Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Distinguishing between terrorism and non-terrorism

Ever since I first came here, I have seen a number of debates and controversies over whether certain mass killings should qualify as terrorism and be categorized under it because of the perpetrators' motivations, and what the inclusion criteria is. For example, in regards to the killing of Jo Cox, some users believe that it should be categorized as terrorism now because the perpetrator espoused right-wing motivations and killed a major political leader, and others believe that it should wait at the moment because legal proceedings are still ongoing and the perpetrator's mental health should also be considered. In another example, the Charleston church shooting: some users think it should be terrorism, others believe it should not be because WP:RS seems to vary on the issue.

There have also been content disputes and concerns over lists of terrorist attacks (i.e. Lone wolf (terrorism), List of terrorist incidents, 2016, Terrorism in the United States, etc.), some of which I was involved in. In the disputes, users debate about whether certain attacks should be included because they look like terrorism even though officials in the investigation, and RS, have not mentioned or confirmed a terrorist motivation. For example, I was in a discussion with a couple of users at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 over whether the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers articles should be included in that list, even though they weren't officially categorized and no terrorist angle was mentioned in the investigation or RS.

In addition, I had seen some odd examples listed in Lone wolf (terrorism), which I had since removed. For example, the 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers ([1]), the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting ([2]), and the 2014 Isla Vista killings ([3]) were listed but removed by me because of terrorism was unconfirmed or even not mentioned at all. But given the motives of these events (anti-government, racism, sexism), I would understand why people would feel a need to list them as examples.

With the consideration that most of my examples are content disputes, I understand that VPP is not where content disputes are resolved. However, I saw a commonality with all of these examples and more: a widely varying opinion between users over what should qualify as a terrorist attack, and a lack of common understanding over inclusion criteria. For example, if the Dallas shooting is considered racially-motivated violence, should that be classified as a terrorist attack with that kind of thinking? Or would it be a WP:OR violation to say it now when terrorism has not actually been confirmed by officials and RS?

My apologies for the long post, or if anything doesn't seem to be clear, or if this is even relevant here. This is my first rodeo here. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that "terrorism" is a WP:LABEL, it should only be applied in a factual manner if the authorities responsible for investigating the case have decided to call it as such. I have seen many cases of editors using either public commentary (but not from people involved in the investigates) as well as their own personal theories (that is, OR) to declare something factually as "terrorism" which we absolutely should not be doing per LABEL. It's reasonable to cite attributed opinion that something may be terrorism, but that's different from treating it as a fact (as for example, listing something on that List of terrorist incidents article). --MASEM (t) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely wrong to call something terrorism that hasn't been so designated by responsible authorities. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion on Talk:Terrorism in Europe#Distinction goes in a similar direction. Theoretically spoken, there may be cases where the reputable sources call it "terrorism" and a clear statement by the authorities is missing (maybe because they want to hide something, think of states without free media). These cases should be included, too, based on good sources in the respective article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a careful line to draw here. I can see a case where there is an incident of international impact where the nation that it happened in and leading the investigation have opted to not call it terrorism, but high-level officials in other nations (who are likely going to have information on the investigation in detail) call it terrorism. That's a time to be reasonably careful on using the term. On the other hand, if in the same situation, it's not high-level officials of other nations, but the press at large that want to call it terrorism (without having any other information), that's a problem. A key thing I've seen it basically using the word of the press or people that are not in any position of authority to assert something is terrorism, which we should be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Largely d'accord with this, the other way round we have to keep in mind, that not everything which is called "terrorism" by authoritarian states is in fact "terrorism". For Turkey, most of the Kurds are terrorists, for Russia the Ukrainians and vice versa, but in fact this can be doubted with very good reasons. So we also have to be careful with such labels by authorities, especially of more or less authoritarian states. And this is the point, where the free media are "back in the match", which quote e.g. experts on terrorism.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, but there is also a special case when Islamic terrorism is involved. For example, a great number of terrorist attacks in lists are Islamic terrorist attacks, most of them very recent. In cases like Nice, Orlando, and the like, where the investigation is still ongoing, would it be a WP:OR violation to label them as terrorism (even if sources and officials say it is) when the investigation may ultimately not come to that conclusion. Hypothetically speaking, of course, but from my position, the distinction between terrorism and not terrorism seems to be clearer for non-Islamic attacks.

