Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 13 May 2015 (→Is there a standard to determine "credible and authoritative books"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:N WT:NN WT:NOTE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 31 days

See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Misplaced Pages?". Make Use Of. Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum. Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Reliability vs. bias

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Misplaced Pages fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Ahmad Keshvari deletion discussion, some folks seem to be suggesting that if Iranian media are generally deemed unreliable due to their strict control by the Iranian theocracy, it will entail an unacceptable systemic bias against Iranian subjects (such as "Ahmad Keshvari"). Is this the consensus-based view on Misplaced Pages? When faced with having to choose between reliability and the freedom from systemic bias, should we sacrifice the former for the sake of the latter?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In considering a country where the media is controlled by the state, the issue of the true independence of the sources will be doubt. That's where judgement is needed if this is specifically a case where there is a drive to promote the person (or any topic) with false notability, or simply that it happens to be a notable person/topic that is otherwise covered in a normal manner by sources where there's some doubt to their larger purpose. This AFD seems to be the later - there's nothing that seems particularly forced about this pilot getting coverage to bring up the independence question. Yes, it would be nice to get non-Iranian sources but that's not required at all, and the breadth (in both scope and timing) of the sources used does not suggest some purposely planned action to elevate this pilot to this level. On the other hand, if it were the case of a person where all the sources about the person were from media of a similarly-run country and all within a few days, without the person having made any major news, that's highly suspect. I do not think we can have any immediate ruling out of a topic that is only covered by a media under a strong gov't control, it does raise issues but that's how consensus should evaluate it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree that some "judgement is needed", but how does that judgement get made? In the case of Iran, it has long claimed to have sent monkeys into space, and Iranian media have mirrored these claims, but media outside Iran have had great difficulty corroborating them. The pattern with regards to "Ahmad Keshvari" is similar - an exemplary act of bravery and patriotism is presented to the domestic audience, but independent confirmation of its veracity is hard to come by due to the very media controls the Iranian government has itself imposed.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability prevails: We have a fully-acknowledged and built in bias to not include material which is not based on reliable sources. On occasion that results in material being excluded which is Unquestionably True and Vitally Important. To move away from that is to invite chaos since it results in editors having the ability to decide inclusion on the basis of what they believe to be good and important enough. Verifiability, which requires reliable sources, sets the threshold for what's good enough and to move away from it would be madness — and the chaos would be particularly profound in controversial areas such as the Middle East. Whether government-dominated (or other-dominated) sources are or are not reliable and, if so, for what is a different issue, and one that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@user:TransporterMan as the following discussions The bad conclusion based on the wrong assumption and Clarification of The claim show, this proposal wants to ban all of the Iranian media because some of them are not reliable in some of the cases. For examples, a magazine about lifestyle or fauna of Iran is not reliable because it can not criticize the leader! WP:VALID, WP:UNDUE and some other policies and guidelines can solve the problems without banning all of the Iranian media. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• There’s presumably nothing stopping foreign media under freer governments from covering the same subjects. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reliability We need to have verifiable sources, and unfortunately government controlled media are notoriously unreliable. We are concerned with Verifiability not truth, and like others have said, if it truly is notable, it will most likely be covered by outside media that is more reliable. If making things verifiable means there is a built-in bias towards government controlled media then so be it. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:War wizard90, As I mentioned below and Anders Feder clarified, the proposal covers all of the Iranian media not just those run by the government. In addition, it does not distinct propaganda and criticism. It bans all of the Iranian media even those criticize the government or cover the issues neutrally!--Seyyed(t-c) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please share with us some of the media which freely criticize the clerical leadership of Iran (as opposed to its low-ranking ministers) or cover issues neutrally, so as to inform the discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)=

You want to ban all of the Iranian media because they cannot criticize the Supreme leader! Can we consider all of the France'media unreliable because they can not publish something about denial of Holocaust due to their law !!!--Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, is it logical to ban a magazine which relates to Iran's Fauna because it can not criticize the leader!--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What are the sources, which would be suppressed by France's holocaust denial law, that you consider to be reliable?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability and verifiability trump almost everything. Sometimes that will result in material being excluded that normally would get in. But the integrity of the project would be gravely undermined if we weaken these standards for adding material to articles and or establishing notability. That said, in very rare cases, if we are talking only about establishing WP:N as opposed to the actual material in the article, and the subject is so obviously notable that it could not be denied by anyone with more than two brain cells firing off at the same time, I might give it a pass under IAR and common sense. But that would only apply to Notability. Any content not covered by BLUE would still need reliable independent sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Ad Orientem... It would be very unlikely that Iranian media would be the only sources to discuss a notable subject... but in the rare situations where that was the case, I would argue that the Iranian coverage does count somewhat towards establishing notability (the coverage would, at a minimum, establish that the subject is notable in Iran).

We should be very cautious about what information we support with such sources (but remember that even the most biased sources are reliable in very limited situations... there is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source). I think there is very little we cold use the sources for in an article other than establishing notability... but their existence would indicate that we probably should have an article. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unavoidable features - I think it preferable to have simple system without exemptions, and see no feasible way in general to run an exemption system since I see no way to clearly determine a situation fits the basis mentioned. Having 'notable' driven simply by what is being seen a lot in publications is not only definite and simple, it also fundamentally *is* the reality that people experience -- the things unseen by them just never will exist as much. Also, I am thinking the case is wider than mentioned and doubt it's resolvable. Yes, I think here is geographic bias to the levels of coverage, but that it exists even if the governments are not tightly controlling the media -- for example, recently noted were the sheer amount of coverage attacks in Paris got versus the attacks in Nigeria. Some of that is simply differences in distance, fame, or simply the amount of infrastructure to get transmissions from the area. Some is that governments affect coverage -- but think it is most or all spin it or adjust coverage up and down, the Paris politicians pushed for more attention snd the Nigerians did not -- and that the media themselves also try to serve their base. While different nations offer some variation in coverage and nature -- the BBC does not match Fox or MSNBC -- anything not appearing in majore channels will be both hard to verify as real and hard or readers to accept as real or notable. Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• False dichotomy: No source is completely unbiased. While we try to use sources that at least make an effort at strict neutrality, heavily-biased sources can be used so long they are handled accordingly. I would have a hard time justifying completely excluding a claim from a state-run press, but I would always want to see the statement attributed and the bias of the source noted.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of bias. This is reliability vs systematic bias. They are two different things. The issue being discussed here, concerns reliability. Mbcap (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reliability everytime. I cannot see how we can just discount one of the five pillars, WP:NPOV which says, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The key word here is reliable and unfortunately this is something that is lacking in Iranian media. If we had reliable Iranian media sources and they were biased, we could use them according to WP:BIASED. However we do not have reliable Iranian media sources so we cannot use it even on the basis of WP:BIASED. Mbcap (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a flawed argument here... that a source should be considered unreliable because it is biased. That simply isn't true. Again, there is no such thing as a completely unreliable source. Even the most biased of sources can be reliable in some situations. The reliability of any source depends on the specifics of what we are trying to say in any given article... on how we phrase the information that we take from the source.

Because Iranian media is biased, it would be inappropriate to phrase the information as if it were accepted fact... instead we need to hedge our language, and present the information as attributed opinion. Instead of writing "X occurred <cite Iranian media>" we should write "According to Iranian media, X occurred <cite Iranian media>" (or something similar). ANY source is reliable in the context of verifying what that source says (it's opinion).

Now, I have not addressed the question of whether mentioning the source's opinion in the first place would give UNDUE WEIGHT to that opinion... but that is a separate issue, unrelated to the issue of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of bias. We are talking about reliability. A source can of course be biased because it is allowed under WP:BIASED but it has to be reliable. I think the poster is saying that because not a lot of verifiabily reliable sources exist for Iran, is there a systematic bias being introduced against Iran. Mbcap (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK... so what makes the source unreliable? So far, the argument has been that it is unreliable because it is biased (and my point is simply that this is a flawed argument). Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE, the most reliable sources are those which "have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." Media in countries like Iran have quite the opposite - they have a structure in place, imposed on them by the state, for hamstringing fact-checking, analysis etc. The most trivial of matters (such as the weather) may be accurately reported on in those media. But almost everything of any interest to Misplaced Pages is also something which is likely to be affected by the country's media controls. WP:INTEXT is not applicable to notability, because notability does not concern how an article is phrased, but rather whether the subject can reliably be verified to warrant an article on Misplaced Pages in the first place.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The bad conclusion based on the wrong assumption The question is based on a prejudice which should be check before making decision. It is strange that some persons think all of the Iranian media are

