Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VPM)
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

Question about page views and edits

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but if not, please direct me to the correct place. In the page information section of each page (Information for "Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)" - Wikipedia), there is a section for page views in the last 30 days as well as Total number of edits, Recent number of edits (within past 30 days), and Recent number of distinct authors. I'd like to know if there is a list of pages that detail the amount of page views in the last 30 days as well as the most edits and the authors. If there is no page that has that, could I create a page that has this information and have a bot maintain it? Or would it be better if I did something else? Please ping me when you reply. Interstellarity (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, have you seen WP:STATS? Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland I looked there, but it doesn’t have the information I need. I’m looking for something that pages from mainspace with other pages as well. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the total number of edits from both main and nonmainspace. Interstellarity (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are looking for the "External tools" section in page information. In particular, check out "Revision history statistics" and "Page view statistics". These are also linked in the view history pages, near the top. 3df (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined vs rejected at AfC

[edit]

The community who run our WP:AFC process describes articles which are referred back to their creator for further work as "declined", and articles which are utterly without merit and cannot be published as "rejected".

The use of these synonyms to mean two very different things is the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users. We see this regularly on The Teahouse and Help Desk, as this search for "declined, not rejected" in Teahouse replies shows (other permutations, of course, also exist, so that search is not exhaustive with relation to the issue I describe).

Another search shows that this is also an issue on AfC's own help pages.

Sadly, my request to that community to address this issue was rejected swiftly (and I was told "the confusion is on your end because you don't quite grasp the AFC process and terminologies", which rather missed the point that only those closely involved "grasp the AFC terminologies"!); I clearly lack the persuasive powers to cause them to do the necessary work to make the change. I appreciate that such work - with which I am willing to assist - will be a chore, but it will save far more work, in time, for other volunteers, at AfC and elsewhere, and avoid much confusion among AfC's clientele.