Also, if an attack barely gets any coverage and only has passing mentions in list articles (see the articles in List of terrorist incidents, 2016 for examples), should we include that even though the investigation may still be ongoing? Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It can always happen that later investigations prove officials and the media wrong, Islamistic or not. Wikipedia should be based on the best sources available and therefore show their actual state of knowledge (e.g. as in the respective article), but it can never grant that the state of knowledge of the officials doesn't change. In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported. But terrorism in some regions (near ISIL territory for example) is happening on a daily base. Maybe in some cases there will never be an investigation sufficing Western standards, but there are also sources that are usually reliable for such regions which cover also the official statements. And I view it as very important that Wikipedia collects such incidents because they show the whole tragic dimension of that phenomenon.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported." I can definitely name the 2016 Munich shooting as an example. Everyone, including the media, got really riled up when the eyewitness account mentioning "Allahu akbar" got involved in the scoop. Then more details about the perpetrator came in, we realized he is either a right-wing extremist or someone out to copycat a school shooting, and the Islamic terrorism angle got mostly thrown out the window (save for those conspiracy theorists who would believe the German media is covering it all up). Parsley Man (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and how many of the terrorist cases is that? 0,01%? Besides of that, it was clear relatively fast that this case was a little special. In the overwhelming majority of the other cases the things are not completely different than we are initially told in the media, especially not in the Islamistic sector. There are even cases which seem to be "normal" stabbings like the case of Safia S. in Hanover main station, that later turned out to be a terrorist act. Or the Islamistic teenagers in Essen who blew up the Sikh temple. Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts? I would say no, that is the normal error margin of media/officials/Wikipedia.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts?" Yes, when WP:NOR is concerned. I don't know if sources or officials have classified that Sikh temple bombing was classified as a terrorist attack, but if not, then there's definitely a problem if we go with category guns blazing and then the investigation proves us wrong. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the List of terrorist incidents, 2016, it was decided that we would included suspected terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are included when the perpetrator appears to have a political motivation, or if the attack occurs in an area where terrorist activities are common and in the fashion of what a terrorist organization would do. Why is this? I would say the overwhelming majority of attacks in these lists are suspected terror attacks. This is because the attacks often take a long time to investigate, with sometimes the results never being released in the media if the attack is minor. The list likely would not really have anything on it if we did not include these attacks. A politically motivated attack is the same thing as a terrorist attack. If sources state that the perp appears to be politically motivated, but it does not state terrorism, the attack should be added. Beejsterb (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question here is whether it should be considered a WP:NOR violation or not, if sources say the attack in question was politically motivated but do not mention terrorism. I guess it does seem obvious in some cases but other times it does not, Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for instance. Racial motivation, from what I'm seeing, falls into the spectrum of political motives but the shooting did not look like terrorism, judging by the media coverage, at least. Parsley Man (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, a terrorist attack and a politically motivated attack are technically the same thing. Beejsterb (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of such a thing until now. Then why do sources not mention terrorism in some cases when they do with others? Parsley Man (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another question, what would you consider a "politically motivated attack"? What exactly would fall under that category? Because I feel concerned about someone thinking the 2014 Isla Vista killings could count as a lone-wolf terrorist attack when it's been treated by officials and media as a tragic yet typical spree shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of political attacks don't use the terror of death to bring change or order, just death to opposition. Assassinations, wars, coups, oppressions and executions are all their own sorts of violence. If you count gang politics as real politics, that's even more. None need to happen in busy public spaces with loud noises, panic and cameras, like terrorism does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible approach, as it presumes (on WP's part) guilt before innocence. In some countries, (including the US, as I understand the laws), the criminal court proceedings and punishment for a crime determined to be terrorism by authorities are much much harsher than that if it was a politically-motivated incident. Hence the need to avoid presumptive labeling. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, as someone who occasionally comes across these issues. Specifically I have opposed the inclusion of terrorism categories (as well as the murder and assassination labels) at Killing of Jo Cox. Without getting into a content dispute, I'd like to explain why. Firstly the suspected perpetrator is the subject of legal action and there are BLP issues, so we must be cautious. The case is not being charged as terrorism, but is being treated under terrorism court procedures, and has been investigated by anti-terrorism police. I don't view this as sufficient to describe the act as terrorism. I would normally be content to go with the usual description of terrorism (and assassination) as an act of violence for political (etc) purposes, with those motivations supported by reliable sources. However in this case the motive is far from clear. Several editors have stated that the perpetrator is obviously a right-wing nut job - to quote, "the perpetrator pretty much stated his motivations". Again this is something I disagree with. The perpetrator has uttered only a few words that we know of, and all of them were rather confusing. There are alleged links to right-wing extremism, some of which are dated to some 20 years ago. There are no recent examples the act can be said to follow, and no groups claiming responsibility. The perpetrator has a history of mental illness and frankly, as one judge alluded, doesn't appear sane even for a terrorist. The combination of these factors - sub judice and BLP, lack of terrorism charges, unclear motivations, no claims of responsibility, the mental illness factor - means we are not in a position to apply labels which assume the motivation.