Your understanding of WP:NPOV is obviously completely misguided. NPOV specifically limits itself to "significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It has never meant "anything goes" or that reliability should put aside for the sake of factual relativism. See particularly WP:GEVAL, and WP:NPOV#Controversial_subjects for examples.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• False dichotomy: someone's Reliability is someone Else's Bias, & vise verse. Just try to realize it. I'm not supporting anything here, I don’t know what the first source of this discussion is, but I just see a false dichotomy. I just want to point out that Generalizing like this just leads you guys to false decisions making. It is better to talk about every situation by itself in details & no hurry in making a general decision on before. Hope you guys get my real meaning, wish you all happiness... KhabarNegar 14:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See the above. All views are not equally valid, and never have been. Though many obviously have an interest in having them presented as such.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A fact to falsify the assumption To show how the basic assumption is wrong, I just mention one case for those who look for truth. During the third round of the Iranian presidential election debates, 2013 in the state television which is completely control by the government, the candidates had a surprisingly controversial positions about one of the most important issue, the Iran's nuclear program. They openly criticized the Iranian negotiators and Ahmadinejad, who was the President at that time. They disclosed many facts about the former events. Now, do you think we should neglect this event in the related article just because it is published by the state television!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about the use of unreliable sources. Your links point to a telegram by the Associated Press and an article by the Washington Post, neither of which are unreliable, so the point you are raising has no relevance here.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder} You have not got the issue. I mean this case clearly shows your basic assumption that Iranian media are generally deemed unreliable due to their strict control by the Iranian theocracy is wrong. So there is no contradiction between Reliability vs. bias. As you can see in this case which is exclusively broadcast by the Iranian state television and then the other media covered it, there is some kind of freedom of speech at least in some occasions. Therefor, we can not conclude that the Iranian media necessarily promote governmental propaganda. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that because other media covered something which was shown in Iranian state television, it follows that Iranian state television is reliable? Please elaborate on how that would be the case.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean the Iranian media even those controlled by the state are not so censored. "Strict control by the Iranian theocracy" It is a myth. Of course, there are some kinds of censorship but we should not exaggerate it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a myth, and there is no reason to think that it is. Other media have covered North Korean television too, but what does that tell us about whether it is controlled by the state?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As I showed in the above case, even the Iran's TV which is clearly controlled by the government has freedom to some extent. Of course, the non-governmental press have more freedom. I eager to know how do you interpret the open criticism of the governmental policies by the candidates in that case.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did you show that Iran's TV "has freedom to some extent"?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess you do not pay attention to me. There should be some extent of freedom which lets the Presidential candidates criticize the Iran's Nuclear program policy in the government's TV. Is it clear?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Were any of these candidates contradicting the Supreme Leader of Iran?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Has a candidate from the two major party of the US already criticized the US constitution during presidential campaign? I accept there is some restrictions but it is not so harsh that you has described it as "strict control by the Iranian theocracy". We want to refer to the Iranian media in the issues they can and usually have covered, not the issues they can not cover. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me check with you the result of your suggestion. According to you we should not refer to Iranian media even if they criticize the government's policies as I mentioned above!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - why should we cite any unreliable source just because they criticize the Iranian government? There are all sorts of unreliable far-right or ultra-Zionist sources criticizing the Iranian government. Should we pull them in as references too because we otherwise might create a bias against them?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets not take away attention from the real issue of unreliability that is churned out of Iran. When you run stories about aliens controlling US government or sending monkeys to space or inventing a time machine, you really have to take that source with a pinch of salt. By the way the time machine that was invented in Iran was compact so you could carry it with you, in case you were wondering. Now honestly, you tell me, if they make up stuff like that, what is stopping them from rehashing protoplasmic unverifiable nonsense. Academic freedom is severely restricted across the board in Iran. Read this letter to the "supreme leader" Ali of Iran, showing how academics and students are imprisoned. Also read this which details the atrocious academic freedom further. Sources can be biased all day and as long as they are reliable, we can use them. However, WP:RS states that a source must be reliable and we simply cannot ignore all rules on this one. This is an encyclopaedia, not onion news. Mbcap (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion is too general and including all of the Iranian media whether run by state or not. In addition, it contains every issue from any viewpoint. You want to ban all of the Iranian media because some of them are unreliable or covered something which is not endorsed by the western media such as sending monkey to the space. This suggestion is a kind of censorship to punish censorship!!! --Seyyed(t-c) 19:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that you chose to ignore the story about building a time machine or that US government is controlled by Aliens. This was reported by Fars news agency which claims to be completely independent but which is called a semi-official news agency by reuters. Did you read the human rights watch report and letter documenting the lack of academic freedom and the imprisonment of University academics and students. Mbcap (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mbcap, WP:VALID clarifies that we should not cover such strange ideas without need to consider all(!) of the Iranian media as unreliable sources. There is also some strange claims in the western media, but we do not disqualify all of them. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of The claim @User:Anders Feder, As I understand, you want to disqualify all of the Iranian media because some of them promote the government's propaganda or they can not cover some issues due to censorship. Am I right?--Seyyed(t-c) 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. "Some of them" is not an expression I am operating with. That is a term you have introduced. I consider practically all media which are subject to Iranian media laws unreliable. The same goes for media under North Korean law, Belarusian law, Syrian law etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the Iranian media are "subject to Iranian media laws" and your proposal is a kind of censorship and completely against WP:NPOV. The Iranian media law forbids covering some issues but does not enforce to propagate anything. So all of the Iranian media are reliable, except they violate a policy or guideline. For example, making strange claim (WP:VALID), covering small minority viewpoint (WP:UNDUE) or violating copyright. Therefor there is not any general rule as you want, but we should check them case by case.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. As I've already explained above, your understanding of NPOV is completely wrong.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But your understanding of censorship is completely correct. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you that you are conceding that you are wrong.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean you want to distort the policies so that you can censor wikipedia.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When there is a talking about Iran or Iranian issues, we all are talking about a more than 70 million people population, The problem here is that you guys (foreigners) just generalize anything, and react and judge about a country just like when you judging about a small group of people or community! This is simply wrong. I see someone told & talked about the invention of a time machine, you know what! I just see this time machine news from a foreign source, then checked & see this is also mentioned in a website in Iran, then it is not something people care about here! But you guys just realize with yourself that all the media here are talking about that... No! Nobody cares about an interview on a website, maybe you foreigners care, yes, you guys care I'm afraid... Make everything short by saying that any time you wanted to judge, Just try to feel that way you are talking about a nation, about 70 million people. Not just a website or a small group, This way you can have a better understanding about the whole world, as I said it’s better not to generalize and make fixed ideas in this regards, and it is better to see any issue and situation separately and in details, Do not generalize. Regards,KhabarNegar 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is not "us foreigners". The problem is people who don't understand what Misplaced Pages is. Misplaced Pages is (or rather, is intended to be) an encyclopedia consisting of reliable information. You may not like reliable information very much, and prefer to go by unreliable information in your daily life. That's great. Good for you. Keep doing it, for as long as you want. Just do not bring that information into Misplaced Pages. It's pretty simple and has nothing to with what 70 million people in Iran may or may not feel. It has to do with what Misplaced Pages is. Namely an encyclopedia. Not a temple to mediocrity, where we all get to present our favorite worldviews as if they were equally valid to all others.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies, CNN controversies, Can I suggest banning the media of the entire nation? No!... It is EASY. Every "single" situation can & should discuss in detail separately, you never can generalize it... I think sorry, simply you don't desire to realize the change in your way of believing. I will say good day to you sir, KhabarNegar 08:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What does Fox News and CNN have to with torture and executions of dissidents?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you read and understand the English language?! Good Bye man, have fun! KhabarNegar 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I believe banning the media of an entire country will create a severe systemic bias, especially in the cases of notability. But, before providing supporting evidences for my abstract statement, let me ask a more concrete question about your statement about "strict control by the Iranian theocracy" and your deduction about unreliability of the media based on it. Consider Iranian Students News Agency, can you elaborate on why you think this news agency is unreliable? Taha (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the same reasons that any other source under severe media control laws ought to be considered unreliable: it's freedom to perform the most crucial journalistic tasks, such as fact-checking and reporting truthfully without fear of retribution, is greatly impeded. According to Slate Magazine, ISNA's former director was "hauled into court on numerous occasions", once merely for reporting on Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner. The government also "no longer allows ISNA to cover the arrests of activists, students, or dissident journalists."--Anders Feder (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is the simple logical flaw in your argument: "Not being allowed to publish on some subjects does not imply that the agency publishes false news." Hope it helps. Taha (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't help in any way or form. "Always having published made-up stories in the past does not imply that all stories published by The Onion are false" would not have been helpful either.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Dude, the examples are not the same: my example was to show that in order to show that an agency is unreliable, you need to provide evidence of falsification by the agency. Again, let me help you by repeating that to support your argument you need to provide concrete evidences of news falsification by Iranian Students News Agency.

BTW, I suspect that our discussion is a clear example of WP:DONTGETIT and I am not here to discuss things forever. Taha (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@طاها: Do I really? Please direct me to this page that says that I need to "provide concrete evidences of news falsification" by anything. It must be one of the many policies I've never come across yet. (BTW: If you suspect your behavior is an example of WP:DONTGETIT no one are requiring you to discuss anything forever.)--Anders Feder (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: As a practice, let me first explain where I got my statement and I will ask you to provide yours: Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) is a news agency (surprise!) and usually does not publish op-ed pieces. Thus, given the first paragraph of WP:NEWSORG plus one of the items there that states Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. it is crystal clear that in order to disprove reliability of ISNA, you need to provide concrete evidences of falsification. Now, your turn: please enlighten me how the fact that ISNA cannot report on some topics, makes its news on other topics false. Taha (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's as crystal clear as a piece of mud. There is nothing in the wording "should be assessed on a case-by-case basis" that suggests that I "need to provide concrete evidences of falsification" any more that someone would need to do so for some blog that someone set up and called their "news agency". Particularly in a country where people routinely wind up getting killed or tortured for cross-checking other bloggers' stories.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I am done. Good luck finding another user to argue with. Taha (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Media control in Iran is not as bad as it is advertised. The so called theocratic regime tolerates criticism towards pretty much anything including the executive branch of the government. There are a few items in the taboo region of the media mainly the supreme leader and religious values. Other than that, it is relatively open. If you are looking to save journalism you might want to focus on here. Cheers.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to disrupt the discussion with whataboutery please. Does censorship in Turkey make censorship in Iran better? As for the taboos of the supreme leader and religious values, which of those do these fall into: journalist given 6 months jail and 74 lashes for criticizing conservatives, newspaper closed for publishing an opinion disputing the legality of a certain detention, woman arrested for describing her previous arrest online, newspaper suspended for commemorating Hussein-Ali Montazeri's death, journalist jailed 6 years for "anti-government publicity", filmmaker jailed 5 years for "anti-government propaganda", newspaper suspended for publishing information "likely to disturb public opinion", website blocked for publishing letter criticizing nuclear policy, etc., etc., etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder; I read your case and also read through some of the subsequent debates with your opponents. You seem so adamant to discredit all Iranian news agencies based on a series of allegations some of which despite seeming to be at least partially compelling, but are still debatable at a more fundamental level. As a person well familiar with Iranian and Islamic culture in particular and being a critique of Western Orientalist cultural biases on general, I hope to point out some of the flaws in your arguments which I think generally reflect some of the political/cultural biases of the Orientalist, Euro-centric discourse.

