Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Switzpaw (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 5 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.


Nuvola flags

These nuvole flags are gaining increased usage on wiki, This is quite worring for me as they are more decorative than standard flags. At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Nuvola_flags,i am proposing to strongly limit the usage of these flags, please comment if your interested .

How many editors have actually read the Manual of Style?

Supposedly, all guidelines represent consensus, and changes to them represent consensus. This is shown by the active consent of those who choose to participate in the process, and the silent consent of those who do not, but who follow them. My question is this: how seriously do most editors actually read and follow the Manual of Style? If we are required to obey its prescriptions, do we owe it to ourselves to be more concerned about it?

Supposedly, we don't require editors to read anything about the project or have any project-specific knowledge beyond how to edit a wiki and the short statement of NPOV and its corollaries, Verifiability and No Original Research. If you know your subject, cite sources, write decently, have a basic sense of fairness and are civil, you should be able to edit for a long time without ever needing to look at a policy or guideline.

Returning from a long wikivacation, I happened to run across a couple of MOS-related issues that surprised me: sometimes on talk pages, and sometimes when I was sharply reverted with a "per MOS" comment. The issues themselves are secondary: We apparently have stopped using bluelinked dates and apparently we have always used so-called "logical punctuation" of quotations, which contravenes the quotation-punctuation style that most of us were taught in school. OK, eventually I will get used to the first, and while the second strikes me as wrongheaded, it is clear that the regulars consider this a closed issue.

I am, however, left with the following observation: in comparison to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the MOS appears to me to have grown both in size and in prescriptivity during my absence. The size is daunting: far beyond what anyone but a committed editor would read. It reads as more prescriptive about details than verifiability policy and reliable source guidelines. The tone of related discussions on the talk page, and of many MOS-inspired edits that I have seen, seems to be "do this or your contribution is unwelcome." Perhaps that improves Wikipedia; I'm not sure.

Whereas one can apprehend Wikipedia's core policies from the nutshell description, the MOS is a mass of details, most of which have little to do with one another. One can't "get" it at a stroke, and one cannot reason a particular provision from first principles. That means, in effect, that each detailed provision must have its own detailed consensus. If, as I suspect, most editors have never looked at the MOS except when they are in doubt about a point, that weakens the nature of the implicit consensus. In practice, it would be much easier for a concerted group to foist a doubtful change on the MOS than on any other policy or guideline with such wide implications.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I'm the exception for never having paid much attention to the MOS. The claim of the regulars on the page is that it is widely read and agreed to. Maybe the consensus is stronger than I suspect. But, if I am right, perhaps we need to encourage more Wikipedians to pay more attention to it. I can think of no harm it could do, and it might do good. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have never so much as looked at the majority of MOS pages, let alone read them completely (and I'm getting along just fine). The only time I look at a manual of style page is when I'm unsure of how to properly format something, or there's a disagreement over some inane detail. For the most part, MOS pages appear to be surrounded by the same group of editors who seem to get an adrenaline rush at featured article noms and GA reviews when they find some obscure rule to enforce, declaring "non-compliance". You've linked too many common words. That should be a non-breaking space, not a normal one. Dashes, not hyphens. Leads must have 4 paragraphs or less (remove the space between paragraphs 4 and 5, making one long paragraph, and you're good). WP:PUNC!!! More people should pay attention to the discussions on MOS pages, but fewer people should actually pay attention to the MOS itself. Then again, I'm bitter from all the rain and could just be rambling. - auburnpilot talk 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat amazing that copyediting for style has become an adversarial process in the review discussions. One would expect that normal authors don't know the manual of style, and so a copyeditor would handle putting the page into compliance, after which the discussion could move on to more interesting points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS thing has gotten me to the point where I don't want do FAs anymore. Time was when I could slip articles past FAC based on whether they were any good or not. But after a mammoth FA last year (bird) I lost the will to do them anymore. If there were legions of copyeditors out there willing to do all the pedantic bullshit then it wouldn't be a problem, but there aren't. And my time would be better spent dragging a subpar start class article up to B class than fixing ndashes and making sure that numbers and the following words have the right kind of fucking space between them in the reference section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how different editors have different recollections of events; here is a perfect example of how a meme takes hold if readers don't carefully check their facts. SS, you approached me on my talk page a year ago, asking for help because you had encountered concerns at peer review that bird was undercited. First, let's not confuse issues that come up regarding Wiki's best work: WP:V is policy, unrelated to WP:MOS, a guideline. Two different things. And peer review is not FAC. Second, your request made a lasting impression. I have never put as much effort into cleaning up MoS and citation issues on an article at someone's request to help them prepare for FAC as I did for bird. I worked on that article for a good 24 hours; it was one of the biggest cleanup chores I have ever done on Wiki.[1] To this day, I figure in the top eight contributors to that article, even though I only worked on it for one day. That sort of work was routine for me (and many editors who are happy to roll up our sleeves and help address MoS, citation, and copyedit issues at or before FAC) until I assumed other FAC duties, which diminished the time I can spend helping others. Most of the editors who requested my assistance thanked me for my efforts, leading Giano to joke about my box of chocolates. (Did you? When you nommed the article, you did mention that I had "picked over" the citations.) Third, when you came to FAC a few months later, the concerns raised about that article, by numerous editors, were almost entirely copyedit concerns, with at least four editors raising concerns about the prose and performing copyedits. So, the two issues with that article at FAC were referencing and the quality of the prose, yet in spite of the thankless time another editor put in to MoS and citation cleanup on the article, you now ungraciously claim that "the MOS thing has gotten me to the point where I don't want do FAs anymore". This is classic. Every time I hear a complaint about MoS at FAC, when I look into the facts, I find something exactly like this: editors whose articles ran into fundamental WP:V policy referencing concerns or had basic copyedit issues, but blame "MoS". To this day, I have never known an article to fail at FAC over MoS issues, and there is always an editor willing to run through and clean up any issues once copyediting and citation are dealt with. Yes, MoS is too big and needs to be tamed and consolidated, but never have I seen a valid complaint about MoS and FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I accept that I mixed the two up. I found the process stressful and I guess I misplaced the annoyance. And I certainly apologise if I came across as ungracious or didn't consider your efforts, and the efforts of the other editors worthy of thanks. I was very grateful for all the help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, SS, and I'm sorry for making you the example. I'm just concerned because I see this meme often. FA is rightfully demanding, but the increased demands lately have been in the policy areas of sourcing and images (where almost every article is checked), and there has been increased scrutiny of prose (because there are more copyeditors participating there now), so it would be incorrect and unfortunate for the idea to take hold that MoS is what makes FA demanding. It really isn't the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and further I expressly avoid discussing MOS issues in most situations due to the aforementioned "MOS-warriors". I think the MOS as a whole has suffered from instruction creep as people try to "fix" various content disputes by getting one side or the other written into guideline, and a good bit could probably be trimmed back.
Regarding the GA/FA complaints, and seemingly some of the reverts Robert A West experienced, it seems some of these people think they're too "busy" biting people pointing out the MOS non-compliance to actually fix the issues they see. Perhaps that attitude needs adjustment, although I have no idea how to do so. Anomie⚔ 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, my personal experience has been editors who do fix things, just sometimes a bit gruffly. And I did make a few edits without being logged on, so I may just have looked like a clueless anon. And, to be fair, there are lots of biters out there: one recently tagged a stub as unsourced 90 seconds after it was created, causing an edit conflict when I tried to save my citebook reference. I bit back and we made nice. LOL. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Response from Tony1: I'm apparently one of those "MoS warriors"; I'm also an FAC dinosaur, having reviewed there for three years, especially WRT standards of prose. Just like the English language itself—"big and baggy", Clive James called it—style on WP will always be a matter of dynamic tension between centrifugal and centripetal forces; this is not something that should upset us. Nor should the shifting of the balance towards the centripetal (standardisation, cohesiveness) over the past two years, with MoS main and its jungle of subsidiary pages the focal point. Nowhere is this more evident than in the FAC room, where compliance with the style guides is explicitly required.

Why has there been such a shift? There may be three reasons:

  1. MoS main and its most important subsidiary pages (particularly MOSNUM), are now significantly better written and organised than the sloppy mess they were in two years ago.
  2. The culture on the talk pages—of those who specialise in the maintenance and improvement of these style guides—has become more competitive and dynamic, and includes more people with notable expertise in English-language style and formatting.
  3. The featured-content processes—especially FAC and FLC—are far more competitive than a year or two ago (let alone four years ago, what a joke), and the standards have increased to a level that, in many cases, WP can be proud of. In many cases, our featured content sets the standard on the Internet for summary-style, non-OR information. Reviewing is more detailed and systematic WRT to the criteria, which have evolved to be more detailed and stricter. These changes have seen the relationship between the style guides and featured-content processes become intricate and mutually reinforcing.

I'm interested to hear the views that are expressed here; this type of dialogue is important for the project as a whole. I'm sorry that there are negative feelings about the modern FAC process, but competitive processes are usually accompanied by a certain degree of angst. I encourage the users here to form strategic collaborative allliances with others who have a range of the necessary skills and knowledge to produce fine FA nominations: we look forward to reading them.

Concerning the cries that no one reads the style guides; well, that's like me and equipment instruction manuals—hate 'em and often try to do without. The style guides nevertheless play pivotal roles in educating and guiding our diverse community towards what is mostly regarded as the optimal product for our readers out there. People may have quibbles with this bit or that bit (I do ... no one agrees with it all, in its entirety), but as a whole, they're the beacon that knits WP together, along with its policy. Over time, and that's what we do have in this evolving project, these forces for cohesion will touch everything. Might I say that my own style improved significantly after properly digesting MoS main and MOSNUM.

If I were to criticise the style-guide infrastructure, it would be to say that there's a lack of overall coordination and auditing of the myriad of small, subsidiary specialist pages that have grown like topsy. We already have a WikiProject in place WP:MOSCO, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes more active in the task of vetting, trimming, rationalising and coordinating the style guides. Tony (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has recently begun producing monthly summaries of MoS changes for those who want to keep track without following those pages. They can be found in the Signpost, with old editions listed at {{FCDW}}. And, although standards at WP:FAC have increased over time, the differences are mainly in image review and review of reliable sources. These are policy concerns, and they are now more systematically reviewed then they were in the past. With respect to MoS, the process has not become more strict; it's a simple matter of asking someone to run through and make MoS adjustments once prose is up to standard and the policy issues of referencing and image compliance are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My short take: MOSes only matter for FACs and GANs, so ignore them (i.e. use your common sense) when that's not your area of wiki interest. I may have read the main MOS once as a newbie out of interest, but the fine details only stuck in my brain when I unknowingly violated them in a FAC and had to read them up (I still learn new stuff that way). I'll use that MOS knowledge in my own reviews then, but I'll probably never become a true MOS-warrior because that's neither my area of expertise nor interest. – sgeureka t•c 07:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And even with that easy going attitude, when I read through your last FAC, I found only two trival MoS adjustments needed ... must not be so hard to learn or to find collaborators to help you bring articles to FA status :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sgeureka, I agree with that – it's very true. Gary King (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you want to hear the views of the community, let's air the views of the community on the entire MOS process. I'm not going to comment about the guideline pages themselves, but WT:MOS's atmosphere has become a cesspool of invective vitriol that pushes away contributors from participating in debates. My first edits in Wikipedia were to the Manual of Style, but I stopped following it when users began being told that they won't be taken seriously if they don't use en dashes on talk pages. When users' arguments are derided solely on formatting issues, it is a clear indicator, at least to me, of a gangrenous consensus-gathering process. When I think of MOS, this is the first thing that comes to mind, as it is the most salient example of the chronic incivility that permeates these talk pages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. I actually feel guilty about starting the dash discussion there (and not following up). I think when someone asks "How should I write this?", one is justified in saying exactly how it should be written; one cannot know if an error could be because the inquirer focused on another element of the phrase, or because of overall ignorance (that is, until the inquirer explains afterwards). Demanding general en-dash usage in talk-page messages is not something I'd do, given how even good users of the language are often in a hurry or simply feel like being informal; on the other hand, asking for en-dash usage in articles does no harm, as long as it's not too pressing—MoS remains a guideline. (It should be noted, however, that sloppy writing, even in talk pages, makes a certain impression when a newcomer to WT:MoS discusses style; you know how people are about first impressions.)
    • Personally, I think the problem is that the talk page serves a dual role: that of answering people's questions, and that of discussing changes to the page. Separating these roles in some way would provide a friendlier environment for otherwise uninvolved editors to ask questions, without running the risk of getting caught in a dispute or simply becoming the unsuspecting target of an experienced regular who's had a bad day on the page. (Don't forget that the regulars take many things about style for granted that most other users do not.) If we also consider that WP:MOS acts as both a central page for the Manual (with many summaries of supplementary pages) and a style page of its own (with parts unique to that page), we can see why the situation is so complicated.
    • I have hopes that MOSCO can at least partially resolve the problem if used correctly. More specifically, I am thinking of two examples of successful organisation which could provide ideas. One is WikiProject Good articles, where the good-article system is discussed (while Wikipedia talk:Good articles serves only as a venue for discussion of the GAs' directory). The other is the WikiProject Council, which is a forum where general co-ordination between WikiProjects is discussed and advise can be sought. All we need is a good recipe. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need to invigorate MOSCO. The organization of the MoS pages is a mess, there are warriors at every page making progress difficult, and there needs to be some centralization of goals towards taming the beast that MoS is becoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this diagnosis. There is a great deal to be said for detailed Style guidelines, and although I sympathise with Carl regarding the copyeditor/writer distinction unfortunately this is not that encyclopedia. What worries me is the mess and inconsistency within MOS and its general instability. As someone who still doesn't know the difference between an 'n dash' and an 'm dash' (and who doesn't much care either way), how can I support the invigoration of MOSCO other than offering you my good wishes? Ben MacDui 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I have is when the MOS (apparently) requires things that make the wikicode annoyingly verbose, such as NY 373. --NE2 08:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why using two commas (,,) for hard spaces would be so handy. But people seem not to want extra wiki-code. Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 0001

