This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This page was nominated for retargeting on 17 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep current target. |
Under "Types of essays" and the subsection "Wikipedia essays", the pages states that "Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful or to contradict a settled point of policy." [bolding added] The idea that "unhelpful" essays can be moved into userspace or deleted seems to be problematic, given that the "unhelpful"-ness of a specific essay is a subjective quality that could be debated. Editor XYZ writes an essay arguing for a different formatting style in the MOS. Some editors find that she she raises valid points. One editor feels the essay is "unhelpful" and it's deleted. Seems like a rather hazy standard for deleting an essay. If by "unhelpful", the sentence means that the essay does not clearly articulate and defend a position, then a clearer definition should be provided. Secondly, the idea that essays that "contradict a settled point of policy" may be deleted seems problematic. Sure, if an editor does an over-the-top, vitriolic rant for 2 pages against the NOR rules, that would not be desirable. But a calm, rational, reasoned essay that calls for conservative modifications to an existing policy would be a useful way of starting a discussion on this issue. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they do not clearly articulate a point and do not supply rational arguments and examples to support this point. The Wikipedia essay space is not the place for incoherent, rambling, " stream of consciousness" opinion pieces. As well, essays that substantially or entirely consist of a vitriolic, emotional, over-the-top, soapbox-style attack on a settled Wikipedia policy may be moved to userspace or deleted. The latter guidance is not meant to discourage dissent, debate and discussion about Wikipedia policies. In fact, one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that the entire encyclopedia, including its policies, may be altered by editors, following the procedures that are set out (any such modifications are typically incremental and conservative and are based on widespread consensus). A well-reasoned essay with a calm, dispassionate tone that raises potential concerns or issues with a Wikipedia policy, provides sound supporting evidence and proposes conservative and incremental changes is less likely to be moved to userspace or deleted." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they do not clearly articulate a point or supply arguments and examples to support this point. As well, the Wikipedia essay space is not the place for vitriolic soapbox-style attacks on a settled Wikipedia policy, and any such essays may be moved to userspace or deleted. Well-reasoned essays with a calm, dispassionate tone that raise potential concerns or issues with a Wikipedia policy, provide supporting evidence and propose conservative and incremental changes are less likely to be moved to userspace or deleted." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Prior to my most recent WP:Be bold edits to this page, the section on Wikipedia essays appeared as follows (bolding added for emphasis):
References
Today, another editor tagged the essay WP:CHURNALISM with the POV tag, which reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met."
That essay, as all Wikipedia essays, already bears the legend "This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
So how, exactly, can such an essay be tagged as POV? Readers are defended against the error of taking a point of view expressed therein as a wikipedia guideline, or even as having the credence of an article on Wikipedia.
The editor in question has not done anything more than state his belief that the essay isn't neutral (which is the whole point of essays here, if I'm not mistaken).
When is it ever legitimate to tag an essay POV? loupgarous ( talk) 01:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Essays... typically contain information, advice or opinions.... Editors disagreeing with opinions expressed in an essay are welcome to write their own essay, or comment on the talk page of the one they object to, but not to misapply our article cleanup tags : Noyster (talk), 08:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Propose to merge
The first one would be converted to a redir that points here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Highya, I am trying to understand essays and would like to know if this topic should rather be expanded as an essay as an editor pointed out it doesn't reference a specific section that must change but rather request that editors review scientific sources and be vigilant not to use outdated scientific research to prove the reliability of outdated content regarding cannabis. New research is being released and disected at an alarming rate yet many facts about cannabis still relies on outdated research. As an example see the Afrikaans Wiki article for cannabis where no references are even used to support the pseudo-scientific claim of cannabis use.
There for I would like to ask if I may expand this problem in essay form or would this be frowned upon because it's already being shunned of the talk page. However gist of it makes for a valid argument.