* First, you argue that Iranian media are not reliable for they "are controlled by the government and the theocracy." As for the merits of this above claim, first, if it is the government regulation and oversight of the Iranian media that you are objecting to, then I think that is not whatsoever a practice confined to Iran. Ofcom for example is the British media regulation office, a government approved body, that claims "to represent the interests of citizens" and has a wide range of authorities over the British media. But that apparently has never been thought as discrediting the credibility of British media despite the fact British mainstream media are known to closely conform to the key policies of the British government. So the fact that a government controls or regulates its media is neither exclusive to Iran, nor does it, in and of itself, automatically undermine the credibility of media in any given country.

* As for your argument from ownership. Government ownership is not, in and of itself, a factor in deciding a news agency's credibility or lack thereof. BBC is a very influential media company which is funded by the British government, but despite that it is considered reliable by the Misplaced Pages standards.

* Your allegations of false/inaccurate reporting. Even given the veracity of your particular charges (which is debatable), they are hardly adequate to indicate a general trend of inaccurate reporting with a news agency. Moreoever, in comparison to the record of some of the Western media, I can argue that even a stronger case can be made against their reliability at least in covering certain fields, yet despite that these media sources are considered "most reliable" according to Misplaced Pages. A prime example is the notorious Iraqi WMD allegations that were uncritically picked up and propagated by some of the most influential Western media sources, and the repercussions as we know was a catastrophic war imposed on people of Iraq and also overwhelming financial costs inflicted on American and British taxpayers. Despite grave consequences of such a diabolical case of vehement public agitation by the Western media under a false pretext for war, it seems that nobody has effectively yet questioned the credibility of such sources as Foxnews, CBS or BBC at least for their reporting on Mid East, Iraq, Islam or Western governments' foreign policy!

* The other problem with your "control" argument is that you completely ignore the fact that indeed all media are in one way or another "controlled". The "villain" however is not just the "bad" governments that may manipulate the media for their political aims, but also even more critically the corporations that own some of the most powerful media companies in the world (example) and can use (as have used) them for advancing their 'financial' interests. Read Corporate media for this thesis.

Alright, I'm done for now. This turned out already too lengthy and so far I have only addressed the flaws in your arguments on the political side of things. I leave the cultural critique for later after a consensus on the above points is reached. Maybe I can hope the outcome of this exchange can be used to update the Misplaced Pages Systematic Bias. Thanks! — Strivingsoul (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If "Western Orientalist cultural biases" is a bias against sources which likely have been coerced with various forms of torture and intimidation into representing the world untruthfully, then that is exactly the bias Misplaced Pages should have. The comparison with BBC and Ofcom is hilarious - UK does not have an ultra-authoritarian clerical leadership like Iran's that can arbitrarily direct what its national media should and should not report. But it would be entertaining to see your arguments that it does.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Until 1 March 1990, section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 allowed them to suppress any official information whatsoever, regardless of its character. It was said that gardener at Hampton Court Palace could be prosecuted if he gave away information about watering begonias (HC Deb 19 Jan 1979). There are and have been plenty of other laws restricting freedom of information and expression in Britain to, unless I am mistaken, a greater extent than it is or has been restricted in the US. James500 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a general problem Anent which see Misplaced Pages:Source pH as an essay. Someday Misplaced Pages will actually have to understand why so many RS discussions seem to fall into this issue. Collect (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Clarification of the claim. As Andres Feders said above he means "practically all media which are subject to Iranian media laws unreliable" which means an Iranian magazine about life style or fauna is unreliable because it can not criticize the leader!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding fauna, one of the Islamic Republic of Iran's foremost authorities is its founder, Ruhollah Khomeini, who writes: "Dog and pig, unless they live in water, are impure, as are their hairs, their bones, their claws, and their excrements; on the other hand, sea dogs and pigs are pure." Additionally, "... a container which has been licked by a dog or been used to give a dog his food or drink in, before being twice washed in water, must be rubbed first with earth. If a pig has used it, the dish must be washed seven times in succession but it need not be rubbed with earth." Further, animals that eat human excrement are impure, but can be purified by keeping them from eating human excrement for certain number of days (40 days for a camel, 20 days for cattle, 10 days for sheep, 7 or 5 for a turkey, and 3 for a chicken). "... fish, on the other hand, is never impure, even if found dead in the water, for its blood does not spurt." Should we use this as a source in zoology articles on Misplaced Pages? If no, you could be sentenced to death for "insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini," as could any Iranian zoologist disputing the wisdom of the quoted.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Anders Feder What you have mentioned from Ruhollah Khomeini is related to Islamic Law (Najis) and as I know there is a consensus among all Muslims about it. You have confused yourself by mixing the unrelated issues. No one wants to add such texts in zoology articles. Such texts can be used in the Islam-related articles such as Animals in Islam. In addition, this case is not restricted to Islam or Iran. There are similar issues in the other religions, as well. Although you think these are factious ideas and do not believe in them, but you can understand when we speak about a technical magazine of Iran's Fauna, we do not want to mix it with religious aspect of the issue. Unless, you want to divert the discussion so that the people be confused.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't confused anything. It's the Iranian authorities that confuse religion and science: "Another characteristic that sets Iran’s educational system apart is the regular intrusion of religious learning. Topics about religion, Islamic history, ethical principles, religious practices, and topics related to religious and Islamic thought are not presented only in books on religion or the Koran. The social studies, history, Farsi and sciences textbooks discuss religious, Islamic, and political-ideological issues either directly, by insinuation, or by using metaphors. / An important result of this approach is the large-scale blending of religious beliefs with scientific and secular knowledge. The “sacred” is mixed with the “profane” in the curriculum persistently. The coexistence of these two signifies a belief in the connection and unity of different fields of knowledge."--Anders Feder (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To name all the media of a country unreliable is itself a biased idea. It needs one by one survey of all the articles and news of all the newspapers and magazins to judge with such a assurance. Have you done such a survey? The sources to which you are referencing should be studied. You are confusing the matters under the discussion.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it? Have you done a "one by one" survey of all WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources? If you haven't, or don't know of someone who has, then why do you think we have a guideline against using them?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Anders Feder, First, as I know there is no any relation between Sharia law and zoology, neither in Iran nor any other country. Halal foods does not relate to zoology. Zoologists have not reliability to discuss about Sharia, aw well. Second, I can make the same argument about the western culture. Humanism, liberalism and secularism make a dominant discourse in western countries, so that you can find it every where. Not only, in the philosophical texts, but even in the scientific texts. As Michel Foucault as well as the other post structuralists show in their works, the neutral objectivity in scientific researches can not be reached. Of course, wikipedia, has its own philosophical foundations , particularly Perspectivism. We are here to work based on wikipedia's approach not our own approach. We do not want to propagate religious ideas, but as I understand wikipedia, it is important to narrate the issues from religious viewpoint as well as secular, regarding to their weights. For example, we should narrate creationism as well as Darwinism. Your approach leads to removing creationism , completely. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Where in any writings on the foundations of Misplaced Pages have you come to the conclusion that one of them is perspectivism? That is just really wrong. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages's policies to suggest that scientific findings, for instance, should be regarded merely as a perspective. And, yes, humanism, liberalism and secularism is certainly influential in Western countries - that is why academics and reporters don't get randomly persecuted just for saying the truth.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss whether modern civilization has killed more people through imperialism, modern ideologies, ethnic cleansing, synthetic drugs, etc or the former ones. We also do not want to discuss about the possibility of the relation between science and truth. We want to discuss the issues based on the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The WP:DUE shows a kind of Perspectivism. However, WP:VALID and WP:IMPARTIAL restrict it to some extent. Finally, WP:NPOV#Bias in sources shows clearly that your understanding is wrong in wikipedia.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Bias in sources has nothing whatsoever to do with my understanding. If you want to discuss policies and guidelines, why do you begin blabbering about Nietzsche and Foucault?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Meta-comment: I'm going to ask everyone here to be very careful to avoid actual or implied accusations of personal bias. If you want to do that, go over to ANI or COIN, but it has no place here where we are supposed to assume good faith. Indeed, while I disagree with Anders Feder on the general issue, I see no reason to believe that he did not make the proposal in good faith and, frankly, it was not a off-the-wall totally illogical idea, just not a good one in my opinion. We don't need to be discussing editors here, just ideas. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Anders Feder. I'm totally against the idea of "Iranian media are generally unreliable". This attitude towards "Iranian Media", as a whole, is the same as some peoples' towards "The West", as a whole. my opinion is well-discssed by Taha: removing all Iranian media for the sake of systemic bias prevention would make a systemic bias itself. we should evaluate Iranian sources on a case-by-case basis. By the way, no one is really interested in your/others off-topic information/personal opinion. Amirreza 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amirreza: By the way, no one is interested in your "off-topic information/personal opinion" either. I am not surprised you aren't able to counter the points raised.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Anders Feder. My argument was not "off-topic". I ignore your personal attack, however, I will assume the right to post a grievance if you continue this unconstructive behavior of commenting on editors. Amirreza 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability underlies NPOV which is a pillar. Everything else is secondary. Unless you manage to change the pillar, this discussion is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Bosstopher: You are raising the argument that Iranian state sources should not be held to the same standards of WP:RELIABILITY as all other sources lest it would entail a systemic bias against Iran. You are entitled to that view, but the overwhelming consensus is against it.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for linking that, it was an interesting read. Based on what I said I have to say I partially agree with Seyyed on this. Magazines and papers on zoology and the like published in Iran, should not be considered unreliable just because of political repression in the press. Iran is currently one of the top 10 ranked countries for STEM cell research and high ranking internationally in other scientific sectors. The idea that all scientific papers coming out of the country should be disregarded just because a bunch of Ayatollahs with political influence spend too much time pondering over whether or not touching animals in certain place is Najis, quite frankly seems silly.Bosstopher (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Any evidence that the 895+ cases of political imprisonment registered by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran last year were due to the convicted individuals having "touched animals in certain place" is welcome on the RfC. To the extent that any vitally important stem cell research comes out of Iran, it will almost always be covered by external, reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I've copied the discussion to the RfC, because we were getting off topic from the original deletion discussion. My comment about touching animals was meant to be a response to a comment you made above where you said Iranian publications about Fauna should be disregarded because Ruhollah Khomeini's opinion on what is Najis. I also hardly see what relevance high political imprisonment rates has to do with the quality of scientific research coming out of Iran.Bosstopher (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Immediate merges as a solution to articles?