One AfC regular commented "This comes up semi-regularly but I've not yet seen a suggestion that gets more approval than the status-quo." Can we—together (I have notified that project of this discussion)—find and implement such a solution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the two options are pretty similar so naturally there will be some confusion among newer editors. Most new editors who have a draft declined also are not even aware that rejection is a thing and vice versa, so they can confuse the two terms. I really don't think it is even a big issue as it can easily be taught with something like The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted and that's it. Like Primefac said in the original discussion, the term "rejection" has been used since 2018, and the project evidently hasn't exploded because of it. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 11:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The options are not similar; they have opposite effect: "Continue working and this might be published" vs. "do not do any further work; this will not be published".
Reference to 2018 etc. is an "appeal to tradition" fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Do you have any suggestions for terminology? In the last thread, you suggested Referred for further work, but I think this is probably too confusing for ESL editors.
Off the top of my head, alternatives could be..
  • Needs changes
  • Not yet accepted
  • Revise and resubmit
  • Returned for edits
  • More work needed
But these all seem too wordy and fundamentally a declined draft could still be totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. I honestly feel like Declined is the best option. Perhaps then the decline banner can be modified to be Declined - changes required? qcne (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are a bit verbose. I think any new proposals should be single words. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The actual AfC script has the labels:
Decline (for later improvement & resubmission)
Reject (unsuitable topic; no option to resubmit)
Any use? qcne (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said that discussion "maybe "Referred for further work". I'm not precious about the exact phrase". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so, any more suggestions? qcne (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In many legal systems, the opposite of "Guilty" is simply "Not Guilty"; what about the opposite of "Accepted" simply being "Not Accepted"? Or is that in the same boat as "Decline" in terms of clarity? Curbon7 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have any issues with Not Accepted. @Pigsonthewing does this solve any issues you have. qcne (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also a synonym of "rejected". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I've tried to be helpful - I don't see you suggesting anything better. Let's just stick with Declined and Rejected. qcne (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not, for reasons already explained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest something? qcne (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Referred for further work isn't suitable. Suggest something else. qcne (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing Declined for Not accepted, I think it would avoid confusion with "rejection for new editors. NeoGaze (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing two words, might as well go with the more helpful Changes needed. Otherwise, I'd recommend Deferred. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is {{AfC submission/declined}}. Many of these suggestions simply don't fit grammatically in the template ("Submission revise and resubmit by Example") or sound silly ("Submission needs changes by Example") or awkward ("Submission not yet accepted by Example;" the negative phrasing combined with the "by Example" is off to me). OutsideNormality (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're looking for past-tense verbs, Deferred (as I suggested above) might work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that “declined” and “rejected” are too similar to be helpful for newer editors. “Revise and resubmit” seems the best option suggested so far. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same with block and ban. And many confuse infinite with indefinite, thinking that an indefinite ban means the editor can no longer edit Wikipedia for good. Outside of Wikipedia, decline and reject are interchangeable. Because the project is designed for new editors, perhaps we should reduce Wikipedia jargon. Newbies and readers of Wikipedia won't know what AfD (they think of the German political party instead), XfD, GNG, NPOL, AN(I), TEA, DYK, GA, FA, GAN, FAC, FAR, ITN, etc is all about. JuniperChill (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For anyone curious, those acronyms stand for: articles for deletion, general notability guideline, notability [for] politicians, administrators noticeboard ([for] incidents), teahouse, did you know, good article, featured article, good article nominations, featured article candidates, featured article review, in the news.)
I believe regardless of what terms are used, authors will still ask "why was my article rejected". People take it as a rejection, so will ask why it was rejected. Submitters who know they can edit and resubmit and have done so still ask "why was my article rejected again". If we changed declined to "Referred for further work", the only difference is people would not respond with "it was declined, not rejected" but "it was referred for further work, not rejected". So we could change 'rejected' as well, but then we would be explaining "it was referred for further work, not rejected we don't reject". For example: see this pre rejection existing in 2016 I've been working on a draft of a musician's biography, which has been rejected. As such it is probably a non-fixable issue. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear although I don't think changing the terms will stop people asking why a submission was rejected, I'm totally fine with changing declined to not accepted or not approved. I don't like terms that suggest that all they have to do is make the correct changes and it will be accepted as for many subjects the sources may just not exist. KylieTastic (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if we could find a term that is positive, rather than negative. Maybe something like "Awaiting improvement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KylieTastic above as this is an issue that has no simple solution. It is not necessarily the terminology, but how it is perceived. Any process that allows a draft to not be accepted will be perceived by the author that the draft is being rejected. No matter which word we choose to describe the process, it will always come down to ”I submitted my draft, but they rejected it!” Especially since AfC is largely used by brand new editors that don’t have a grasp on the intricacies of Wikipedia’s endless WP:RULEBOOK, any terminology or process will be foreign. cyberdog958Talk 13:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that there's a huge rulebook hurdle, we can try to adapt our language and wording so as to be more clear. I don't think just changing the terms decline and/or reject is enough. We need better, clearer communication in the "decline process". If the full message is softer and explains the difference between "decline" and "reject", we might help some users understand better. Since this issue is as much about how our language usage is perceived as it is what language we use, we should probably poll a sampling of users who have received a "decline" to get a sense of what they would find more helpful. (Not that I think they know, but a conversation with the community of "editors who have had a draft declined" may spark a better solution than just the same wonks talking to themselves...) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true! Changing these two specific words almost certainly wouldn't help as much as adding more advice and information to the messages more generally. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the actual authors of the declined drafts what would help them understand the process better is an interesting idea. I could of swore one of the regulars at the Help Desk had a user space essay that had a good explanation about the differences between “declined” and “rejected”, but I can’t find it. cyberdog958Talk 19:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the message that goes on the editor's talk page says Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time., while the Teahouse invite says Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. The one on the draft says Submission declined on. Maybe be consistent on all three by using "not accepted"? S0091 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wonder if we just change the Teahouse one if that would make a difference. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there's a clear case for a change, if you're being reguarly misunderstood then saying "people should just understand me better" is kind of ridiclious, and it's not how communication really woks. I'd like to suggeest that rejected stay as rejected and that declined be rephrased as not approved which is almost as brief but doesn't have the sense of finality to it. This would lead to clear statements like "your draft was not approved, so you can/should keep work on it". -- D'n'B-📞 -- 14:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new to this concept; I've only ever made two submissions to AfC, and both were accepted, so I wasn't aware of the "declined"/"rejected" distinction until seeing this discussion. With that huge caveat, and based on absolutely no further research into the topic, my first impression is that these terms do feel too similar. For "Declined", how about something like Needs improvement, or as @D'n'B said above, Not approved? For "Rejected", I was going to suggest either "Unsuitable" or "Unworkable", but "Unsuitable" doesn't feel final enough and "Unworkable" might be so harsh as to exacerbate tensions. Still, even if "Rejected" is kept, a change to something significantly less decisive than "Declined" would definitely help to clear up some of the confusion among new editors, I think. As I said though, take all of this with a big pinch of "I don't really know what I'm talking about" salt. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pineapple Storage Not knowing what youre talking about is exactly the kind of salt required here - the issue at hand is that the communication is peppered with subjectivity by highly seasoned editors. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually going to suggest something like Needs improvement or, per Mathglot, Needs more work. I think something along these lines helps to communicate that the door is still open if the submitter puts in the work. (I have no bright ideas about the "rejected" wording.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that these two terms need changing. That's for two separate reasons. First, as Pigsonthewing mentioned, "declined" sounds too similar to "rejected". But secondly, for editors who submit drafts that could potentially be publishable with some additional work, we want them to keep working on the draft, not to feel bitten and give up. "Declined" sounds much more final than we intend it to be. For that reason, I prefer needs changes. But as second choice, I support other less harsh alternatives over the status quo. I find the effort needed to modify templates or our inability to all agree on a 100% perfect alternative to be unpersuasive arguments for retaining the status quo and hope the closer takes that into account. Of course, we do need to be careful about using the two options correctly, since it's not nice (and causes resentment) to tell someone to do extra work when there's no hope of that work paying off. But that's always been part of the work of AfC reviewing. Sdkb talk 19:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb the current message that goes on the submitter's talk page says Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. It does not use the term "declined". S0091 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree they need changing (and made the identical proposal somewhere before). How about:
    Permanently rejected – this topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and unfortunately, no amount of work on the draft will change that. Please find another topic.
    Needs more work – it looks likely that this topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before it can be approved.
  • Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot Unfortunately, that won't work.
    Rejected: An article can be un-rejected if there was an error in the reviewer's reasoning or if the draft has been substantially changed since the last review.
    Declined: Quite often a declined article actually isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and sometimes leads to a rejection after repeated reviews. qcne (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy your argument. An Rfc close can be undone by review, but that doesn't mean the original close cannot or should not be made. The fact that no single reviewer's decision is immune from later consensus to overturn doesn't mean you cannot declare one. Anything can be overturned; even indef blocks. Even if multiple reviewers say 'it looks likely that this topic may be suitable' and then get overturned by an even larger consensus later, that is no reason that thy should not in good conscience give their original reviews at the outset. Your status-quo vote echo has all the weaknesses pointed out in the OP. I stand by my original suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot I haven't made any vote on this topic, I don't know why you think that. Please strike. I am just pointing out that "Permanently rejected" is untrue, and "Needs more work" may give false hope. qcne (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redacted. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "this topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before that can be determined."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a good start. Take a look at User talk:Thatisreallycool223 for the current messages (AfC decline and the additional note about the Teahouse). We would need to change both of them. For the decline, maybe "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. This topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before it can be accepted for the following reasons left by X". S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between "declined" and "rejected" is well understood, and frequently explained, by hosts at the Teahouse and Help desk. Some of the documentation and templates could be better written, but changing the terminology will just cause confusion. Maproom (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Well understood, and frequently explained" – hmm, do those two go together? The difference between "accepted" and "rejected" is well understood, and *never* explained at Teahouse or Help desk. Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom is correct, in that the terminology is indeed well understood by the people explaining it. However, the problem is that it is not well understood by anyone else.
I addressed this specific issue in a parenthetical comment in the fourth paragraph of my original post here, which they seem to have overlooked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now ask a random sampling of Wikipedians who aren't regulars at the Treehouse or AfC what the difference is, and I imagine it would be quite a different story. Heck, I have reviewed hundreds of drafts for AfC, and I'm not sure I could tell you which is which off the top of my head without looking at the tool. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that we don't need to change both terms necessarily, if one of them is already clear. In terms of confusing experienced reviewers, updating templates and software, etc, less term changing is better. Of what I've seen so far, one proposal might be to change declined to Needs improvement, and leave Rejected the same. (I am pointing this out as the least bad option here, but am still leaning towards keeping the status quo.)
    One downside of terms like "needs improvement" though is it cannot be used as a verb easily (i.e. "I declined the draft" vs "I marked the draft as needs improvement"). This means it is likely to morph into an acronym such as NI ("I NI'd the draft"), which is also unreadable to newbies, leading us back to square one.
    Also, as the main software engineer / maintainer of AFC's tools right now, this has the potential to create a lot of work for me. This kind of change would require updates to WP:AFCH and https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/, and probably break a lot of quarry queries and reports related to searching for decline and reject counts. There's also a bunch of templates that would need updating by someone.
    Finally, someone above points out that Wikipedians frequently use precise words to differentiate between wiki-concepts. For example blocked vs banned and infinite vs indefinite. There is plenty of precedent for having a word pair such as declined vs rejected.
    Talking this out has crystallized my thoughts. For these reasons I oppose any change and prefer the status quo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Combine the terms, since people are using 'rejected' to mean both things anyway, and this version of the draft is being rejected, in non-jargon. Rejected pending improvement vs Rejected - do not resubmit. No more "Actually, your draft wasn't rejected", just "Your draft was rejected, so here are your options, as they have been explained to you." 207.11.240.2 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Novem Linguae. There is nothing wrong with the terminology. The problem is expecting submitters to use the terminology precisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think that there is nothing wrong with the terminology, one suggestion was made which is Not Accepted which I think is at least as good as Declined. I disagree with any of the other proposed changes in terminology, because most of them imply that the draft will be accepted when changes are made. We don't want the submitter to think that we are promising that their draft will be accepted with more work. That would be a worse terminological problem than we now have. A simple Not Accepted seems reasonable, as long as we don't try to imply that it either will or will not be accepted. It is very important, in my opinion, not to give the submitter the impression that their draft is provisionally or conditionally accepted (except in the rare cases that it is). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Terminology and Patience

[edit]

I may have a moderately short statement and a moderately long statement, so I will try to write the shorter statement now. Wikipedia, like many activities, has terminology that is used in specialized ways. Any scientific activity has its own vocabulary, including many words that are in everyday use, but have very precise meanings when used by scientists. A lay person may use the words 'force', 'energy', and 'power' interchangeably. A scientist or engineer never will, because 'force', 'energy', and 'power', while related, have different units of measurement. However, an engineer, in discussing an electric bill with a lay person, will know that the issue is how much energy was used and is being billed. If someone has a question about how much power they are being billed for, the answer is not to explain that power is energy per unit time, but to answer how much energy they are being billed for. That is, the specialized person should be able to discuss without making an issue about the correctness of terminology.

