Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 20 October 2024 (→What is a revert?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.
  • If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). For drafting with a more focused group, you can also start on the talk page for a WikiProject, Manual of Style, or other relevant project page.
  • If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
  • If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
  • This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
  • If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.


Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS

For years the Fringe Theory Noticeboard has been a go-to for a lot of editors when it comes to soliciting help on religious topics. This has caused… problems. FTN seems bent towards a particular kind of skepticism which, while healthy for Wikipedia as a whole, leads to some serious issues with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVILITY, and on occasion WP:OUT on these topics. The most signifficant incident off the top of my head was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics. There’s also been some pretty big issues with FTN regulars editing religious articles not realizing when something is technical/academic terminology when it comes to religious topics, which is playing out right now in the discussion here and which got its start on FTN.

There seems to be this attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile. This definitely comes across as trying to right a great wrong with religion not being treated with appropriate intellectual derision. This is especially the case with New Religious Movements such as Mormonism, Falun Gong, etc.

My concern is that exclusively bringing these topics to WP:FTN and not, say, the religion wikiproject (or the appropriate wikiproject for a given religion) ends up feeling like a deliberate decision to exclude people who may be less hostile to a specific religion and comes across as WP:CANVAS, especially in light of how willing FTN regulars are to throw WP:CIVILITY out the window on religious topics to the point of multiple admin warnings and thread closures. My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low here considering the history of open hostility to (mainstream) religious/spiritual topics when they come up on FTN.