What is our policy / practice / best practice for the situation where one editor is against an article and so decides, unilaterally and without discussion, to redirect it or merge and redirect it, to another article?

I'm seeing a lot of this lately. A few examples , , &

We are supposed to be a collegiate project. We are supposed to work by group consensus. AfD et al generate list indexes so that those who wish to monitor what's going on can see them pass by. PROD allows time for some chance of a response. Even CSD isn't immediate. Most things here grind imponderably slowly, so why is this loophole for immediate single-opinion removal sanctioned?

What are the conditions when it might be appropriate to act in this way, as opposed to the visible routes? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are supposed to be expanded into articles, unilateral merges are not supposed to bypass PROD or AfD. You owe me € 0,02. Be..anyone (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See MERGEINIT which is part of WP:MERGING, an information page (which is a little more than an essay, but a little less than a guideline and claims some degree of community consensus), which says that BOLD mergers are acceptable if the editor feels that the need is "obvious," with the next step up from that being a local discussion, then up from that a listing at Proposed mergers. I don't remember where I saw it (based on my editing habits, it was probably somewhere at the Village Pump), but there was a recent discussion about either specifically allowing or prohibiting — I don't remember which — nominations at AFD when the nominator only nominated it to propose merger or nom'ed it for deletion but also proposed merger as an alternative, but I don't think that the discussion ended up going anywhere, but the fact that it happened, along with MERGEING, suggests that AFD is not generally regarded as the normal way to propose mergers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (PS: If this is a collegiate project does that mean that I'm not supposed to be editing here, since I graduated from college over 30 years ago? .)

No objections against the BOLD clause on this information page from my side, I know that BOLD and IAR are policies. And the last thing this wiki needs are more bureaucratic guidelines, style manuals, or any other instruction creep. But it should be really obvious, as in, nobody in possession of their marbles has a snownall's chance in hell to contest the undiscussed unilateral merge successfully. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more as to the probable intended meaning of obvious, but so long as we have anything short of a policy which absolutely prohibits redirects and mergers without some kind of discussion first (a policy which I would oppose, by the way: we need more housekeeping, not less, and redirects and mergers are not always controversial), then obviousness will always be in the eye of the beholder. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MERGEINIT gives this useful example, "This might be appropriate and easy where, for example, there are two stubs with nearly the same title with slightly different spellings. " Now that's obviously sensible and few would question it. The problem is that there are merges instead that are simple deletions by stealth. Look at my first example, Two Weeks with the Queen. This was taken to AfD to resolve the issue more clearly, where it was both expanded for sourcing and closed as a resounding keep with the remarkable comment, "I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below ". The original merger, unsurprisingly, sent it to an immediate second AfD. Where it collected a comment by an admin familiar with the book who had also been one of the few against keeping it the first time, " You don't get to just keep relisting pages you don't like until those who disagree aren't paying attention and the discussion is ended.". Firstly, thanks to Lankiveil for displaying an even-handedness that's getting rare these days. Their comment highlights the problem here: We also have to guard against the persistent and unrepresentative, because WP is often weak against the truly dedicated edit warrior. There is a theme developing where deletion by merge is simply becoming a short-cut to sneaking articles away when no-one is looking. That is no part of WP:MERGEINIT.

Hi Andy, I really appreciate the nice comment! For my own two cents, I don't have any problem with the actions taken by anyone up until the second nomination; boldly redirecting and then reverting, followed by a discussion, strikes me as the sort of thing that we should be doing. My only problem is that the discussion reached a conclusion, and was then extended on what I consider to be very thin grounds, based on a technicality. At some point, everyone sometimes need to realises that their view is not always the consensus view, and walk away. Now, in theory one might use WP:PM for this purpose, but they'd have to get around all the tumbleweed to do that. AFD is for better or worse where people comes, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we should propose binding merges or redirects there. Lankiveil 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

'Collegiate' BTW is from the root from collegium or 'partnership'. We're supposed to work here in the same way as the Fellows of a college are (also supposed) to operate: as a self-organising collaboration with minimal hierarchy and a respect for all viewpoints. Some however would prefer a magisterium of proper deference to those arbiters of all content decisions, the admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those examples you've given are perfect examples of where immediate redirection is the best choice. If someone wishes to come along later and provide third-party reliable sourcing for the articles, the material is still there for them to do so.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And one more word: BOLD redirects or mergers are just like any other BOLD editing here. If someone opposes it, they're free to revert and once that happens, the proper solution is to discuss, not re-revert. If discussion between the two editors in dispute is fruitless, then move on to the steps described in MERGEINIT, or nominate it for deletion at AFD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There were also other options. The Gleitzman novel had never been tagged for notability, so the editor could have done that. Or better yet check whether it was notable himself. It survived the AfD discussion rather easily, so if the editor had checked it probably would have been easy to find those book reviews and add them to the article. Instead he just glanced at what was in the article, decided it was unsatisfactory, and redirected, as 1 of 50 other things he did that day.

Also it's considered good practice when making a bold redirect to leave a note at the destination article so that other editors know that the redirected article existed. That wasn't done either. As it happens we were lucky that someone was watching. It could have just vanished with nobody being aware that it ever existed. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Options is exactly the right word. While virtually all that you say is best practices, editors almost always have the right to just do the minimum that's actually required. Unless they uniformly or consistently fail to follow best practices, which may show that they're not really editing in the best interest of the encyclopedia, then they're not really subject to any effective criticism merely because an occasional act does the minimum rather than the best. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true. About merge proposals and AfD, I think that discussion may have been this RfC. Basically I think it comes down to having good judgment, and you can do it if you are Andy. I would have tagged it myself. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Which Andy? The problem here is largely one of judgement: these one-act deletions-by-redirect are unreviewed and secretive (unlike almost anything else at WP). They rely on the judgement of a single editor. As Two Weeks with the Queen shows, this article began as an unclear article on a notable topic, although this notability was strong and hinted at fairly clearly, even if not sourced in the article. Poor judgement though vanished it. With the slightest review at AfD (never a good place, but often the last chance) the appropriate sources were added. This should have happened as part of WP:BEFORE the redirection, but poor judgement had skipped that part. The second ridiculous AfD, even after very clear sources had been addded, is just a typical behavioural problem.

WP needs practices that are robust against individual poor judgements. AfD helps to do that. Single-editor deletions-by-redirect do not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages even more desperately needs editors capable of understanding the difference between redirection and deletion. Any editor can undo a redirect, and, if the material being restored meets our fundamental policies and guidelines, can do so without any negative repercussions. That's not true of deletions. Now, it's quite true that this was a disruptive edit, because the material being restored did not meet our guidelines and policies. Had the editor that performed the reversion shown any grasp of our fundamental policies, he could have added the sources necessary to do so on the spot. Unfortunately, he apparently considered it to be an opportunity to attack other editors.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirects have two purposes: placeholders for future articles, and as a navigation aid where a subject does not justify a separate article. I see no problem with any of the four redirections you identify above. All four articles read as personal essays drawn from observation of the subject, probably the worst form of fancruft on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why I wasn't notified of this discussion of my actions? For the benefit of those confused by the partial and partisan explanation given above, the first AfD of Two Weeks with the Queen had no deletion rationale (being made, pointedly, by someone who objected to its redirection; and who then immediately !voted "keep"), and so was obviously ("easily", as it's described above) kept, on that basis alone. Note the paucity of discussion of the topic's notability by most commenters in that debate. The second AfD, which did have a deletion rationale, was thus closed out-of-process. A good lesson learned: next time I want to keep an article of dubious notability, I'll AfD it with no rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability based on how many non-English WP articles exist

A new notion of notability had crept into a guideline.

The guideline: Recent years.

The test:

"Births are only to be included if there are Misplaced Pages articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question."

I started conversation on the guideline page here. Where I note concerns. I think, though this is not "article" notability, but rather "mention of person" notability, this issue has to be looked at in light of the core notability concepts of the project.

Would we say, for example, that an "article" is only notable for English WP purposes if the article also exists in 9 other-language WPs? That's in essence the test applied by the guideline, to "individual" notability.

Also, on the 2015 page an editor deleted Al Rosen, the former major league baseball MVP, on the basis of this guideline. While people are included who are clearly less notable by other WP standards (let alone by common sense standards, such as English WP reader interest). But I've gotten nowhere in that conversation, with the editor. He responds " might be notable in the US but is not internationally which is the basis for inclusion in this article. Others listed may be less well known in the US but given that they have articles in at least 9 non-English languages the indication is that they are in fact internationally notable." That second conversation can be found here. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the notability guidelines here on en.wiki are not the same on other wikis; it is not a universal standard. Even considering policies like WP:V and WP:NOR, those aren't common. I will say that if there are 9 other-language wiki articles out there about a topic (particularly if they cut across a wide range of regions), there is a good chance of sourcing to be found to meet the GNG requirements on WP, but that's not assured to simply say the topic is notable.

On the latter bit - we do consider the issues of notability at local levels - a politician in a small town may be notable in the town but not to the rest of the world. However, when you start talking about persons that are notable at a regional or national level, then we consider that notable for the world.

But to add, lists like the above can use guidelines that are beyond notability for inclusion, WP:N does not extend to them since we don't cover article content, though WP:N may be used as justification (as usually done in lists of people from a certain play, limiting it only to notable ones). --MASEM (t) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. We should probably try to limit the discussion to the pg pointed to, so as not to trifurcate it.

But to answer narrowly a couple of points ...