The size of WP:MOS is a problem that annoys editors. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Holes_in_GA_.2F_FA_review_process_for_.22academic.22_or_.22technical.22_subjects was about a different problem but one contributor pointed out that reviewers tend to be "rule experts" rather than topic experts. That leads to proliferation of rules, nit-picking interpretations of the rules and often differences in interpretation from one reviewer to the next.
Finding solutions is of course harder than complaining. A few suggestions to discuss:
  • Automate as much as possible. That has a few advantages:
    • It depersonalises comments on MOS issues.
    • It reduces the workload of editors and reviewers.
    • In cases where a program can only raise a query rather than make a change, it gradually informs editors of the rules.
  • Trim MOS ruthlessly, using a "Zero-based budgeting" approach where every rule has to be justified only on its own merits, with minimal reference to precedents and no appeals to the authority of external MOSs, etc. The dominant criterion should be "How does this help readers to understand the content?" The danger here is that the exercise will be dominated by existing "rule experts" who have an interest in keeping MOS large and complex. I can suggest a ruthless way to deal with that:
    • If 10 or more editors complain about a rule, suspend it until a vote has been held.
    • The quorum for a completed vote should be too high for "rule experts" to dominate the voting - e.g. 10x the number of FA reviewers. Only registered editors should be eligible to vote, and only once per issue. I'm assuming that it's easy enough to ensure no-one votes more than once on an issue, otherwise Wikipedia elections would be a farce.
    • When an item is placed on the "votes for removal" list, place banners on pages whenever they are accessed by registered editors, as is done for e.g. Wikipedia elections. The banners should link to the list of open issues.
    • If a MOS item gets less that e.g. two-thirds of the votes, scrap it.
  • Make reversion of edits on MOS grounds a disciplinary offence. Early in my Wikipedia career someone reverted on the grounds of his interpretation of MOS an edit in which I'd corrected some significant scientific errors in a high-profile article. After a protest that was ignored I walked away from the article. -- Philcha (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have much more faith in the MoS than I have with Wikibureaucracy. What you're proposing sounds like an absolute train wreck. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a train wreck, though I like the idea of reverting edits solely on MoS grounds being a no-no, so long as the edit has other content (i.e. just changing "1960s" to "1960's", which is against the MoS, could obviously be reverted.) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who reverts productive edits based on trivial MoS infractions contained therein is being a nuisance anyway - we don't need additional rules to deal with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reality of WP:MOS is that grammar and pedantic fanaticism have a long and established history. WP:MOS helps in that it keeps the arguments over "correct grammar" at WP:MOS instead of spilling over into mainspace. I believe that about 90% of MOS is useless instruction creep, but it's simply not worth fighting because the people who take matters of style seriously take it very seriously, and in the end consistency of style is a good thing. Answering WP:CREEP with bureaucracy is not a helpful solution, though, and I think the current system works reasonably well. SDY (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SDY. I'm pleased you agree that "about 90% of MOS is useless instruction creep". But I'm less happy to accept that as a fait accompli because it establishes a ratchet effect by which the MOS can only become larger, more complex and more of a deterrent to editors - and possibly contribute to the shortage of reviewers, as becoming a reviewer requires learning of all this stuff. IMO we need mechanisms to roll back some of MOS's complexity and nit-pickling and to and prevent further WP:CREEP.
While "consistency of style is a good thing" sounds indisputable, editors will write in different prose styles that affect most readers more directly than minutiae like what kind of dashes we use. -- Philcha (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"

...editors will write in different prose styles that affect most readers more directly than minutiae like what kind of dashes we use."

Let the people say "Amen!" My main objection to WP:MOS is that it seems that it's primarily used as an excuse to deny FA or GA status. I've previously recommended downgrading the majority of it to an WP:ESSAY since consistency of style should be enough to justify it without the imprimatur of officialdom and the "holier than thou" attitude it engenders. For the most part, though, I don't get particularly attached to the way I've phrased things, and if someone wants to get all hot and bothered about "fixing" it, that's fine by me. SDY (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection to WP:MOS is that it seems that it's primarily used as an excuse to deny FA or GA status. Please present one example where this has happened at FAC (hint: there isn't one, I can't speak for GAN, but I doubt it there either), and please don't spread false memes on the Village pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Robert A.West pointed out, there are lots of biters out there (25 August 2008). Even if MOS is reduced to a WP:ESSAY, they'll use it as a pretext, especially against those who are not familiar with the distinction between rules, guides and essays. I'd prefer to give them less to bite with.
OTOH I think a few parts of MOS are very valuable, e.g. about 80% of WP:LEAD. Such items should remain as guides for editors, copyeditors and reviewers because they improve the service we provid eot readers. -- Philcha (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an anecdote - until today, I believed that the MoS said that editors are free to choose whether to use "straight quotes" or “curly quotes” as long as an article is consistent - it certainly would be in line with what it says about other more important things like spelling variations. As it turns out, someone just mentioned in passing today that it demands straight quotes. Who decided this? --Random832 (contribs) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody very sensible. Straight quotes make it much easier to edit article in non-Unicode editors. It takes three seconds of search-and-replace to fix and is never going to cause GAs to fail, editors to be issued permanent blocks, or the sky to fall down. Where's the problem? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prescriptive policies are fundamentally opposed to one of the core values of wikipedia: WP:IAR. Changing the quotes does not make the article more encyclopedic. It does not make the article more neutral. It does not aid in civility and the "biteyness" of the enforcers of MOS means it may actually harm civility. (Being free is obviously unaffected.) Rules should only exist when there must be a rule to meet one of the five pillars or they are a logical extension of the five pillars. WP:MOS is vaguely related to encyclopedism and has its place, but it should only be restrictive when absolutely necessary. SDY (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it does do is make the typography more consistent and the article easier to edit. People who dislike the MoS because they dislike style prescription seem to think that the invisible hand will solve all of WP's readability problems. I don't follow the MoS because I have some ulterior motive; I follow it because I hope that others will, and that by doing so it will mean that if I randomly look up duck-billed platypus or tax evasion or vertical take-off and landing I won't have to spend the first ten minutes figuring out the idiosyncracies of the last editor's typography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some common sense value in WP:MOS so that articles are intelligible, but 90% of the current guidelines are "write numbers this way" and "use bold here" and similar rules which dictate which of several equally reasonable formats could be used. Curly quotes vs. straight quotes does not change whether the article is intelligible to an average user. Where the reference is in relation to punctuation does not make the article uncited. Issues such as date formats, where 08/01/08 can mean at least two different days, have a reasonable argument for a rule to enforce consistency. If there is no reasonable or likely barrier to comprehension, a style guideline is pure WP:CREEP. Editors will remove truly OuTrAgEoUs style as a matter of course without having to look up a guideline. SDY (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style exists for several different reasons. Clarity is one (and remember that we have an international readership, so things are not as simple as one might imagine). Formal and professional writing style, as befitting to an encyclopaedia, is another. Consistency is yet one more reason; as one work, Wikipedia should be cohesive, and allow its readers to read the articles without having to adapt to a very different writing style in each case—in scientific articles, consistency becomes even more important. Accessibility is also a reason (curly quotation marks adversely affect searching for a word or phrase). I accept that MoS might need some rationalisation in its structure, and perhaps some trimming in places, but it should also become clear that this is an encyclopaedia, and by definition covers very diverse subjects; it is only natural that it should have a big style manual to cover all these scientific fields and their often widely differing conventions.
And, in any case, as you mention, outrageous style will be removed anyway. It's in the details that one will most likely need guidance. And in this case there should be a place to offer it. Waltham, The Duke of 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the pros and cons of the current system, as I see it:

  • Pros: improves consistency and readability of rendered text; creates a more professional appearance for WP. Better user experience.
  • Cons: Difficult to implement - both time consuming for content-producing editors, and likely to cause ill feeling between editors with different perspectives on the MOS. Also may clutter wikicode. Worse editor experience.

Some people like to think that one day, Wikipedia will be comparable to leading encyclopaedias such as the Britannica. Featured articles are considered to be articles that are of that standard, which are "as good or better" than published encyclopaedias, if I recall their description in the assessment guide correctly.

If a featured article is a "publication standard" article, then much as it pains me, it would be eroding the FA standard to mark non-copyedited text with the golden star. And a consistent style is to be found in all semi-professional publications - each publication chooses its style and sticks to it. It makes them look smarter, and also avoids inconsistencies within articles. Say that an editor wants to add the detail that so and so happened in the 1960s to a long article. A consistent style across WP means they don't first have to scan the whole of the rest of the article to work out whether to type 1960's or 1960s - they know that 1960s will always be correct.

The difference between WP and real publications is that we don't have a paid team of editors to do the grunt work. However, in many fields - such as preparing a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal - the same is true, and even the leading professor who should be lecturing and researching has to worry about whether his numbers are separated by en-dashes or hyphens if he doesn't want his manuscript returned.

Having an FA star is for many the only motivation to fix small but annoying errors - such as nbsp-ing numbers and units and making sure references actually work - which would otherwise simply never get done.

So I think, actually, much as I hate the effort of complying with it, that the MOS has a purpose. I won't debate the size of it here (but has anyone ever picked up the Chicago MOS? That's a workout for your biceps!) but given the premise that the MOS makes for a better reader experience - surely that's what all us editors are trying to provide, in one way or another.

And I think that requiring a "loose" adhesion to the MOS for GA, and a strict following for FA, editors receive the prod that they need to do the work that no-one wants to do. I often do wonder whether some reviewers spend more time pointing out each individual flaunting of the MOS than it would take just to fix them, but I guess that's a matter for individuals.

The FA and GA mark aren't just recognitions for content, but for article quality. Some editors like to collect "FA" stars like trophies, but a wise man warned me early on that this was a way to become embittered against WP. If an editor is expert enough to add useful content, then in an ideal world that's what they'd spend their time doing, and let others without such in-depth knowledge worry about style. However I suspect that most editors like the occasional pat on the back in the form of an article reaching a milestone, and if we didn't require FA articles to be of publishable standard, then I'm pretty sure WP would have much less articles of that standard.

So to sum up, I'd say - if the MOS bothers you, then ignore it, and let other people pick up the pieces. If you're adding useful content, that's gold dust to Wikipedia, is warmly received by readers, and is very unlikely to be simply removed for flaunting guidelines. However, ignoring the MOS completely will rub some people the wrong way. Further, the only reward you'll get will be the contentment that readers worldwide find your contribution useful and helpful. If that's not enough for you, and you want to earn a little gold star, then you'll have to "play the game" and jump through the stylish hoops!

As for the value of GA and FA, I'll leave you with this illustration of the traffic to an article I brought up to GA standard (on the 19th), and ask - was the effort really worth it?

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess, I've found the FA process very frustrating to. I think you need a whole host of {{sofixit}} in your back pocket. I know people are trying to help, but do they not seem to realise it is very frustrating to be told to remove one word for better flow. That's stuff people should just fix, if you ask me. Hiding T 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I'm just interested in deprecating the MOS because it consists of rules that do not make a better encyclopedia, just a prettier one. GA and FA should focus on substance, with style a distant eleventh as a concern rather than the primary objective. SDY (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The insistence on MOS is one of many factors resulting in the promotion of articles to GA and FA which would not be publishable because they are badly written, badly sourced, and misrepresent the available scholarship. (The lack of FA reviewers who know anything about a particular field is much more serious; but the use of MOS to say something about an article on a field of which one knows nothing is a significant distraction.)
This, however, is a fixable problem: the mention of MOS at WP:WIAFA dates back to before MOS grew to its present length and mind-numbing opinionated detail; simply removing the mention of style guidelines from point 2, while leaving the express requirements of that point, would suffice. (Nominators would have to remind reviewers it is gone, but they could do so.) This would require the consensus of a large number of editors; but there are more than enough here to accomplish it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. SDY (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will too. I proposed it solo some months ago. It's someone else's turn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a group proposal, "We, the undersigned ..."? -- Philcha (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some sort of reduction of MoS is in order: where do I sign? Deamon138 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot begin to describe how wrong this is. A diamond in the rough is also known as a "bit of ore". Equating the MoS with its worst bits is ridiculous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS has an implied severability clause: if there are "worst bits" of the guideline, we should entertain why they are bad and, if appropriate, either improve them or remove them. SDY (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 0001a