My fundamental question here as it relates to policy is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella? If so, should the appropriate wikiprojects be notified at the same time so as to not basically canvas people who have specific biases but not necessarily a useful working knowledge of a given topic? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation, ie. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong, beyond the broader Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science. Canvassing specific wikiprojects or not doesn't really mean much in my opinion. There definitely are POV editors, but most editors in WikiProjects on religion are heterogeneous. I do think there are tensions in terms of whether Wikipedia exists to promote a religious movements viewpoint about its religion, especially theological summaries, but I don't agree a policy change is helpful or warranted here. If there's any policy to look at, it's about sourcing requirements and weighing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation
Keep in mind the incident I was referring to was FTN demanding Falun Gong editors out their religious affiliation when editing pages, which the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on. It's not just a question of "Is this religion fringe/y" but this sort of r/atheism open hostility to religious topics, especially when it gets into the theological weeds and not just something which is clearly fringe. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on ← sounds impressive. What sanctions were applied? Bon courage (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to hear more about this. It's news to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I do remember plenty of action in relation to the LDS/COI fracas, like an enormous amount of activity at ANI ending in sanctions.[1] and a WP:BUREAUCRAT losing their bits. But we're told here the multi-admin "meteor strike" was on FTN participants? Curious. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There can be 'fringe theories' about everything, including religious history and theology. It is trivial for wikiproject pages to transclude FTN if desired so as to provide notifications to followers. Feoffer (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue isn't other people transcluding FTN, it's FTN editors only pinging FTN on religious topics when the editing gets contentious, as opposed to anyone else regardless of their experience in the exact topic in question, which is why it feels pretty strongly like WP:CANVAS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not this again. This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance. The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes and I suggest Hitchen's razor is applied. But, to repeat what has often been said there: religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply; the religious aspect doesn't give nonsense some sort of Holy Shield from Wikipedia's NPOV policy by which it must be accurately described within a rational, knowledge-based context. Bon courage (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance.
    What? I was told to bring this here during the last huge blowout about it and hadn't gotten around to it, the current spate of Mormon topics on FTN made me think it's finally time to get around to it. Beyond that I'm a regular at FTN? I'm not "popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance", I'm a regular contributor there who is bothered by the handling of a specific topic at FTN and this is a recurring and ongoing problem, who only brings it up when that problem comes to the forefront, which it has in two separate and ongoing threads.
    The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes
    I didn't provide specific examples because the main talk page of FTN is right there for all to see and I didn't want it to come across as airing grievances with specific individuals, or make the discussion about, say, Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement rather than the broader issue of FTN on religious topics.
    religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply
    I addressed this right away in the post you're replying to. The issue isn't the E-meter like content, which are absolutely fringe, but rather people treating core claims of theology as a fringe topic, when it may be a bit fuzzy in a Venn diagram between a fringe topic and a religious one, or even just blanket religious topics being treated as fringe despite them being wholly articles of faith. You've been around FTN long enough to know that there's a contingent that see religion as an inherent enemy and I'm very far from the only person to bring this up recently. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism. If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine. If they say it actually happened that's a problem. There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism.
    As I'm far from the only one to raise this specific concern, that sure seems like a mass hallucination then. I (and others) use "r/atheism" as a shorthand for a specific form of "angry at religion" type of persona that pops up basically all over in bursts. It's a shorthand, and it's one where I'm far from the only person using it.
    If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine.
    What isn't fine is users not feeling that a topic is being treated with appropriate derision, as opposed to just WP:NPOV and addressing WP:PROFRINGE. This comes up a hell of a lot on religious topics on FTN, and while it's not exactly a majority stance it is a present one. A contingent of FTN basically likes viewing the Resurrection of Jesus and the Loch Ness monster as rhetorically equivalent and deserving of the same sort of treatment. Regardless of personal beliefs around either, Wikipedia is not the place to air personal grievances with religion.
    There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal?
    Well, seeing as FTN handles religious topics indelicately, inexpertly, and with a very gung-ho attitude I think that making sure the appropriate wikiproject is roped in on religious issues would probably do quite a lot. I think the current discussion on cunning folk is a pretty great example of FTN jumping the gun due to a lack of familiarity with the literature on a given topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProjects do not or should not create Wikipedia:Local consensus. You are welcome to add any relevant WikiProject banners on any talk pages, and notify any WikiProjects you want for broader discussions. It would not be seen as canvassing, because a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV (hopefully true for the WP:TERRORISM related ones). Sure, {{WikiProject Mormon}} likely has more adherents of LDS faith, but also more importantly, people with scholarly knowledge, whether as adherents, critics and other. If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with, but in of itself, notifying any WikiProject you want is fine. Admittedly some projects like WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE COULD be merged, but neither projects are in of themselves "canvassing" when being notified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with
    This is what I think is happening with FTN, though not necessarily very explicitly. "Anti-religion" isn't a neutral point of view, and it can come across as canvasing to go to a place where that's a prevailing attitude while simply ignoring the other wikiprojects that may actually have more ability to contribute directly to the topics at hand.
    Essentially I don't feel that
    a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV
    holds true for FTN when it comes to religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FTN is a noticeboard, not a WikiProject. Bon courage (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, sorry, you're right, that's what I get for reading along too quickly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I looked FTN had a large number of people with different takes on topics. Maybe you'd go to WP:SKEP for atheism? Bon courage (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, your point begs what's considered neutral/default state, and when it comes to religion, is not an easy one. I find this essay helpful Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability. As someone who was raised extremely religious and now atheist, I am appreciative that Wikipedia has always been a decent source of summarizing the state of literature out there. In some cases, it was not as "comprehensive" as my specific religious theological education, because the sourcing requirements were not up-to par. There are better resources off-wiki if the goal is to provide a religious seminar. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger issue is where it relates to New religious movements like Falun Gong, Mormonism, the Moonies, etc. which have a lot less established literature around theology and people tend to be a lot more open about treating with derision. Hell, I've been accused of being crypto-Falun Gong on FTN and I'm an FTN regular... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose some notions are risible, and being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?) Thus yogic flying is as daft as perinium sunning: just because one has religious-y connections doesn't mean it isn't nonsense on toast. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful. Wikipedia editors are often inexpert; it is the basis of much discussion on every article ever. If anybody want to inform any WikiProject that a discussion at any noticeboard may be of interest they may do so. Indeed that is often useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful.
    Surely this was intentional?[Humor] Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Core claims of theology can be fringe, for example miracles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the Cunning folk traditions thread has to do with anything. There were only 4 posts by 3 posters (including you and an IP). The initial post by @Feoffer: was clearly on the wrong board -- such a proposal if having too few people for consensus (or if too contentious) on an article Talk page is meant for an RfC on that Talk page, usually with notification of the relevant WikiProjects. The lack of replies on FTN suggests other watchers were generally aware this was misplaced. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the stated purpose of this noticeboard (top of page) is "to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines" and nothing of the sort is in evidence, I suggest this thread is closed as off-topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that you don’t agree with the thesis in the slightest but I was literally told to bring this exact topic here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody telling you to post like this at WP:VPP needs a WP:TROUT. Perhaps WP:VPM or WP:VPI could have been appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this should probably be on one of the other Village Pump boards, since there's not really a P&G change or problem suggested here. It's not a huge deal either way, and the thread is already going, but the procedure to move a discussion thread is easy enough and can be done by anyone. Warrenmck, if you like, you can use the {{Moved discussion to}} template set and simply cut-and-paste this thread to a different pump. (But again, not a big deal either way.) SamuelRiv (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be happy to, but I’m on my phone right now and it’d be a bit cumbersome. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside the rest, the question is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella. That's a fine policy question to ask here IMO as it's about WP:FRINGE. But the implied question here is actually "should religious topics be exempt from WP:FRINGE" and the answer is no. Not every aspect of religion has to do with WP:FRINGE, but some do. If someone is applying WP:FRINGE where it doesn't belong, that's the same as any user applying any other policy incorrectly and would have to be dealt with on the user level. If you think users are systematically misapplying policy at FTN, that's an issue for WP:AN and would need a lot of unambiguous diffs. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think this could be done at WP:AN, because it’s more of a general attitude thing than a problem with specific users. Unambiguous diffs of FFN misapplying FTN are either easy or impossible, depending on what the remit of FTN is. I definitely agree that religion shouldn’t be exempt from fringe, but there’s a contingent that treat religion itself as fringe.
    looking at the threads I’ve been involved in recently on religion:
    1. The LDS and Cunning Folk thread, which seems to heavilystem from a misunderstanding that “cunning folk” is the specific applicable academic term which exists well beyond Mormon topics.
    2. The Joseph Smith Golden Plates thread. It’s rife with calls that Wikipedia should be outright calling Joseph Smith an active fraud, sources not fully agreeing with that conclusion (though leaving the possibility open) be damned.
    3. The Tukdam thread, which did actually call out some issues with that page but also didn’t grasp the language used by researchers working with minority religious communities (and fair enough, that’s esoteric)
    Of twenty threads on FTN right now, nine are directly about religion (discounting the tenth which mentions religion but which is really just about racism). Most of these do actually belong at FTN, but the substance of the threads really highlights that “religion is not inherently fringe” seems to be openly ignored by a decent chunk of the involved parties. If half the content on FTN is going to be religious in nature, then it’s not really just about fringe theories anymore, is it? And the lack of civility or ability to handle sensitive topics becomes a prominent issue that could use guidelines for handling so we reduce the amount of inexpert sledgehammers wielded in the direction of religious topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying all the (what you term) 'religious' threads at FTN are there properly, but there is a problem with stuff being raised there improperly. Then there is the vague complaint that you think some people ignore the “religion is not inherently fringe” idea, but with not a diff in sight. This is bizarre. The supposed bombshell 'cunning folk' thread has only four mild-mannered posts (one of them yours) discussing a proposal.[2] Isn't that what noticeboards are for? Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're so convinced there's nothing of merit here, why the WP:TEND? I think we're all fairly clear on your perspective that this is a nothing sandwich, but hell even in this thread:
    being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?)
    Feels sort of like the problem in a nutshell? Wikipedia's policies around civility and bigotry (not necessarily articles, just to pre-address that) absolutely does distinguish "religious belief" among other categories as deserving respect when it comes to civility. The point isn't respecting the beliefs, it's respecting that they are beliefs and mean a heck of a lot to some people, and while "some people" in this equation aren't entitled to ignore wikipedia policies around verifiability and neutrality in favour of their argument, that doesn't mean that they deserve to have their beliefs mocked and ridiculed in talk pages (but let's be real, the more fringe-y it gets the more that'll happen to a degree).