I've looked through a number of the foreign language articles used to assert notability for this purpose, per that guideline. Some are 1 sentence only. Some lack any refs whatsoever. Others use English language refs, exclusively. The existence of the article does not indicate anything more, by itself, than that one editor had interest in creating it.

As you say, other wikipedias do not have the same criteria that this one has.

One problem, as is coming out in that discussion, is that a US-based athlete, with 58,000 views the day he died, had his entry deleted under the rule this month. While a Russian and a German, with under 500 views each, qualified for inclusion.

But best for us to keep discussion there, I think. Epeefleche (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This notability guideline for the existance of a Misplaced Pages article has nothing to do with the "importance/relevance/???" guideline for what should be included in a Misplaced Pages article. I'm not going to close this section, but I think it should be closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course the two are related. Both guidelines grapple with the same core question: "For inclusion (in one case of a wp article, in the other of referencing the wp article in another wp article), what sort of criteria should we consider as deeming the subject sufficiently notable for inclusion?" It is axiomatic that there is a benefit to Misplaced Pages applying consistent principles across the Project. I recognize that you have 1 view. And have deleted reference to some of the articles that I point to as being of notable subjects. But that's not a good reason to squelch discussion. We need more eyes on the above-pointed-to approach, not fewer. Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The apparently now inactive Wrad posted a draft 2009-01-05, edited it with zero contributions from anybody else, but some discussions on the talk page, and promoted it to a guideline eight days later. No RfC, no consensus determined by an uninvolved third party, a pure hoax, just blank it, user-fy it, stamp it as historic, AfD it, or find a new purpose for the page, e.g., "guideline sandbox". –Be..anyone (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have made some bold changes... there are many things in that "guideline" that run counter to our other notability guidelines. Further review is definitely needed. Blueboar (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, my changes were reverted (with the justification that there was "consensus" for the old language.) My guess is that there was a local consensus (ie agreement by a few editors working on the page)... but that consensus runs counter to much wider consensus as reflected in other policies and guidelines. It definitely needs a wider audience.Blueboar (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, we've seen this kind of thing before: a local consensus that purports to have project-wide authority. A small group of editors (heaven forbid, one editor acting in isolation) should not have the authority to decide a guideline of project-wide impact unless there has been a widely advertised discussion and request for comment on point. Some of the most contentious guidelines now in existence were "adopted" in this manner, it ain't right, and everyone knows it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Births are only to be included if there are Misplaced Pages articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question." As far as I could understand, apparently this sentence refers to inclusion of birth and death dates, not to article's existence (otherwise, I don't understand the use of the word "birth" instead of "individual", "person", "subject" or similar). Really weird, anyway. Cavarrone 07:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• My take would be to strike the phrase. Quite aside from that Misplaced Pages itself cannot be used as a source, and quite aside from the aforementioned problems with this "consensus," this would be very easy to game. Someone using Google Translate to churn out stubs could throw up articles on other Wikipedias in five minutes flat. Ravenswing 07:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• As the primary editor of the guideline page in question, I want to go on record as saying that I do not like, and never have liked, this particular part of the guideline. It was made in a desperate attempt to stop edit wars on recent years pages and is a grossly inadequate measure for notability. The guideline was made, like everything else on Misplaced Pages, to be changed and improved by the community, not to rule and reign with an iron fist. I have long been bothered by how this guideline has been used. At the time, the "community" involved, the group of people who cared, was extremely small and was not getting along very well. Glad to see some other people are joining in. That being said, deleting the whole page will do nothing more than bring us back to the problem we had before the creation of the guideline: unending edit wars over what properly belongs on recent year pages. (User:Dirtlawyer1 User:Blueboar User:Be..anyone) Wrad (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you or anybody else still wants this page as a guideline start an RFC or any other procedure resulting in a consensus determined by a neutral contributor. Just adding the tag after about a week was too far on the BOLD side. I can't tell how things were handled in 2009, but vaguely recall that "consensus" was already more than only "create project page, discuss for a week, tag as guideline" in 2006. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

For all of the righteous anger you are mustering now, the fact is that nobody really cared about this for half a decade. That was the entire problem from the start. Apathy. No one cared. I'm not really even sure we didn't have an RfC, and no one showed up. I cared, and I did the best I could. Don't judge me. Wrad (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd try something like {{cent}} to attract attention for an RFC. It happens all the time that folks aren't interested in a proposal, maybe they don't see a problem, or there actually is no problem, or the solution is too convoluted, or individual decisions per page are better than yet another global rule. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

TheObeshow (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 11:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Erika Csiszer

Noted Presenter on multiple shows Telemundo Television also guest appearances on other numerous shows. Un Nueva Dia, TYM, Regular Hostess
Presented by Garrion Davis
<ref>Telemundo Television </ref>

Sorry, but we cannot figure out from what you've said what it is that you want or are suggesting. If you're requesting an edit be made at an article, place that request on the talk page of that article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice: RFC at WikiProject Film

There is a discussion at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? which is about this page and could potentially lead to changes to it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggest WP:NSM noteworthy based on social media

Itsmeront (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that a criteria that existed in WP:IMPORTANCE was lost in WP:NOTE.

WP:NSM Noteworthy based on Social Media.

"An article is "important" enough to be included in Misplaced Pages if the following is true:

• There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)." WP:IMPORTANT.

The criteria for reliability should be set high. It is important that wikipedia get the facts straight. Just because a million people state that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree does not make it factual. When the reliability is not of primary concern editors CAN also consider social media and web aggregators as an indication of Notability. Editors should be careful to include sources that show actual notability. An article submitted to Slashdot IS NOT SUFFICIENT to indicate notability, whereas, an article that makes it to the front page of Slashdot, evidenced by a large community taking interest to promote the article, CAN be considered as an indication of Notability. A hashtag on twitter is not sufficient, but if millions of people are retweeting it, and it shows up as trending, it CAN be considered. The existence of a significant community around projects, such as OpenSource software development CAN also be considered when determining Notability.

To be clear, #icewaterdumpedonmyhead does not indicate the same notability as #alsicebucketchallenge. Even before the celebrities and the media picked up the story, #alsicebucketchallenge trending by millions of people could have been used to indicate notability. This alone does not indicate that an article should be written, but when the questions of reliability are answered and the reasoning is settled that a separate article should be created, Social Media CAN be used to establish notability. Itsmeront (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion of whether Slashdot contributes to notability may be found at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 26#Nim (programming language). Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't around at the time IMPORTANT was alive, but looking through the page history appears to me to show that though there were several efforts to promote it from a proposal to a guideline or policy (or semi-policy, whatever that was at the time), it never made it and was finally marked as a failed proposal, so nothing was lost: it was rejected. Having said that, I would also note that IMO there are few places at Misplaced Pages where the wiki principle plays more of a part than at AfD: IAR comes into effect there perhaps more often than anywhere else (except perhaps with BOLD edits) and articles are sometimes kept which do not meet our notability criteria. That's for a variety of reasons which might be generalized under an importance policy, but having such a policy would then become being used as a justification for such retentions and that would change those exceptions from being just IAR outliers to being mainstream. That's a bad idea. (And unless you're proposing to change the definition of reliable source to include trending on social media, merely trending on social media does not indicate reliability, much less verifiability; something that's heavily trending there is often going to be reflected in actual reliable sources and thus become verifiable and, in turn, support notability, but that's because of the secondary coverage not the social media itself.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments TransporterMan (TALK) The comment at the top of Notability lead me to believe that Importance was replaced by Notability.

• ""WP:IMPORTANCE" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:IMPORTANT, which was replaced by this guideline."

If IMPORTANCE was rejected then I withdraw that comment. I would still encourage Misplaced Pages to reconsider this particular aspect of Importance relating to communities. I agree with your sentiment that in MOST cases something that is trending will then be replaced by reliable secondary coverage. The problem is that this is not always the case. I'm sure you are aware that coverage in general for things that are not political, sensational, entertainment related, or on the other end Scholarly research, or basic science, is declining and being replaced by social media (or even worse by company sponsored news content). In the specific case that I made this point, the area of new programming language development, it is unreasonable to expect that even with high trending like the front page of Slashdot, that media outlets will then pick up the story. In many cases, notability is better defined by the size of the community and the amount of interest generated on social media. This is especially true for open source projects. Open source projects, including the software that runs Misplaced Pages, are made up of small communities numbering in the 100's of people. The communities are comprised of experts, and these experts tend to communicate with each other using social media. This includes web aggregators (like Reddit, YCombinator, and Slashdot), IRC, Email lists and Blogs. There is already exceptions in NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS that allow, in my opinion, for the inclusion of slashdot, or expert blogs, but without something like this category that makes it more explicit, I was unable to persuade editors that Slashdot should be considered at all under any circumstances.

• You're not sure? Here, read through WP:RS and related policy & guideline pages that link from there. Then you'll be sure what is and what is not a reliable source, and understand why slashdot and reddit do not qualify, why the Nim creator penning his own artcle do not qualify, and why a short paragraph-length blurb does not qualify. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26#Nim_.28programming_language.29
• If you are unable to grasp the very straightforward WP:RS guideline, then I'm afraid that the Misplaced Pages just isn't the project for you to become involved in. The amount of people on social media who like a product is irrelevant. The number of upvotes a buddy of yours got on Slashdot is irrelevant. The Misplaced Pages does not accept either when discussing the notability of a topic. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26#Nim_.28programming_language.29

It seems to me that something more specific that allows citing social media, when the subject of should an article be written at all and not included within another article and is the content of the article reliable are addressed, should be added to make it easier for this argument to be made in the future. To be clear the point of creating an article and if the content of the article reliable was already settled by most editors. The outstanding question was if the subject itself was notable. I had pointed to a number expert blogs, and front page inclusion of on Slashdot, Reddit, and YCombinator, a community of 100's of users, and still was told this is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. For subjects that are unlikely to gain secondary media coverage, this type of attention was quite notable, in the community of new programming language experts, and should be considered and allowed explicitly by Misplaced Pages editorial policy. Itsmeront (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we need this, because it becomes extremely subjective when that line is considered crossed as to be widely important. And while I don't know the exact history of WP:N being clear on how importance is not a factor, I would strongly object to its removal as it is clearly practice today - we don't keep articles because of page view count, etc.