Pmanderson has been spreading this story about the application of MoS at FAC for a very long time, but not once, although he's been asked many times, has he produced a single FAC that has failed because of MoS issues. It is also my opinion that the trainwreck that is the MoS will not be cleaned up until/unless something is done about Pmanderson's participation on those pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, it's Sandy who does the most revert warring at MOS, mostly withour regard for discussion. But the personal attack is noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it's more of an example of a chilling effect rather than actual failures when it comes to FA, the only real rigorous user of the criteria. MoS could arguably be called arbitrary and capricious: it has rules because someone wanted a rule to win an argument or to satisfy some personal demon, not because the rule was a good idea. The discussion with VeblenBot (probably archived by now) above may result in some actual control over the process since there will be less guidelines slipping in "under the radar." SDY (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is. Sandy can make this claim only because xe counts the most obvious case I've seen, an article on which the nominator was harassed over year links (he liked them, a reviewer didn't) until he gave up and abandoned the nomination, as "not failed because of MOS." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts of MoS may well be "arbitrary and capricious", but MoS guidelines are not arbitrarily and capriciously applied at FAC or FAR (I can't speak for GAN, but my sense there is they aren't even aware). What makes MoS "arbitrary and capricious" are a couple of MoS warriors who impede any progress. Now, the real origin of this false meme about FAC (as I pointed out in the example above) is that editors would probably much rather claim their article failed FAC because of some "arbitrary and capricious" MoS rule, rather than saying that mutliple reviewers said their prose was sub-standard, a copyedit was needed, or sourcing, image and neutrality policies weren't met. No FAC or FAR has ever failed, to my knowledge, on MoS concerns. Period. There are too many editors who will simply and quickly run through and fix those items themselves if policy and prose issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you have a conflict of interest here. They are randomly applied, if only because it is chance whether the reviewers who care about MOS choose to review a particular article. They are applied inconsistently, because reviewers who do care about MOS remember different bits of it and interpret them differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your definition of "arbitrary and capricious", you could say the same thing about any element of review. You've singled out MoS because it's your hobby horse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, only about some. Neutrality and verifiability are applied to almost all FA's, because they are single concepts, most reviewers think about them, and most reviewers agree about them, so they are neither random nor inconsistent. Source quality is a random criterion, because only some reviewers are qualified to address it, but it is applied consistently when it is applied at all. Other arbitrary and capricious elements should also be fixed (but are not part of this discussion - that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); you have yourself fixed one by establishing quick closure, which has eliminated the random amount of time articles were at FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in getting a copy of the list of "editors who will simply and quickly run through and fix those items themselves if policy and prose issues are resolved". When I see editors/reviewers make comments that tell nominators to move a period, I've never understood why they don't just move the damn period. A list of editors who will actually move that period would be beneficial. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers who do that (write out instructions on the FAC) do it apparently in the hope that frequent FA nominators will learn and not repeat the same issues on subsequent FACs. At FAR, I personally will fix MoS issues on any FAR that has overcome everything else (prose, sourcing, etc.) and there are several others active at FAR who simply fix things (Maralia, Ceoil, DrKiernan come to mind, but there are many others). On the other hand, if no one is fixing the more substantive issues, I just leave a long list on the FAR, and save my time for working on an article that has a chance. At FAC, do please have a look at User talk:Epbr123 and his talk page archives. I believe Karanacs, Moni3, Maralia, Awadewit and others fix MoS issues as they encounter them. When I do my first read-through on each new FAC, I check for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, as I consider it shocking that no one at FAC reviews for this and considers our readers who use screen readers; I fix those issues on sight. And when I do my final read-through on an article, I fix anything trivial I see, and leave an edit summary to remind the nominators what else needs fixing. Then I promote in the next batch, if everything else is in order. I don't hold up a FAC for trivial MoS issues, although I do give nominators time to fix them all so they can have the best possible diff stored in articlehistory on promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a sample of just how trivial, quick, easy and not even worthy of breaking a sweat this work is, someone notified me they had finished citing John Millington Synge so it could avoid FAR, so I did the MoS cleanup in a matter of minutes.[2] Look how hard that was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 0002

To give this discussion a slight freshening and look at what consensus may and or may not exist:

  • 1. Many editors have expressed concerns that the MoS has problems with instruction creep.
  • 2. Polish and professionalism such as compliance with a MoS (not necessarily the existing one) is an expectation for FA.
  • 3. FA should not be failed for trivial* reasons.

(*I'm using a definition of trivial that includes compliance with pure style requirements that do not change the readability of an article, but I don't think there is a consensus for that definition, I'm only assuming that there is a consensus for not failing FA on issues which are not considered important).

Any disagreements with these statements? SDY (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strong disagreement. You would be the first complain if at the cinema or in watching television if there were even minor editing glitches. Ironically, good prose and formatting is that which the reader doesn't "notice", because it reads effortlessly—consistent in usage, style and formatting, no bumps, good punctuation (and yes, en dashes, not squidgy little hyphens in year ranges). It gives the mark of authority to a fine article. And in the process of cleaning up these aspects, matters of content normally come out of the woodwork, even to complete non-experts. Tony (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another section heading to draw attention to a negative incorrect meme. No FAC or FAR has ever been failed on MoS concerns alone: should not be failed is spin about a non-existent issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy that I'm being treated like an idiot or a troll for actually discussing this, which I find offensive and inappropriate. I really don't care that much, but I think I'm beginning to understand why WP:MOS is so broken. SDY (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your misgivings are being treated with great seriously, even though many people here don't agree with them. Please assume good faith. Tony (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. SDY, when you start a new section with the statement that FAs shouldn't be failed on trivial issues, the implication to new readers could be that this has happened. Therefore, I clarify; not treating you like "an idiot or a troll". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond on talk pages and withdraw from this conversation, as it has become pointless. SDY (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←So many things to respond to, but I'll keep it short and just respond to the questions in the first post:

  • Maybe I'm the exception for never having paid much attention to the MOS.
    • No, I don't think so; most Wikipedians learn the minimum and learn mostly by seeing what other people do.
  • The claim of the regulars on the page is that it is widely read and agreed to.
    • There are around 500 archive pages of style guideline talk pages, 100K to 450K each. I don't think they were written by elves. Have a look; you can find a lot of stuff just by doing a search in the headings and subheadings on the main archive page at WT:MOS. It's good stuff. I can't speak for my predecessors, but since I've been paying attention, I can tell you why so many people have been coming to style guidelines talk pages to make their case: because people generally take the time to follow people's arguments, look things up, and give assistance.
  • Maybe the consensus is stronger than I suspect.
    • Per WP:SILENCE, whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus. WT:MOS isn't a members-only club; come ask a question, or object to a guideline, and you'll see.
  • But, if I am right, perhaps we need to encourage more Wikipedians to pay more attention to it.

No one ever pretended that writing English prose was easy

It's just the opposite: a hard slog, especially in English, which is big and baggy and needs to be corralled by a set of locally determined guidelines attuned to the context, mode and readership of the publication. All serious publications set out these codes, usually in a manual (all publishing houses), and at least in a dedicated location in writing (academic journals, for example—see their "advice to authors" sections on their websites). That these guides are often not perfectly written is legendary; the Chicago MOS, the pre-eminent guide for US English, fails to take its own advice in numerous places. WP should be proud that it now has a MoS that, while not perfect, is pretty good for the purpose. Unlike most publishing houses, we aim to improve the skills of our writers with such instruments, not just to maintain standards and cohesion. FAC has the same dual purpose, as a solid investment in the skills of our editors. MoS and FAC come together to do this in Criterion 2. Let me say that my own writing improved considerably after reading WP's MoS a number of times, and that as an FAC reviewing has had the same effect—to tighten up my technical ability at writing and editing. I'm fairly sure that editors at large who take both seriously will derive such benefits too. That is partly the intention.

It's easy to moan about "trivia", and yes, sometimes it must seem pernickety to get all of the style details right. But as I implied in the comment above about cinematic editing, the devil is in the detail, and is essential to delivering a smooth reading experience to the people out there we serve. Heaven knows, expressing a lot of information for everyday readers is challenging enough without presenting them with inconsistent and what I and many others would judge to be suboptimal stylistic details. We owe it to them and to WP to get the prose and formatting consistent and good. Without MoS, that would be just about impossible.

As for the relationship between content and style—there's no hard-and-fast distinction, in my view. And our nominators are our content experts, not our reviewers, by and large, although non-experts in a topic can and often do sniff out shortcomings in content. Publishers usually don't employ content experts in-house (akin to our reviewers), but send submissions out to experts (akin to our nominators in the first place). Tony (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does anybody aside from the handful of regulars think it a pretty good process? User:David Gerard long ago wrote an essay on the way Wikipedian processes fail. It includes the hallmarks of broken process; several of them have been exhibited in this discussion:


  • Susceptible to being used as a bludgeon [to POV-push or] to intimidate other editors out of arguing Brackets added; MOS is only POV on English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Prescriptive when it could be phrased as a guideline
    • This actually reduces its effectiveness.
  • Fails to assume good faith; excludes non-regulars
    • Regulars assume bad faith or stupidity of non-regulars (other Wikipedians or anons), and other regulars consider this acceptable behaviour.
    • Outsiders frequently complain of exclusionary process or ill treatment by regulars in the process; regulars are dismissive of these concerns.
  • Process actions that are taken as personal attacks
    • If regulars keep having to say "don't take it personally" over and over and over, there's something deeply defective in the process that will be damaging to the encyclopedia project, even if you have a ready list of reasons why you absolutely have to do whatever the thing is people are taking personally.
  • Works through a committee or inadvertent committee structure
    • Even ad-hoc committees can only work if they scale with editors and articles.
    • Forms an in-group susceptible to the above problems.
    • Has named offices, especially Director; Directors direct committees. Not yet, although FA does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any process with regular voting or straw-polls is susceptible to this.

"If a process is potentially good, but smart and well-intentioned people keep screwing it up, then it's a bad process."

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

— Lyndon B. Johnson

Break 0003

Some observations:

  1. A lot of contributors to this debate feel strongly that MOS is too large and complex.
  2. "There are around 500 archive pages of style guidelines, 100K to 450K each" (near end of #Break 0002). That does not say anything about the current size of MOS, but it shows that: MOS is big (100 KB = approx 50 pages of print; some are 450KB); it changes quite frequently.
    • Sorry, I have corrected this to "style guideline talk pages". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To put this in perspective, MOS is bigger than most academic journal articles that we use as sources - so far I've seen only 2 that are in this size range; most are under 10 pages.
  4. There's concern about inconsistent application of MOS. I'm not surprised, since MOS is so big and changes fairly fast.
  5. (Personal observation) It's too difficult to find stuff in MOS - the navigation / indexing / whatever is atrocious.
  6. "whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus. WT:MOS isn't a members-only club; come ask a question, or object to a guideline, and you'll see." (near end of #Break 0002) I think the reasoning here is fallacious for a number of reasons:
    1. "whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus" did the UK Labour Party a lot of harm in the 1980s, as a result of which it remained out of office from 1979 to 1997. Left-wing extremists took control and created policies which were totally out of touch with public opinion. One of their tactics to gain control, as reported in the press at the time, was for militants to tie up meetings with minutiae until moderates got bored and went home.
    2. On matters that are binding on everyone, decently-run organisations have rules about quorums for important votes, partly to avoid the problem I've just described.
    3. I had not heard of WT:MOS until this discussion. There's no automatic notification of discussions, and new members of Wikipedia don't get told about it or advised to watch the page. These are perfect conditions for take-over of MOS by a group of zealots, which is what some contributors to this discussion seem to think has happened. I wouldn't go so far as "zealots", but these conditions are also ideal for instruction creep, frequently known in the real-world as bureacratic strangulation.
    4. Do we want thousands of editors involved in WT:MOS discussions? Discussions would never finish, editors' productivity would slump and Wikipedia would have buy more hardware just to store the extra terabytes.
  7. Personally I think some sort of MOS is needed - for example I commented above that most of WP:LEAD is valuable.
  8. However the current MOS contains items I consider arbitrary and of dubious value. One is WP:LEAD's "maximum of 4 paragraphs", which produces artificial difficulties in writing leads for subjects that have an unusually large number of aspects. Another is the Chicago MOS' insistence that refs should follow punctuation, which forces editors to distort sentence structures and / or use unncessary punctuation just to get the ref close to the clause it supports. I won't bore you by adding more.
  9. There have been a few complaints above about MOS being used as a weapon by "biters". I've been a victim of this and admit I'd like to de-fang such people.
  10. Excessive focus on MOS has led to articles being promoted despite having significant content weaknesses such as gaps in coverage. I'm planning to rewrite one of these shortly.