The problem that I see is not so much that the difference between decline and rejection is not understood or is not clear. The problem is that some reviewers make an unnecessary issue about correcting the terminology. If an author asks, "Why was my draft rejected?", saying that it was not rejected, but declined, is answering the wrong question. The right answer is to say: "Your draft was declined because you did not show that the band meets any of the musical notability criteria," or, "Your draft was declined because your sources are not reliable sources, or, "Your draft was rejected because it appears to be a hoax." That is, answer the question that the person would ask if they knew the terminology.

I don't think that changing the terminology is an answer. Answering the intended question politely but precisely is the answer. Tell why the draft was declined.

That was neither short nor long. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert said:

The problem that I see is not so much that the difference between decline and rejection is not understood or is not clear.

The OP (and many others) saw that as precisely the problem, and labeled it as the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users. Imho, that is undoubtedly the case, and at the root of the problem. Reviewers should certainly not lecture submitters about terminology confusion (or anything else), but that is merely a side effect of the real problem, which is the terminology. I understand from this discussion that changing the terms would be onerous for a number of reasons, and is not going to happen. That does not, however, change the actual locus of the problem. We just have to accept that the problem is a permanent one. Given that, anything that can be done to mitigate it, such as your suggestion to finesse the issue by responding to the user's intent without reference to their actual wording, is a good thing. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I understand from this discussion that changing the terms ... is not going to happen"
Really? I see one volunteer maintainer disinclined to do that work, but we are not (or if we are, we have a bigger problem!) reliant on one person.
Otherwise, I don't see those who do not see this as an issue as having consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope that you are right. Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

[edit]

Some of the discussion above is focused on finding a way to inform draft submitters of the action that was taken on their drafts that is clear and does not use jargon. I think that 'declined' and 'rejected' are fine. Neither of them is jargon. The distinction between the two terms is jargon. The problem has not been the use of jargon. The problem has been that some reviewers have been scolding some submitters for not understanding the jargon. The solution is for the reviewers to recognize that submitters do not know the terminological distinction, and just answer the question. As we have seen, trying to rewrite the phrases used for clarity while avoiding jargon is resulting in proposed phrases that are long and wordy. A long and wordy explanation after the statement that the draft has been declined or rejected is useful, but is not a reason why we need to change the lead statement. If a submitter asks, "Why was my draft rejected?", the answer should be, "Your draft was declined because you did not show that the band meets any of the musical notability criteria. You may expand the draft to show how the band satisfies any of the criteria, with reliable sources, and resubmit the draft."

The problem isn't that the distinction between 'declined' and 'rejected' isn't obvious. The problem is that some reviewers scold the submitter for not knowing the distinction. Sometimes jargon should be used with a technical sense that conveys meaning to those who know what the technical terms are. What is important is to recognize that the technical distinctions are not known to the questioners.

If someone asks, "How much electrical power was I billed for?", the answer is, "You were billed for 1500 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy" without scolding the customer. It isn't necessary to provide an explanation of the difference between power and energy.

We don't need to change the terminology. We need to avoid lecturing the submitters about terminology. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to change the terminology. We need to avoid lecturing the submitters about terminology. Indeed. I myself gave up trying to get experienced editors to stop doing this years ago. Glad to see someone's still attempting to fight the good fight. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two problems are not mutually exclusive; both exist and both need to be addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 1: User talk page

[edit]

In an attempt to make some progress on this it should be noted that user talk page notice {{AfC decline}} does not use the word decline itself instead using "has not been accepted...", it's the Teahouse welcome {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation}} that uses decline twice. This could easily be changed similarly to remove all the declines from the talk page without having to change all the tools, templates and script etc that use decline/reject. The edit summary for the AfC decline notice still says decline as does the template on the submission itself, but changing the Teahouse welcome seems sensible to align the Teahouse message with the existing AfC one. Thoughts? KylieTastic (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental improvements such as these would be a good thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Giving False Hope

[edit]

Several of the proposals for renaming the Decline action would be serious mistakes because they would give false hope to submitters whose drafts will not be approved even after more work. The large majority of drafts will not be approved, and the review should neither imply that the draft can be approved with more work, or that the draft will never be approved. Some of the proposals, such as More Work Needed, Needs Changes, or Revise and Resubmit, imply that the draft will be accepted with more work or with changes. It is even more unfair and more discouraging to give a signal to submitters that their drafts will be accepted, if they probably will not, than to imply too soon that they will not be accepted.

The initial feedback that most submitters get should be neither encouraging nor discouraging. We should avoid wording that will give false hope. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not accepted wouldn't have that issue, as it doesn't imply a future approval and is more distinctive from Rejected than Declined NeoGaze (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Data would be helpful here. It would be useful to have actual statistics about the number of drafts [that] will not be approved. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that data exists as you would need to have a tool that looked at declined drafts just before deleted as G13, all submission and accepts. However, I will say as someone who has been doing AfC for 10+ years there is a high percentage of "probably is not notable now or in the near future" submissions. We have the three options at the moment but in reality there are more cases: accept as good; accept as passable; declined just needs some work; declined but not enough to guess at notability; declined but probably is not notable; rejected (bitey so mostly used to only when needed to stop resubmission). Accepts in a month range from 10-20% (the lower usually more junk submission rather than less good ones), so with re-work and re-submission I would pure guess 25-40% max (probably 20-30%) get accepted in the end but I've never seen data to verify. KylieTastic (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that is a helpful contribution based on long experience, and may affect what wording is optimal. How do you see those stats wrt Robert's comment, and would you leave the wording as is, or change it, and why? Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that with Robert that we should not indicate that all submitters need to do is improve and it can be accepted. Many of the wording options are unsuitable as we do not want to indicate to a user that there is hope when there is little to none. Ideally we would find a way to encourage less terrible submissions in the first place: so many clearly do not understand the basics notability, sourcing and neutrality. I do think for ease of tooling we can keep decline/reject in the back end (ie in AFCH options and even edit summaries) but I think the messaging to users in the various templates can and should be improved, which is why I tried with suggestion 1 above. In general I think "Not accepted" is a good general phrasing for the {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation}} and the {{AfC submission/declined}} messages as can be viewed at: {{AfC submission/declined/testcases}}, and maybe other places. KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with find a way to encourage less terrible submissions in the first place, but given that that horse as already left the barn wrt this discussion, what should we do when that hasn't happened, is the question. Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Accepted

[edit]

I think that we have a local consensus that changing the wording to Not Accepted is a good idea. I think that a next step is an RFC to change the wording. This discussion has been the discussion before the RFC. My question is whether the RFC should be launched here or at the Articles for Creation talk page, and my suggestion is that it be launched at the Articles for Creation talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it should be at the AfC Talk Page. qcne (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out early on in this discussion, "not accepted" is also a synonym of "rejected" (and for that matter, of "declined"), and will not address the issue I raised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that Declined and Rejected look too similar, and many editors get confused. Of course these two terms are almost synonymous, but in the process of accepting articles they convey different meanings. Other people have suggested More Work Needed, Needs Changes, or Revise and Resubmit but the issue with these is that it gives the impression that a draft may be accepted if it is "good enough", no matter if the subject is notable or not, among other things. I don't think there is a better word or phrase we can use (at least there isn't one that I am aware of), but at least "not accepted" is more dinstinctive than "Declined", which can give the impression to new editors that the draft has been rejected as I have seen on the Help page of the AFC. NeoGaze (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that "not accepted" will be read differently to "declined" or "rejected".
Write all three on a piece of paper, give it to someone who doesn't know about Wikipedia, and ask them if one of the three means the opposite of the other two, and if so, which. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... we're not looking for an "opposite" (which would be "accepted" anyway...). Your entire issue is that you can't stand people having to clarify the difference between "rejected" and "declined" at TEA, and you want a new term. The popular option here is "not accepted" which is distinctly different from those two options, and now you want something else? Primefac (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Your entire issue is that you can't stand people having to clarify the difference between "rejected" and "declined" at TEA"
Don't attempt to speak for me; you are clearly ill-equipped to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do elucidate your issue, and why you're still not happy when consensus seems to have been met on a problem you brought up? qcne (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of these synonyms to mean two very different things is the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users."
The purported consensus fails utterly to address this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're in the minority opinion. qcne (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point Andy, but the issue is that we can't find a term that is actually different that also doesn't bring other problems. We can keep thinking about this and put our proposals in the future if a better term is found, but in the meantime, there are several people (myself included) that agree that changing the wording, if not the actual meaning, would improve the situation. Also I think we should make a poll to see how much support this change would actually get, to see how broad of a consensus there is or if people prefer the status quo. NeoGaze (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is underway at the Articles for Creation talk page. Please participate in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this discussion should be closed so as to direct further discussion to the RFC on the Articles for Creation talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for Chealer