In terms of social media, there are now enough developing RSes that report on trends on the Internet to establish when they believe a topic has become important for social media as for us to establish notability on those assessments of reliable sources, which falls in line with GNG principles and does not need any "new" language. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again to be clear the recommendation has nothing to do with reliability, it is only intended to ALLOW the consideration of Social Media when determining Notability. Since Notability itself can be used as a rationale for deleting an article, what counts as notable, for subjects that are not likely, and may never be, covered by RSes, considered Wildly important or, covered secondary sources, should be more clearly specified. Itsmeront (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But that's still weakening RSes to allow inclusion based on popularity. If someone has a million followers on Twitter, that doesn't necessarily mean they area notable if there are no other RSes to discuss that person. We also have to be aware that social media can be gamed - if we did allow people with a high subscriber count in on just that metric alone, there would be groups that would game that system to get an article on a nobody or a false identity onto WP (it happens in other areas, so would not discount it here). I will say that the normal RS media is pretty aware of when certain topics hit a "critical mass" of social media and report on that, but that also is not a universal aspect as some cases fall to the edge, but it is still keeping with all other core policies.

I've not really seen a case where a topic is at AFD where there's some but weak RS sourcing and the swing is that "but this person is important on social media". It's the RS sourcing that makes the difference. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that social media should not be considered alone for reliability. I am only discussing the case where there are sources for reliability or a good case has been made, there is a cogent argument for the need of a separate article. Being notable in social media is not sufficient for reliability, I'm conceding that point (actually I never made that point). The issue here is what determines notability. My argument is that for certain topics the front page of news aggregators like slashdot are the pinnacle of coverage. Misplaced Pages editors should not confuse inclusion in slashdot, with reaching the front page. We are also not talking about criteria for adding people to Misplaced Pages. I would agree with you that secondary coverage is very prevalent in entertainment. There is no dearth of resources covering the next social media star. The issue here is communities of people dedicated to an important subject, where the reliability is not in question, and the argument of should there be an article is settled, social media coverage in News Aggregators, Expert Blogs, and community size should be ALLOWED to be considered. I'm also not suggesting that it MUST be included, but arguments like Slashdot will never be an indication of notability should be discouraged by Misplaced Pages editorial policy. Itsmeront (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am entirely comfortable with social media being no consideration whatsoever, and with the bar set to sources from the mainstream media. If a person, thing or event is important enough, the mainstream media will cover it. If it isn't, then I'm unimpressed with its ephemeral number of Facebook "likes." If the Boston Globe does an article on someone, that article will be verifiable a century from now. Given the so-far ephemeral staying power of social media, we can't guarantee that we'll be able to verify jack five years down the road. Ravenswing 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ravenswing This has nothing to do with Jack or adding infomration about any person. It is not about verifyability. It has nothing to do with reliablity. Itsmeront (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• You're not making a whole lot of sense on the one hand, and you're wrong on the other. This has everything to do with reliability and notability. Ravenswing 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that I'm not a professional Misplaced Pages Editor. So maybe I'm missing some point here. Please feel free to explain. Notability was brought up by editors as a separate topic then Reliability. After it was agreed that the content of the article was RELIABLE, it was claimed that the subject was not notable. We were then told that notability must exclude newsblogs and expert blogs and community size. My claim here is that for open source projects like new language design, NOTABILTY is newsblogs, expert blogs and community size. So if I am wrong or not making sense please feel free to elaborate. Itsmeront (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Another Perfect example why this is needed

Misplaced Pages editors have made it perfectly clear. Slashdot and Reddit, and expert blogs are not respected. The problem here is that Misplaced Pages editors DO NOT READ the content before they remove references. They seem to believe they understand what is useful and what is not. The blogs, the Slashdot article on NIM (programming language) and the article on Reddit have useful information for programmers trying to dive deeper into the subject. Not only did we have to argue that Nim was notable, now we have to argue that references are relevant. This change to editorial policy is needed because News Aggregators ARE VALUABLE sources of information for open source communities. The expert blogs are also excellent sources of information.

Edits made on Nim (programming language)

• 02:40, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone . . (10,732 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (slashdot reference dismissed as BAD joke, willing to report more jokes on AN/I) (undo | thank)
• 02:11, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone‎ . . (10,871 bytes) (-349)‎ . . (reddit removed) (undo | thank) links to expert blogs were also removed.

It is easy to just dismiss the valuable information on these sites and my contention is that this Misplaced Pages editorial policy has fostered this harmful trend. While there can also be crap on Slashdot or Reddit, wholesale dismissal of a format that a very large world of Open Source developers use to communicate is harmful to Misplaced Pages. Not only should this policy be changed but it should be communicated to editors so that some thought replaces foolish edits like these mentioned above. I can assure you that the slashdot reference mentioned is no BAD joke. Itsmeront (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're understanding the point of the relevant policies. The point behind requiring that sources have a proven and verifiable record for fact checking and accuracy is so we don't impose our personal editorial judgments. Mainstream media sources have such a record. Slashdot, Reddit and blogs, all sites with user-submitted content and with no third-party editorial factchecking taking place, do not, and it is not one bit harder to link to "crap" on those sites as to any other part. I see very little use for WP:V, one of the core content policies of this encyclopedia, to be thrown out just because there are -- or you claim that there are, anyway -- computer programmers whose lives would be made easier by Misplaced Pages ceasing to have standards. Ravenswing 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again you are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with fact checking or reliability. This has only to do with notability and now usefulness (it is hard to argue that once an article has been accepted because it is both reliable and notable, that links to useful content can not be included as references, especially if they are removed without the editor even reading them). If hundreds of people upvote something and take the time to discuss and comment on it, in a community like new programming languages, how can you say it is not notable. While slashdot does accept user-generated content, as does Misplaced Pages, it is reviewed by experts. The upvoting and subsequent promotion to the front page, is an indication of editorial fact-checking, the editors at slashdot create summaries of useful content. If someone says that Slashdot is an indication of notability it should be ALLOWED to be considered. If someone sites articles and comments in Slashdot in references as useful, they should be considered. If someone cites slashdot as the only source for reliability or verifiability it CAN be discounted, but even then, editors should at least READ the slashdot content. Please stop confusing Reliability with Notability. Itsmeront (talk)

I have a .sig I generally use on VBulletin-type forums. It runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Let me phrase this as simply as possible: I am not contesting that Slashdot and Reddit are notable websites. They obviously are, and they have Misplaced Pages articles with lots of qualifying sources attesting to their notability. I dispute that they meet Misplaced Pages standards for being reliable sources -- it seems you're the one confusing "reliability" with "notability" -- and the notion that upvotes and comment sections constitute "editorial fact-checking" is frankly laughable. With that, I don't think there's anything more useful to say on the subject other than to point out that not a single editor seems to agree with your POV. Ravenswing 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You have still not provided an argument against except to say that it is laughable. Before you write this off and talk for all Misplaced Pages editors, I'd ask you to consider the effect the lack of this policy is having on Misplaced Pages. Editors are currently running roughshod over programming and seriously contributing to bit rot by deleting articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by way of a lack of understanding in this area. I've noticed a number of places where information really should be corrected but who in there right mind would go through the trouble, just to be told their understanding of a topic is laughable.

• Keep. There are Misplaced Pages articles about hundreds of programming languages. Many of them don't have any secondary sources. So why do you think Nim is not notable, but the following languages are? Obol (programming language), Picky (programming language), Little Interpreted Language, Seph (programming language), Halide (programming language), Roy (programming language), Plaid (programming language), Join-calculus (programming language), Objeck (programming language), Nemo (programming language), Ooc, Cl4 (programming language), Slave Programming Language, PureScript, Hope (programming language), MX Language, MCTRL, SmilScript, Wigzy, Mobl, Napier88 (I have just picked some random articles) --Trustable (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• That argument is Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉   00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My contention is that this is extremely unfortunate. Again I would urge others to speak up because this has nothing to do with Reddit or Slashdot being notable websites. Itsmeront (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:RS, specifically Self-published sources. We want articles to use sourcing that has come from publications that have shown a history of fact checking and editorial control. Slashdot, reddit, etc. do not have that at all, and add to the fact these sites specifically have a voting/rating system to promote stories and content, that means they are very far from a reliable source. If the only sign of notability was through these sources, we would not be able to have any RSes for the article and as such would fail content policy. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes we agree that Slashdot does not apply to WP:RS. Is someone arguing that a NOTABLE subject must be allowed to be published on Misplaced Pages? I'm not saying that, nor do I think I can be misunderstood to be saying that. We agree that WP:RS AND WP:NOTE are required before an article can survive a request for deletion. I am only discussing WP:NOTE and I'm not aware of a policy that says WP:NOTE is sufficient without WP:RS. If I am wrong here I will happily remove my request. Itsmeront (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:V is the relevant policy - articles must be based on WP:RS. What you are asking is that allow an article where the only sourcing - the same sourcing that is used to establish that the topic is notable - for the article is coming from SPS , non-RS sources that are judged on popularity and not importance. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here is quite sure what you're proposing, Itsmeront. Let me ask a question or two: Right now, Notability is determined by, basically, this criteria (from GNG), "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Are you proposing:

• Option 1: That Newsblogs, Expert Blogs, and community size should, without regard to reliability, be able to be used as sources in an article?
• Option 2: That Newsblogs, Expert Blogs, and community size should only be used in an article if reliable, but should (or should be able to be) considered, even if not reliable, in deciding whether an article which may not otherwise meet the notability guidelines (i.e. may not have sufficient reliable sources) should be retained in (a) a deletion discussion (such as AFD) or (b) an articles for creation request or (c) both? (Those being the two primary situations in which notability becomes an issue.)
• Option 3: Something else (if so, please explain).