Highest Regards, Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Inconsistent enforcement and contribute! I'm not exactly sure where this essay belongs, but I think it needs to be written...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There are currently many pages that use {{ Essay}} or one of its wrappers but are not tagged on their talk page with our project banner. I'd like to put in a request that this be done using WP:WikiProjectTagger using the standard settings. Are there any concerns or objections? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This page was nominated for retargeting on 17 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep current target. |
Under "Types of essays" and the subsection "Wikipedia essays", the pages states that "Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful or to contradict a settled point of policy." [bolding added] The idea that "unhelpful" essays can be moved into userspace or deleted seems to be problematic, given that the "unhelpful"-ness of a specific essay is a subjective quality that could be debated. Editor XYZ writes an essay arguing for a different formatting style in the MOS. Some editors find that she she raises valid points. One editor feels the essay is "unhelpful" and it's deleted. Seems like a rather hazy standard for deleting an essay. If by "unhelpful", the sentence means that the essay does not clearly articulate and defend a position, then a clearer definition should be provided. Secondly, the idea that essays that "contradict a settled point of policy" may be deleted seems problematic. Sure, if an editor does an over-the-top, vitriolic rant for 2 pages against the NOR rules, that would not be desirable. But a calm, rational, reasoned essay that calls for conservative modifications to an existing policy would be a useful way of starting a discussion on this issue. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they do not clearly articulate a point and do not supply rational arguments and examples to support this point. The Wikipedia essay space is not the place for incoherent, rambling, " stream of consciousness" opinion pieces. As well, essays that substantially or entirely consist of a vitriolic, emotional, over-the-top, soapbox-style attack on a settled Wikipedia policy may be moved to userspace or deleted. The latter guidance is not meant to discourage dissent, debate and discussion about Wikipedia policies. In fact, one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that the entire encyclopedia, including its policies, may be altered by editors, following the procedures that are set out (any such modifications are typically incremental and conservative and are based on widespread consensus). A well-reasoned essay with a calm, dispassionate tone that raises potential concerns or issues with a Wikipedia policy, provides sound supporting evidence and proposes conservative and incremental changes is less likely to be moved to userspace or deleted." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they do not clearly articulate a point or supply arguments and examples to support this point. As well, the Wikipedia essay space is not the place for vitriolic soapbox-style attacks on a settled Wikipedia policy, and any such essays may be moved to userspace or deleted. Well-reasoned essays with a calm, dispassionate tone that raise potential concerns or issues with a Wikipedia policy, provide supporting evidence and propose conservative and incremental changes are less likely to be moved to userspace or deleted." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Prior to my most recent WP:Be bold edits to this page, the section on Wikipedia essays appeared as follows (bolding added for emphasis):
References
Today, another editor tagged the essay WP:CHURNALISM with the POV tag, which reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met."
That essay, as all Wikipedia essays, already bears the legend "This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
So how, exactly, can such an essay be tagged as POV? Readers are defended against the error of taking a point of view expressed therein as a wikipedia guideline, or even as having the credence of an article on Wikipedia.
The editor in question has not done anything more than state his belief that the essay isn't neutral (which is the whole point of essays here, if I'm not mistaken).
When is it ever legitimate to tag an essay POV? loupgarous ( talk) 01:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Essays... typically contain information, advice or opinions.... Editors disagreeing with opinions expressed in an essay are welcome to write their own essay, or comment on the talk page of the one they object to, but not to misapply our article cleanup tags : Noyster (talk), 08:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Propose to merge
The first one would be converted to a redir that points here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Highya, I am trying to understand essays and would like to know if this topic should rather be expanded as an essay as an editor pointed out it doesn't reference a specific section that must change but rather request that editors review scientific sources and be vigilant not to use outdated scientific research to prove the reliability of outdated content regarding cannabis. New research is being released and disected at an alarming rate yet many facts about cannabis still relies on outdated research. As an example see the Afrikaans Wiki article for cannabis where no references are even used to support the pseudo-scientific claim of cannabis use.
There for I would like to ask if I may expand this problem in essay form or would this be frowned upon because it's already being shunned of the talk page. However gist of it makes for a valid argument.
Highest Regards, Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Inconsistent enforcement and contribute! I'm not exactly sure where this essay belongs, but I think it needs to be written...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There are currently many pages that use {{ Essay}} or one of its wrappers but are not tagged on their talk page with our project banner. I'd like to put in a request that this be done using WP:WikiProjectTagger using the standard settings. Are there any concerns or objections? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)