[edit]

Hello, this message is to notify that Chealer has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SHB2000 - I think that this notice should be posted at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I haven't had any dealings with that user, but the history does make a case for a global ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'll post a notice there as per the local community wish. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost never participate in these discussions, but – wow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWC 2025 Edit-a-thon Follow-up & Request for Community Guidance

[edit]

Hi everyone, I hope you're well. I'm writing on behalf of the team behind the Africa Wiki Challenge (AWC) 2025, which is currently wrapping up in the next 3 days. We've been working to support and train new editors across Africa to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, with an emphasis on alignment with core community guidelines and quality. We recently noticed that several participant accounts have been blocked during the event. While we understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards and policies, we’d appreciate guidance on how we can engage better with the editing community moving forward—particularly when organizing outreach programs of this scale. Additionally, if possible, we’d like to request community consideration or direction for a review of the following participant accounts:

We want to ensure that if any policies were unintentionally violated, we can take the necessary steps to address them, support editor development, and avoid similar situations in the future. DAnane(OFWA) (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like @Mz7 and @Asilvering were discussing this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crab44/Archive. Also pinging Canterbury Tail, whose name I noticed in the block longs.
Basically the problem is this: There is no technical way for us to differentiate between:
  • Alice logs in and tries to make an edit.
  • Alice logs out so Bob can have a turn at the same computer.
  • Bob logs in and tries to make an edit.
  • Bob logs out so Chris can have a turn at the same computer.
etc. (which would be fine!) and this problem:
  • Oscar logs in to one account and makes an edit.
  • Then he logs out of the first account and logs into his second account.
  • Oscar makes an edit in his second account.
  • Then he logs out of the second account and logs into his third account.
etc. This is because we can't see Alice getting up from the chair, offering to let Bob have his turn, etc. (or Oscar staying right there the whole time). All we know is one account logged in, made a weak edit, and then logged out, followed by a second account doing the same thing at the same place/device. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is more than that: if the edits were constructive, absolutely no one would have noticed or cared. These edits, however, were LLM-generated or violated other English Wikipedia policies/norms. To some degree, this is unavoidable. It doesn't matter how clear you are about the expectations; some people involved will simply not listen to what you are saying. (I say this with extensive teaching experience and great sympathy.) But this issue can be significantly reduced by making it very clear to participants that using AI and/or multiple accounts is not allowed, that communication is required, and, critically, by having an experienced English Wikipedia editor as part of the team. If you'd had one, they would have pointed out that the list of topics was, at least for en-wiki's purposes, a total nonstarter, and that would have reduced a lot of the friction here. Would a better list have helped? Well... maybe. As someone who teaches early-year undergraduates, my optimism on this point is basically zero. The way forward might be to ditch the list.
I realize that "get a highly experienced en-wiki editor onboard" is much easier said than done. The best way to do it is to become highly experienced en-wiki editors yourselves. If you try that method: welcome! My talk page is always open if you want help. There's also WP:TEA, WP:IRC, and WP:DISCORD. But again, the core problem is that most people are not "Wikipedia naturals" and it's not easy to "train" someone who isn't. You've got your work cut out for you.
See also User talk:Jael28#Article list. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
using [...] multiple accounts is not allowed. Is it possible that they had their edit-a-thon participants make unique accounts, and just logged them in from the same computer / internet cafe / internet connection? If so, that sounds fine to me. One account per person, on the same IP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask Mz7; I can't see the data. I think that's plausible. But if the pattern of disruption continues across accounts, they'll get blocked either way. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to ping Zzuuzz here as they reached out to me on my talk page to discuss these blocks: User talk:Mz7#Crab44. Unfortunately, I was not aware that the edit-a-thon was in progress until shortly after I made the blocks. I definitely considered immediately unblocking these accounts upon learning of the edit-a-thon, but the reason I have not done so yet is because beyond just sockpuppetry, there are several behavioral issues shared among many of these accounts that seem quite disruptive.
  • It would appear that many of these accounts are using LLMs to post poor-quality AI-generated content to Wikipedia. For example, administrators can see the way that Prempy was editing on the now-deleted article Role of social media in the modern reparations movement and compare it to the edits that Yirwelle Angela made on the same article—many of these accounts like to submit dozens of small edits where usually editors would submit just one or a few (which looks like an attempt to game extended-confirmed; oftentimes the edits stop mid-sentence, for example). See also the deleted edits by Dalvin23 to The Restitution of Benin Bronzes: A Case for Cultural Reparations; that account was blocked previously by asilvering for this behavior and then later unblocked by Newslinger on the condition that they would not use LLMs to make edits.
  • Multiple other accounts in the group above have engaged in changing English varieties disruptively: see e.g. [1][2][3][4].
  • Similarly, multiple accounts involved seem to change date formats disruptively: see [5][6][7].
It is concerning to me that these accounts seem to be coordinating to apply these disruptive behaviors across many articles, which is why I think that these blocks may still be necessary. But I also think Zzuuzz made convincing arguments on my talk page that maybe the right thing to do would be to unblock these accounts for the time being, and if they continue their disruptive behavior even now that the edit-a-thon is done, then they may be re-blocked directly for the specific disruptive behavior, rather than for "sockpuppetry", which does not seem like a correct block reason at this point. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instructing your edit-a-thon participants to not use AI/LLM would probably help. When these blocks happen, an organizer posting on the blocking admin's talk page with an explanation would probably also help, and is your best chance to get a quick unblock. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How (not) to spam

[edit]

An editor seems to have been assigned in writing the task of adding advertising to the article on Travel insurance. I say this because when they made this edit, they pasted in not just the ad but also the instructions they'd been given for doing that. Largoplazo (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the diff. It's interesting that the employer emphasizes the importance of a non-promotional style:
Important characteristics:
keeps the objective, factual tone that Wikipedia requires.
ends with a natural reference to UIC as a regional example.
Links to the official UIC website for confirmation
blends in seamlessly with the current policy types and coverage content
gives background information on the regulatory framework (SECP).
Except for their requirement of a non-WP:INDY WP:PRIMARY source, the rest of this is not unreasonable (e.g., we do occasionally want to name an example from different regions of the world). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be an LLM note explaining what it has produced, rather than an employer's brief? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's correct, I've been seeing some spammers use LLMs to generate plausible text to hide WP:REFSPAM within. The "instructions" above will be reflective of what was requested in the initial prompt. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New essay: Past and future of Wikipedia

[edit]

Hello. I've written this new essay. Of course, improvements are welcome. I hope it helps to think more about long-term continuity of Wikipedia and its sister projects, and their contents (and also short-term, that is also implicit in long-term). Both the human community and the technical aspects are important, but these last ones are often taken for granted, as if data had not physical existence, and as if thinking about its preservation was the last of priorities. The section about the past helps to value what we have already achieved, which is no small thing. The section about the future talks about ideas that should be avoided, since they may threaten the future growth and the preservation of already existing content, and, finally, how a succesful future could be achieved. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is interesting. It is not only about Wikipedia.
Therefore , I don't know if Wikipedia is the right place to store it.
I don't know if there are essays on "MetaWiki".