    That we seem to have exempted NRMs from a need to handle the same way we do world religions is a genuine systemic failing of WP:NPOV. I can't for a second imagine someone who is committed to WP:NPOV and was themselves a Mormon wouldn't take more than a passing glance at the current state of FTN and instantly nope out due to the behaviour of editors in talk pages and noticeboards, and we need those editors to better address fringe relating to those topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From a glance, FTN seems to have a large number of useful Mormon participants. If there are civility problems, raise them at ANI, AE or appropriate venues (but again, you have provided zero evidence). To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in this discussion was a personal attack at you nor was it advocating for a diluting of Wikipedia’s stances around religion. I cannot begin to fathom the tone with which you’ve elected to engage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a whole noticeboard (effectively hundreds of editors) saying things which are largely un-evidenced (no diffs given) or simply wrong (such as Mormons shunning FTN). You have attacked me with a "why the WP:TEND?" jibe. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The part where you accuse Bon courage of disruptive editing (WP:TEND) without apparent grounds (or with really weak grounds that would equally apply to yourself) does appear to be a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m trying to act in good faith here, it genuinely seemed Bon Courage was basically misrepresenting the initial argument while saying any discussion should be procedurally shut down. It was not intended as a personal attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From your opening post: "My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low". Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics" did this actually happen? I remember we had a whole string of issues with Falun Gong members being disruptive but I don't remember admins sanctioning FTN or anything like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is baked into the WP:PAGs that religious belief can be a source of a WP:COI. There's a reason the entirety of Scientology church IP addresses are blocked from the Project. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 96 Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not finding it, which admins and what did they say? A quick search says that the only editors on that page who mentioned COI are you, Bon Courage, and @ජපස:. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest thing I can find is this related AE request where the filer was TBanned, another editor who was seen as broadly pro-Falun Gong was indeffed, and "editors in the Falun Gong topic area" (not FTN regulars) were "warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views" (not against "insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics").
    In the FTN thread linked by Warren, there is a comment by ScottishFinnishRadish that WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. which isn't exactly "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics". It's more "one admin saying that it isn't permitted to ask other editors whether they are Falun Gong adherents" which is... sort of close-ish? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats just an admin saying that you're supposed to say "Do you have a COI with topic X" without any prompting as to what the COI is believed to be not "Are you a member of topic X? If so you have a COI" which is a pretty common note that admins give. Its certainly not giving COI editors a free pass on COI as long as their COI is personal info (it almost always is)... Which appears to be what the OP was suggesting. COI is not an excuse for outing, but outing can't be used as a shield against legitimate COI concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to take this idea to the extreme, then FTN wouldn't be able to discuss topics like faith healing which seem to me to be clearly within scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a lot easier if you refer us to specific example threads here. It's hardly throwing anyone under the bus to link to discussion threads instead of just implying them for us to find ourselves -- and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread (which is where the suggestion of canvassing and referral to VPP is made). I have two notes: first is that I agree that a P&G noticeboard should not be used for canvassing people back to an article Talk page or an RfC (per existing norms, RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects, by subscription, etc). Generally with noticeboards like WP:RSN the scope is limited to resolving issues of the P&G, unless/until discussion goes into article content, at which point it is referred back to the article Talk page. The P&G noticeboards I've followed have been pretty disciplined about this, so I'm not sure whether that's one issue with FTN. On a similar note of scope, noticeboards can refer to superceding policy, and FT is pretty much made up entirely of superceding policies (it feels like it could be better as an explanatory essay more than a guideline imo). So if a post there is actually about a RS or OR dispute, maybe it should instead be referred to RSN or NORN? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects ← don't think so. WP:BLPN, WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN are for example ideal places to publicise RfCs where those P&Gs apply. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
To the extent I regret raising this thread. I think this thread is itself a microcosm of my core issue: FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith. Not "FTN needs to treat religious claims as non-fringe" which is a honestly strange read multiple people here have had considering that my initial post specifically was narrowly focused on matters of theology and, as an example:
To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect.
How in any chosen diety's name does any of this have anything to do with a concern raised here? Not once did I call for Wikipedia to treat religious topics as hyper-credible per internal logic, nor did I express any concern about articles "offending religious sensibilities", nor did I make any sort of argument that'd exclude faith healing from the remit of FTN:
should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella?
Faith healing and every single example from Bon Voyage's reply above make specific empirical claims. All of them, without exception. So what I'm left with here is an FTN regular who came in extremely hot for some reason ignoring the fact that I'm also an FTN regular while pretending that my argument was an axe to grind, when my core argument is that FTN handling these topics alone without involving editors familiar with them has lead to some problematic editing, in addition to FTN basically openly vilifying NRMs on FTN. Not once in this entire thread have I said that FTN should leave all religious topics alone, nor, as some seem to imply, have I argued that religious claims should be treated with credulity and handled with kid gloves.
At this point to even engage with this thread I feel like I have to dedicate a fair amount of time to addressing arguments I never made. It feels like people are trying to read some kind of apologetics into my comments which I never intended, and if that's coming across to multiple people then that's a communication problem on my end, but I think that this thread right here has become a perfect example of how complex, loaded, nuanced topics which invoke strong emotions on all sides are not necessarily best handled in a vacuum by a noticeboard which, as much as we'd all love the policy-backed
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
to be true, it doesn't necessarily hold water in practice.
@ජපස's suggestion:
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
Would solve literally every single issue I have except for the open intolerance, which is a secondary issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [3] jps (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread
Funny enough, I haven't even gotten around to reading that one. FTN is genuinely pushing majority-NRM focused some days. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made an erroneous distinction: "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim". These are not cleanly distinct things. Religious history and theology is rife with empirical claims (Lazarus e.g.), and these are not exempt from "fringe". Your argument is weirdly personifying a noticeboard of hundreds of people with statements as though it were an monolith, like "FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith", with zero evidence. Perhaps the reason you get a "hot" response is because you write accusatory, wrong and confused statements about "problems" which, without any evidence, come across as borderline trolling.
This is all seems track back to when FTN addressed your own muddle over panspermia where,[4] instead of grappling with the problems at hand, you perceived some kind of problem with the noticeboard that was solving those content problems. There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others. Instead of taking on the chin, you insinuated there was some kind of issue with FTN ("I do think that there's something very problematic here going on"). As another user observed in that linked thread "Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not". And so we have this pattern here again. It is a time sink. (It should be noted, if this[5] is to believed, that the OP's editing has been to FTN and ANI hugely more than to anything else in the Project, which tells its own story. I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE.) Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others
Well, seeing as I’m a research meteoriticist (essjay aside) I’m pretty comfortable pointing to that specific example as “strong options, little expertise” on the point of FTN. In fact, I’m far more comfortable pointing to that one as an example of FTN inexpertly handling nuanced topics than I am around any of the religious ones. Theres a reason it was very easy for me to cite a pile of papers which make the case that researchers are using “panspermia” in a way that Wikipedia insists is only pseudo-panspermia. The distinction on Wikipedia cannot pass WP:VERIFY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at FTN aside, which is why I think the best proposal was bifurcating it to Panspermia (Astrobiology) and Panspermia (Fringe theory). FTN is extremely slow to acknowledge there may be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the noticeboard around a fringe topic. Of course, trying to bring in a bit of nuance with citations didn’t stop people from accusations of being WP:PROFRINGE and possessing a
lack of understanding of specialist terminology
I’m going to be very honest, since your first post here commenting you’ve been fully on the offensive insisting this is some kind of misguided personal crusade. Between assuming motivations/incompetence on my part and some shall we go with routinely characterful reimagining of the posts you’re responding to I think I’m at least going to bow out of engaging with your replies here, and suggest we consider that mutual to avoid gunking up discussions more. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Free energy, Kinesiology, Panspermia. All three have a scientific and a pseudoscientific meaning. One is a disambiguation page, one explains the scientific meaning and has a pointer to the pseudoscientific one, and one explains the pseudoscientific meaning and has a pointer to the scientific one. This is the result of applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You were unhappy with the solution in the third case (my take is that due to your field, availability bias leads you to think in WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT terms). [6] shows you that only a small percentage of readers of Panspermia move to the pseudo-panspermia page, showing that there is a good reason why it was done that way. You were wrong, and you have been blaming the people who were right since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect an article on a religion to describe, e.g., the foundational documents, the liturgy, the rituals, the tenets. Excluding believers would exclude the editors most likely to be familiar with the literature. As long as an editor is neither attacking nor proselytizing, I don't see a COI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems to be an argument against the entire concept of regulating COI editing... COI in general applies to the editors most likely to be familiar with a topic, for example the editors most familiar with Edward P. Exemplar are likely Edward himself, his friends, and his family... But we absolutely do not want Edward himself, his friends, and his family writing that article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally thrill when people who are less hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN and I thrill when people who are more hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN. Generally, I thrill at anyone posting at WP:FTN. Though I may object (sometimes strenuously) to others' positions, I welcome their positions being aired as it helps clarify Wikipedia editorial praxis. I may be singular in this, I understand. Someone with sage observational skills pointed out that I may simply enjoy having arguments more than others. But I have learned things from such arguments and I do think that these discussions have helped clarify matters. Can't there be different strokes for different folks?
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
jps (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy having arguments more than you do. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're notifying the WikiProjects, then it's a content dispute, and so it should be handled by the WikiProjects, or else RfC. If the intent is that FTN is a general-purpose board for fringe content, then that's the domain of a WikiProject, not a P&G noticeboard. (And just because FT has a separate guideline page, does not mean it automatically needs its own noticeboard; and in a separate point, I'd be interested if there's anything in FT that is not entirely redundant with the extensive RS and OR guidelines.) SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? All noticeboards except ANI/AN are for content disputes. The stated purpose of FTN is to "help determine whether [a] topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially". There is quite a bit in WP:FRINGE which is distinct, for example WP:FRIND, WP:NFRINGE and WP:PARITY. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to propose FTN for deletion if you don't like the way it is set-up. Others have done so in the past.
I think the consensus has generally been that it's okay to have a centralized discussion board that brings together people who have a general interest in topics that are relevant to WP:FRINGE. WikiProjects have remits which go well beyond that sort of thing.
jps (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be both interesting and useful. It's no secret for example that Falun Gong-aligned accounts once maintained a chokehold on Falun Gong-related English Wikipedia articles like Shen Yun, Epoch times, and Li Hongzhi before a handful of editors finally broke it up. Today many of the responsible WP:SPA accounts have been zpped but new accounts constantly pop up trying at new angles to manipulate coverage. The matter has seen discussion in peer-reviewed material but it is poorly documented on Wikipedia itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate is also relevant, but in a very different way. That's the case in which being the target of something like Death by a thousand cuts results in the community blaming the victim for not being able to tolerate even more "minor" annoyances.
I feel like there is some of that going on above. People aren't reacting here, as if from a tabula rasa, to the exact statements being made. They're reacting to long histories and perhaps what sounds like coded meanings or Dog whistle (politics). So, e.g., maybe you didn't directly say "having a religious belief is automatically a COI" – or at least not in this discussion – but other editors have said this, and you said something that reminded them of the overall climate on wiki. And now you're mad at them for noticing the overall climate, or for assuming that you agree with it, and anyway, how dare they be upset about something that upsets them?