I would note, hopefully just in passing, that Newsblogs and Expert Blogs are not necessarily non-reliable. Some are and some aren't: See NEWSBLOG for what we call newsblogs (though I think you may be using the term in a different way) and SPS for (among other things) blogs by experts as we define them here. Community size is, however, not reliable unless discussed in a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan (TALK). In the argument we had on nim, I showed that blogs were written by experts, People that have been published in RS on the subject matter. Those are the blog entries deleted by Be..anyone should have been "considered" as potential Reliable Sources based on your policies. I would agree with Option 2: with some clarification. If an article has been established as Reliable, through whatever means, that editors should read links that are proposed to be indications of notability. (to answer the charge that an article should not exist because it is not notable in a deletion discussion) I would say that after a reading if an argument can be made that the news aggregator, expert blog, or community size presented is not reliable, then it can and should be thrown out. I would also like to say that useful references in a reliable article, should not be deleted, again unless an argument is made that the content is not reliable. I'm not sure how a blog that compares and contrasts Object oriented programming and how to use NIM to replicate features in other languages would qualify as unreliable. See the 4 part article here: ).

I would like to clarify RS comments, but really didn't want to do it here or now because I didn't want to confuse the issue. Some of the deletions above occurred, in my opinion, when nobody was watching. Saying that a published dissertation, is a self-published and, therefore, a non-reliable resource is ridiculous. Deciding that since a primary resource is no longer available online is not sufficient, in my opinion, to compound the problem of bit rot on the internet. I understand that where Open Source community work is concerned, there is a very high, almost too high bar, to climb before Misplaced Pages will consider the sources reliable. I also think that is a mistake since there is not likely to be reliable third party coverage. In the case of nim your normal editorial policies, if followed, should have been enough to prove RS. What concerns me here is that even after the editors decided there was enough reliable third party coverage, that they then changed to an argument that it was not notable. That aside I could also make the argument that for open source communities your requirements for RS do not make sense. I made the argument earlier that some of the software used to create Misplaced Pages would not qualify to be included in Misplaced Pages, but I'm satisfied with your Break All Rules and other policy exceptions that exist to allow someone to make an argument. What I was unable to do was answer the argument of Notability with what I consider to be Reliable indications of a large community, significant community coverage in Blogs, Reddit, YCombinator, and Slashdot, because when I said Slashdot everyone laughed. It is very short sited and a bad excuse for what I would call laziness, to not read the reference just because it contained the name Slashdot.

One last comment about programming languages. Alan Kay is known for many things, but one very important argument that he has made over and over is that the present is not based on the past. The present is based on only parts of the past. There is very valuable information lost when we think we understand where things come from. To really understand programming, and it's history, you should start by researching the past and inventing a future that is different than the future we currently live in. By deleting the past because you can not find current third party reliable resources, you are harming the future. I believe that it is in Misplaced Pages's best interest to address some of these issues, instead of alienating open source software developers. Every time I discuss this outside of Misplaced Pages, I get the same answer. The editors are just nuts don't waste your time. Itsmeront (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• TransporterMan (TALK I just read your comment more closely (including GNG) (sorry I didn't read closer the first time) and it seems that indeed Notability is very closely entwined into Reliability. So the argument that reliable sources were presented but they were not significant enough to provide notability (because only reliable third party sources, according to GNG, can be considered for Notability). In open source software development, there will always be very limited third party coverage and lots of other coverage that cause Misplaced Pages Editors to stick their collective noses in the air. Based on this definition I doubt that Misplaced Pages can actually be useful for documenting open source software development, history and advancments. It is a shame that Notability is so closely entwined into RS. That seems wrong to me but I have been corrected and I understand why my comments were so confusing. Thank you for taking the time to point it out. My suggestion is that in cases where some reliable sources exist, agreed limited in number, that notability be extended to "allow" the consideration of community size (actual size not third party reported size), news aggregator popularity, and expert blogs, to demonstrate that a community exists and that people are interested enough that an article in Misplaced Pages would be useful (my definition of Notability). Also, the policy should change such that useful information added to articles be allowed to stay unless the content is read by editors and an argument against the content being unreliable is made. "Deleted because this is slashdot, what a joke", edits should be discouraged. I'm happy that Nim is at least temporarily saved from the chopping block, but the article is definitely less useful then it could be now that useful links have been removed. Thank you again for your consideration. Itsmeront (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

IIRC I've removed 3 of 4 softpedia references introduced by me on MKVToolNix after it survived a speedy within 43 seconds, with PROD + AFD on the same day. Dogfood, similarly I cleaned up the Nim references after it survived a similar procedure plus deletion review, where I supported keep, added {{Openhub}}, and converted external link OSCON to {{cite web}}. If you disagree be bold, etc., it's a wiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone (talk), actually I think your edits made the article better. Thank you for doing them. Those edits were fine. What I object to is removing slashdot and reddit, and the comment you removed reddit is imcomplete becuase you also removed very useful links to expert blog articles. By deleting these links you made the article much less useful for anyone that visits Nim on Misplaced Pages.

• 02:40, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone . . (10,732 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (slashdot reference dismissed as BAD joke, willing to report more jokes on AN/I) (undo | thank)
• 02:11, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone‎ . . (10,871 bytes) (-349)‎ . . (reddit removed) (undo | thank) links to expert blogs were also removed.

All three slashdot, reddit and the blogs are not jokes. They are useful discussions and solutions to real problems encountered by people using the program. Thank you for your keep argument! Itsmeront (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to use of any social media sites lacking professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors for the purpose of establishing notability on Misplaced Pages. We need reliable, independent sources for that purpose, and I am unaware of any social media site that meets that standard. If it is "reliable" then it cannot be "social" since social sites allow any passing jackass to post their ill-informed opinions. No, no, a thousand times no to the misguided notion that notability of a topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia can be established by faddish chatter on social media sites. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm begining to get the drift here that my cause is hopeless. You are completely wrong in your assesment of social media when it comes to software development, but I don't think that wikipedia editors are going to understand the difference. A community that forms around something like open source projects is not comprised of passing jackasses, infact without some of those jackasses as you call them you wouldn't be spreading YOUR stupid opinions on Misplaced Pages. Itsmeront (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reasonably Detailed expectation on top of notability.

Propose in WP:NSONG it states. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed' article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I believe that this is a healthy addition to the policy. Articles should be notable, and verifiable. but they should also be significant enough to merit a reasonably detailed article. I propose that this advice is added to the general notability guideline. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather vague about size. How short would be too short? What happens with articles are short but have nowhere to merge them to? Dream Focus 23:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

from WP:STUB "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.". Per WP:5 Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia the only reason we don't delete every stub for being unencylopedic by nature is that WP:DINC deletion isn't cleanup, there are stubs that could be more than a stub and just haven't been developed. but if only a stub amount of information exists than it is not able to be covered by an encyclopedia. that is why the wording "Articles unlikely to every grow beyond stubs should be merged" is worth adding to the notability guideline. It isn't subjective its just following policy Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn.Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think this would be helpful. "Reasonable" is too subjective and too likely to turn on whether you like it or not. Anyway, WP:GNG already demands "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I think that's clear enough as it stands. Msnicki (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reasonably isn't any more subjective than "Significant" but the two together create a clearer picture. And how long an article can be written isn't dependent on if you like it or not so I find the link to I like it tenuous at best. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You have your opinion, I have mine. The point is, I don't agree with yours and I've given my reason. Msnicki (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose only because WP:PERMASTUB covers this better. This also extends from the idea of "presumption" of notability - it means we allow articles, even stubs, if there is sourcing that meets GNG or a SNG, but it is not required that we keep that article if nothing more can come for it. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question: I am confused by the proposal. Are your suggesting this be added to the Notability Guideline or the Notability Guideline (Music) which you link to above?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Answer this guideline is already in Notability Music guideline. What I am proposing is because of its effectiveness there adding it here.Bryce Carmony (User talk:Bryce Carmonytalk) 14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Bruce, thanks. The concept of "reasonably detailed" has very little meaning as it is too subjective given the total depth and breath of topics contained in WP. What is reasonably detailed for one topic area might be completely inadequate in another. The hurdle of GNG and notability is already difficult to explain to new contributors and gets interpreted inconsistently by experienced editors on a regular basis. If our goal is to build the encyclopedia, then adding another vague hurdle to inclusion serves no purpose. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• People keep saying that "reasonably detailed" has no meaning when it does. it's defined as "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" So the more we define the nature of a stub the more meaning reasonable detail will have.

• I don't think the proposed addition is needed. This guideline already notes (in several places) that merger is an option. Why say it again? Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Because notability is the sole criteria for if a topic should have an article. and in GNG we currently offer a useless totology. A noteworthy article is Significant. what is the definition of significant? oh right, it's something that is noteworthy.... insignificant is defined as being small so let's use a metric of size (in this case something more than a stub) to mean significant. The criteria is too low which is why websites can easly pay editors to write articles for money for people. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Change "Extract the content" to "write an article with the content"

Proposal change "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." to read "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to write an article with the content.