It was for me a pleasure to read this essay. I like it. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your words :-)
Yes, it also covers the other WMF projects, but always as part of a whole, whose center is Wikipedia. The other projects are seen as extensions of Wikipedia, as it's said in the essay (for example, many images in Wikimedia Commons can hardly be considered as something separate, since they are shown inside Wikipedia articles). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can post essays at Meta-Wiki if you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles about areas of Kuwait have unclear notability

[edit]

I think most Wikipedia articles about an area of Kuwait have unclear notability. What do I do? FSlolhehe (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can WP:AFD one, see how it goes, then if it closed as delete, AFD some of the others. Please carefully read WP:GEOLAND first though. Sometimes places qualify easily without needing to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also assume that most of these areas pass WP:GEOLAND… and are likely to have sources that discuss them - remember that the sources don’t have to be in English, so check for Kuwaiti sources (if you don’t read Arabic, there are other editors who do, and you can ask for their help). Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar I'm not fluent in Arabic but I can translate, and I will check these Kuwaiti Arabic sources out. Also, are these Kuwaiti Arabic sources enough to achieve a featured article rating for the articles about the areas? FSlolhehe (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in any language are enough to achieve the FA rating. (But trying to jump all the way to FA status is not usually successful. Maybe try to get it up to a solid WP:B-class first?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FSlolhehe, I see you speak Arabic. How good are you at finding things like Kuwaiti government documents on the web? Looking at Abdullah Al-Salem as an example, the (four) sources are all in English, which is probably the wrong thing. If you could find a geography or history textbook about Kuwait, or things like a census report on a government website, then those could make very good sources for improving those articles. Non-English sources are 100% acceptable at the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I'm not fluent in Arabic but I can translate. And a textbook with the most recent data about all areas of Kuwait would be great, although I'm not sure that textbook exists. FSlolhehe (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to look at the articles in other wikipedias and see if there are useful sources there: there seem to be sources in the Arabic and Farsi articles on Abdullah Al-Salem.
And note "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" from WP:GEOLAND, so if "Areas" are officially recognized, proof of existence is really all that we need for notability. There are probably many more important dubiously-notable articles to worry about. PamD 09:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FSlolhehe, the article probably shouldn't focus on "the most recent data". Articles on these subjects frequently need to say more about geography ("contains one mountain and two rivers") and history ("was created in 1955 by...") than about demographics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through Category:Populated places in Kuwait and tagged stuff as unsourced, as well as removing a ton of unnotable text. Honestly, I've been on Wikipedia a while and these articles about these towns in countries outside of Europe, Canada, and the USA, are often unsourced/very poorly sourced and feature a lot of puffery and unnotable material. A good chunk of my edits just involve tagging these articles and removing unnotable content from them. It's kind of ridiculous. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Actually that's the reason I made this discussion in the first place. I really doubt that these unsourced meet notability at all (Even if they have "presumed" notability). FSlolhehe (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of wikijargon, the content of a Wikipedia article shouldn't be WP:Notable; for the content to be notable, that would mean that the content of article A got so much media attention that it qualified for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article (←a redirect to the WP:Notability guideline).
Content that doesn't belong in an article might be WP:UNDUE or too WP:MINORASPECT, or even excluded because of WP:NOTTRIVIA. But not because it's "unnotable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dang, guess i've been screwing up with my edit summaries. Not that the information should've been in the article, but I've been using the wrong term. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced at a couple of your edits, and while a few might be contested (e.g., noting the existence of a shopping mall is fair; however, what was written about that particular one was practically an advertisement), overall I thought your edits were reasonable enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaismagorm Out of curiosity I looked at one of your "not notable" removals, but I disagreed and have reinstated the sentence you didn't like in Humansdorp, though tagged it as needing citation. Please don't be too ruthless in removing statements you don't find interesting. Thanks. PamD 23:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the edits that I thought was contestable. Heritage trees can be something noteworthy or special about a place. There's a series of "Official South African Municipal Yearbook" sources from the 1960s that appear to describe many of the cities, but of course it's so old that it'd have to be treated like a WP:PRIMARY source. Still, it might give us an idea of what was considered relevant at that point in time, if anyone can get access to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD ah okay my bad. I'll make sure to try to be a bit more careful with removing content. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other ones looked problematic though, right? Gaismagorm (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically worried about the edits to hankey. If anybody feels like the edits had issues, please let me know. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Hankey, the article seems to have quite a few other issues: lots of uncited content (might be covered in existing refs, but needs refs to show), mixed "meters" (does SA really use US spelling?) and "feet", neither converted; unlinked unfamiliar terms (mielies, Khoi, Mfengho, etc). Removing drowned child probably sensible: comments on the opening might have been ok if sourced. PamD 06:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only looked at one example! PamD 06:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaismagorm, in my spot check, I didn't see any that were actually, definitely bad. I'd have reverted anything that was actually bad. I saw a couple (I think it was three: the shopping mall and trees ones, and one other that I can't remember now) that were "Eh, someone might disagree, but it's clearly not unreasonable" range. Most of them looked good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yipee, awesomesauce! Gaismagorm (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot NG Needs You!

[edit]

Damian has been working hard to bring the Report and Review interfaces back. We are now happy to announce that all is ready!

Report Interface: We need Wikipedians to assist with clearing the backlog of false positive reports

Review Interface: This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained.

Please reply under this message if you want to get involved - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essay I wrote about avoiding a subject's self-descriptions

[edit]