On the wider issue I don't think it's sufficient to find sources which use the terrorism label. It's possible to find sources which describe the killing of Jo Cox terrorism[4], murder,[5], and assassination.^{[citation needed]} It's also possible to find people who claim to know the motivations of the killer.[6] This rather reminds me of people recently saying that Jimmy Wales' first name is James because one archived website once said so.[7] I think we need to look beyond the headlines and single instances.

I confess however that in some cases I have no answer about what should be done. I can't foresee what will happen on the outcome of the Jo Cox trial. I have no solution for the categorisation of Dylann Roof. In some senses I find some of Wikipedia's categorisation systems inherently deficient, and can only suggest we use a combination of third-party labeling, reporting of motivations, and common sense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also been invited to comment and endorse others' comments about there sometimes being an over-readiness to label, especially when the issue is 'hot'. A related issue is the use of 'near-synonyms' by authorities and editors. A particular example is the use of 'terror attack', by authorities, (sometimes authorities come under pressure to use such a term, as Obama has come under pressure recently to use the term 'Islamic terrorism') and by editors here who are ready to treat 'terror' (ie anything which causes mass/widespread public fear) as a synonym of 'terrorist', which IMO has and should have a narrower definition.

The problem is confounded by recent 'lone wolf/self-radicalised' perps, (Orlando gay bar?) where the authorities are unclear/ambiguous about how much private psychology and how much political motivation played a part. I don't know the whole answer, but endorse that authorities must EXPLICITLY characterise thus (not simply marginal news sources and especially not the perp themselves nor organisations like ISIS, which appear to be ready to claim credit for the weather if it suits their agenda!). Without some clear definition on WP, the term is in danger of becoming meaningless through loose use.Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To try a fully different approach: Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. With that in mind, this discussion is quite academic. Anyone can identify terror, when it happens. It's violence to terrify people for a political, religious, or ideological aim. The common sense knows when something is terror. To be honest, I don't think much of discussions like these. What should be the outcome? We erase articles from a list only because no people sitting in an office classified slaughtered people as slaughtered by a "licensed" terrorist? Are you sure that this bears any sense? I am not convinced.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "terrorism" under the above definition is highly subjective, and as a contentious label, this immediately requires us to consider sources rather than editors' opinion to avoid the OR. But even then, we have to consider that even in the RSes, journalists and other experts without the legal authority on the situation will make such claims, and so many many events could be classified as "terrorism" depending on which subset of sources one decides to use. "Terrorism" is a hot word, which for most readers will immediately set a certain tone, and its clear that sources love to through the word around to try to sway audiences (per fear, uncertainty and doubt). Add in that there are very real ramifications in the criminal prosecution of cases being called "terrorism", and we absolutely should avoid calling something a act of terrorism if that can only be sourced to non-authoritative sources. (That said, in articles about these acts, it is reasonably fine to include a wide opinion that something might be considered a terrorism act with proper attribution even if the authorities have not come to their conclusion as of yet). --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that someone can easily apply this logic to events like the Umpqua Community College shooting, for example. The shooter singled out some of his victims because they told him they were Christian (even though at least two of them weren't being honest with their statements), and the shooter was said to have a history of antireligious and white supremacist beliefs. Both beliefs can definitely fall under the "ideological aim" category of the terrorist definition you just used. But based on this, would it be appropriate for the shooting to be categorized as a terrorist attack? As I said before, investigative officials and media outlets have treated this as a mass shooting, and nothing about terrorism was ever mentioned. You may not agree that this would be a terrorist attack, but I'm sure someone else might, and as I mentioned in the first post of this discussion, I had seen (and removed) some very odd examples in the Lone wolf (terrorism) article. Now, some cases are obvious and clear-cut (whether they're terrorist attacks or not terrorist attacks), but others (such as the Charleston shooting) are clearly more up for debate. Where exactly do we draw a line, if we even can? Parsley Man (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A similar disconnect can be seen on Weather Underground, where the FBI (and many others) having labeled the group as terrorists is seen as "not enough". Arkon (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think when it comes to describing an incident as terrorism the motive of the perpetrator has to be clear. Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. So in cases when the perpetrator links himself with terrorist organisations (like ISIL) you can speak of terrorism. I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting. But for example, the shooting of poice officers in Dallas was perpetrated by a Black Person. His motivations do clearly fit the Black Supremacist Ideology that started in the 1960s. He even posted a picture of himself on the internet in which he makes the black supremacist sign with his fist. Black Supremacist groups like Black Panther also commited terrorist attacks in the early 70s.Joanne Deborah Chesimard was a member of the group and also killed two police officers and she´s still on the most wanted terrorist list. She had the same motives as the gunman who killed five police officers in Dallas, but yet he´s not labeled a terrorist by the media. I think academically speaking (so not what the media says about these events), if you look at the motives and the way the shooting of Dallas was