I'm sure I've missed out a lot of important points from the preceding discussion, and apologise to the contributors. -- Philcha (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5 above "(Personal observation) It's too difficult to find stuff in MOS - the navigation / indexing / whatever is atrocious" is something I would think almost everyone can agree about, and really should be and can be fixed. The attempt to cram the contents into a side-column just doesn't work. Some form of full-page Table of Contents or Index, however un-wiki in style, is needed. Like, I'm sure, most users, at least 50% of my attempts to look something up in the MoS end in a baffled retreat. If the thing was more accessible, debates on issues there woiuld not be restricted to a small priesthood who know where things are. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to refs and punctuation, the only requirement in the MOS is that each article adopt a consistent practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had reviewers tell me to put refs after punctuation per Chicago MOS. In fact these cases were finger-slips, but the reviewers said "per Chicago MOS", not "for consistency". The Chicago MOS should be de-sanctified. -- Philcha (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't realise it had a talk page? This discussion appears largely to be a waste of time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Cunningham (not at work)'s last remark looks like a complete non sequitur:
  • "didn't realise it had a talk page" is a problem that should be discussed.
  • Do we actually want everyone arguing MOS points at WT:MOS?
  • Such discussions would be open to abuse by the "entryist" tactics I described above.
In the real world the standard solution is the election of accountable representatives. -- Philcha (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, errr, does argue MoS points at WT:MOS. A while back, I noticed that there had been a change to the guidelines to where to place an article's introductory image. So I went and found the talk thread in question, saw that it had been prematurely concluded, and argued my case to have the bits I wanted reinstated. What I didn't do was see that the MoS had been changed and then head off to the village pump to request that it be sanctioned. I fail to see how the solution to "the MoS may be gamed by people who play personal politics" is "have elections to see who controls to MoS". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What % of "Everyone"?
Your reasoning would imply that ArbCom elections should be abolished. Elections are not a perfect solution, but they're the best way of controlling rule-makers that anyone's thought of - going back to 5th century BC Athens. -- Philcha (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? ArbCom are a final solution for the few issues that the community cannot work out. The Wikipedia form of governance is group discussion and consensus in almost all cases. There would be practically no support for moving current community control of the MoS to some elected body, and for good reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"for good reason"? -- Philcha (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)If ref after punctuation is something that concerns you, you can use Harvard-style Author/Date citation, at least in a new article. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any chances that en-wiki will ever have a stable MOS? With MOS pages being blocked for edit warring [3], the whole topic becomes pointless. Follow MOS? Which MOS? NVO (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it is radically simplified.
As long as MOS can be used by two or three editors to install their pet notion of language reform in some obscure corner, and then inflict in on FAs and GAs, the appeal of being a Secret Master of Wikipedia will ensure that such controversial ideas are imposed there. Since these are rarely, if ever, the actual consensus of Wikipedians, there will be strife over all of them, every time one of these pedants tries to ride his favorite hobby-horse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about discussion of porn with minors

A policy question : a user who says that she/he is minor in his personnal page starts to post in the talk page of a porn or sexuality related article, or to propose for deletion some porn related articles, or any other such action. Are there legal issues to engage in a written conversation about porn or sex acts with a minor for adult wikipedians? Hektor (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about it? I'm pretty sure speech is still free in most places. I don't quite know what you mean, or why there would be any legal issues involved... Celarnor Talk to me 05:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that as long as you have solely a Wikipedia-based discussion, you should have no problem. Although, keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer. SMP0328. (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, free speech protects nearly anything you could say provided that you avoid encouraging him or her to engage in conduct that would be criminal (e.g. encouraging him or her to have sex with you or other adults is not okay). Though discussing sexual issues in a frank and adult manner with a minor may be morally questionable, and I would encourage you to use good sense, it is not likely to get you in legal trouble. Dragons flight (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it morally questionable to discuss with a minor, in a frank and adult manner, the topic of sex? I think that is how one is supposed to discuss the topic with minors. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note "may be", depends on circumstances. In general, most people would find it inappropriate to discuss detailed sexuality with a young child, especially if you did so without the parent's consent. I also think children don't need to have adult explanations of some forms of kink under any circumstances. That's generally different than providing a sexually maturing adolescent a basic understanding of sex at an age appropriate time in their life. Since "minor" can mean anything under 18, it encompasses a wide range of circumstances. Dragons flight (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a child; I believe it is User:JoshuaD1991, who has made a bunch of porn star AfDs, some of which User:Hektor later commented on. If any children were making AfDs, I would want to know why the child is spending all this time looking up porn stars? and where are the parents? But I might also think the child was pretty intelligent, to be able to navigate and understand the AfD process. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed it is User:JoshuaD1991, who writes on his user page I am 16 years old and I come from Banbury. I didn't want to be specific and I don't see what being specific and quoting user names brings to the debate ; the question came to my mind when I explored his user page. So, starting from a peculiar case, I brought up a general question. I didn't ask the question about a child, but about s.o. who is legally minor (for instance less than 18 in France). Hektor (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< in my view this is one of the tips of the iceberg of a pretty serious issue... tread extremely carefully would be my advice, for what it's worth.... my feeling is that awareness of all consequences of the 'not censored' approach are not understood (or really yet considered) by much of wider society... (yet). As I mentioned when I drafted Wikipedia:Advice for parents, I believe many would be shocked at some imagery available freely... and I say that without prejudice as to its merits.. Privatemusings (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain laws against communication with minors for "indecent" purposes, like to solicit a meetup for sex online. I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that a discussion not constructed to encourage any particular action should be legal (well, unless it's a trade secret or military secret). Dcoetzee 06:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We mustn't forget that different countries have different rules (in fact different states too). How would that affect it? If the under 18 year old is in another country where the conversation is okay, but is not okay where Wikipedia or ever the user having the discussion with them, or vice versa, then what? Whose law does the discussion have to follow? Deamon138 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are laws against encouraging minors to engage in sexual activity. Even an objective discussion about sexual topics with a minor may be construed to be "encouraging" the minor because society will view the adult as having a certain "sway" over the minor because of the age difference. So i would recommend against any discussions with minors, just to be on the safe side. Halli B (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would recommend not being so paranoid. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of comments made as satire by Stephen Colbert (character)

Ok. This issue started on the Media Matters for America talk page (here), was sent to the BLP noticeboards and the Reliable source noticeboards. Since the discussion doesn't strictly relate to the television show the Colbert Report as a reliable source regarding the events that transpire on it, I'm moving the discussion here.

As I see it, the issue is this: Media Matters for America posted a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show regarding the Phony soldiers controversy in 2007. the colbert report later made the issue a subject on "the word". To acknowledge this, editors wanted to add a sentence like this:

"Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

Those who wished to add the sentence felt that the satire/criticism was topical and noteworthy. Those who wished to remove the section felt that the text confused Colbert the actor with Colbert the character and constituted original research regarding the interpretation of satire. their basic concerns (in my estimation) are these:

  • Satire is a difficult art to understand and interpret and few interpretations of satire are unambiguous. the inclusion of this reference puts the onus on the editor to determine the target and meaning of criticism.
  • Polticial criticism, when quoted on wikipedia, gets its authority from the speaker (as we commonly note the speaker and list the criticism as opinion). The fact that Stephen Colbert plays a role on television and the fact that his speech is written by a team of writers should give us pause when interpreting the speech of Colbert's character as criticism.
  • Wikipedia is not a venue for irony. We don't insert satire into ostensibly factual articles and leave the determination of the nature of speech to the reader.
  • Inclusion of satire as commentary would somehow place us on a slippery slope leading to the diminution of legitimate commentary.

Those who wish to add the sentence have some other concerns and responses (Again, my estimation, some are my concerns).

  • Satire may be presented as satire without interpretation as to the motivation, target or intended audience.
  • The notion that all commentary derives force and weight from the authority and authenticity of the speaker is false. It is especially counterfactual to demand that satire (a form of speech almost always delivered tongue in cheek) derive its significance from the authentic belief of the speaker.
  • Satire is a legitimate form of political commentary and, when topical, belongs in the discourse of an event.
  • Careful and judicious quotation of satire in articles (especially where the use is substantiated by third party sources) does not lead to a slippery slope or present the reader with an ironic view of a situation.

The exact issue is partially moot as a third party source has been found and inserted into the article. However I hope to invite some uninvolved editors to review the basic idea and answer a few questions:

  1. Is it ever appropriate to include topical references made as satirical commentary using only primary sources? (i.e. just the episode as a source)
  2. Does the issue of an actor playing a character (rather than a commentator providing a view) change the issue at all? Is George Carlin's criticism of the FCC for the Seven dirty words more suitable for inclusion because Carlin wasn't obviously playing a character?
  3. How much of the weight of political commentary stems from the authentic belief of the commentator in the view she presents? In other words, if James Carville actually liked Dennis Kucinich but pretended to like Clinton because it was good television, does that weaken his remarks?
  4. Where does the line get drawn on interpretation of material?

I'm including the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion here as an archive so that commentators can see past arguments (and to get it off RS/N). Please respond below the archived sections. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from Reliable Sources

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

At the article Media Matters for America something Stephen Colbert said while playing his characther is used in the article as a Reliable Source, and the following statement keeps getting inserted,

"Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

Is Colbert a reliable source to be used in this way? Is it OK to use him in various articles on which he commented such as Media Matters? Hobartimus (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that way, where it is clear that the figure talking is a television character and the nature of the speech is satire, it is probably ok. This seems to me to be an attempt to bring material into the body of the article versus leave it in an "In Pop culture" section. I don't think it belongs in the "criticism" section in the middle of a paragraph, but that is an editorial matter. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said this over at Talk:Media Matters for America, but say it here too since the discussion has (maybe) moved here: "The Colbert Report is obviously the most reliable source for Colbert's opinion (albeit a satirical opinion) and that's all it's being used for so there is no WP:RS issue. If the Report was being used as a source for some factoid--Obama is Frankenstien, for example--that would violate WP:RS, but using it for Colbert's opinion is fine." Yilloslime (t) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So is it OK to use qoutes from him in every article he ever commented on as long as it's accurately described as satirical speech? Hobartimus (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's case by case, right? I don't think an unequivocal statement can be made about this. We should obviously note Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner but a throwaway gag at the beginning of an episode doesn't really count. And in looking at the MMFA article again, the Colbert quote placement isn't really bad at all. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ProtonK. Just as with Bill O'Reilly or any other guy with an opinion and a microphone, whether it's OK to use Colbert commentary depends on the article and the context. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:RS issue. Yilloslime (t) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the comparsion with Bill O'Reilly is relevant, most of what Colbert says in Characther is patent nonsense, trying to make people laugh and not serious in any way. The same thing would be adding to the Bear article that Colbert states that Bears are the biggest threat to humans and often features them at the top of Threat-Down ... Colbert quotes should best remain in articles directly about Colbert and not creep into other articles such as Elephant (the Elephant-Colbert connection is arguably much more notable than the Colbert-Media Matters connection to boot). Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, comments stated while in character have no purpose in articles outside his articles. This is a dangerous precedent to claim that this instance is ok because he is SC since it sets up future situations where personal opinion and not policy dictate what should be used on contencious issues. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Well, in all fairness, I think most of what bill o'rielly says is patent nonsense, trying to get his audience lathered up about some non-issue in order to keep ratings high. But most satire seems like patent nonsense to some people. A Modest Proposal is pretty nonsensical, but discussion of it in an article on english nationalism at the time would be wholly appropriate. Comedy has to get a laugh or it people don't watch it. that doesn't dilute the underlying point: that MMFA spends a lot of time and money bringing what is essentially hate speech from an echo chamber out into the rest of the world. It is valid criticism to say that fanning outrage over Limbaugh's comments spoils an easy method to minimize their impact: just don't look. The source of that criticism is important to note but not vital to its inclusion. George Carlin was a funny-man, but his thoughts on television censorship are germane and notable. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing Colbert the person with Colbert the FICTIONAL character. Your strawman arguement of BOR is nonsensical, but your comparison to Carlin is interesting. Carlin was always Carlin, he didn't change his point of view depending upon the situation (the same could be said with BOR). However, Colbert does. By his own admission he does not believe almost anything he purports to believe while in character, and to try and diferentiate between the two to use as a rebuttal on the behalf of MMfA is simply incredulous, it is stuff like this that garners WP almost no respeact within actual academia. Arzel (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am at all. Carlin was who he was on stage for a reason. The same with Colbert. The writers of the Colbert report chose to criticize MMFA for their actions and we are noting that criticism in its proper place. The Billo comment was mostly to put that issue aside, I didn't make the comparison in the first place. We aren't confusing Colbert and Colbert. We are noting that Stephen Colbert (character) lampooned MMFA for their actions. That doesn't require that we conflate two topics or that we insinuate Colbert the person believes the criticism. That isn't a requirement. If the article doesn't make it perfectly clear that the figure talking is fictional, then we can fix that. But as I see it, lampooning is lampooning. given that the Limbaugh 'phony soldiers bit' was drawn out and discussed for some time, it seems appropriate. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key here is that there is a big difference between Colbert's personal opinion (which I supposed could be notable in some rare instances), and something his charatcer says on his show. The comic material stated by Colbert (the character) is scripted... writen by Colbert's team of writers in order to be humerous. It is not a reliable source for Colbert (the person)'s opinion. The same is not true with statements by Rush Limbaugh. In his cases the person is/was not playing a character. The opinion expressed is his own. In the case of George Carlin... his thoughts on censorship are reliable sources because both he and others have commented on them outside of the comic routine itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that shouldn't be the key issue at all. Opinions don't become invalid because they make people laugh. the whole point of what people like carlin did was that their humor on stage was partially funny because it was also criticism. Things that Carlin said about the church or about the FCC didn't become relevant only because they (presumably) echoed how he felt off state. His feelings as expressed in interviews and non-stage appearances are important in determining things about Carlin the man, but that doesn't mean that only opinions espoused offstage are relevant as criticism of other people and things. We wouldn't take carlin's stage act speech about censorship as a source for facts on the issue, just an opinion. In this specific case we are not presenting it as the opinion of the speaker but as criticism itself, offered by an organization (comedy Central) that approves content and has limitations (30 minutes a day, 4 days a week) n what it produces. I note a similar situation at Hot Pockets. No need to assert that each persona quoted actually feels that way about the microwave dinners. Again, if the article presents the joke as Colbert's (the person) opinion and not the speech of the fictional character colbert, it should be fixed immediately. the sentence, insofar as it notes the criticism of the organization in question as satire and presents it as speech from a fictional character, isn't wrong. We could argue that it isn't terribly important (WP:UNDUE), but that is different. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. It doesn't matter if that opinion is expressed as an obvious political satire in a comedy routine, or in an OpEd in a newspaper. It does matters that opinions are presented as opinions and not as fact, but that's not the issue here. And it also matters that the mix of opinions presented in an article adheres to WP:NPOV, but that's not a matter for this board to decide. Yilloslime (t) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incredulous. If you can't seperate the shaff from the wheat before you make bread you usually end up with a loaf of crap.....case in point here. Arzel (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :) Protonk (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am using it correctly. My mind cannot literally not comprehend how some people think that the musings of a fictional character somehow belong within in a supposed encyclopedia, maybe this is really just a gossip encyclopedia, if that it the case then I am using that word incorrectly. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I guess I can't share your outrage. If Stephen colbert (the person) were a stand-up comedian and made the exact same joke on an HBO special, would this same conversation be taking place? Protonk (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look. What happens on the Colbert Report, the Daily Show, and certain sketches on Saturday Night Live is obviously, unabashedly political satire. They are also very widely viewed. Therefore, the opinions expressed in these shows are sometimes an important part of the media dialog. Some people here seem to be arguing that because the criticism is conveyed through this fictionalized character it's somehow automatically invalid. That's a strawman argument. Yes, I agree that the opinions of fictional characters generally have no place in an encyclopedia--spongebob's thoughts on the cheese or the '08 elections would never be appropriate--but in the specific case of a show that all about political satire, a show that people watch expecting political satire, these opinions are relevant, and can in some cases be given parity with opinions expressed through standard channels. Yilloslime (t) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that because SC is notable than his comments are notable, all this will do is give a free pass to include anything he says anywhere. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well firstly, SC the person would never make that joke. His joke is based off feigned anger at MMfA because he is playing a supposed conservative talk-show host (although to be accurate he takes extreme positions from both sides of the isle). The real SC wouldn't have to feign any anger. Secondly, are you suggesting that simply because this was on TV it is suddenly viable? If Colbert (the character) had not made this joke on TV but had done so in a comedy show and then MMfA picked it up it would still be worthy of inclusion? Perhaps you should share my outrage, because all stuff like this does is make WP look like an ecyclopedia put together by first year college students without anything better to do with their time. You know I really like SC, but I see time and time again (as with his presidential run) many people have a very difficult time pulling the real SC out of the character. And to make things worse he plays on it by mentioning WP in his show further making WP look like a pile of crap. To top if off most people don't even realize that they are playing right into his hand. They think they are playing along, when in reality he is only further mocking them and the WP project.....but then again maybe WP is just a big joke and a waste of time. Arzel (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, step one to cooperating with people is to deride the work they do as a pile of crap, that's for sure. As for "that's what makes wikipedia bad...etc....bllarrgh". I don't care. Take the drama and issues you have with your perceptions of wikipedia elsewhere. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We probably won't come to agreement on the subject in general, but I'll try and illustrate my feelings clearly. Satire does not become insignificant because of how it is voiced. The south park movie better be on the criticism of the MPAA section because it is legitimate criticism of the organization's goals and methods. thank you for smoking (the book or movie) should be noted somewhere on the subject of anti-tobacco crusading. The point of comedians doing satire is that the medium should prejudge the message: Colbert (the character) made a joke at MMFA's expense on a subject. Look, it doesn't matter what stephen colbert the actor thinks. that isn't the purpose of the quote. The purpose is to make a topical (and yes) humorous interlink between a brief scandal and a television personality. That joke is included with the show cited as a source. As far as RS is concerned, as long as the text is clear that this is a fictional character and the speech is satire, no issue exists with reliability. there may be an issue that colbert's criticism just wasn't that important. Take that up at WP:NPOV/N. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't need to believe that Jonathan Swift actually wanted to feed Irish babies to the poor in order to accept his work of satire. Protonk (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that, in a general sense, it might be appropriate to just delete the entire criticism section. That, of course, is not a reliable sources argument, though really nothing here is. None of these criticisms are especially strong, and if the issue that some people here have is that it's bad to report an opinion expressed through comedy (which it clearly is not), we could solve that by just removing everything. That solution, which I have proposed numerous times, has not gained traction (or even much of a response) from some of those who want to remove the Colbert bit. That leaves me to suspect that for at least some of them, this is more about excluding an opinion that defends Media Matters than anything else. We could just avert this entire issue by deleting the relatively weak criticisms we have there. If we're going to include them, we need to follow the NPOV policy and also include opinions that defend Media Matters. Croctotheface (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to the point... a satirical comedy sketch is not a reliable source for any statement about a third party. It is not even a reliable source for opinion (unless a reliable source can verify that the view experessed in the sketch is actually held by the person who wrote it... in which case you should use the source that verifies this, and not the sketch itself). A satirical sketch is a work of fiction. The only situation where it might be considered reliable is as a self-citation for an outline of the plot of the sketch. There is only one circumstance where the plot of a sketch should be outlined... in an article about the sketch itself (or the show in which it occured).Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far from getting to the point, this reply completely ignores my point and repeats the same argument that others here have rejected over and over. If you want to exclude Colbert's opinion, we could do that just by saying that the entire criticism section is not important enough to include, which it arguably is not. If you want to exclude ONLY Colbert's opinion that defends Media Matters, and leave in those that criticize MM, then that's a violation of our policy of writing from a neutral point of view. Croctotheface (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you verify that this is Colbert's opinion? Let's take another of his bits as a counter point... he frequently says (in character) that "Obama is a secret Muslem"... do you seriously think this Colbert's out of character opinion on Barak Obama? How do you know? Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be. Like I said above, Jonathan Swift probably didn't actually want to feed irish babies to the poor of england. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thus we should not say that this was Swift's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the sentence quoted above doesn't do that. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea why any of this is in response to what I wrote. If the overarching concern is to get rid of the Colbert piece, we can do that by deleting the entire criticism section, which really doesn't describe anything of much merit. As I said above, the fact that people who want to remove the stuff about Colbert (in general) don't want to address this possibility, it leaves me with grave NPOV concerns. Croctotheface (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Croctotheface, as you noted yourself above your suggestion is not about reliability, and that discussion belongs on the entry talk page. Protonk, while I agree in spirit with much of what you are arguing for, I don't think we can accept satire as a reliable source of criticism ("opinion" or no opinion) at least not until other sources have been published about the satirical piece and then its best to use those sources. In other words it would be ill advised to use Swift directly as well. The problem lies in the fact that satire is not even close to being literal, and thus requires interpretation. However obvious this interpretation may seem to you and I or anyone else commenting here, it is still interpretation either by us (which means OR) or by the reader (which means that the meaning is not clear). Either way its unacceptable here. I agree that it is highly unfortunate, because a whole lot of notable political critique comes from satire. Anyway once someone publishes about Colbert's satire then it will be another story.PelleSmith (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @ BB: "How can you verify that this is Colbert's opinion?" THe article doesn't say it's Colbert's opinion, the article says: " Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy," and then goes on to give the quote.Yilloslime (t) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but several people have tried to defend including the comment by saying that it is Colbert's opinion. My comments are directed at them.
@ Pelle "I don't think we can accept satire as a reliable source of criticism ("opinion" or no opinion) at least not until other sources have been published about the satirical piece and then its best to use those sources." From what wikipolicy does this flow?Yilloslime (t) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It is explained below it. Comprehending the intended meaning of satire requires a level of interpretation which is problematic in an encyclopedia which is meant to be clear and to be taken literally. Either we do the interpreting, and that violates WP:NOR or we leave it to the reader, which pretty much violates the very essence of this project--which is to be informative and clear. If you want to use Swift's satirical critique of something you would have to rely on third party scholarship which explains the intent or meaning of his satire. Same goes for Colbert. If the primary source cannot be taken literally it should not be used.PelleSmith (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I think you're really stretching what's meant by WP:OR here, and I also think that the context of Colbert's remarks is easily understood, even by readers unfamiliar with his show/character. Afterall, the quote is clearly labelled as satire, and readers who want or need more info can click the appropriate links. Yilloslime (t) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pelle, every word or sentence requires interpretation. Understanding a literal meaning is not "research," and neither is understanding a non-literal meaning. Regarding the notion that my suggestion is not about reliability, no argument here is really about reliability. Your argument, for instance, is an original research argument, not a reliable sources argument. Croctotheface (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining a non-literal meaning would be considered original research. It would also not be verifiably the "intended" meaning unless the person who authored it did the explanation. Regarding reliability you are entirely wrong. Discussing whether or not satire can be used as a reliable source of criticism is apropos here, while discussing whether or not the entire criticism section of an entry should be deleted is clearly not.PelleSmith (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's so, then isn't determining that the meaning is non-literal also "research"? Croctotheface (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage you in this pomo language game which could go on ad infinitum. We assume sincerity in expression in various contexts, like in reference works for instance. Satire by definition disturbs this assumption because satire is not meant to be sincere. In fact if you assume sincerity you wont get the intended meaning of a given work of satire. A reference work is meant to be sincere and we also experience some amount of stability based upon this assumption of sincerity. You can go on and on all you want about how everything requires interpretation or how all meaning is constructed or how there are no given natural relationships between sign and signifier and yada yada yada. That makes no difference here. There are pragmatic reasons for assuming that some expression are more literal than others, and in fact some expression are intended to be more literal than others. Satire is not intended to be literal. It requires an amount of interpretation that goes above and beyond that which is necessary for basic literal forms of communication. That is a problem.PelleSmith (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's really what I'm getting at here: you say that we can't include any opinions expressed through satire because recognizing that they are satire is "research" and we don't do original research. I say that recognizing that they're satire is necessary to say that in the first place. You're correcr that we presume sincerity in certain cases, but that doesn't somehow make that not an act of interpretation. Understanding irony or satire is not "research." Croctotheface (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR is the closest thing we have to express the point. No its not strictly speaking "research", but it requires explanation or interpretation at a level well above plain expression and that's the problem.PelleSmith (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't serve our readers or anyone else to pretend that satire or irony is incomprehensible. As I said, even recognizing that words are not being used literally is interpretive. That's just basically saying to anyone who uses non-literal means to communicate ideas that Wikipedia is closed to you, that you need to be ignored. Croctotheface (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said it is incomprehensible in the least--and excluding various literary devices from the writing of a reference work does not make such a statement either. Irony and satire are not precise, and they do not meet the levels of obvious clarity that we want in a reference work, to provide the clarity for the reader requires levels of analysis that are not deemed OK vis-a-vis WP:NOR. I'm still stupefied that someone is arguing for the use of irony and satire in a reference work. When a literal accounting of the meaning produced by satire is available it is another matter. For instance no editorial reading of Jonathan Swift's intended meaning is required because its all there in third party sources, and reliable academic sources at that.PelleSmith (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Context is everything... Let's look at the material in context:
  • In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened". Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light. John Gibson, while a commentator of Fox News Channel, offered an opinion that criticized Media Matters' reporting of Limbaugh. Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy.
Stephen Colbert's character is not a reliable source in this context. His character is not reliable for a "reply" to a real statement of fact or opinion. It may be funny, but it is not appropriate to include it in the section. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're misusing the notion of "reliability," as others have explained already. His words clearly communicate something "real," even though it's done humorously. Croctotheface (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not... everything else in the paragraph relates to the opinions of real people... a reliable reply would be that of another real person. Colbert the character is not real... a fictional character can not be a reliable source for a "reply".
  • I'm marking this as resolved since the question of including or excluding the material is no longer related to this noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... but am happy to carry the discussion to another forum... where are you contuing the conversation?
I don't have a horse in this race, but anyone is free to copy/paste it on the MMFA talk page. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is much bigger than just one article can Colbert in character be cited in Bear, Elephant and gazillion of other articles potentially? If this discussion would reach a consensus for example that it's OK to include than people editing Elephant can reference it in their own discussions, this is the reason to have a centralized discussion about whether it is appropriate to cite Colbert in charather articles NOT about Colbert. Hobartimus (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my honest opinion on that is that we can't make a sweeping recommendation. It would be ill advised to say that the colbert report should never be mentioned outside of the scope of Stephen Colbert articles. It would also be wrong to say that inclusion of a reference is always justified. From a reliable source standpoint, an episode of the colbert report is a perfectly reasonable source for stating the goings-on of that show. Whether or not the goings-on of that show relate to any other article is an individual issue for that article. A general answer is liable to come from judiciously applying WP:UNDUE and WP:OR as appropriate. I can't say that it is inappropriate to use material from the Colbert report on the MMFA article and (in the same breath) say that it is innapropriate to do so on the Lynn Westmoreland article as well. In my opinion the discussion doesn't belong here. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Hobatimus, the devil is always in the details. If you're looking for a blanket statement that "Yes Colbert is always quotable" or "No you're never allowed to quote Colbert" I'm sorry but you're not going to get it. You've got to look at things on a case by case basis. Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well a definitive result would be nice but I thought about something like "Stephen Colbert in characther counts as a reliable source and can be cited unless the citation conflicts with other policy" OR "Stephen Colbert in characther should only be cited in articles directly related to Colbert and not in any other articles or topics on which he only commented such as Bear or Elephant"
I think a general statement about Colbert qoutes can be made and I'm sure this will come up plenty of times in the future as well on countless talk pages without centralized discussion so with a result here we would save a lot of time later. Hobartimus (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False dilemma Protonk (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is certainly a false choice. There are opinions on Colbert's show that are designed to be, in the words of a lot of people, "brilliant satire." Those types of comments can certainly be quoted. We have an entire article about Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I suppose that nothing he said there can be relayed, since it concerned serious topics but was delivered in character. Croctotheface (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously in articles about Colbert and directly related to Colbert quotes can be used as said above. However Elephant and Media Matters are not about Colbert not related to Colbert and don't contain his name in the title. Hobartimus (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is an article about Steven Colbert, so things he said are very appropriate to quote and comment upon. And I agree that there will be other articles where it might be appropriate to mention something he said "in character". I can even see mentioning his remarks in the MM article (as an example of the controversy reaching a wider audience for example)... but as currently used, it is completely inappropriate and unreliable. People keep saying that the article does not quote him as an opinion... and yet if you look at the talk page and at numerous comments made here this is exactly the argument made for keeping it in the article. it is being used as areliable source for an opinion when it shouldn't be. It is being used as a rebuttal to various criticisms. But it isn't a rebuttal... it is a satire of them. It isn't a reliable source for rebuttal. There may be other reasons, and other ways to include the comment... but not the ones that have been stated here or stated on the talk page of the article. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are saying not that the quote does not express an opinion; they are saying that it expresses an opinion ironically. That is offered in response to the notion that comedy is basically incapable of expressing anything, which is the opinion that some have taken here. I offered the WHCA dinner article to give an example of a featured article that clearly does interpret his comments as satirical, which is what some here have said that we can't do without resorting to OR, which is clearly untrue. Croctotheface (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) The idea of using his satirical comments as criticism of another entity goes well above and beyond simply stating that his comments are satirical. It requires using the meaning of his satirical comments as if that meaning is clear, which it is not. The fact that you and I understand them makes no difference. It certainly isn't clear without at the very least identifying the comments as satirical, but even that is not enough for many many possible readers. What's next we start using poetry? How about song lyrics? I know, we should just paste jpgs of abstract expressionist paintings into various articles ... I mean I get them so who cares if younger people or those simply unfamiliar with that mode of expression do not have the cognitive apparatus to understand them. Lets do it!!! I'm amazed that this conversation persists as if there is ever going to be a defensible way to call a satirical primary source reliable for criticism.PelleSmith (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satire is often the most powerful form of criticism. We can certainly quote a song or reference a painting that's critical of someone. There's a reference to the kiss sculpure, for instance, in the Joe Lieberman article. The idea that we need to write articles for people who lack the "cognitive apparatus" to understand irony. Croctotheface (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What guidebook to reference writing told you to use irony because you should burn it? When do we ever employ irony in our writing here? I agree 100% that some of the best political critique available comes through satire, and it always has. But that does not mean that we employ satire as a primary source for criticism in a reference work. How about you find any published reference work that uses satire in this manner.PelleSmith (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that a google search provided no reliable third party sources that discuss Colbert's joke regarding this matter. MMfA is the primary reference for the discussion, other than the show itself, would that make this not even a third party source (MMfA is a primary source, and it using it for its own purpose to mock Limbaugh). Arzel (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand

This is not germane to the RS noticeboard. I can move this to the Village Pump or move it to the MMFA talk page and start a content RfC if wider user input and centralized discussion is required but it doesn't really belong here. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close the thread, mark it resolved, and let those who want to pursue this further WP:Forum shop it to where ever they'd like. Yilloslime (t) 05:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to close the thread as an adversarial decision. I just don't want an already long RS/N page to get longer for what is largely a parochial discussion. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert is used as a source wiki wide. Would it be better to have this discussion in 10 different places? Hobartimus (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I wrote. I'm HAPPY to move this to a different location for central discussion. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying that Colbert can never be used as a source... only that he was an unreliable source as used in this article. In any case, the wording of the sentence at issue has now been changed... it now reads: "Lampooning O'Reilly, Gibson, and other conservatives who rallied behind Limbaugh, Stephen Colbert satirically blamed Media Matters for the controversy...." As now used, there is no longer an RS issue... The comment is not being presented as an opinion or a reply to an opinion. It is being presented as what it is... a lampoon of the criticisms. That is an appropriate use of the quote as far as RS is concerned. (I leave other potential objections to another venue). Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new language is clearer. However, the notion that it is "Stephen Colbert" who "blamed Media Matters" is still an unresolved RS problem per threads above. Stephen Colbert is a real person and also a fictional character. It is the fictional character that delivered this lampooning, and the real source of this material is an unknown collaboration from a team of writers. Calling this resolved in terms of RS opens the door for two possible problems: 1) Allowing fictional characters to be sources or conversely 2) sourcing the opinions of writers to the statements made by their fictional characters. I really don't see these issues resolved. The other issue I have with satire in general, I will concede, belongs elsewhere.PelleSmith (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert is no more "fictional" than any other satirist who uses some kind of comic conceit like this. And the "fictional" issue doesn't seem to bother, for example, the Peabody Awards, as they've given Colbert more than one for his work. That's a very prestigious journalism award, incidentally, not a comedy award. The notion that this is really the opinion of "writers" is no more salient for this case than it is for any broadcast, since even "serious" shows use writers. In general, I find it troubling that for some people, there would be no issue at all if a hack like Chris Matthews presented the same opinion in a "serious" way on his "serious" show. Croctotheface (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman arguments abound. Colbert the person is NOT responsible for anything he says because he is making the statement within the context of his fictional character. Colbert the character is no more real than Happy Gillmore or Patch Adams or any other character. The fact that Colbert uses the same name as his real name for his fictional character doesn't change this. Croc, you really need to get past this belief you have that they are one in the same. Colbert the person has recieved awards for his work playing Colbert the fictional character. Arzel (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those awards are for journalism, not acting. Croctotheface (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And........this makes a difference how? Arzel (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference what the awards are for. A more apt example here would be Borat or Ali G. Colbert, when in character on the show, is completely fictional. It makes no amount of difference if Colbert the person agrees 100% with the satirical critique produced by his "fictional" character. Unless you have a quote from Colbert out of character you are quoting a fictional character. This gets very tiring because you have resorted to non-relevant arguments. Do you disagree that Colbert on the show is a fictional character? Please answer that question emphatically. All else follows from that question. I love Colbert, btw, and agree with the slant of his satire, but I'm entirely unwilling to open up this pandora's box of RS problems just because I agree with him.PelleSmith (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last post on this thread, as it's clear we're not getting anywhere. This is clearly not a reliable source issue. I don't deny that the question of how much WP:WEIGHT—if any—to give to the commentary of a fictionalized character is a relevant one. But it's simply not a sourcing issue. It is undeniable that Steven Colbert the human being uttered those remarks as the character Steven Colbert while hosting the Colbert Report. If we were dealing with a transcript posted on a blog or WP:SPS that'd be a different story, but clearly the sourcing here is solid. Please pursue the broader WP:WEIGHT issues elsewhere.
I'll retire from this absurdity as well, but only with a parting comment. I think there is a lesson here to learn from a good friend of Colbert's. When Jon Stewart was on Crossfire and he very sincerely and straightforwardly lambasted the commentators for "hurting America", they responded by criticizing him for not asking tough questions on his own "news show". He responded at first by saying "if you want to compare your show to a comedy show you are more than welcome to." Other responses included, "I didn't realize that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for integrity," and "the show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls, what is wrong with you?" In case you haven't seen this episode I highly suggest watching it. One of Stewart's main criticisms of Crossfire is that its like "theater" and that it isn't "genuine". I'm sure that both Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, however earnestly they believe in the substance of their own shows' various satirical critiques can appreciate the absurdity of the conclusion reached above. Let the fictional comedy character sourcing begin!!PelleSmith (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... shall we start by editing the Barak Obama article so that it says that it is Stephen Colbert's opinion that "Obama is a secret muslem"? After all, if everyone agrees that Colbert is a reliable source for his opinions, they should welcome the comment. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be relevant as a satire of the people who are alleging he is a muslim. The basic premise of all these comments seems to be either that satire is incomprehensible or that we need to pretend it is. To a point raised elsewhere, why does it not matter what his awards are for? He has received awards for journalism. Clearly there are respected organizations out there who take his satire seriously. If Sacha Cohen has received journalism awards, then maybe Borat would be relevant to this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New discussion of the issue can go here

Thank you Protonk - just to clarify, the sentence containing the Colbert quote has been in the article since early January 2008 and (FWIW) has maintained consensus to stay in since then. The discussion about the quote has been on-going since then and flares up a bit every few months. The past few weeks have seen the widest discussion on this quote with the BLP noticeboard and RS queries. thanks again, --guyzero | talk 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to questions

1. I wouldn't say "never" since there is historical satire that can be used appropriately, but primary sources not interpreted through the lens of reliable secondary sources are clearly inappropriate as original research, regardless of context. I would also hold that Colbert is not a reliable source on anything but Colbert, given that the purpose of the program is satire and intentional and blatant subversion for the sake of humor.

2. "In character" or "not in character" is a fine line, and I don't think we can make a hard and fast distinction. Does Papa Bear really hold the views he promotes on his show or is that an act as well? I don't believe it changes the issue, though it's obviously an important point of context.

3. A classic pitfall of primary sources. We cannot determine their authentic belief, we can only report what they say. If what they say is misleading, we should provide appropriate context. I would probably cite WP:UNDUE as the guide on this issue, not sure if there's a more specific policy.

4. If the interpretation is not patently obvious (i.e. unit conversions), it should not be included unless it agrees with the interpretation of a cited reliable secondary source.

Overall, quoted satire is not something we should "ban outright" given the rich history of that form. There are some caveats, though. To quote WP:QUOTE "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation."

That it is satire is certainly "necessary explanation" and that explanation should come from a reliable secondary source if there is any question. WP:WEIGHT handles the rest. SDY (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of this, as my comments in the archived might indicate. I don't think that "satire is so sophisticated that we can't hope to understand it" is a very useful approach to take, and I don't think that Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner would not be possible if we pretended that satire was so confusing and opaque that we could never understand it.
However, we can avert this whole issue based on something you said in your first numbered response. The Colbert quote shows up in the context of criticism from, basically, primary sources. The National Review made an original criticism of Media Matters. If the notion is that there needs to be secondary source coverage, then there's an easy fix that solves the problem of whether Colbert goes in: remove the entire criticism section, since it's pretty much all coming from primary sources. My issue has always been that I think Colbert has the most relevant perspective on the criticism he is discussing. We can just decide that the whole criticism section, or at least this particular criticism, is not important enough to have in the encyclopedia. That averts the whole debate over whether satire can express anything. Croctotheface (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. If satire is straightforward enough that there is no "necessary explanation" then go ahead and put it in. The interpretation is a fact, and if meaningfully challenged it should be cited. If you're just reporting what he said and leaving it up to the reader to make heads or tails of it, the primary source is fine. If Colbert explains what he means, then he's both primary and secondary source. If he's just being satirical and funny without honest explanation, someone else's honest explanation (someone who is not a Wikipedia editor) is needed. SDY (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The context of the quote in the article does identify it as satire and that Colbert was in character as a right-wing pundit, which should provide the "necessary explanation" for the reader who is interested criticisms about Media Matters but has somehow never heard of what Colbert is about. Other than identifying the quote as satire, it really is up to the reader to interpret it -- we should provide no interpretation of our own. With regards to 3rd party analysis, several have commented on Colbert's general use of satire: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Colbert's picture even appears on the wikipedia article of satire. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "leaving it up to the reader to make heads of tails of it", it is crucial to follow this WP:RS guideline: Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Switzpaw (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the guidelines is that Colbert is not a "primary source" on Media Matters (he doesn't work for MMfA) or the criticism around Media Matters and the Rush Limbaugh affair (which I believe would be the National Review?) But.. he and others are commenting on the controversy, does that make them a secondary source? Or a primary source for their own words? Do we really have to have 4th party analysis of 3rd party opinions/quotes even if they are just presented in context with no analysis? Apologies, I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand the point being made here.
Anyway, which part of the original implementation of the quote contains OR/interpretation: "Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."? thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I'm confused about as well, the way that SDY puts it. I believe that he would be a secondary source on the National Review/Media Matters controversy. It should then follow that he be vetted as a reliable secondary source by this guideline in WP:RS: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Switzpaw (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the questions in general. For the specific source, there's a slight stretch that we assume our readers know who Colbert's character is, but other than that I think the comment is fine since it doesn't really OR any interpretation other than it is satire. I would hold Colbert to be an unreliable source given that he intentionally subverts the positions he claims to hold. He's a professional straw man. SDY (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say the passage is fine for inclusion while regarding him to be an unreliable source? Switzpaw (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally through the lens of my own bias, but I don't believe a reader who knows who Media Matters, the National Review, and Rush Limbaugh are wouldn't have some idea of who Stephen Colbert is..? Though I concede that Rush Limbaugh is probably the most well known of the bunch. cheers, --guyzero | talk 05:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why the stretch is slight. Colbert is a reliable source on Colbert and his own satire, which is a very narrow field. He's otherwise a source that I would avoid. SDY (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he would be a reliable secondary source if he was explaining a skit that he did while out of character. Would he ever be a reliable secondary source if he was in character? Switzpaw (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In general, I totally agree. Colbert shouldn't be applied liberally to articles where he has commented on the subject, unless that commentary is itself notable for some reason -- which this isn't, or the commentary makes sense in context, doesn't mislead the reader, and balances the paragraph (i.e. helps to maintain NPOV) -- which this does. My own opinion too is that his comment is a good one in that it goes to the heart of the criticism that MMfA reprints false or out of context information.
This quote has been under discussion since January 08, the paragraph is fairly one sided without it, but while we've generated over 20,000 words for far on talk pages and various noticeboards discussing this quote (yes, I counted!) there have been no proposals that I'm aware of for rewording the paragraph without the quote but using another, probably better source to balance it. Anyhow, can you please clarify if there is a policy issue with this application of Colbert's quote? thank you! --guyzero | talk 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did suggested a way to do that over at Talk:Media Matters, but it didn't get much uptake.Yilloslime (t) 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your proposed addition didn't address the criticism of Media Matters, if I recall, just the controversy in general. It didn't really substitute for the material in question. I've said all along that a similar opinion from a non-comedian would be a fine substitute. The problem is that this was not a similar opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this Bill Ayers was featured on Colbert's show for his relationship with Barack Obama. Is it appropriate the use the material that was presented by Colbert and qoute what he said in articles like, Bill Ayers, Obama-Ayers controversy, Obama-Biden 2008 etc etc? Is it appropriate to use Colbert in this fashion? Hobartimus (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be suggesting that we need to use everything a satirist or comedian says about any topic, or nothing at all. That is a false choice. We can and should always use editorial discretion about what enhances the encyclopedia and what does not. I'm not familiar with what was said here, but if Colbert's satire really cut to the heart of the issue, and especially if nobody else made a similar point, then I could see it being appropriate to use. Otherwise, we probably should not use it. Croctotheface (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Then exactly who is going to be the arbiter of what can and cannot be used? These kinds of comments should fall under the same category as SNL skits. The incident should be noted if it garners some notable attention from outside press, and then it should be specified that the satire was what became notable. This case should be closed, SC is not a reliable source for opinion within the context of his character. To cut the line here will remove future argument about interpretation of what and how those comments should be included. This is especially important on contencious issues where a living person is mocked and then those comments are used within an article. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor consensus, as always, would determine what should and should not be used. That's how we do things here. The rest of your comments have been discussed over and over, and there's no reason to address them yet again here. Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Arzel the best would be to nip this in the bud. Look at the sheer amount of energy wasted to keep this single Colbert qoute in the article. Similar qoutes (rightfully) will be challanged as well, as this is supposed to be an encylopedia. Hobartimus (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar situation Jon Stewert is being used as opinion on Steve Doocy's article here. If a standard is not set it opens up free reign to incorporate these stupid comments into BLP articles. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a Daily Show thread on Talk:Sarah_Palin#Daily_Show_on_Gender_Hypocrisy. Switzpaw (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the Colbert quote in the Media Matters article other than the idea presented above that we should create a "standard" with regards to their (Stewart/Colbert) use. Do we have such standards for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc? Yes: RS, NPOV, WEIGHT, consensus, etc etc. Those same standards apply to Colbert and Stewart and need to be weighed in each and every instance their opinion is stated in an article. We have spent 8 months weighing all of those standards with regards to this single Colbert quote and no policies here or at the BLP or RS noticeboards have been identified that precludes the use of that quote. Alternatives have been proposed in the spirit of working together: please find another quote or another way to balance the phony soldiers criticism besides Colbert (maintain npov) -- please use the article talk page for that discussion as there is no policy issue. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What? This is village pump. I'm not talking about the Colbert quote. I posted a link to how another article is responding to a similar inquiry for the purposes of furthering general discussion? Which is an appropriate use of this forum? Switzpaw (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of ownership advice or template?