If you haven't personally seen editors claiming that being religious is a problem, then I point out that there are l-o-n-g discussions open at ANI and COIN right now about whether being a member of a particular Christian denomination is a formal COI. Note that I'm not linking them because I think that having anyone in this discussion join them would be a bad idea – too much risk of us providing more heat than light, and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anyone say that having a religious belief is automatically a COI, I've seen people say that religious belief or affiliation can be a COI and people say that it can't be. Nothing in policy or guideline seems to support the "can't" side while the "can" side is currently consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember seeing anyone claim that all religious beliefs are always a COI. I have seen editors say that having specific, uncommon religious beliefs (e.g., anyone who belongs to this or that 'cult') is a COI for any articles related to that subject area.
ArbCom disagreed in 2010: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies."
But editors are not required to agree with ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors with a COI are not prohibited from editing pages regardless so not sure if there actually is any disagreement there. The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's always true, but the case I worry about more is the incorrect "identification". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what context is a COI editor actually prohibited from making edits? Incorrect identification is not an outing concern, so not sure why you would worry more about that than legit outing but OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect identification is a Wikipedia:Harassment concern. Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in. This is bad for Wikipedia, and it is bad for the falsely accused editors. You shouldn't have done that. IMO editors should be strongly discouraged from following your example.
COI editors are officially not prohibited from making all edits, but COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions. However, in practice, WP:Nobody reads the directions, and many of them are told by well-meaning editors that they shouldn't make any edits at all, and some of them are also told that if they do, then they'll be dragged to ANI or COIN for a criticism and self-criticism session. See, e.g., fully disclosed paid editors being told that simple updates for outdated information should be handled through the edit request system because "it's best" if paid editors never touch the mainspace. It is best – if your personal values prioritize purity over up-to-date articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that suddenly took a person turn... These are serious aspersions and that is not my memory of what happened in what ways was the infomation incomplete? I would also note that those allegations turned out to be 100% valid, they were not in any way false. "COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions" doesn't appear to be true, as far as I can see they are not officially prohibited from making any type of contributions in particular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Casting wp:aspersions is "accus[ing an editor] of misbehavior without evidence". You were accused of misbehavior for a specific course of events. I was not a part of this, it was not linked, and I don't really care, but I found the narrative easy to enough to follow that it seems to me that if I asked you both to spell out in detail the factual series of events, you'd agree -- that's why it's not aspersions.
Since the topic of this sub-sub-thread is COI, and the editor brought up this sad tale because it directly relates to COI, I also see nothing personal or uncivil in it. You state there is a factual lie or inaccuracy in the narrative, so that probably should be hammered on your own respective talk pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV.
okay, but I’ve been accused of being Falun Gong for my comments on FTN, so maybe nobody should be trying to divine the religion of editors on the basis of their edits?
like don’t get me wrong, if someone is editing a JW article with watchtower talking points that’s definitely an issue, but there’s little value I can imagine in trying to “gotcha” an editor’s faith and if their editing is a COI issue or otherwise problematic that can be addressed. Someone may simply have bad information and be editing on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people's affiliation can be inferred from NPOV edits, then I'd say that's working-as-intended. People can be TBanned for repeated or blatant NPOV on contentious/vulnerable articles without any reference to COI -- that's the whole premise for TBans on stuff like Israel-Palestine (nobody would say that being a national from one or the other is a COI to edit respective articles). Political fervor is quite the driver of disruptive editing -- if that is regulated without COI then why are some here calling for COI for religion?
(fwiw, I'd argue "religious affiliation" is not usually the same as affiliation/membership in a specific church bureaucracy/org that is affiliated with that religion -- so for example one could argue CoS is a church-organization that is affiliated with dianetics philosophy/religion; then an employee of CoS has COI by existing policy. I realize that definition would put a monolithic-monocephalous church in a grey zone, but I'd again say NPOV is sufficient.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am 100% not endorsing any sort of on-wiki assertion or accusation of another editor's religion or political beliefs based on their editing habits (agreeing Warren above). I am saying such blatant NPOV edits can be called out for what they are, as they have been in every contentious topic area. (It's common also to call out poor or undue sourcing, synth, cherrypicking, etc. -- blatant bad behavior be blatant.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with COI editing is it's often not "blatant", but like "dirt in the gauge" of the fine instrument in consensus forming. A !vote in a RfC here, a change of emphasis in an article there, and hey presto! POV achieved! The basic truth is that Wikipedia fails to deal with COIs because of its emphasis on the primacy of anonymity. The two are irreconcilable. Thus: the shit-show continues, and will continue for ever until Wikipedia gets a grip and turns into a serious Project. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI can be a subtle problem, but so can many other things. Someone attempting a subtle change in emphasis is not necessarily a bigger problem than editors who believe they're always right – and we have lots of those (including me, except that I really am always right!). If I have to choose between an editor who determines reliability on the basis of whether the source says the Right™ Thing and an editor with a secret COI who wants to slightly shift the emphasis of an article, I might not always think that the latter is the bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be to misunderstand, fundamentally, the pernicious nature of COI. People may - on their own behalves - argue passionately in many directions. But when an external interest is exerting influence, the outcome of decision-making will depend of which interest has most sway. It is why serious consensus-making fora (i.e. not Wikipedia) tend to have stringent rules on COI transparency. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm misunderstanding COI. I think I'm saying that I'd rather have a small problem in an article than a big one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were choosing types of editors you'd maybe prefer. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A subtle shift in article focus seems like a smaller problem than a big bias in source choice; ergo, I'd choose the editor who spends multiple years pushing for a small shift in focus over the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV and include weak sources with the 'right' POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Editors are wrong all the time, and preferring weak sources to strong ones is of course a common fault particularly in newbies. But here's the thing: editors with a brain and good faith will generally change their mind, modify their position or gracefully concede a point if they are presented with cogent opposition but have no skin in the game. They learn and grow. The COI editor will forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've been assigned, without deviation. I'd rather have an editor corps of messy but correctable human beings than apparatchiks dedicated to shaping content in some particular way so as to advance an outside interest. Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But editors who do have skin in the game, but not of the sort that 'counts' as a COI, don't generally change their minds. They forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've personally adopted, without deviation, exactly like that irritating family member that you never want to hear talking about politics at any family gathering.
Also, paid editors are often temporary: eventually, either we come to a plausible compromise (and sometimes that 'subtle shift in article focus' is actually warranted, though not generally with the wording that the marketing department suggests), or the payer decides to quit throwing good money after bad.
People who feel aggrieved about something will argue for decades about their pet thing. I know one who is still upset that his mother had to pay inheritance taxes half a century ago. I don't know if he would agree that he's a "messy" human being, but I am convinced that if he were editing Wikipedia, he would not be a "correctable" one.
Perhaps putting it in WP:UPPERCASE will help: Given a choice between a WP:GREATWRONGS editor pushing bad sourcing and a WP:COI editor pushing a subtle shift in emphasis, I'm often going to prefer the COI editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just have neither editor... Thats clearly the best solution in terms of improving the encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both the tendentious editor and the COI editor who doesn't respect NPOV can be shown the door if they don't change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spoil it HEB. WAID has chosen her beau and I have chosen mine. We shall both go to the dance and have a thoroughly miserable time. Bon courage (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither would be lovely. However, for some unaccountable reason, the paperwork to declare me Queen of Everything seems to have gotten lost, and until that's resolved, I don't think it's feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing why both would be any less feasible than one or the other... If both can be done individually then both can be done together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can be done consistently or reliably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If neither can be done then why is the choice either or? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because sometimes figuring out whether Bad Thing #1 is better or worse than Bad Thing #2 is helpful to people. It can help people develop perspective and prioritize their efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effect seems to be to excuse one of the bad things, why can't we just say that both are bad and should result in full or partial seperation from the project and which is badder is up to context and personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We did say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps I do not understand the point you wished to make. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also agree that neither is best if possible, I am also always going to prefer an editor editing in good faith to an editor editing in bad faith. Loki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but few people, except blatant vandals, think they are deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. A paid agent may think they're making Wikipedia more accurate or fairer. A personal POV pusher may believe they're making Wikipedia better by giving a little more respect for an idea they believe. Even the parents who show up at Talk:Santa Claus every December, to ask that we not "ruin" Christmas by telling their kids that Santa Claus isn't a living, breathing magical person think they're trying to make Wikipedia better.
That's why the rule is Wikipedia:Assume good faith: assume that the other person – no matter how stupid, misguided, or wrong they may actually be – is actually trying to do something that in their opinion will make Wikipedia better. To put it more bluntly, when the white supremacists show up with their racist garbage, we assume that they're trying to make Wikipedia better according to their own way of thinking, even though we don't agree that their garbage actually makes it any better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, I think "bad faith" is one of the most misunderstood/misused phrases on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would help if we re-wrote Wikipedia:Tendentious editing to say "Tendentious editing is a pattern of good-faith editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I think COI editing is so egregious, because it's one of the few kinds of editing that is actually in bad faith. Loki (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, imagine that someone works for a big company. In the actual marketing department, no less. This person notices that the number of employees in {{infobox company}} is several years out of date. Imagine that the employee corrects the error.
In your opinion, is that employee "trying to hurt Wikipedia" or "trying to help Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't provide the piece of information we would need to know in order to determine that... Their intention. It is most likely that their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia, but unless you provide that piece of the puzzle the question is (perhaps purposefully) unanswerable in a straight manner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This: their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia is a logical fallacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The use of wikipedia for promotion unambigously hurts wikipedia, thats why we explicitly ban it (WP:PROMO). Anyone who intends to engage in promotion, advertising, or recruitment intends to hurt wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with him on many COI things, I'm behind HEB here. Correcting an error in order to promote an organization that is paying you to promote them is a bad faith edit and harms Wikipedia.
To see why, imagine that article has three estimates in it for number of employees: one that is too low, one that is correct, and one that is too high. The COI editor only corrects the one that is too low despite being aware of all of them. Is that a good faith edit? Loki (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, see the comment where I've already addressed the biased assumption that more employees is better for a company. (Hint: Layoffs usually result in stock prices going up, not down.)
Also, what if there aren't three estimates? What if it's just one wrong number in an infobox, and the COI editor is merely correcting a simple factual error?
Just because a person with a COI could make an edit that is intended to harm Wikipedia – or, more likely, that is intended to help the company and doesn't care whether Wikipedia is helped or harmed – doesn't mean that every single edit made by that person is inherently harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} Two things:

  • Simply replacing inaccurate or outdated information with accurate, up-to-date information unambiguously helps Wikipedia.
    • "As of 2012, the company had 190 employees" → "As of 2024, the company had 165 employees".
    • "As of 2012, Alice Expert was the CEO" → "As of 2024, Bob Business was the CEO".
  • Correcting a factual error is not inherently promotional.
    • Whether more or fewer employees is better (and therefore potentially promotional) depends on how you interpret that. For example, is having slightly fewer employees a sign of good management leading to greater efficiency and productivity, or is it a sign of a shrinking, struggling company that can barely make payroll?

Have you ever heard of a win–win scenario? On those occasions when what's best for Wikipedia happens to match what's best for the company, then Wikipedia is not actually harmed by the company getting what they want.

There are many circumstances in which what's good for the company is bad for Wikipedia, but there are also circumstances in which what's good for the company is also best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In re Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point.
No, that really is the point. Exclusively promotional edits are harmful, no matter who makes them. A good edit made by a Bad™ person is still a good edit. A bad edit made by a Good™ person is still a bad edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The win-win scenario is when the COI editor makes an edit request like they're supposed to... If they make the edit directly thats a loss for wikipedia. We don't scrub the edits of confirmed COI editors, your argument would only make sense if we did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Break

the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV
I've definitely seen this habit at FTN, and it was one of the impulses for this thread. If FTN has decided their specific understanding of a topic, collectively, is the "correct" one then attempts to address that are often met with accusations of POV-pushing, attempts to introduce FUD for WP:PROFRINGE purposes, etc.
The example raised above is a pretty good one for this. Wikipedia has a hard deliniation between Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, but this hard deliniation doesn't exist in the literature and "panspermia" is regularly and routinely used to refer to what Wikipedia calls "Pseudo-panspermia". Note that this isn't "the scientific literature is actually down with the fringe theory" but rather "the specific terminalogical bifurcation that Wikipedia is using is an artifice of Wikipedia and risks confusing readers who come to Wikipedia on this topic from credible sources."
No amount of academic, primary, secondary, etc. sources that show that "Panspermia" can and is regularly used to refer to it landed with anything other than a wet thud and accusations from some of the FTN core. Even in the Tukdam thread that's on FTN right now there's a "Well we can't consider that credible source" (which is, to be fair, actually arguable on the sourcing, but not cut-and-dry per WP:RS). There seems to be this attitude of absolute certainty that arises from FTN which outpaces the ability of people whose personal expertise is more rooted around fringe theories to evaluate.
See: above with me being accused of not understanding specialist terminology in my own field. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted, with the "absolute certainty" you are projecting onto others It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. You were shown the sources to show why this was wrong and had to concede "The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used". In such cases Wikipedia need to manage the terminology and use hatnotes to guide the reader, and this is what happened. Consensus was achieved and things improved thanks to FTN. Yet here you are rewriting history and somehow it's the fault of "FTN" that you were in a muddle. It's all very odd. Have you considered the problem isn't with FTN at all, but somewhere else? Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with me personally take it to WP:ANI.
Here is the thread which is being very creatively represented above for anyone who'd like to evaluate it for themselves. FTN's "consensus" on this topic was exactly what @WhatamIdoing seemed to be worried about.
This thread just feels like a huge waste of time at this point, and it really didn't have to. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the thread sprawled to here where the issue was resolved. If I took every editor that was wrong about something to ANI I'd never be out of the place (and would have to take myself there regularly!). I think we can all agree this thread has been a waste of time. It was always going to be since there was no evidence and no proposal. Perhaps this can - for all our sakes - be the last time this particular FTN complaint pony is taken round the park. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely can't even begin to think of how to respond to this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Religion is ubiquitous in most parts of the world. While many if not most of the various religions of the world hold beliefs that are not provable by science, they are just that beliefs. While all fringe theories could be categorized as beliefs, not all beliefs are fringe theories. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A religious belief that has no effect on the rest of scholarship is just that. For example, a claim that pure land exists is generally so far removed from physical reality as to be basically just worth documenting as a major belief in Buddhism. However, there are those Buddhists, some of which are more active than others, who claim that there exists a literal Mount Meru that one can actually discover here on Earth. That is a WP:FRINGE theory. jps (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all beliefs are fringe... But all "beliefs that are not provable by science" are fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Firstly, it's not true because the policy defines a fringe view as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not according to whether the view is provable by science.
Secondly, it's not true because it's goes against common sense. Views in non-scientific fields (e.g., art criticism, history) are never provable by science and can still be classified as mainstream or fringe. It's nonsense to say that since, e.g., fictional characters can't be scientifically proven to exist, then all views about them are fringe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are never mainstream by definition, no single religion is that large and they don't generally agree on anything. The field of Religious Studies isn't some sort of free for all, even claims which are purely religious can be fringe. The belief that a fictional character was real would be fringe, the mainstream view is that fictional characters are not real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are certainly "prevailing views", since 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religious views. Those religious views include ideas that are very widely held (e.g., that humans are different from other animals in some important way; that justice and peace are desirable values; that long-term happiness is something people should seek; that there are good ways and bad ways to relate to others). The belief that justice is better than injustice is absolutely "not provable by science", but it's definitely mainstream. Science might help us understand what actions could achieve specific forms of justice, but science (i.e., excluding the quasi-religion of scientism) can't tell is that justice is good.
When considering not just "the prevailing views" but specifically the "mainstream views in its particular field", we prioritize scholarly sources. For example, most of the world believes in ghosts. The scholars in the relevant fields, using the methods of that field don't. Therefore, "ghosts are real" is WP:FRINGE and "ghosts are not real" is mainstream. There is no limitation here about the relevant field needing to be a scientific one.
Also, let's go back to that fictional character. Othello (character) is a fictional character. What was this fictional character's racial/ethnic background intended to be? There are two mainstream views. Neither are provable by science. Neither of them are WP:FRINGE. A view that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" might say that Othello was Irish, and this would be FRINGE. A view that aligns with the mainstream views in the field might say that Othello was a brown-skinned Muslim from the Mediterranean coast, and this would not be FRINGE. But the relevant fields are literary studies, theatre studies, and history, none of which are science. Each view on that question is declared FRINGE or not FRINGE without any reference whatsoever to whether the view is "provable by science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been another exchange on FTN in the last few days that I think really highlights my issues here. A user (@ජපස:) removed the entire section on academic study from the Tukdam article. They removed a link to a UW-Madison research group publishing on this topic using brain scans and other methods. He dismissed their papers out of hand as not being justified in the article with

It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.