WP:AVOIDSELF. I've repeatedly seen people say things like "we need to describe this [person/organization/etc] the way they describe themselves, not the way critics do", which I think is a stark misreading of several policies, so I wrote this essay as a sort of canned response to it. I'm curious what people think. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Common issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting for this to crash into things like MOS:GENDERID. Leaving aside that whole topic area, I disagree with your premise that we shouldn't even mention the subject's self-identification and the associated primary-source paranoia, but I do agree that the general wikivoice should follow the sources. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to say that MOS:GENDERID creates a special exception (the reason it is necessary; if it didn't exist then we wouldn't do what it says), but in any case it's a bit different from what's described here because someone's gender is not usually unduly self-serving as described under WP:ABOUTSELF. This is more about someone describing themselves in more flattering terms than the sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in seeing you apply this to National Council on Severe Autism, where an editor has been trying to remove references to severe autism because critics (which, when you trace it to the bottom, means internet forums of people without severe autism) dislike the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's only tangentially related? Glancing over it, it seems like that article only cites the subject for trivial details like the date it was founded or who the director is, which is fine. The only thing that leaped out at me is some possible WP:SYNTH issues with the first sentence of the "Views on Autism" section, which seems to be using sources that don't mention the NCoSA to argue for their position. (Autism awareness in the media and popular culture primarily depicts, and even glamorizes,  people with milder forms of autism, while the people with more severe or more impaired forms get less attention) - it should be written to use sources that actually talk about NCoSA. Everything else in that section seems fine and is attributed to secondary sources summarizing their views rather than the NCoSA itself. One thing that does leap out at me with regards to the question you asked - do the sources actually use the term "severe autism" unattributed? Many of the ones I glance at it attribute it to NCoSA. We can still use it in that case, but we would have to reflect their attribution (eg. what they call... rather than treating their framing as fact.) That's not directly related to the essay but it's tangentially related in that it shows why we need to use independent sources, because how they handle the framing presented by an advocacy group can tell us how we should cover it. I would also be extremely reluctant to use the book by Liam O'Dell for unattributed statements in the article voice, because it's specifically presented as staking out a heterodox position (ie. O'Dell says he's critiquing a failure by the scientific community and what he calls the "autism industry", which, to me, means he's stating that his position is not part of the academic or scientific mainstream.) It's still usable as a source, but it requires attribution both due to being WP:BIASED and due to specifically presenting its position as the minority side in an ongoing academic dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Severe autism is "only tangentially related" to an advocacy group whose focus is on severe autism?
You might want to look at the older versions, too. The first sentence used to say "The National Council on Severe Autism is an American non-profit organization that advocates for children and adults who require constant, lifelong supervision and support because of severe autism." Would you wish to avoid that "self-description"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute you linked is only tangentially related to my essay, I mean. If you want to argue that a group's position is seen as scientifically mainstream, you need to cite sources about the group. Saying "this group is focused on severe autism; here's a bunch of sources that don't mention this group at all but which use the term severe autism; ergo, I'm implying the group's position is legitimate" is WP:SYNTH. You have lots of sources that talk about the group, use them. Now, the other question (regarding the old first sentence) is more connected to my essay - the question is, was it cited to an independent source? If it's cited to a good independent source, sure. If it's cited directly to NCoSA's website or something that isn't independent, no way. (Also, I can't help but notice that severe autism, which you wikilinked, is a redirect to classic autism, which is also, actually, the term used in some of the sources on the NCoSA's webpage. While the former doesn't necessarily mean anything, it reminded me to point out the latter, which suggests that we should probably be using the term classic autism and not severe autism ourselves. It's important to be cautious and say only what the sources actually support; in situations where the subject's framing and the framing used by independent secondary sources differ, we have to use the latter.) But really, this is a digression and is probably better discussed on the talk page of the article in question. --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a general question, though.
It'd kind of hard to say "Nah, they called themselves 'group to do X' but they don't actually want to do that". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the name, but we could only describe themselves that way otherwise if secondary sources did. Their name might imply it, and we can't "correct" the name unless secondary sources do, since that would delve into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; but neither can we endorse the implications of their name without independent sourcing to back it up. If we want for the Foundation to Support Animal Protection to be described as a group that wants to support animal protection then we'd need a secondary source... which, usually, shouldn't be hard to find. If it is hard to find then that's an indication that we should be very cautious with our wording; it doesn't mean that we can go "well the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has to be a democracy, it has democratic right in its name!" We're not compelled to go (not actually a democracy) every time the name comes up, no, but we can't go beyond the absolute bare minimum of using the name in a way that might imply it's actually a democracy when no independent source supports that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean secondary (e.g., analytical) sources, or do you mean independent (no conflict of interest) sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Oops, mostly I meant independent... though when using an independent primary source it would depend on how it is used and what it is used for, since it is very easy to end up with WP:OR. It would have to flatly what we're citing it for and couldn't be used in a way that implies things that it doesn't explicitly state, which is often an issue in this context. I mean the usual point where this sort of dispute has is when people are arguing over the big-picture analysis of what an organization stands for, which is usually something we'd use secondary sources for (although technically it's less "a primary source is no good for this" and more "if it does this then it is a secondary source, surely.")--Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think all you've done is replaced one biased source (the subject themselves or those associated with them) with another biased source (those who hate or are intrinsically opposed to the subject). We would no more permit the UK Labour party to enthusiastically describe its latest housebuilding programme in Wikivoice than we should allow the UK Conservative party or Reform or Greens to describe Labour's latest housebuilding programme in Wikivoice. Nor, with attribution, would "the opposition" be any more worthy of note than "the government". There is a natural bias among all editors to regard our own position as neutral and right, and to consider voices that agree with our position as sensible. But that may not align with NPOV. I wouldn't want to read an article on Christianity written from viewpoint of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins yet that is precisely what occurs in some topics.
The essay WP:INDEPENDENT is I think a little conflicted about its purpose. It says things like:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.
and
Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article.
While it goes on to explain having either a positive or negative "interest" in a subject, it limits this somewhat to financial or legal association, and this I think isn't helpful when the topic is viewpoints themselves and organisations that hold them, compared to a more typical issue of company or personal self promotion. It goes on to say
Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea.
and gives a somewhat unhelpful example about education. Later a caption says
It doesn't matter if you love it or hate it. If you aren't selling it, you're probably an independent source about it.
I'd argue these explanations aren't useful when we are talking about a viewpoint or describing people or organisations that have a viewpoint, compared with commercial subjects. In the field of promoting this or that viewpoint, "standing to gain from it" means gaining support for your viewpoint and arousing hostility for opposing viewpoints. Ego and self belief are as important as money.
These issues with one essay aside, we prize sources that we expect would "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". Citing sources that hate the topic will every cell in their bodies is just as flawed as citing sources that believe in it from their core.
I'd also argue the essentialness of independence is clearly more likely to be raised if some editors are opposed to the subject. I don't think anyone minds much that Cancer Research UK says Cancer Research UK conducts research using both its own staff and grant-funded researchers. It also provides information about cancer and runs campaigns aimed at raising awareness and influencing public policy." and cites three annual reports by the organisation itself. I mean, who better to write a pithy summary of what one is about than the organisation itself, and honestly, if the organisation is uncontroversial, every single journalist is just going to paraphrase the "Who we are" section of a press release. Clearly this is one of those rules that only matter sometimes.
The "viewpoint of people with an ax to grind" is as unhelpful as the viewpoint of believers. We do permit biased sources, but we should ideally be looking for disinterested ones and using what they say as our primary focus. Our articles should not be built on biased sources. -- Colin°Talk 10:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, look at Mormons and Mormonism. The bedrock of those articles is Mormon scholarship, written by Mormons, often employed at various levels in the church. Can you imagine the looks you'd get if you claimed the article must avoid citing Mormon scholars and instead, I don't know, cite evangelicals who view it as a cult, or atheists who use language like god botherers and sky fairies. I think if you tried that approach there, you'd be dismissed as an activist who was NOTHERE.
A fundamental of respecting those who have beliefs you don't share, is that you allow others to describe what they believe. Indeed, we should be curious about what others believe and hope to find accurate descriptions in an encyclopaedia. If I want to read about what hateful people think about people they hate, there are other places on the internet. -- Colin°Talk 13:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thats also the bedrock of our problems with Mormon articles which have been vast and are only now beginning to be dealt with. As someone with vast experience editing articles related to Mormons and Mormonism your argument is ass backwards and seems to be a red herring because it isn't a dichotomy of Mormom/anti-Mormon, actual reliable independent sources exist (and if they don't then the topic simply isn't notable and we need not worry). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is for "controversial" subjects? It is hard to imagine, not giving the subject's POV if it is "controversial", otherwise no one can understand the controversy -- you would not limit it to their POV but you would include their POV, nonetheless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will matter unless the subject is controversial. As Colin said, nobody's going to mind much if you say Cancer Research UK is interested in cancer and research and in the UK. If, on the other hand, you are looking at Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, expect a very different reaction: what they claim to do – even if they are quite sincere and actually trying to do that – is not what their critics believe they are actually accomplishing. I'd rate the critics' view of that group as approximately like what you'd expect for a "Society to Improve Health and Reduce Lung Cancer" whose main activity is getting children addicted to cigarette smoking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? You would still say, what they say about themselves. That's the basis for the supposed controversy. It's hard to imagine any competent biography, or religious analysis, or political analysis, not saying what the subject says about themselves, and critiquing that, as need be. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there shouldn't be a problem relying on independent sources, surely? If any competent biography or analysis will say accurately summarize what the subject says about themselves, then we can restrict ourselves to such independent sources and surely one will say it. Our job, after all, is not to write our own competent biography or religious analysis or political analysis, but to summarize the ones that exist. --Aquillion (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a controversy, there will be different views of accuracy. I am reading a biography right now, that is no doubt competent and presents what the person said about themselves, but even the biographer does not imagine what they think it is the only possible interpretation, they honestly make clear it is their interpretation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we resolve such issues by finding other biographies or analyses. You seem to be saying that an editor can go "I disagree with what every available biography and analysis says about this subject, so I'm going to go straight to the subject's blog or website, find their a glowing table-pounding statement of their intent, and insert it here to balance that out." That's inappropriate WP:OR, in addition to violating INDEPENDENT and ABOUTSELF. We don't decide accuracy ourselves, and we don't "balance things out" according to our personal opinions like that; we reflect the balance of what high-quality independent sources say about the subject, instead. --Aquillion (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather I would say, you have a bizarre view of sourcing. Sourcing does not require it only be secondhand. More importantly, what the subject says about themselves is relevant to understanding the subject even in your argument, regardless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The usual example of this is "He denied the accusations on Twitter": You don't get to exclude all obviously relevant, obviously DUE ABOUTSELF views just because the presently available source is words coming straight from the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He denied the accusations on Twitter" is not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He's accused of a serious crime" with no indication of his reaction to the accusation, especially if the only reason for this is that you don't want to use the subject's known social media post as a primary source, is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't because its a statement that is both unduly self serving and involves third parties. Therefore inadmissible under ABOUTSELF. Using it would be the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation because it was not published in a source that is reliable in context. For a third opinion see Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Denying guilt is usually self-serving, but it's not unduly self-serving. Denying guilt also doesn't automatically involve third parties. And despite you saying it's inadmissible, editors accept it in almost all cases (rejections usually involve genuine doubt that the social media account doesn't belong to the person).