I wish to make clear in article I edit on a regular basis Huntington's Disease that I do not claim Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles, since I have the impression ( after seeing in another editors talk worries of 'stepping on my toes'!) that editors coming to the page seeing my number of edits and regular appearance on the talk page might be putoff making their own - all of which are welcome! I think I've made it clear, when asked and in my comments, that I shun ownership so sought the guidelines for the solution, expecting a nice little template or something. There wasn't a section in the ownership guideline addressing this scenario and I haven't had a response from my question there, so where else do I ask - here? I've made a mock-up User:Leevanjackson/noowntemplate of the sort of thing I am looking for - or even as a proposal if this is an uncovered issue, any thoughts or pointers ? many thanks LeeVJ (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea - a couple of us are in a similar situation with articles listed at WP:CEX. Currently your proposed wording is "There are regular editors who contribute heavily to this article, but are adverse to article ownership and actively encourage any new edits, comments or criticism; no matter how bold." Might I make some suggestions:
  • "There are regular editors who contribute heavily to this article, and we would be delighted to have new contributors join us. Please make sure your edits come with references to suitable publications - if in doubt, see WP:RS or ask us."
  • Then add one of the variants of WP:TRIFECTA.
With luck this will become a standard feature of Talk pages. -- Philcha (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 'delighted', but newbies and flypast editors might baulk at labelling themselves 'contributors' and 'joining us', maybe a nudge in the direction of verifiability - but I was looking for a sense of no hard and fast rules...I guess from your reply that this scenario is missing in the guidelines then!LeeVJ (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which WP:TRIFECTA variant did you mean - I make out Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages to be the relevant one? LeeVJ (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cobbled another template example based on your comments - any good? LeeVJ (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there's also WP:MAINTAIN which has a template, but that's a specific case of this issue. SDY (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but it requires a thorough knowledge of the article's subject and strays too close to ownership with the editors listed for me, I imagine it's great (though under-used) for guidelines and project pages though! LeeVJ (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an article on denial, I would like help because one of the admins, (I shall not make his name public for wikipedia policy) on Wiki game has refused me an account due to 'cross wiki hacking' but I have not hacked at all on wiki since I signed in to wikipedia as a new user on the 29th August 2008 does anybody have some advice on this matter? Because it was hard to find a specific page. Also i would like to get or get advice on how to access semi locked wiki articles E.G Wii. Mcjakeqcool (talk) 2nd September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free images in articles

Hi. Non-free images of live people are not allowed in articles of living persons right? But if say in articles of actors, are we allowed to use film footage as an image of them in the article? Since I see some articles use those kinds of images for the infobox images, I would like to ask this. Also, if we scan in a magazine which has an image of the actor there, does that count as free or something? Thanks. ~Milnivri~ 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an actor article, say Morgan Freeman is using a screenshot from a film to show what Freeman looks like then that does not meet our NFCC policy and can be removed from the article. If it is a character, say Batman, then a valid rationale could be drawn up to show it meets the NFCC policy. Scanning an image from a magazine would be a breach of copyright and is in no-way a free image. It is highly unlikely, but you might be able to draw up a fair-use rationale depending on the image. See WP:NFCC for more information, particularly 1. No free equivalent. (With a living person, there will always be the possibility of a free-equivalent.) Woody (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Then can you help handle these images, which are not fair use? Image:Felicia Chin.jpg and Image:Just Follow Law Gurmit.jpg (heh I uploaded that...) Thanks. ~Milnivri~ 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standards in closing

What's the standard close on Wikipedia for a debate with nobody commenting bar the nominator? Relist, no consensus or close per nominator's wishes? Hiding T 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an AFD, I've seen both relisting and close as nominated. For other purposes, I'd generally say keep it open. In my mind, however, it is a lot more useful for someone considering closing such a discussion to actually opine and let the next person along close. With that little discussion, you need to review the suggestion for accuracy, by which point you should have an opinion. GRBerry 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what it is. Generally, closing per nominator's request is the usual outcome if there's been no objection after a week or so. WP:SILENCE may be worth reading. Policy or guideline changes with no support should probably be relisted with a little publicity (this page or WT:MOS, WT:N, etc... as appropriate are good places to start) to try and generate some sort of comment. SDY (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know about SILENCE, but when it comes to deletion let's remember that we have a speedy for anything deleted in a deletion debate, and for renaming and so on it can become harder to get the move overturned. Hiding T 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an AfD, I'd certainly say that relisting is the way to go. As GRBerry says, I'd suggest you actually !vote and let someone else deal with the close... Hobit (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about for XFD? Hiding T 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same thing personally, but I think IfD tends to not behave that way (deleted if no one comments). I've never seen DRV or AfD close without any comments other than the nom. This realizing I'm giving "advice" to someone I consider one of the major authors of policy around here. (I'd missed who was asking the first time) Hobit (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know what I'd do, and I know what I think policy is, but I'm just sounding out opinion to make sure I'm blowing the right way before I get a little more specific. And I didn't really write all that much policy, I just happen to have been here long enough it seems that way. Hiding T 22:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with CFD is "it depends". Sometimes the result will be "per nom", and sometimes a relist. (I've even seen a "pernom" which still "fixed" the target cat name - due to a typo, or to match convention.)
That said, if someone has a concern "after the fact", the best thing to do is drop a note with the closer. In my experience, they almost always will relist - though there are, unfortunately, exceptions. In which case, a DRV is likely appropriate.
And of course, YMMV : ) - jc37 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So no-one knows of anything explicit in guidance? I mean, my issue is this: we're looking for a rough consensus. If nobody is commenting, we're not generating a rough consensus, we've just got one opinion. For me the default should be a re-listing to force editors to engage; I tend to take GRBerry's point of view; no admin should close an xfd with no comments; they should instead give their considered opinion and allow the next admin to close. But if that's not considered best practise, fair enough. Hiding T 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's clearly the right thing to do. But I don't think it's what's done. I'd support a change to formally do that however. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date auto-formatting being removed ?

Is there a consensus that we should remove all links to auto-format dates?

  • It appears that various parts of discussions about this were moved around into archives without a clear consensus.
  • A section stating "linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.", but this resulted in an edit war.

I suggest that we refrain from de-linking dates there is a clear consensus to stop using this feature. -- User:Docu

There was a clear consensus reached in the (very long) discussions that took place at WT:MOSNUM (much of which are now archived). The "deprecation" wording actually seemed to end the edit war - it's been stable for a couple of weeks(?) now. There's a subpage of MOSNUM with the arguments set out in detail, but basically, the reason is that autoformatting provides very negligible benefits to a very small proportion of readers, at the cost of grossly overlinked articles for everyone. (There are other more technical reasons too.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently fully protected from edit warring over the word "deprecated." Woody (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section should probably be marked as disputed. Some editors seem to use it to justify stripping links. -- User:Docu
And rightly so - that's why it's there. There has been no recent edit-warring over the word "deprecated". The warring that led to the protection was over a different issue - whether articles on non-English speaking nations should use a date format similar to that in use in the nation in question. (Oh maybe the most recent revert cycle was in the paragraph connected with deprecation, but it was only a minor skirmish over the wording, not over the fact of the deprecation).--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, on which archive page is the discussion that is said to have created this consensus? -- User:Docu
Much of it is here, and some discussion continues on the main talk page. I should point out, though, that while there is deemed to be consensus over "deprecating" DAs, there has as of yet been no consensus established on how existing links are to be handled. Some want a "hard deprecation" approach – essentially banning them and calling for prompt mass removal; others (such as myself) consider this disruptive and note that there has been no consensus beyond a "soft" approach established to date. (In fact, it has not been formally addressed.) Other options are possible, such as leaving it to article's editors to develop a consensus over. Nonetheless, whether this is done quickly or slowly, I would expect to see DA links disappear eventually. What most of the editors involved in the discussions tended to agree on was that it would be preferable for the developers to create and implement a template that would enable all readers to be able to select their preference, not merely a few registered users who have chosen to set them. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Wikipedia users - like about 99% - are casual readers. Just an IP address that may belong to a school or an internet cafe or a dial-up pool. Getting these people to set date preferences, or indeed giving them a mechanism to do so, is extremely problematic. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the consensus (insofar as it exists) was that date formatting is a bad idea; whether it should be deprecated, or merely no longer encouraged, is still under discussion. The position that it is a good idea is being upheld by a single editor; if there are more, and especially if there are more arguments why it's a good idea (as it presently exists, as an optional choice for editors only), they should speak up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia not Myspace

I am currently in a discussion with a user who posts on "user talk" pages to an alarming extent. So I thought of this problem and came up with a solution (that's what I do in real life) -- all user edits would be monitored on a rolling basis, and if the total of a user's article-space and wikipedia-space edits combined drop below 45% of his total edits, he is warned once. If, in the next 30 days he does not bring his ratio up to 45%, he is blocked for a week. The next infraction will bring a block of 30 days, the next 90 days, and the fourth time, he is shown the door.

This should keep the idlers away from Wikipedia, being that we should concentrate on articles and administration, not talk page chatter. What do you think? Halli B (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have posted a new essay: WP:Silence means nothing. Feel free to share your comments with me. Halli B (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:CREEP with a potential benefit not worth the kilobytes it would have to be written on, much less the volunteer coder hours that could be spent on fixing actual issues. --erachima talk 07:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only user that you have had any significant interaction with is fr33kman (talk · contribs). Of that user's 300 edits, 70 have been to user talk pages. I'm not alarmed by this; the editor is a newpage patroller. I will inform fr33kman of this discussion. Darkspots (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an appalling idea. Are you seriously saying you think edit-warring over an article is better than discussing the change? – iridescent 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Iridescent's point, the flaw in this idea (and all others like it) is the implicit assumption that all edits to a given namespace are of equal value. They're not. Even discounting obviously unproductive stuff, like edit warring, doing Wikignoming, like correcting spelling mistakes or adding categories, you can rack up huge numbers of article edits while making few or no talk or user talk edits. On the other hand, a major rewrite of a controversial article may require a large amount of talk- and user talk-space discussion to establish consensus, and then a single article edit to implement the rewrite. There is therefore no "optimum" ratio of article to talk space edits which fits all editors, and under Halli's suggestion, editors who did a lot of the latter would be in danger of getting blocked. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Under that system, people might do useless or harmful things to keep their ratio up, like dividing up what could be done in one edit into several separate edits. It takes human judgement to determine whether a user's edits are of net benefit to the project. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this is the system that our cousins at Conservapedia use. You can see for yourself just how well articles develop when discussion is deliberately stifled. – iridescent 12:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you, Iridescent, for using sarcasm against our trustworthy fifth cousins twice removed. You are simply jealous because they don't need to discuss things, enlightened by God as they are. Discussion is for people with a liberal bias.
I am starting to doubt my loyalties. Waltham, The Duke of 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I create new articles in userspace and they sometimes take over a hundred edits prior to releasing the text into public space. And now some piece of software or an IRC kid will ban me for not littering in the public space? nonsense! NVO (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally! By this logic the founder of Wikipedia would have to be banned also, see. fr33kman (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard rant: there are many roles to play in Wikipedia, and even those who function solely to promote morale and social interaction are furthering our purposes by promoting collaboration and providing additional incentive to be involved. Dcoetzee 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copywriting wikipedia content

Can someone look at this site? Seems to be copyrighting the text from Incheon International Airport as hidden comments. I found this while trying to figure out if Incheon International Airport contains a copyvio itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just search engine optimization, and I think you mean copyrighting, not copywriting (although strangely both apply here). --NE2 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with Vegaswikian, I think it is copyrighting our text. We have a list for this stuff somewhere, um, see Wikipedia:MIRROR#Non-compliance_process. Hiding T 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to enforce copyright over an invisible text? NVO (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not invisible to search engines, and depends on how the browser used parses the page source to not present it to the user. It exists and is publicly accessible.so I'd say normal rules apply? LeeVJ (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, definitely fishy fr33kman (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which date format to use?