executed you can label the perpetrator as a terrorist. The perpetrator´s action do fit the definition of terrorism but yet that hasn´t been done yet by the FBI or the media. I think it´s just strange that muslims are judged as terrorists very fast by the media in comparison with people of other backgrounds. JBergsma1 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. ... I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting." I highly recommend you to read this section of the main article, then, because clearly not every top official thinks this is terrorism. Also, judging by your reasoning, could you call the Umpqua Community College shooting or the 2014 Isla Vista killings terrorist attacks and categorize them in the appropriate lists because of the perpetrators' motives, even if terrorism wasn't mentioned at all by officials or media outlets? I for one would call that a severe WP:NOR violation. Parsley Man (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The motives of the perpetrators who committed the Umpqua Community College shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings where likely due to psychological reasons. I know that both killers made judgements towards 'christians' and 'women', which could explain the attacks as religiously motivated or motivated by sexism and therefore be terrorism. But in both of these cases the main motives for the gunmen to commit the attacks remains either unknown or were likely due to personal reasons. If you look up information about the Isla Vista killer you'll find that he was frustraded about rejection by women. He even talks constantly about rejection in his 'motivational videos'. While he did target women, you can tell that it wasn't terrorism because there wasn't a political motive involved. In comparison, Marc Lepine, the perpetrator of an attack on a university in Canada in 1989 in which 14 women were killed, was an outspoken anti-feminist and spoke about his hatred for the 'feminisation of society'. This is more close to terrorism in an anti-feminist context. You can't tell that of the Isla Vista killer. Dylann Roff meanwhile, made constantly clear that he had racial views by making pictures. He never talked about being bullied by 'black people' for example (in comparison to the Isla Vista killer that felt rejected by women). He also had no history of psychological problems while the Isla Vista killer was diagnosed. JBergsma1 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But the thing is, the Charleston shooting is considered controversial because some top officials think it is terrorism while others (including the FBI Director) do not believe it is. Not only would classifying the shooting as an act of terrorism be a severe WP:NOR violation, it would also be undue because such a categorization would practically be catering to the side who thinks the shooting should be terrorism. That can also certainly apply to those attacks were the terrorism angle is sketchy and/or unmentioned, i.e. the Dallas and Baton Rouge police shootings. I think in all cases we should wait until an official classification is made by someone with an intimate connection with the investigation, such as someone with the FBI. Parsley Man (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that when it comes to naming an event as 'terrorism' a classification is important. But people can still be sceptical about a classification made by a major organisation that investigated the incident, such as the FBI. The FBI has a monopoly on all sorts of investigations and even though most of their conclusions are accepted by most people or countries, there is always a party that remains sceptical. Sometimes things are not 100 % certain because there are always people who interpretate things differently. So when a description of a violent event remains vague when for example no classifcation was given, you could still describe an event as a 'terrorist attack' if it fits the definition of it. So I agree with waiting for a classifcation made by the authorities as it's of course the most accurate thing to do. But when it comes to smaller attacks (like some attacks in Iraq) in which a classification is not made clear by the media, you could still describe the event as a terrorist attack by rational thinking and sticking to the definition.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That is so, so, SO wrong. Wikipedia does not exist to cater to those who would be skeptical about any conclusion from any investigation into any sort of attack. It was be WP:UNDUE. Parsley Man (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You could describe them as Satanic rituals or cocaine-fueled, by the same logic. Being wrong about hundreds of smaller attacks or definitions isn't much better or worse than being wrong about the big one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a native English speaker so I make mistakes, but despite that you could still understand what I was saying. Second of all, Satanic rituals or cocaine-fueled have nothing to do with terrorism. you don't get to see narco attacks in Mexico on the list of terrorist incidents because it's gang related crime. i think you're also wrong or just beeing ridiculous if you compare my grammar to my knowledge of terrorism. @InedibleHulk: pinging. JBergsma1 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was just being hypothetical. There's no need to be so defensive. Parsley Man (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that terrorism is only labeled as such on wiki when the media and authorities report it as such. I could be wrong, though, especially if you look at the terrorism wiki article, which covers a broader range of definitions. epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it's a breach of NOR if editors apply any of the definitions themselves. It has to be reliably sourced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Solution

Is there anything that can be done about this? Should we create some sort of new rule to clarify the issue? If there already is such a rule, should more clarification be done? I'm still seeing more confusion and dispute about the issue and I believe we need some sort of guideline policy for such a case. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

We need changes to the 'further reading section' on articles

Many articles use further reading sections with links to different pages and this is pretty much the same as the WP:External links and it becomes a headache to decide which link goes where. It also looks like a mess sometimes on the article with all these sections. it could even confuse the readers.