WP:MRDA is about saying "He actually didn't do it". It's not about saying "He said he didn't do it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact unduly self serving. Accusations almost always involve a third party, usually multiple. "editors accept it in almost all cases" is not my experience, in my experience editors follow WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think you're really getting the point of MRDA, but its just an essay so I digress by simply quoting the nutshell "This page in a nutshell: The mere fact that someone has denied unsavory allegations does not automatically merit inclusion in an article, especially if that allegation is very well sourced. The subject of an article is not exempt from the ordinary rules of reliability as a source on themselves." (what I gather from that is that this essay is arguing for going beyond ABOUTSELF and even excluding it when independent reliable sources note it in passing) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an essentially moot point in practice, given that virtually all RS coverage of allegations against someone is going to include at least a brief acknowledgment of the accused's response or lack thereof. signed, Rosguill talk 03:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if they are a reliable source they will, and an actual self-published denial is already held by BLP policy to not to be about third parties, nor is it restricted by manner of authentic publication to only independent publications. (BLP note d). Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That note was recently added without discussion or consensus, it has been removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was added almost three years ago, and you just removed it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. See the talk page discussion for more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that too often we have editors using a few cherry picked sources that label people or groups and try to assert those as facts in wiki voice, which makes providing any statement in what the person or group's stated purpose in place (effectively, calling what the person or groups says about themselves as FRINGE) Yes, we should not that a self stated purpose as a fact in wikivoice, but at the same time we shouldn't be diminsing what the person or group says about itself, particularly when there is not a lot of sources backing the broader take of the person or group. Like with any topic that is controversial we should at the minimum briefly state the primary view if each side in the argument with online attribution and then only go into further detail with due weight considerations. If anything that at least seeks a tone appropriate for a contentious person or group, rather than jumping to take the position of a few cherry picked sources. Masem (t) 14:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is this just about the first sentence? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masem is probably right about that.
To go back to the example I first gave, the article at one point grew a bunch of MOS:CLAIM violations.[9] None of them were at the Pizzagate conspiracy theory level ("they claim to be a pizza shop, but they're actually a front for child abuse"), but all were intended to cast doubt on whether the advocacy group advocated for something in particular, not because of any doubt about whether they do advocate for these things, but because the critics believe that what they're advocating for is the wrong way to achieve the ultimate goal. So it's not actually a group advocating for their autistic children; it's a group "whose stated goal is" advocating for their autistic children, and the reader is supposed to think "Oh, but if this is labeled as the stated goal, then they must also have some secret, unstated goals, right?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it seems everyone agrees that the restaurant is a restaurant, even if it is part of a claimed conspiracy, and a group is a group, a non-profit is a non-profit, so that's a matter of how specific you get and when. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, move the dispute to the second sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is not about the dispute, but about a discrete person, place, or thing, than yes it probably makes sense to first focus on what the person, place or thing is, and discuss dispute later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an organisation "does" is different, though, from what an organisation "believes". Maybe this is a distinction for "about themselves" where we sometimes might be sceptical. I say only sometimes. Stuff about Sunday services, or how a denomination appoints its leaders are all "does" things that are perfectly reasonable to be sourced to the believers own sources (and indeed, those outside probably don't care and that doesn't mean it isn't important).
We wouldn't in wiki voice, state that "the Christian God listens to prayers and heals those who were prayed for, especially so if prayed for devoutly". Be I think we'd be happy to say "Christians believe that their prayers for healing are answered by their God, and often pray devoutly for those who are very ill" and happily cite a Christian source for that. But what we sometimes get for some topics is more like "Christians delude themselves that the sky fairy they pray to is listening to them, cares about their loved ones, and is motivated to intervene in their pathetic lives through prayer." as though that was an accurate description of what Christians believe.
The only explanation I have currently for why some insist that a group can't be trusted to describe their own beliefs isn't just "controversial" but "hate them". Colin°Talk 15:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general overall aspects, with a need to focus on how the weight of sourcing should be considered. Too many times I've seen editors pick just a couple sources to push labels through, though I should state that doesn't mean the person or group didn't deserve those labels contrary to their claimed goal, but that's just not an appropriate neutral approach we should take. In the current world environment it is very very easy to find the sources you want to be critical of a person or group and minimize that person or group's own claims and believe that this is a neutral approach, but we should only be doing that when there is clear universal agreement in RSes to do that and not jump on it when a few sources can be found. A case in point right now is Collective Shout, a non profit group fighting against exploitation of women, due to their actions leading to censorship of video games on storefronts. There are a lot if angry voices out there about this group including in RSes calling them anti-porn and worse, but not a critical mass to where wiki voice can be used, and if only used cherry picked sourced within the case of next of this essay, it would make them look villainous, which is not a neutral approach. Instead we have to look at sources broadly and see that both the group's purpose, and the inferred purposes from RSes, should be covered. Masem (t) 15:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I wonder what most of the world thinks, when we assume that "anti-porn" is obviously bad view.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Labels are a whole other argument and has as been discussed many times before. I look at that article and find it hard to work out what they believe. And maybe their beliefs are nebulous and consists of nothing more than reacting to this or that. -- Colin°Talk 15:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, statements or purpose and goals, and labels, can be very much linked, and should be viewed in the same light. This includes labels a group uses to describe itself and those applied by others. If a groups purpose has been challenged in RSes, absent a clear uninamimous view in the RSes, then it's contentious and the same cautions around labels should be considered. This most often just means in text attribution and the right tone rather than content removal to get right. Masem (t) 15:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? It seems clear, they believe there is "objectification" of women in culture, and that it is wrong or they disapprove of it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself and conflating two cases here. You say that too often we have editors using a few cherry picked sources - and I certainly agree that cherry-picked sources are a problem! If you have other high-quality independent sources that are missed, representing a view that is significant among such high-quality independent sources, you should always bring them out to demonstrate that the ones we use are lopsided. That's an easy fix. But then you go on to make it clear you're talking about situations where the existing sources are not cherry-picked, but accurately represent the thrust of coverage - you say that we have to cover the subject's views in their own words particularly when there is not a lot of sources backing the broader take of the person or group. That is you advocating cherrypicking in the service of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our goal is to summarize the available sources with weight and focus granted to each perspective in proportion to its coverage in high-quality independent sources, which means that when there's not a lot of sources saying something, it shouldn't get much focus in the article (and when there's no independent sources saying it, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article at all.) If a perspective lacks independent coverage, it does not belong in the article; you cannot cherry-pick a few unduly self-serving statements by the article's subject and inappropriately insert them in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:INDEPENDENT just because you personally feel it is under-represented in available sources. Situations where there is not a lot of sources backing the broader take of the person or group are ones where we have to be most cautious to avoid using non-independent sources to make self-serving or promotional claims in violation of ABOUTSELF, because it's a situation where people who are sympathetic to the group and who feel it is getting a raw deal in larger coverage may try to inappropriately WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by giving its perspective undue weight. (Now, there is an important caveat - the fact that a view is in the minority does not of course mean we omit it entirely. But you still need independent sources to reflect that view. Self-serving claims and statements that are not reflected in any high-quality independent sources, or ones that are marginal to the point of nonexistence, do not belong anywhere in the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, can you look at Mormons and Mormonism and have a think about what you wrote and how your insistence on what you view as "independent" sources would affect that article? Or how could you write an article on Eucharist without citing Christian scholars? You claim "and when there's no independent sources saying it, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article at all". Why would you insist not only in the abundance of non-Salvation Army sources explaining why they don't practice it for us to even mention that they don't practice it, but also that such non-Salvation Army sources are the only acceptable ones to cite.
I think it is often very helpful to look at rules proposed and consider how they might apply in areas one is not passionate about or a conflict one is not fighting. -- Colin°Talk 16:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I think the examples you cite earlier in the discussion are conflating "independent" with "oppositional". No serious peer-reviewed journal of anthropology, religious history, or comparative religion journal in this century is going to make characterizations like Christians delude themselves that the sky fairy they pray to is listening to them, cares about their loved ones, and is motivated to intervene in their pathetic lives through prayer, except when describing verbatim the beliefs of militant atheist groups. As someone who has done a fair share of editing on religious topics (and recently, specifically Mormon topics), the arguments presented here seem like a bit of a red herring. As for how to cover Eucharist, if I were to write the article from scratch I would start with a bibliography of works on the topic in non-confessional anthropology and religious studies journals to provide the general framework of the article, and bring in the perspectives of theologians from specific denominations as highlighted by the broader body of literature in order to illustrate points.
As a side note, the LDS Church is a rather complicated example to bring up here, as the Church's organs (in particular, its BYU-affiliated imprints) publish a fair amount of genuinely critical materials about the Church and broader LDS movement, side-by-side with more conventional apologia, all while in principle retaining full control over all of these publications. In my experience editing Mormon topics, LDS-affiliated imprints require paper-by-paper, claim-by-claim assessments of reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the diversity of affiliated imprints I would note that in any sufficiently large organization or movement there is unlikely to be a monolithic theological, cultural, or academic view... You will generally have a number of overlapping camps or groups which agree on most things but have significant internal disagreements or quarrels. The top example of this of course being the Catholic Church which has a hundred camps, a thousand schools of thought, and a million liturgies despite centuries of effort at homogenization. In the Mormon context I think this is most obvious when it comes to the geography of the Book of Mormon which must have at least six different schools of thought represented among BYU faculty and associated institutions alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's more difficult with "current events": You can find reasonable sources for long-term hot-button topics like abortion (e.g., you might find a source that argues in support of abortion rights in general but not for sex-selective abortion, which criticizes both the 'no abortions ever' POV as well as the 'unlimited abortions, even if the next generation has no females' POV).
But for a relatively new political advocacy group, the only people talking about them are likely to agree or disagree with them, and we have a history of editors using that agreement/disagreement as proof that the seemingly independent source is poorly researched. Going back to the SEGM example, I'm pretty sure that I saw an editor argue that a particular news article in a major newspaper was unreliable because it quoted someone from SEGM and gave a half-sentence description of the org that aligned with the org's description instead of giving a half-sentence description that aligned with the loyal opposition's description of the organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An extension of that kind of thing is arguments over the religion/citizenship/nationality/ethnicity/memberships, etc. etc. of the author, and even of the Wikipedia editor. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEPENDENT doesn't mean "no connection to the subject at all." In the context of, say, Catholicism, it means we have to be cautious about directly citing official statements by the Catholic Church itself. We can still cite Catholic scholars without concern (simply being Catholic alone doesn't even render them WP:BIASED.) If people are saying "we can't cite anyone of religion X in the article on religion X" then they're just wrong. (Now, WP:DUE means we might want to be careful to avoid relying entirely on people of a particular religion or nationality, but that's a different and much hazier concern. There are absolutely editors who argue "we should prioritize citing eg. Mormons for stuff about Mormonism" and that is also wrong.) Mormonism is a complex example for other reasons because it's much more centralized as an institution than most religions; the Mormon Church does directly control and run many scholarly institutions that people might want to cite. That's complex and has to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on how much control the Mormon church has over what they say. Of course when it comes to independent secondary sources who are citing the institution itself we can use them for anything - that's sort of the point of independent secondary sources in that context; they allow us to cite things that we couldn't cite directly. And those independent secondary sources can still be "the independent paper of Mormonism, written by Mormons"; the only thing that matters is that they not be working for the church as an institution. --Aquillion (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on one point… a Primary source such as the text of a Papal encyclical - outlining a point of Catholic dogma - is authoritative (and 100% reliable) as to what Catholic dogma actually is (at least, until some later Pope issues a contradictory encyclical).
What we have to be careful about is using the primary encyclical to verify what the dogma “means”. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are one too many uses of "utterly" in the first line. The first one can be removed. BD2412 T 02:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Infobox for Mackenzie Ziegler article