There is an ongoing debate at the talk page for WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as to whether to use day-month-year or month-day-year date format in articles with a strong tie to a specific country. The debate has reached the point where the choice is between the format actually used in the country, or dependent on the variety of English used in articles about that country. This is straightforward for countries such as the U.S.A. or the U.K., but problematic when considering countries where English is not an official language. With the removal of date autoformatting, editors will increasingly see dates presented in "raw" form, rather than as set in user preferences. The current proposal is found here. --Pete (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete does not even state the majority position correctly: that articles in American should usually use September 2, 2008, and articles in Commonwealth English should ususlly use 2 September 2008. (Articles in Canadian can use either, as long as they are consistent.) See this survey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working towards a compromise between inclusionists and deletionists

There have been several heated disputes over the notability guidelines. After huge arguments from inclusionists, deletionists, and all those in between... a few compromises have gained conditional support. We are now putting a few of those compromises to the larger community at a request for comment.

Please chime in at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rollback feature has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Rollback feature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user guestbooks

Ok, so there appears to be some confusion over whether users are permitted to maintain "guestbooks" or "autograph books" on their user and user sub pages. There was some discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 30, but it appears inconclusive. WP:MYSPACE says that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. WP:UP adds "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, nor social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working," while WP:UP#NOT more or less repeats this. However, there's nothing clear. My request to one user to remove a user subpage dedicated to autographs was removed by another user, and I can't seem to get any definitive answer. Thoughts? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could also take a look at WP:UP#NOT, which actually allows editors with good edit histories to have a bit of community building activities. I personally am quite fond of little quirky subpages of editors who I seek out for help. Some has guestbooks, others have "invisible" subpages, some more has halls of glory, and more than few has strangest of subpages. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it also is a vibrant community that builds the encyclopedia. Without the community the whole project will cease to exist. Wikipedia doesn't pay editors, and it doesn't make them famous. At least it can let them have some fun with other members of the community. Well, if you find that the fun-loving person is doing just that (i.e. having fun) and neither editing the encyclopedia or participating in the community to help build a better encyclopedia, please, blast'em away. This still remains an encyclopedia and a community of encyclopedists. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wales himself has been recorded as being in support of "guestbooks". Think of that what you will. 70.187.155.89 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Exploding Boy (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly signs them occasionally, which is at least an implicit endorsement ([8], [9], [10], [11]) – iridescent (who is no fan of guestbooks) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all guestbooks should be summarily deleted, along with most user boxes. Anything that does not directly write articles should be banned. Or perhaps instead of going through the trouble of deleting the guestbooks, we could conspicuously post a warning that users who do not have their guestbook deleted by a certain date will be blocked for 30 days. That might work. Halli B (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, because an admin hasn't deleted the guestbook, the editor with the guestbook gets blocked? That is very unreasonable. Not every editor has the rights to delete pages, even subpages to their own user page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's the way to go either, but I still think that guestbooks are iffy in terms of WP:MYSPACE. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia attracts overwhelming numbers of casual users, it is imperative to get back to our ethos of the only thing that matters is writing the encyclopedia. Any users who come here just for the "collegial" atmosphere and socialization should be put in their place. In addition to requiring editors to have a substantial percentage of their edits to be articles, any editor who clutters the server with guestbooks, user boxes, and other useless personal trivia should be removed from the community by force (a block). Halli B (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the focus should be to improving the encyclopedia. However, I don't think the number of edits in article space really matters. Editors can spend days discussing possible solutions to an article on the Talk: page, and implement the changes in a single edit. This would show as a very high Talk:Article ratio, but obviously the Talk: edits are for the benefit of the encyclopedia. (Interestingly, only three of your 21 edits are to article space.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had many more article contributions and creations. Unfortunately, most of them have been deleted and no longer show up in the contribution history. Halli B (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought. Instead of wasting your time with this piffle, you could be doing something productive, like the unpatrolled backlog, which stretches to almost a full month. DS (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who was that directed to? Exploding Boy (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal request for opinion on MOS demarcation

Here's a question I thought worth getting wider opinion on. Aluminium is a light metallic element. In the United States it is usually spelled aluminum. WP:ENGVAR says "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. It then goes on to talk about consistency within articles, strong national ties to a topic, retaining the existing variety, and opportunities for commonality.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines however has, in relation to the "aluminium" spelling (and also sulfur and caesium): These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. These are based on "preferred names" in IUPAC nomenclature.

The Space Shuttle was the specific focus which prompted the question; while it is clearly a project associated with the United States, I would argue that it falls into being a chemistry-related article by virtue of referring to a chemical element in a way that relates specifically to its chemical properties. Al is used not just as a structural material, but also as a propellant in the Solid Rocket Boosters, and it is used precisely because of its specific chemical properties.

I may because of my background in Chemistry be taking too wide a view on what constitutes a "chemistry-related article". What do others think? --John (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a little look at this, the original edit in the Space Shuttle article had two words linked together (Aluminium alloy) where there is a single article Aluminium alloy which would have been better as it was relating to the structure. The latter article seems to be in US spelling looking at other words in the text. Duralumin would be another alternative article to link to. The only pure aluminium components I have seen and used on aircraft are rivets which need to be heat treated before use and these were special use only. Have no problem with the alternate spellings (as a UK contributor) noting the convention for the chemical element of Aluminium above. I think this is more a metallurgy area. Nimbus (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. These uses are Metallurgy/Engineering related, not closely related to Chemistry. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical-related implies that the article falls within the scope of the project. The scope of WikiProject Chemicals, as defined by the project, excludes the Space Shuttle article from being considered as chemical-related since the article is not about a chemical or a chemical-related process or form of analysis, etc.. Even the IUPAC, which WP Chemicals cites, accepts aluminum as an alternative to aluminium. I forecast that the use of aluminium in a U.S.-centric article will invite constant editing because of the WP:ENGVAR statement in the MOS. As we've seen in WP Aircraft, when it comes down to the internal guideline of a WikiProject versus the MOS, the more broadly accepted guideline wins out because the MOS is considered to have a much broader consensus throughout the Wikipedia community. --Born2flie (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Metallurgy is a domain of materials science that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements, their intermetallic compounds, and their compounds, which are called alloys." Inasmuch as the article discusses metals, which are chemicals, I'd say it falls within the remit of the chemistry project. But I do sympathize with the latter part of what Born2flie is saying. --John (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that you welcomed me to WP, I appreciate that. So perhaps you should add the Chemistry project banner to all the articles on metallic alloys? I got kicked out of Chemistry class for setting fire to the Bunsen burner gas taps (was much more fun!) Seems to me that a minor spelling variation edit has been taken out of context. All the best. Nimbus (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that metallurgy is chemistry-related but the space shuttle is not. Note that metallurgy is just a part of the wider discipline of materials science, which includes the use of aluminium in semiconductors, paints, and many other classes of material, all of which are chemistry-related. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where would the line best be drawn? As a chemist, I naturally see the Space Shuttle as very much a chemistry topic. The use of Al as a structural material and as a propellant in the SRBs is claearly predicated on Al's chemical properties. I would be interested to see other people's opinions; if this is not a chemistry topic, why is it not? --John (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, every reference to a material substance, specific enough to mention the name of an element, is a chemistry topic. This is not what was intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The space shuttle article by its nature focusses on the gross properties of the finished product, such as its physical design, performance, use and history. The chemistries of its structural and propellant materials are not notable in this respect, nor are its grosser properties of direct interest to chemists.
I am also reminded that physics is just mathematics, which in turn is logic, which is philosophy, which is culture, which is psychology, which is behavior, which is neurology, which is biology, which is chemistry. Maybe MediaWiki should be patched to add the chemistry-related banner to every article. Oh, hang on darn it, but of course chemistry is just physics.... -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You screwed the order up! Here's the correct order. Anyway, back on topic, surely the international chemistry community are the authority on the names of elements, so we should go with them in an article like Space shuttle. However, I disagree with Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines that the international names should be used "even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article". I think the "strong national ties to a topic" should be kept, so that a specifically US article using chemical names should use the US names. Deamon138 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on WP:SOCK

I am a bit afraid of the way the sockpuppet and multiple accounts policy might turn out. I see many users being blocked, not because they are using those alternate accounts to canvass, vote or vandalize, but because they just have multiple accounts. Take for example, there's a user, who wanted to change her username. She is a novice at Wikipedia and doesn't know about WP:CHANGINGUSERNAME, so she chooses to create a new account in ignorance. Satisfied with her new username, she wakes up the next day to find herself blocked. Rather then a complete block, a notice on her talk-page about just why did she create the new account will be more appropriate. Thus, further action will be taken after the rationale is found. (e.g. blocking, or advice)

Not only does this apply to the situation I described, but it applies to every situation where the user has multiple accounts. Should those multiple accounts be blatantly used for cavassing, voting or vandalizing or any disruptive behavior, then no further questioning will be needed. However, should the user have multiple accounts for non-controversial and non-disruptive purposes, then those accounts should not be blocked. (e.g. accounts made for use in public areas and accounts made because of ignorant mistakes, such as the one I described above.)  Marlith (Talk)  00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've seen this a lot on WP:SSP, which is why I can almost never stand to participate there. However, I believe most of this (requiring socks to be disruptive or deceptive before blocking) is already covered by the sock policy, so I'm not sure what can be done. I think the main problem is overzealous sock hunting and people who only understand the general background of the sock policy before trying to enforce it. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific about the particular case? You might want to raise this on WP:AN—admins shouldn't be blocking new accounts without reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would like to see some cases where a user was blocked when it was clear they should not have. Tiptoety talk 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to a notice being added to MediaWiki:Gotaccount saying "If you already have an account you can request to change your username." ffm 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag use in info boxes

Ive recently started a debate about the use of flag icons in Military equipment info boxes. I felt there is a need for a set of rules relating directly to this. At the moment it seems to vary wildly. For example French World War II tanks have flag icons for most of there units. Where the Germany now have none. I feel we need a to agree on a standard and make all the info boxes the same. If your interested in giving your opinion you can here.

Thanks for your input :) Wonx2150 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sallalahu aleyhi wasallam

Is it normal Wikipedia style to write "S.A.W." or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam" (peace be upon him) after mentions of Muhammed's name, as occurs frequently in Ramadan (calendar month)? I understand it's normal Islamic practice but it seems unsuitable in a secular article. --81.171.134.226 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, as it's nether part of his name nor a title; likewise, we don't generally include "Christ" after "Jesus". – iridescent 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No; we don't use honorifics or titles like that. There's really no reason to. Celarnor Talk to me 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Islamic honorifics. It should give you the answer. Eklipse (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you find an article where this is done? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shows up occasionally in Islam-related articles. Periodically, uninvolved editors need to go through and remove the PBUHs and SAWs from them. --Carnildo (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IU (Inappropriate usernames) wording

You will notice that the first and third section of WP:IU contains criteria that apply to both usernames and signatures. However, the second section on dealing with inappropriate usernames does not contain any wording for signatures. I would think that "and signatures" should be added to that section and WP:UAA and WP:RFCN should be tweaked to allow for signature issues also. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, there should be a section for dealing with inappropriate sigs. I'm not sure whether admins can just change somebody's sig, but we should warn people to change their sig before we block; we autoblock clearly inappropriate usernames because they can't be changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking by donation?

I have encountered much talk regarding instances where blocked or banned users attempt to come back to Wikipedia and appeal to the community or ArbCom to have their ban overturned. Since economic times are tough, Wikipedia's donations must be down. Instead of a formal discussion about a ban, or placing the user through a cumbersome and taxing "probation" period if unblocked, I propose that we give the banned user who wants to return the option of donating a certain sum to the Wikipedia foundation in exchange for having his block removed. The price would be commensurate with the infractions that earned the block in the first place. I'm thinking about $50-100 for a user who was banned for simple vandalism, anywhere up to $5000 or more to reinstate the worst offenders. Of course they could be re-banned if they start abusing wikipedia again, or the cost of the "unblock option" could be increased for repeat offenders. Halli B (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a banned user? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbanning isn't for sale. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...no. Just...no. The Foundation hasn't reached that level of corruptness yet. Celarnor Talk to me 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol "yet"! Deamon138 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cash for Honours? Deamon138 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sale of indulgences? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeees, judging by some of her(?) other suggestions, I'm thinking Halli (Berry, is it?) is having a bit of a laugh. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice boards

Who is running the various notice boards? It seems like I keep running into the most useless people there. They sound like lazy crybabies. I am seriously fed up trying to be a model citizen only to get treated like the exact opposite. If I take the time to present valid information then I expect someone to take the time to give it fair treatment. I am tired of following the rules and then getting slapped in the face for it. I can't have people waste my time and turn around and say that I am wasting their time. Can we please get some competent people working those notice boards. I feel like this is kindergarten. Those people need to show some respect. I have even been to this board several times trying to find solutions to sock puppets and vandals only to have people like him come out guns blazing and shoot down everything I say. What kind of site is this? Are there any rational people here? I do not think it is appropriate for a notice board attendant to come out saying get out or get blocked. Where is the civility in that? I think there need to be some level of qualifications to be able to service those boards. We need a great deal more professionalism there. Libro0 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboards? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes et al. Most of those boards are seldom checked. I think it is innapropriate to go there and get threatened. Not productive. Libro0 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be provisional mediation. If you are successful at it then you can qualify to deal with more problems. Otherwise you are relegated to serving in some other capacity. Libro0 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=236350435"