Reasoning

Original research in extracting content is fine, what isn't fine is using original research in the writing of an article. I think this minor rewrite is more inline with the purpose and use of the guideline. what "extracting content" is, I do not know, but every editor knows what writing an article is. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. The problem isn't that WP:GNG isn't already pretty crystal clear about what's required and why, it's that people don't read it or insist their favorite topic is important and merits an exception. The proposed language also seems to introduce some unnecessary confusion. We need reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, but this language ambiguously suggests that that's all that can be used to write the article. That's not true. Once notability has been established, it's perfectly legitimate to use primary sources in limited ways, e.g., to establish routine facts. For example, we've dated when Bash (Unix shell) was released by the author's Usenet newsgroup post announcing it, even though that's clearly a primary source. What we try hard (not always successfully) to avoid is for WP:BARELY notable topics to become excuses for WP:WEBHOSTING and WP:SPAM. Again, I think the guidelines are fine, if only everyone read them and was willing to cooperate. I don't see how this proposed change helps. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• "pretty clear" is not crystal clear. could you explain what "extract the content" is and why it is more clear than any other words in the human language? Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to correct my choice of words. Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the guideline is crystal clear, can you explain to me (or any other editor) what the hell "Extract the content" means.Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It means summarize the information and write the article. Msnicki (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• What's motivating two proposals within a day to make very specific changes to the language of WP:N? Absent some indication that there is widespread confusion over what this language means (not just the proposer's confusion), I don't see that there's any problem that needs fixing. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would you explain what "extract the content" means. There isn't any problems so it should be easy enough for you to do. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• An example would be using the Daily Show's news reports as a "reliable" source. They present news stories in full on satire mode and not a direct manner. Without knowledge of what are news and what are jokes, it would be impossible to extract the factual aspects of Daily Show coverage for use on WP. Obviously we'd could use other sources to help figure out the line between fact and humor to do that, but why not use those sources then? --MASEM (t) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Conflating significance and reliable? There's only 5 criteria laid out for "meriting an article" and you want to make 2 of them more or less the same thing? The problem is this, The guideline is too low, so AFD is overloaded, because AFD is overloaded paid editors can write with an agenda for money. now, you might say that you continue to not see a problem. but I do. Notability is the sole criteria for an article. We should consider all coverage, and then consider the makeup of that coverage between primary and secondary sources, having 2 criteria is better than having 1 criteria. We take it step by step and work our way towards a guideline that resembles notability for a encyclopedia, then we can delete articles easier, then it's easier to stop paid editors. Significant coverage should deal with avoiding original research and synthases not overlapping reliability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• You asked what "extract the info" means, I gave an example. If a source obfuscates its information that requires more than standard reading skills to use, it is not a good source per notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• To add: I never said The Daily Show was unreliable. They have people researching the news, and I would probably defend them purely on reliability for them if there was an argument about their fact-checking/editorial ability. But what they also have are good writers to take the fact, add in colorful humor, and thus make a popular show. It makes it very hard to pull out the truth from the humor (even when half the time the humor is clearly delineated from fact), and thus making the source not usable under policy. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Its clear how its written now. Dream Focus 02:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to explain in a different way... The fact that X is the subject of a joke on the Daily Show actually might go towards establishing notability (the fact that X is the subject of a joke on such a popular TV comedy show would mean that lots and lots of people know of X). However (and this is important), in order to state this notability in an article, and avoid Original Research, you need sources other than the Daily Show itself to note and comment upon the fact that the Daily Show made fun of X.

to put it another way... It would be Original Research for you or me to watch the Daily Show and extract the fact that X has been satirized on the Daily Show, and then use this fact to establish notability in an article by writing "X has been satirized on the Daily Show". On the other hand, if a reliable major entertainment magazine such as Rolling Stone notes that X has been made fun of on the Daily Show, then we can write "X has been satirized on the Daily Show: and cite Rolling Stone for that fact... and this would probably be enough to establish the notability of X. That does not mean we must have an article on X... but it means we can have one. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A joke on the Daily Show is not "significant coverage". So that's not a problem at all. A brief mention about it elsewhere wouldn't count towards the notability of the article's subject. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. As for what is in the article itself, you can easily find either a reliable source saying the person was satired on the show, or the primary source of the show itself is acceptable if there is no reason to doubt it. They mention what they've done on their website, or even having the transcripts online for people to reference, or list the information on a DVD collection of that season's episodes. If the episode or a video clip showing this is available online, then you can link to that as evidence. Dream Focus 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A (single) joke on the Daily Show isn't significant coverage... but an ongoing, recurring series of jokes (a "gag") can be. How do we know if we have crossed the threshold from insignificant to significant?... the "gag" gets mentioned by other sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a real concern? By the time it makes it into a long Daily Show episode, don't you suppose it'll be all over the legitimate press? Is it really likely there could be an occasion where you'd need to use the Daily Show to establish notability? Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

While a joke on the Daily Show might not be significant, something like John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" , which is done in a similar vein but stays on one topic for 20-some minutes would definitely count as significant coverage, save for the fact its humor obfuscates the content. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "extract the content" relates to the requirement that coverage be "direct and in detail" in order to be significant. "Extract the content" is a helpful phrase because it implies some effort in discerning and "removing" facts (i.e., article content) from a source. Let's take a better hypothetical involving the use of news stories to establish the notability of a company. If a story does not cover Company A "in detail", it may not offer anything substantive worth writing an article about, such as the bland statement that "Company A does business in Foo City". Or it may be praiseworthy but in the form of vague generalities, such as "people in Foo City know the name 'Company A'", or "Company A has been a boon to Foo City", neither of which statement is concrete enough to extract any real article content (compare with "Company A has been the largest private employer in Foo City for two decades"). The requirement that coverage be "direct" means that it can't merely imply something about Company A (or to take the Daily Show example, can't be obscured by a satirical or humorous characterization). Say there's a news story generally about the growth of Foo City's economy, one sentence of which lists Company A and a few other companies operating in Foo City. As the story has not expressly attributed economic growth to Company A, it would be OR to extract anything from that story about Company A beyond "it operates in Foo City", as direct coverage would be a mere mention.

Given how many language-altering proposals the OP has made recently on this page and others (all apparently based on nothing more than personal confusion or preference, rather than any experience of problems in the community at large), I think they should in the future post open-ended questions about how to better understand the language and ask if anyone else also has an issue with it. Formal proposals are a bad way to go about this as they presuppose there is a problem that needs solving and then attempt to limit discussion to yea or nay on a particular solution. And if you don't understand what something means then you can't reasonably know how it should be changed. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Truncate to "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed. because the final clause is superfluous. The key point here is that we want detail about the topic. The stuff about OR is a rationale or justification and doesn't require elaboration. See WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with this suggestion of removing the final clause. "Extract the content" is jargon at best—I've never heard anyone in the real world say something like, "You can learn more about the UK election by extracting the content from the BBC's special section on its website." But the meaning is wrong, too: original research is not a way to gather information from a source. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support in principle. The existing language does confuse people. In fact, I'd be happy with removing all reference to NOR. The only (dubious) explanation I've ever heard was that it was meant to stop people from collating tweets to come up with statements that aren't "directly" in any of them—and that's already covered by "directly" (and, incidentally, prohibited by NOR). It adds nothing that we wouldn't have anyway. But if we can't shorten it, then I favor dumping the "extract the content" language and adding something like "so that it is possible to write more than a doomed permastub about the subject without violating either WP:V or WP:NOR, and without using any self-published or non-independent sources" (because if the only way to write more than three sentences is to rely on the BLP's or company website, then you have given UNDUE weight to the subject's POV, no matter how neutral-sounding it is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a standard to determine "credible and authoritative books"

If some books from a publisher qualify, does every single book they publish automatically qualify without question? Are is it a case by case example based on the opinions of whoever is in the AFD at the time? If a writer with no other publications publishes a book he made containing nothing but 21 interviews with various people from YouTube or elsewhere, does that count towards the notability of every single person in his book? Dream Focus 13:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no hard or fast guideline. Books should be considered case by case, even if from a normally reputable publisher. Keep in mind that today, there are a lot of publishers that simply offer to take a manuscript, clean it up for printing, and print limited runs or even electronic copies of books, with no editorial control. So in the case of the example, an unknown author providing interviews from YouTube personalities, that might help to contribute to notability but far far from sufficient to pass notability for any of those people. But if it is augmenting a lot of other clear sources for notability, it's probably fine. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just one interview in a magazine, and then this book having the guy interviewed in it, is all he has. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones Some argue that is enough. If the book isn't from a university press, but a company that exists for profit only, and it is not notable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article, I don't see why it'd be used to prove someone is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article. Does anyone agree or disagree with me on that? I'd like some feedback to see if we can change the guideline page to say that or not. Dream Focus 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's enough to avoid immediate deletion but there absolutely needs to be more sources. Just because the book press is a commercial one does not make it a bad source, but I do worry about the press's narrow coverage of electronics and programming (eg I question a bit about its independence). But this type of case would routinely be kept per "no consensus" on the basis that more sources need to be found with reasonable time for that, or else the next challenge will likely go through. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ending in "no consensus" does not mean it'll be any different if it was brought up again later. I guess any YouTube person who wants their own article, can just interview other YouTube people, easily get that published since they have YouTube fans and surely a few copies would be sold, and then use that to count towards notability. Dream Focus 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AFD is weighted towards retention of articles if there is doubt to deletion. I agree with you on the sources there not passing the usual requirements for notability we'd expect in a developed article, but they also point to the possibly more sources could exist. If after some time no new sources are found, that likely indicated the presumption was wrong and we can delete the article then. (And this should not be a hard matter of actually getting hands on sources, being a social media star purportedly) --MASEM (t) 15:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone found a source showing how popular he was. He is the 8,574th most subscribed to YouTuber, and has the 14,684th most viewed videos lately. So thousands more articles can be created for the rest I suppose. Most of those participating in the AFD are his fans, most of the KEEP votes from those who didn't give a valid reason, and said so before even the one magazine interview and the book of interviews was found. We need to just pass a rule saying as soon as you get above a certain number of YouTube subscribers you get a Misplaced Pages article to help promote you. Dream Focus 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A stat saying he's 8,575th most subscribed is not significant coverage. And if there are fans that are new editors participating for this AFD only this should be noted in the AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.... Non-notable commercial publisher. Are you sure it's a real (third-party-type) publisher, and not the author's own publishing company? Starting a "publishing company" these days is (much) easier than starting a restaurant or barber shop (no licenses needed, for one thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Their Misplaced Pages article says they were started by two writers, and changed their name from Author's Press to Apress. Their official website mentions various bestsellers they have had in the educational category. Anyway, how do you determine if a publisher is notable or not? Should it be based on how many of their books sell well or get reviews? Dream Focus 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This might get to the point of your question, in that we have to consider the accumulation of all the details of sources, and not necessarily if a source is necessarily good or bad. (Clearly there are some, like SPS, that we can discount immediately). The book and the magazine, individually, aren't bad sources, but they're not strong sources. Together, they beg the question if this person is notable beyond the small niche these sources cover. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press