[edit]

An RfC has been opened at Mackenzie Ziegler to determine whether the article should include an infobox. Infoboxes can be a contentious topic, and additional editor participation would be helpful in reaching a well-rounded consensus. Interested editors are invited to comment.

👉 Talk:Mackenzie Ziegler#Infobox RfC

Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disable media viewer disappeared?

[edit]

The option with the gear when you click on an image to turn off Media Viewer and just go to the file page seems to be missing. Was this disabled for non-logged-in users, or for all users? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a revision at the article I am currently working

[edit]

Hello,

I don't know if it is the right place to ask for an operation like this one.

I am improving the IBM System/23 Datamaster article and I have worked in its Catalan article, which became the most advanced one from their interlanguage articles, and then made the translation to English. I have fixed broken references after the translation process and would like to continue improving both the quality and amount of information from that article. I would also want to remove the stub status from that article.

Please, could anybody lend me a hand?

Thank you in advance,

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neatsville, kentucky still has insane pageviews

[edit]

Last thread (1 year ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_78#Inexplicably_popular_article_(by_views)

This is some sort of an update, it seems the Neatsville page is still having extreme amounts of pageviews, except the numbers are even bigger than a year ago. On July 7th, it somehow got 179,000 page views in 1 day. This month, the page got 1,271,596 pageviews. It has also become the top most viewed city on Wikipedia.

Interestingly, it suddenly dropped to only a few hundred in January, and then slowly picked up. This make me think it's not bots, could anyone find out what had an outage in this time? I know not much can be done about this, but I thought it would be interesting to give an update from the last thread, as it is still ongoing. 47.221.87.66 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1305084657"