What I propose is this: If the recommended further reading section cites to a book or an article, or essay or website or whatever, but no link exists, then we can put it in further reading. But if it is a linked work, not counting a preview, then they should be made to go in external links.

Otherwise we have too many sections with links, when they can all be put together if there is a link, and previews don't count. If the full material is there, then the link can just go in external links section but only provided it's the full material.

Proposed--Taeyebar 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI the current guideline for further reading sections is at WP:FURTHER, and is quite minimal. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Someguy1221 for pointing it out. It is indeed short. What do you propose we do?--Taeyebar 17:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the section is too long. If I could be bothered I would be able to edit it down to half the size or less without losing anything important. Most other policies and guidelines could do with even more culling of unimportant waffle. Having said that I would support the merging of "further reading" and "external links". Both sections perform the same function, and there is no need to distinguish between further reading available online and that which is not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can other users comment also here please?--Taeyebar 22:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the further reading section because it attracts way too much link spam. Personally, I would support keeping only highly relevant and well cited books/peer reviewed papers as part of further reading and exclude everything else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to definitely remove one of the two sections you should first rename "Further reading" into "Further information", or something similar. But that is not what excites me much. I am more interested on another change, which can be seen in the German Wiki, i.e. the moving of "References" section to the very bottom of the page, sot that the sequence will be:

• See also
• Bibliography
• Further information (or Further reading + External links)
• Commons, Sister project and Portal templates, and any other template
• References (Notes)

The reason for this reshuffling is quite self-explanatory. Carlotm (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Public figures with charges against them not found guilty and never conclusively resolved

I am currently involved in a BLP dispute that is pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_1:_Allegations_Against_an_Entertainer The WP:BLPCRIME section links to "public figure" - the wikipedia article on the term as defined in U.S. law. My interpretation of the policy is that the allegations in the example should be included, but other editors obviously disagree. I feel that WP would benefit from an unambiguous general ruling, to avoid thousands of hours being chewed up in these disputes. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the coverage of the allegations, trials, and acquittals in question. No blanket policy will ever be adequate beyond WP:V and WP:UNDUE, and yes, there will always be a tension that must be negotiated in every individual case. On the one hand, we do want to prevent frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations from taking up an undue proportion (in some cases, undue may be any mention at all) in BLP articles. However, a blanket ban on including acquittals from being mentioned would preclude Wikipedia from covering such highly noteworthy cases as the OJ Simpson trial; which would be ludicrous. So, no, I think we're stuck with analyzing the evidence in every case, and applying the basic principles of existing policies and guidelines in each case individually. --Jayron32 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it isn't even acquittals, charges were never actually filed. Just somebody said something at some point. NPalgan2 appears to think that's sufficient to say "accusations were made in court" because, apparently, "other court systems work differently" than the US one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