Which is obviously not how any of this works. We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university (not just religious scholars playing with brain scans for fun without any idea what they're doing) and an even passing knowledge of the field of Buddhist Studies will make it very clear that scholar-practitioners are the norm in the field. And this is why FTN should tread cautiously with assuming they know the fields they're editing in. "Well the author is a Buddhist and can't be trusted to write about Buddhism" is not a reasonable take, especially in the context of an academic field that both routinely stands up to outside scrutiny of their scholarship and which is typically rife with people who both practice their faith and publish on it in critical, objective ways.

Why are FTN regulars deciding that the religion of authors is enough to justify the removal of entire sections when we're talking about accepted peer-review publications in Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos? Why are we tolerating the dismissal of credible, non-Bealles-list peer-reviewd sources on the grounds of the religion of the author when there's zero evidence whatseover of wrongdoing that could have implicated the study in question or its authors? Wikipedia is worse for this type of editing, incredulity and personal (ir-)religious philosophy shouldn't be dictating the content of articles.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's an important detail here that the results of the studies in question didn't particularly support wild, fantastical conclusions that warrant incredulity. The claim was "Meditating dead monks are still somewhat alive" and the paper's conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." It feels like the religion of the authors is the whole basis for the objection of inclusion here, which is not at all how WP:NPOV and WP:RS work, but on FTN it can. This is, to me, simply open bigotry, which is something I've been expressing some frustration at here.
This is why I disagree with @ActivelyDisinterested that
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
When a noticeboard starts having its own interpretation of the sites rules and it operates on those, and does so on obscure parts of Wikipeida that may not have many eyes on it, then yes, the official canvassing policy aside if can very much feel like "I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do.", so about (insert project name here)... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it would appear to be you who holds heterodox interpretations of policy... Not the guys you keep ranting about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on community action earlier this year, Warrenmck is not the one with the heterodox interpretation. A thread at ANI a few months ago ended in a topic ban for a user who was rejecting citations to academically published material about Islam merely on the grounds that the academics were Muslims. Excluding content cited to academically published material about Buddhism merely because the academics were also Buddhists is the behavior and interpretation that's out of step with the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I genuinely feel a little crazy with these exchanges here. Between this and the discussion above about how all religions are totally fringe I feel like some of FTN isn't engaging with, well, WP:FRINGE in good faith when it comes to topics of religion, which can result in article quality being reduced, which isn't what any of us want from noticeboards.
It's pretty clear that, while maybe not a huge systemic thing, several editors are using FTN to grind a particular axe. The is probably where things like attacking a credible scholar on the basis of their faith without any evidence whatsoever of impropriety comes from as far as I can tell, because it's certainly not coming from WP:FRINGE or WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, I have rejected a variety of publications about Isra' and Mi'raj on the basis of the apologetics of the author. The fact that academics who are arguing in favor of the literal truth of that story are Islamic is absolutely relevant. It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. Not any that would pass WP:REDFLAG certainly. The article text just linked to their research group and press releases! The fact that this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation while claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead is WP:BOLLOCKS influenced by a blinkered religious devotion. It's the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Hindu astrology. jps (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead: Except that apparently isn't what the source claimed, or at least it isn't what was in the article text. The article text that you twice removed (wholesale, with no attempt at just trimming) stated that the study did not detect any brain activity in clinically dead tukdam (italics added). As Warrenmck said that the conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." What's so 'bollocks' about that? And what's so un-solid about the source, a research center at a secular state university (University of Wisconsin-Madison)? You pay no apparent notice to the secular university setting of the source nor to the utterly plausible results of the research (that no, there is no detectable brain activity from the dead monks); all you offer is your apparent revulsion that the researcher was a Buddhist. It's frankly bigotry, and the way you let it influence your editing is disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that jps has any "apparent revulsion" is unwarranted here. Are we reading the same source? This one appears problematic to me, and the article content being sourced to it should not have relied on such a source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section should definitely be trimmed but obviously not removed. It's a real and secular study that didn't find anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so saying that it existed and didn't find any brain activity ought to be utterly uncontroversial. Loki (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EEG on a corpse was hardly the only thing they claimed to "test". The entire enterprise is an ideological juggernaut that includes things like asking the asinine question as to whether the corpses decay at different rates depending on their status as meditators -- claims which are so ridiculous as to be nearly impossible to operationalize. The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that. The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. jps (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that.
From the research group you removed from the article as a "shit" source:
it certainly looks like It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. may have been a bit off the mark? Thanks for accusing me of "whining" though.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. I see a list that includes predatory and pocket journals, FrotiersIn, MDPI, and moribund backdoors to avoid peer review by competent scholars. And you were already warned at WP:FTN about promoting Frontiers as a potential WP:RS. These are terrible sources for claims about corpses decaying. This is basically WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Frontiers in Psychology is a highly rated journal.[7] Their WP:Impact factor is more than twice the average for the field. Beall's List said that "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine." WP:CITEWATCH says that these journals should be evaluated "case by case", which is significantly different from "anything and everything from MDPI is a terrible source" or "anything in MDPI is basically PROFRINGE". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the whole list:
  • Forensic Science International is a mid-tier journal, ranked 46th percentile in Scopus.[8]
  • Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry is ranked 90th percentile by Scopus[9] and is indexed by MEDLINE.[10] Their impact factor is high for "culture" and low for "psychiatry".
  • Ethnos is rated 93rd percentile[11] and has an impact factor a bit above average for anthropology.
  • Religions is rated 90th percentile[12] with an impact factor that would be typical for sociology (I don't have numbers for religious studies specifically).
  • Frontiers in Psychology is ranked at the 78th percentile[13] and has an impact factor that's double the typical level for psychology.
I'm not seeing serious problems here. None of these journals are remove-on-sight predatory journals. Some of them are quite respectable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rate any of these journals highly for the evaluation of medical conditions or slowing decay? jps (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review article in Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry would tick all the boxes for the WP:MEDRS ideal: MEDLINE listed, reputable publisher, good metrics. Dhat syndrome would probably be improved by using their PMID 39136849. Wandering (dementia) would probably be improve by incorporating the POV presented in PMID 29368117. PMID 27142641 looks like it could be useful in Chronic condition or Terminal illness or even Spoon theory, as it presents the process of developing realistic expectations as being a form of healing/healthcare.
I would accept a recent review article, within the usual scope of their field, from any of these journals. I wonder if the problem here is less about the source and more about what the source is being used for. For example, the 1991(!) Cult Med Psy article might be more useful for "Some people have a different concept of death than modern medicine!" than for "It is a definite fact that even though his heart stopped beating last week and he hasn't moved or breathed since then, he's still alive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely get behind an argument that we need to look at what sources are used for. My main interest is preventing some sort of WP:PROFRINGE of the empirical claims associated with Tukdam. There is obvious interest in these subjects from a cultural studies, anthropological, sociological, and comparative religious perspective. The issue I have always had with this particular research group is the attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience, physiology, and even quantum physics(!). There is some shoehorning that I see by the group itself and even more that got laundered into previous versions of our own article text. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I listed Tukdam at WP:FTN, it had been discussed at WT:DYK[14] and transcluded onto the talk page from Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam. Two editors other than myself had supported the removal of the "Scientific research" section. The primary author of the article restored it.[15] Above, it was mentioned that FTN discussions should be linked from relevant notice boards. Issues about Tukdam had already been raised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism weeks before hand.[16] I've added links to both this discussion and the one at FTN just now.[17] If I noticed a problem (a faith-based belief being misrepresented as an evidence-based hypothesis), but I "didn't grasp the language" used by a specialized field, I think posting to a relevant notice board was the correct thing to do. Despite conflicts, do you think that the changes made since the issue was raised improve or worsen the article, Warrenmck? Rjjiii (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the changes made so far have been good, and was quick myself to question Tricycle as a source being... not great in the context of that article. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on an editorial decision being presented as based on the faith of the author. An identical conclusion could have been arrived at in any other way, but it's not on me or other editors to discern if just open bigotry is actually masking an in-depth discussion which warrants consideration. If those points exist, then editors should cite them and not the religion of a given academic.
Even if I wholly agreed with every change made (which for the most part, minus the removal of the scientific studies section which I'm still unclear why you and others are calling for its removal, we do agree on) nothing would change in that lines like
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
shouldn't be happening here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to stop my evaluations of religious nonsense by posting to village pump. I'm allowed to make judgement calls in the cause of protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims. jps (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Warrenmck here. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti-anything, except pro-verifiability and neutrality. Everyone is allowed to make judgement calls within Wiki rules and consensus (which terms as hyperbolic and farcical do not imply). It's also worth examining what is actually notable about these beliefs; that they exist among a community, or that it wouldn't pass peer-review? A majority of the time with any movement/philosophy (religious or other), it's the former. We could do this about almost anything, like Jesus' resurrection or optimism/pessimism. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that often you want to say something like "Some of these people believe ____". Sometimes an article needs to say "____ is not factually true" (e.g., List of common misconceptions). And I would add a third category: "____ was sensationally claimed in the news/has become a common stereotype in popular culture/was a widespread internet meme in YYYY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the imprimatur of a "research group" was being laundered as a way to claim that there was "serious investigation" into whether or not meditating champions would be able to continue meditating after death and thereby prevent their corpses from decaying. This is pretty WP:BLUESKY nonsense. I do not see how it is at all defensible. jps (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You again removed the section in question, with the edit comment of
Get better sources if you think there is anything here. These sources are shit.
There's a content dispute here, but also a fundamental behaviour and WP:OWN issue. At no level is how you're engaging with this appropriate. It feels like you have far more of an issue with the fact that the research group exists at all, rather than any substantive issue with their findings. UW Madison and their research group focused on this are credible, and they've published their results in journals like Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos. They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Ideologically driven editing has no place here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're turning this into a conduct discussion forum, I'd say the bigger problem is that you're supporting poor content based on a poor source. I don't think of this as being a common issue with your work, and my good-faith guess is that maybe your involvement in this conduct dispute is putting up some content blinkers. You've repeatedly restored, for example, a wiki-voice claim that a named individual "remained in tukdam for 13 days". That's obviously not appropriate. If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinions on the exact verbiage of the section before you changed it a lot recently. I have strong objections to the removal of the entire section on absurd grounds that the source isn't good. Not once have you actually raised a specific concern with the source other than what amounts to "C'mon, look at it" which several of us have and have seen no particular issue with.
If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples?
I frankly think the issues around the sources being rejected due to what appears to just be personal incredulity is pretty much is the cleanest possible example, here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "personal incredulity" mind-reading gambit is tough to take in good faith. WP:REDFLAG is part of WP:V, one of our core policies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I also don't think that line is worth including:
a) I think the idea that a whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line is obviously absurd.
b) The source in question I also agree seems fine. Notably it does not endorse that line.
