no indication as to why the winners got higher points than other nomineess. Only when you read analysis such as this, can you place games other than D&D in context: "The difference in sales between Wizards (the publishers of D&D) and all other producers of roleplaying games is so staggering that even saying there is an ‘RPG industry’ at all may be generous" [20]. When I put an article up for an AfD, it is not because I choose to ignore the awards, the press releases and the advertoritals, it is because I take a cold hard looks and ask, does this particular game comply with WP:NOTABILITY?-- Gavin Collins 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cold hard look? I don't believe that your AfDs are being made in a sober fashion, Gavin. It's possible that you are attempting to edit subjects on which you have no knowledge whatsoever, which by itself would be an abuse of Wikipedia; just because anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn't make all edits of equal validity. But your repeated proposals to delete articles on particular RPGs instead of applying the many more responsible editing options available does rather smack of a personal bias against these games. -- Nelson Cunnington 06:12, 2007, September 19 (BST)

A few comments to address certain points you made. I would love to hear your feed back, Gavin.

• Repeatedly, you are stating articles about published books don't meet the notability for WP:FICTION. The criteria you should be looking at is Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
• References are being/have been added from 3rd party reviewers critisizing the work. (See Criteria #1). How exactly is this a problem?
• With a few exceptions, awards are a requirement we look at. (Criteria #2) Right there, notability has been established per policy.
• Where does the Academy Award, Grammy Award, and Emmy Award explain how they come to their decisions? Especially the Academy... I can never figure out where they come to some of their conclusions. According to you, they do. Could you point me to a site where this is done?
• I don't see sales being listed as a requirement for notability. Could you please point it out to me?
• We have already consolidated a great deal of published works into a single article, because I agree that not everything needs a seperate article. How is this still a problem when the combined article more then shows a significant amount of press?
• Totally exclude the Star Fleet Battle background articles in replying. Those would be under WP:FICTION, and I can't argue any points you've made given the quality of them.
• Regarding the article you linked, I am guessing you haven't looked at the stock of some of the more successful companies (which was over 300 a share last time I checked). It's interesting, but it appears to be focused on d20. The quote you gave appears out of context, as the entire article only applies to OGL, which is d20 specific.

Looking forward to your reply. Turlo Lomon 01:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to your opinions, as I feel you are too close to these articles to be able to make a sober distiction between awards, the press releases and the advertoritals on the one hand, and reliable secondary sources on the other. -- Gavin Collins 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have every right to your opinion, Gavin, but the recent AFDs indicate that consensus does not agree with you. Note that our guidelines are intended to be descriptive of what happens, not prescriptive of what some people believe should happen. Thus, if a guideline often conflicts with actual practice, chances are it's time to update the guideline. >Radiant< 11:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If we had articles for every product line of every "commercial publisher" (where the publisher made a living off the game company) of roleplaying and wargaming produced in history, it would be a relatively small increase. Notability should not be used excessively as a club; it's a way to avoid getting widescale random junk and cruft in the encyclopedia. There isn't enough in the games industry to do so. The current deletion campaign is silly... there's nothing here to protect Wikipedia from... Georgewilliamherbert 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I understand you point, but my answer has already been covered in Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. You are right that Notability should not be used as a club, but rather a defence against deletion. As far as I can see, articles like GURPS Bio-Tech have too little content (let alone secondary sources) to survive long term. -- Gavin Collins 10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, there is a lively debate over at Wikipedia talk:Use of flags in articles discussing the proposed ban on Wikipedia of flags and flag icons in almost all articles (including infoboxes). Proposed exceptions are sports articles where flags are needed. If you have any comments, please feel free to leave them on the talk page. Sue Wallace 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm faced with a possible edit war over an essay that I wrote about a year ago, Wikipedia: These are not original research. The dispute is over a couple of sentences concerning fixing obvious typos & misspellings in a quoted source. Another user wants to change this passage becuse he believes them to be "intellectually dishonest", & for some reason believes this essay is the equivalent of policy, while I believe his edits violate the point of this essay -- which was written as some thoughts about how to interpret policy.

AFAIK, this is the only place on Wikipedia where this issue is raised. Whether or not my belief is "intellectually dishonest", I believe replacing this statement with another sppresses one opinion on this matter; there is nothing keeping the other editor from writing his own essay on this matter.

If we consider the intent of WP:OWN, it could argued that I have no right to object to this change without creating a consensus to support my view that the original version of this passage is better. However, & probably more significantly, an edit war over how to deal with typos & misspellings in quotations does seem to qualify for WP:LAME, so I'd rather not push the matter to a 3RR incident (he has made two reversions to my one).

So what to do? Allow anyone to make changes to essays, even if it could be argued that this changes the meaning of the essay? Permit the original author to have special rights when it comes to edits to an essay? Is there a recommended course of actin to take in these situations? Or, since I came across this proposal, simply admit no one except me is interested in this essay, let alone my suggestion about quotation practices, & move this page to my own userspace where I can flip the bit so that non-Admins cannot edit it? -- llywrch 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's in general project space then anyone is fully within their rights to edit it, even if that causes a change in meaning. If you want it to be "your" essay you can try putting it in your user space, but even then WP:USER makes it clear that your user space still belongs to the community. Raymond Arritt 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it is in the Wikipedia name space then it's fair game. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Except to point out while if it were in your userspace, while technically it belongs to the community I don't feel people would be justified in editing it except if they felt what you wrote was somehow exceptionally harmful or misleading. In terms of moving the essay bear in mind that since you've put it in the wikipedia name space if other editors object they're fully entitled to revert IMHO. You'll have to create a new copy in your userspace linking back to the wikipedia name space for GFDL reasons (or alternatively simply put a copy of you version without anyone else's contributions) if you can't convince other editors to let you move it. Nil Einne 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gongriding. Is Transwikiing to Uncyclopedia allowed? Isn't that a copvyio? Corvus cornix 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is copyleft see Wikipedia:Copyrights not copyright Jeepday ( talk) 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is under copyright, it is just licensed under a copyleft license. But that does not mean that everything is allowed.-- Stephan Schulz 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copyrights The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations...Permission to reproduce content under the license and technical conditions applicable to Wikipedia ... has already been granted to everyone without request Jeepday ( talk) 05:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And it still is under copyright, although indeed the Foundation does not own it, the individual contributors do. Transwikiing to another Wiki is ok if the license conditions are met. Uncyclopedia apparently uses the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license, which is not compatible with the GFDL (the non-commercial part breaks it). -- Stephan Schulz 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Copyrights what is free when two free copyrights are not compatible? Jeepday ( talk) 06:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're making the faulty statement that a non-commercial license is free. -- Golbez 07:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Gong rider is the only contributor to the actual text of the article. Provided you don't want to transwiki the speedy tag, you could try asking their permission. If they give it (which they can, they're the copyright holder), you could transwiki the material. In that case, it would effectively be dual-licensed between CC-BY-NC-SA and GFDL. You could also ask Uncyclopedia if they would accept material under GFDL, since it's actually less restrictive than the noncommercial license they use. If they would agree to do that, this would also work, but I have no idea if they would. The above is otherwise correct, though, since you're not the copyright holder, you're not allowed to just choose a license other than the GFDL, and Uncyclopedia is free to reject any material which is not under its preferred license, even if that license is less restrictive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the article was moved already uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Gongriding. Does anyone want to address the concern at Uncyclopedia? Jeepday ( talk) 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Essentially, we're saying that we don't want that article. Whether or not Uncyclopedia decides to pick it up is their concern, not ours. >Radiant< 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)