this page is not for the discussion of content of specific articles. Use the article talk pages going forward. kthxbye. --Jayron32 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you are not actually involved in the discussion you linked to, it would be best if you would cut to the chase and tell us which person you are actually personally concerned about (which Wikipedia BLP article). As Jayron32 says, it's a matter of individual case, and WP:UNDUE. It's also a matter of NPOV. I'm guessing the BLP in question is Alicia Machado, since you filed this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alicia_Machado. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Whether or not someone was convicted has no relevance to whether we include it. It is no different from other information. If it has received extensive coverage relative to other coverage of the person, we include it. Otherwise we do not. That is how we treat positive and neutral information as well, per "Balancing aspects." So for example we would exclude stories about celebrities that only appear in tabloids, but are not picked up be the broadsheets. It is coverage in reliable sources that determine what articles are written and what content they should emphasize. If every editor followed the neutrality policy, we could avoid the majority of talk page and notice board discussions. TFD (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Including it in some form or another may be appropriate after evaluating the full range of sources. Sensationalistic "breaking news" type sources are not appropriate for an incident that took place many years ago. Including content that misrepresents the facts, implies guilt, includes innuendo and fails to report the person's denial is most certainly a BLP violation, and will not be permitted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Muchada has chosen to insert herself into the news by making uncorroborated accusations the Republican nominee for U.S. president. As a result the Daily Mail decided to search through stories about her already reported in the Associated Press, the Economist and other reliable sources and re-publish stories that received wide coverage at the time. These reliable sources do not misrepresent the facts, impliy guilt, include innuendo or fail to report the person's denial. In any case, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to correct the facts in reliable sources. If you disagree then get the RS policy changed so that we can ignore mainstream media. TFD (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Any neutral editor can read the disputed section which I removed once and several other editors also removed from the article. Then those neutral editors can read the sources and evaluate their quality. Any reasonable person will then conclude that the content added to this encyclopedia misrepresented the sources, conflated an informal comment by a judge with an indictment or formal accusation, and failed to include this person's repeated denial of any involvement at all in the violence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Cullen, you are the one misrepresenting the sources. The judge did not make an 'informal comment'. He accused her of threatening him, and formally initiated a second investigation by a separate judge - "poner el caso a conocimiento de los tribunales para que investigue la amenaza". NPalgan2 (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Cullen, then could you please write a better representation of the sources and we can put it in. BTW how is a widely stated remark by a judge about what Muchada said to him any different from a widely stated remark made by Muchada about what Trump said to her any different. Do you think we should remove her remark or do you think we should pick and choose what content in reliable sources to report based on our personal views of the two individuals? TFD (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: No, I will not write the content you propose because I am not fluent in Spanish and I am not familiar with the Venezuelan judicial and political systems nor with the reliability of various Venezuelan publications. As for the comments attributed to Trump by Machado alone, I would have no problem replacing those with the many other comments that Trump is on the record as saying about her, both in the 1990s and in recent days. There are plenty to choose from. I have no personal views about Machado, except to prevent the sort of gross and egregious BLP violations that were being added to the article yesterday. Every editor should share that concern. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC) The coverage is meager and appears within other significantly covered topics. And the story is 18 years old, full of holes, and is simply accusations and innuendos. I don't think this is worth having in the article, in the first place - given that it has received trivial coverage. It's like, it doesn't matter. And I agree with Cullen's view on this matter. It is an accurate assessment of the situation. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC) It is not meagre. Muchada's boyfriend's sister jumped off a balcony when 8 months pregnant. The boyfriend blamed the husband and is accused of shooting him at his sister's funeral and taking their infant son. Muchada was accused of driving her boyfriend away from the shooting, but claimed that she was at home sick at the time. The boyfriend subsequently disappeared but was then charged by a judge. The judge said he had received a telephone threat on his career and life and the number was traced to Muchada's phone. Muchada agreed she made the call but said it was a thankyou call not a threat, and she was not charged. That's more of a story than we get in the typical movie review. Indeed the events occurred over twenty years ago and were widely covered at the time, but they have been in the news recently, extensively covered across multiple mainstream media. The fact it occurred 20 years ago does not mean it is not relevant to her biography. Or are you recommending that in biographical articles we omit everything that happened more than 20 years ago? We can start by deleting all the articles about all the U.S. presidents before Jerry Ford. Maybe the media should not have written about it. Take it up with them. Maybe Wikipedia should not base weight on what is covered in mainstream sources. Get the policy changed. In the meantime, we need follow the policies of rs and npov. TFD (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources say the person is/was suspected of a crime, but that this person never went on trial, then we can certainly say so. The presumption of innocence applies to formal punishment, not to the legal right for the suspicion not to be mentioned. It should also be noted that even with convictions, there can still be doubt among the public about guilt - for example, many Isralis believe that Moshe Katsav is iinnocent of raping 2 women, despite the conviction of courrt. We aren't representitives of the court - we simply take the best data we can from reliable sources. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and AfD

There is disagreement about whether (or how far) NOTNEWS applies to some articles. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (August 2016). All input to get a broader spectrum of opinions is welcome. Fram (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of Draft namespace to draft AfD nominations

I noticed that @Sk8erPrince: has created three pages in Draft namespace: Draft:Naomi Wakabayashi (AFD), Draft:Yu Kamonomiya (AFD), Draft:Junko Okada (AFD). The reason for this appears to be because of an agreement to slow down their rate of deletion nomination of articles for Japanese voice actors; the discussions surrounding that can be found at WikiProject Anime and Manga and their usertalk, and I provide them as context for why this is being done. To be clear about my question here, this isn't about the deletion nominations, but it is about the use of draft namespace to draft AfD nominations. I wanted to clarify, is this an appropriate usage of the namespace? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If they are not collaborating on the afd drafts with others, gently directing them to their own userpage subpages would be better. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Draft namespace should not be used for this purpose, but user namespace is perfectly suited to such things. They should be moved there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Draft: namespce should be used for collaberation witho other users on drafts. If it's your personal draft, do it in your userspace. (Note that I've created several CFD nominations this way - including the still open Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Local policies, local guidelines, and local consensus

At what point does something that the users of a particular page agree upon become a policy or guideline?

Consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, both of which are labeled as an editing guidelines.

Compare Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, which is labeled as an essay and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines".

In particular, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice specifically threatens those who do not comply with sanctions and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines specifically allows deleting other people's comments on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk in ways not allowed by WP:TPOC.

My concern is this: subpages such as the above that limit their effect to a particular page or pages are generally created and edited by those who participate on those pages, a clear case of WP:LOCALCON, but once you slap that "guideline" or "policy" label on it, it can be and often is used to override policies that have the consensus of the entire community and could be (although so far ANI has declined every enforcement request that doesn't also include violating one of the normal guidelines) used to sanction editors for violating "guidelines" that do not have the support of the larger community. I am also concerned that, unlike other policies and guidelines, edits to these local guidelines don't get a lot of scrutiny.

In my opinion, this also has a detrimental effect on the content of the subpage. Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer links to specific policies and guidelines for pretty much everything. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, not so much.

I propose that the above-mentioned local guidelines instead be categorized the way we categorize WP:BRD, with a "this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the X and Y pages." label at the top, and not as guidelines or policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

These types of things sit somewhere between guidelines (which have had general wide community review) and essays (Which generally are the product of one editor).Most of these are edited by a small group of editors deeply invested in that part of the project and are generally useful when dealing in that area. Obviously, they cannot override global guidelines or policies, and such language should be removed to conform to the global ones. I don't think calling them "essays" is fair as that will make other editors ignore them but I think we need a mid-level between "guideline" and "essay" to reflect something developed locally but does not reflect site-wide consensus. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide any instances of where the classification of pages as guidelines or essays has caused problems? It seems to me that, in most cases, people cite these things when they make good sense and don't when they don't, regardless of how they are labelled. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There's two different situations here:

• Though there's nothing that I know of which establishes this practice, my opinion is that noticeboards and similar venues can set rules for their own use. For example, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard can require the filing editor to list and notify all other editors to a dispute and close filings which do not comply with that requirement. There's no policy, to my knowledge, which gives DRN the right to remove or collapse an editor's posting on that page if that rule isn't followed and, indeed, the talk page guidelines can be read to say that doing so violates the TPG. But noticeboards need such rules to operate efficiently and it seems to be a generally accepted practice to create and enforce them. (Whether or not they can be enforced through sanctions, such as blocking or banning, is a different and open question.) The rules for noticeboards and similar venues are generally created through consensus (often consensus by silence, unfortunately) and apply only at the noticeboard.
• Guidelines such as those which purport to be adopted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment to control article content are a different kettle of fish, however. There is clear policy and guidelines which say that policies and guidelines cannot be created by a limited number of editors. The main source of that policy is the CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy, but it is also repeated at the Wikiproject Council Guidelines (which is an official guideline). That is not to say that official policy or guidelines cannot be formed at a wikiproject page, but it has to be done in a way which involves the entire community. In my opinion, that has to be done by making clear in the proposal that policy or guideline is being formed and then either one of two things has to happen, either, (a) the proposal (usually a RFC) has to be publicized at places like the Village Pump with a clear statement that policy or guidelines are being formed or (b) there has to be tremendous participation in the discussion. (And, frankly, I disagree with (b) but others do not). I've not looked back through the Formula One history to see if one or the other of those justify the header.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC) PS: I now have taken a look at the Formula One page and see that it kinda deals with article content and kinda doesn't, as it deals with assessment. That's article content since a positive assessment will appear on the article page, but it's also a set of standards by which members of that project are advised to assess article quality. As such it's kind of like noticeboard rules. But what it's not is a project-wide guideline and the header should be removed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The red dot

Why, when looking at an article with a map showing at the beginning (usually the subject), does it have a red dot, presumably to show the place in question, which when clicking on said map, one gets an enlarged version of the map, but no subject! i.e. red dot.
What is the point of doing this?

Example 1: Gsaf in Tunisia [I've probably spelt it wrongly], (clicking on the map simply produces an empty map of Tunisia).
Example 2: King's Cross station (clicking on the map merely produces a map of part of central London).
Example 3: St Pancras. Same as 'Example 2' above.

Clicking on the map is a waste of time.