Like a lot of FTN content disputes I'm not entirely sure why it's even happening. It feels like the "skeptic" side, huge airquotes, has dug their heels into an aesthetic commitment so hard they haven't even actually bothered to look at the source. Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly endorses that line, saying "Ling Rinpoche remained in the state for 13 days, exhibiting a fresh life-like appearance in the humid subtropical climate of Dharamsala until the thirteenth day when initial decompositional signs appeared." In context, "the state" unambiguously refers to the tukdam state. As for "whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line": what a weird and untrue guess at the motivation for the removal. Which edit summary hinted at anything of the sort? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentence would benefit from a re-write. For example, consider "This study began in 1995 after a discussion between neuroscientist Richard Davidson and the Dalai Lama about the meditative death of Kyabje Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body did not show visible signs of decomposition until then." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go even further with who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body was said by monks and other believers to have not shown did not show visible signs of decomposition until then. jps (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source make that claim, or is that your editorialization? Because when I glanced through it I didn’t see the bifurcation in claims you’re making. I can imagine a whole bunch of environmental variables factoring in but you seem very hung up on a form split between what the source says and what you personally deem credible, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask editors to filter papers through your personal incredulity as a standard before editing.
It’s not like the implication in any of these papers is “a specific theology is true!” and in your race to editorialize you’re possibly inventing caveats and conclusions not in the papers in question.
I have zero problem with your suggested edit if that’s actually backed up by the sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source begins the narrative with the phrase 'The Dalai Lama described' and follows that description for a while, so jps's paraphrase would seem to be a fair summary and not editorialization. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source: Journals aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources per se; they're publications in which multiple individual primary/secondary/tertiary sources are published.
All first-time reports of scientific research are primary sources for the results of that research. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. An article that provides comments on the research would be a secondary source, even if those comments say something like "Look at this huge waste of research money" or "All the experts we contacted thought this was a huge joke" or "Here's more proof that peer review doesn't indicate importance, and journal editors aren't immune to clickbait fodder", and even if that commentary is in a popular/non-academic publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo you in emphasizing that a single research paper is a primary source -- if there's no other research coming out, then I'd be very cautious about mentioning such a paper at all or its conclusions (and especially not summarize them more than they choose to summarize themselves in their own abstract and conclusions sections).
U:jps had an odd comment about the credibility of the UWisc group (with sentiment echoed by others) that included The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. This seems odd in that one of the issues of wp:Parity is the relative lack of typical RS that challenge fringe claims; so here a typical RS is critically assessing fringe Tukdam claims, yet therefore this becomes in itself a reason for prejudice against the RS's reliability?
I don't see that objective scientific inquiry needs to be defended (even if the investigator has personal biases, which we all do). Nonetheless, as the EEG paper outlines (as have a couple more I've seen investigating similar stuff), investigating this sort of thing raises all sorts of interesting methodological questions in several fields. Usually the conclusions of these sorts of papers is not the most important part. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evaluation of a claim should be contextual and methodological, absolutely, and that's also why the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me. To take another example, there are a number of null-result papers published in Journal of Scientific Exploration that would otherwise be used to prove certain wacky ideas "taken seriously" which, y'know, isn't true because even those WP:BLUESKY conclusions don't receive notice. To behave otherwise risks us becoming cherry-pickers. I take WP:REDFLAG to be my lodestar. The idea is that you want multiple serious, independent relevant researchers arguing there is a there there before Wikipedia should be going on and on about that kind of "they take us seriously argument".
Shroudies are another good example of this. The amount of ink spilled about what is obviously a medieval forgery is absurd, but the faithful will point to the ludicrous number of "investigations" that start from square one and apply yet another test to the thing as evidence that science takes them seriously. It doesn't.
jps (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this reaction is a degree of defensiveness that is not compatible with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia goes by the sources and not whether the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Like, the thing you are describing is just not a thing that Wikipedia can or should consider at all. Loki (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are tasked with deciding whether a source is reliable for the claim it is making. If there are few to no citations that notice a WP:PRIMARY source, we typically do not lean heavily on it. jps (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of feeling like what you are describing is WP:RGW. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who this is directed towards, but I think this is something of an inversion of my point. The "righting of great wrongs" is typically what I see being pushed by those who are arguing, "hey, this WP:FRINGE idea deserves more consideration." jps (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reply to Loki, the outdents make it kind of tricky. Sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pack's comment sounds fair to me. We see editors in some areas trying to make sure that readers are "protected from" certain ideas. We're happy to invoke NOTCENSORED for (e.g.) sexual content, or whether Santa Claus exists, but we are less inclined to expose readers to POVs that we don't agree with and that we believe should be considered a "scientific fact/falsehood".
In such cases, saying "This idea exists" is interpreted by editors as "This idea deserves more consideration". In this case, you can look at the facts and come up with several responses: "Huh, those people think meditation happens in the heart, so it was stupid of them to test the brain". Or "Look at the stupid research ideas people spend money on". Or "I wonder why they tried to apply medical technology to their spiritual practice". But the worry from the RGW-ish editors is that somebody might read it and say "Wow, finding out whether dead bodies can still meditate must be a worthy scientific endeavor instead of a candidate for the BMJ's Christmas edition. I believe in science, so now I believe in meditation after death!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as concerned with reader reaction as I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. I am hoping to evaluate the worthiness of article text on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. I argue that the proper amount to include for many claims that strain credulity on the basis of a WP:Notability vs. prominence basis is zero. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here
There very clearly is, though. This isn't the only neuroscience group doing work with Buddhist monks, and that doesn't mean that the researchers involved in those research groups are making, laundering, or even agreeing with any theological claims. This isn't a particularly unknown thing among neuroscientists as far as I know, and it speaks a lot more to "interesting brains" than validating any kind of theology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to go down the hall and knock on the doors of a few neuroscientists and ask what if they have heard about performing EEGs on corpses on the basis of tukdam and whether there is a legitimate research question to answer by doing so. I'll do the same. Then we can report back. jps (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is following the logic. You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. (Various reasons for this -- but even those who consider fringe theories in themselves worth their time may decide ignoring them is a good strategy; others feel they should be positively debunked; afaik there is not an objectively "correct" position given basically identical goals.) That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory. Whether you feel that, ethically or whatever, any scientists should investigate fringe theories ever, is your own thing, but it has and will occasionally happen, and scientists will do it in a certain way, and I don't know how you would expect it to be done differently. And without those occasional RS, the only source of parity (or parody) on fringe topics is from snarky self-qualified skeptic bloggers. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this. We're obligated to use the WP:BESTSOURCES on a topic, and clearly a study saying "he's dead Jim" is a stronger source than a science blogger snarkily conjecturing "he's dead Jim", regardless of what you feel about the beliefs of the people who did the study or if it was worthwhile to do it in the first place. Loki (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, remembering one particularly well-written informal review, Andrade and Radhakrishnan 2009 made a point that there are very good theological and philosophical reasons for rejecting or debunking claims of empirically-testable spiritual intervention on Earth. (Indeed, once the spiritual becomes scientifically empirical, it by definition is no longer spiritual.) A number of religious authorities have learned this lesson, as have religious scientists. A faithful Buddhist may (or may not) have every reason than any skeptic to want to see the empirical claims of Tukdam disproven. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do? jps (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I think that providing facts (including facts about opinions, spiritual beliefs, perspectives, and errors) is an important service to the world. I do not subscribe to the belief that all publicity is good publicity or that describing the wide diversity of people's beliefs is promoting fringe subjects. I also don't believe that it's Wikipedia's job decide which beliefs are worthy of being learned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at slight differences of opinions about where we draw the line for WP:NFRINGE. I am just less of an inclusionist and like to be dragged kicking and screaming over the line to articlespace presentation. jps (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more odd to me in this whole mess of a discussion is that a lot of the research motivations are clearly independent of the religious or fringe-adjascent claims; it's just a desire for more data on the state of the brain at the moments around death. Couple that with a population eager to probe that specific thing and you have a basis for a fairly ethical approach to a very sticky study subject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all convinced that these are the motivations, but I also don't think the motivations ultimately matter. What does matter is the lack of third-party notice. jps (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like the goalposts keep moving. We can't say this; there's no scientific research. Oh, there's scientific research, but we still can't say this, because we need someone to comment on the research. Oh, there was a television program commenting directly on the research? Well, we still can't say it, because the television program isn't truly independent. Oh, now you've got an article in a reputable daily newspaper analyzing the television program's analysis of the scientific research and that doesn't appear to be written by someone with any personal connections to this subject and which also didn't interview anyone even remotely involved in this? Well, that still won't do, because, um, I'll think of something, but a self-self-published website like Quackwatch would be infinitely preferable to whatever sources actually exist.
This is the sort of thing that makes people wonder whether the ultimate test is "Does the source agree with my personal POV?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the TV program commenting on the research? jps (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A documentary called Tukdam: Point of Death, apparently. The newspaper describes it as "The strangest programme of this week — or of any week for a long time" and provided some analytical commentary (e.g., comparisons to the popular Christian tradition of ascribing saintly values to physical Incorruptibility). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to watch this documentary, but have failed. Maybe because it only appeared on Irish TV? Unclear. If you know how I can watch it, I would be grateful. jps (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't attempted to watch the documentary. I think the newspaper article provides enough information about it to give me an idea of its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely true that one of the biggest complaints of WP:PROFRINGE is that Wikipedians dismiss their proposed sourcing as unreliable. To wit, I don't think I've seen much in the way of reliable sourcing that post-death brain activity is a hot topic except among those religious believers who, as part of their faith, believe that this is a possibility. jps (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability isn't about whether it's "a hot topic". Reliability is whether we trust (aka are willing to "rely on") a source for a given statement. Whether something's a hot topic is a matter for NPOV rather than reliability.
We see this all the time in medical topics. A loussy primary source actually is reliable for a statement like "In YYYY, one study found that pouring gasoline on cancer cells reliably killed them". The problem is that the space in an article should be focused on less stupid forms of cancer research (because even if Wikipedia has an infinite supply of pixels, reader attention does not have a correspondingly infinite number of minutes to spend on reading the article). In this case, if you put "tukdam" into your favorite news search engine, basically all the sources are trying to explain whether it can be proven to exist via modern technology. Ergo it is DUE for the article mention something about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the model of "putting tukdam in your favorite search engine" to test for whether a perspective on a topic deserves inclusion is valid. I think WP:FRIND asks us to consider broader impacts. jps (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: You should put "tukdam" in your favorite search engine and see which independent sources you can find. If your favorite search engine happens to be news.google.com, you should find a couple dozen sources that were not written by any of the authors of the EEG study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is all that I find when I do that:
  • Big Think starts out with "It’s definitely happening, and it’s definitely weird. After the apparent death of some monks, their bodies remain in a meditating position without decaying for an extraordinary length of time, often as long as two or three weeks." [18]
  • The only other article is from mindmatters.ai which is a publication by the Discovery Institute(!) I beg your forgiveness that I stop right there.
So one article that starts out pretty miserably is all that I'm seeing, but maybe you're getting better results than I.
jps (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the core concern