RASAM (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't a proper map, it's a file with a red dot superposed. Clicking on the map loads the file page, without the red dot as it is not part of the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@RASAM: When you want to see more cartographic detail about where a place is located, you should click on the coordinates in an article, not on the pushpin map. Then you can select a mapping service of your choice on the GeoHack page you're taken to and examine a map at whatever level of detail you wish. Deor (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@RASAM: For future reference, your question had no connection to Wikipedia policy, so a better page would have been Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:Help desk, or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Policy is not any question of the form, "Why does Wikipedia do X?" More at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Username policy

Just wanted to make sure folks saw this relevant RFC. agtx 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What's a typewriter? (Five pillars)

The first of the Five pillars of Wikipedia says

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. […]

That phrasing of the policy made sense in 2005 when it was apparently written. But I wonder, do young readers these days know what an encyclopedia or almanac or gazetteer even means? Or are those terms as obscure for them as typewriters, rotary phones, dialup modems, library card catalogs, or two-stroke car engines are? If that phrasing is hard to understand, is there a better way to phrase it? The problem is that it's exactly Wikipedia that has largely displaced the use of encyclopedias these days, so I'm not sure how to give a description that isn't self-referential. – b_jonas 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What problem? Each of those terms is linked to the relevant article, just click and all is revealed. WP is also not Kiddypedia, it's not written only for "young people" (however you define "young"). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so there's an "other" missing from your post. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Those few readers who don't understand this sentence can follow the links; the many readers who do understand this sentence would benifit from it being there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Quire? I'd Prefer Not!

At present Wikipedia accepts and uses the word "quire" in writings in which the correct word is "choir." I strongly suggest that this practice be discontinued. While it is true that even the OED presents "quire" as a marginally acceptable replacement for "choir," that still does not give an imprimatur upon the misuse of a word which really has quite a different meaning. By accepting "quire" for "choir," Wikipedia is perpetuating either a flagrant misspelling or an extremely improper definition, and is muddling the English language. In any case, it is wrong for Wikipedia to do so. Precision, particularly in definition, is a very useful concept and tool. If one defines and explains a group of singers, or the area in which they sing, by referring to a particular quantity of paper, one is making understanding almost impossible. Think of the schoolchildren who use Wikipedia as a learning tool and reference, and what the misuse of "quire" could do to their learning process. Please re-think Wikipedia's use of "quire" in the context of "choir," and change your rule permitting the substitution. ——Steve Henigson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.182 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Quire is the older word for the body of singers, there is nothing incorrect about using it at all. If it's good enough for the Prayer Book, I don't see why it can't be good enough for Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with "flagrant misspelling", "extremely improper", "muddling" etc, I agree that "quire" (that I never heard of until today) in the meaning of "choir" seems to be archaic, and using "choir" in article text (not qoutes etc of course) seems reasonable and would probably be generally helpful to readers such as myself. To bad quire "lost" though, the spelling/pronunciation seems more logical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, where on Wikipedia is this a "problem"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

[8] -- note some (or possibly many) are false positives. --Izno (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all of the first 20 were false positives for this discussion. Of course, there´s a thousand more one could check. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like OP doesn't like the use of "quire" for choir (architecture), as well as for choir. In that case, there are plenty of relevant results in that search, although I'm less convinced that it is a problem in the case of the architectural feature. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think that we should spell "choir" as "choir" rather than "quire", as the most commonly known and used spelling, though there are certainly possible exceptions – e.g. in quotations where the word is spelt "quire". I am unaware that this is a particular problem with the word "quire", though; this should be the case for any word which has outdated alternate spellings (e.g. "clew" for "clue" is common in Sherlock Holmes, but shouldn't be used in wikipedia). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On being able to get rid of STUPID STUPID STUPID new screencruft

I've been editing for 12 years, and started a few hundered articles. Today, for the first time, whenever I start a new article, HALF OF MY SODDING SCREEN IS TAKEN UP BY A "Before you edit your first article..." message, which message is so far from welcome as to make me wish those responsible could be immediately be wheeled out behind the wikipedia building and summararily shot. Can we please not pull this sort of stunt? Can we please put even a jot of thought into these things before we do them? 1. Who is responsible? 2. Where is the discussion? 3. Why am I being served with an inappropriate and useless and screen-obscuring message each and every time I create an article? 4. Why should I have to do something extra (preview) to get back to normality. 5. Why can I not collapse it? 6. Why can I not dismiss it? 7. Why is it shown to me more than once? 8. Why is it shown to experienced editors? Bad bad bad bad bad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

See WT:The future of NPP and AfC#New edit notice.

There is a very big problem that requires a solution. The problem is shown in the graph here, namely that the backlog in the number of new pages that need to be patrolled is rising, rising, rising. Over 15,000 new pages have been created and are waiting for review.

Regarding your problem, a fix is shown at VPT (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)