So it feels like, unintentionally, the exact situation I’m griping about has played out at full volume here. A subset of FTN regulars has shown up first attempting to shut down any discussion (I can’t help but notice I’ve been told I’ve been “warned” for citing a source someone here didn’t like, and told I’m being WP:PROFRINGE for the same) and refusing to avoid strawmanning, expounded on personal extra-policy values of “not accidentally giving a topic credibility” when the entire argument around that is something failing a vibe check (rather than anything to do with WP:RS) and in general just engaging in WP:RGW behaviour.

The editorial standards several users here advocate for are patently absurd. We are not qualified to evaluate if peer-reviewed publications have subtle implicit biases that poison the data in a way that the referees, with their actual qualifications, at various journals weren’t able to spot. We are being told that any scientific investigation into religious claims must be treated as fringe, even when the results are exactly what would be expected and make no extraordinary claims. We are meant to take it on face value that this entire endeavour is an attempt to legitimize a religion using science, and we must ignore specific and reasonable claims as to why scientists might actually be interested in this and must instead condemn academics for even daring to look at this.

This isn’t policy, this isn’t how Wikipedia works, and this is actively worsening articles. Editors in here have made it abundantly clear that they’re explicitly and openly not engaging with these topics in good faith, which goes back to my entire point posting this here where active derision of topics relating to religions seems to be the only acceptable approach to much of FTN. Given that this has come up with multiple editors, it does seem like there’s possibly a culture problem at FTN that warrants addressing and possibly greater oversight.

I’ve seen this come up time and time again when the actual understanding of a topic differs from the popular understanding of FTN. We saw it at panspermia, where a segment of FTN decided that plain as day sources right in front of them were secondary to their personal understanding of a topic. We’ve seen it at the Cunning folk and Mormonism thread, where editors viewed “cunning folk” as an attempt to whitewash magic and no amount of “this is the term used in academia” seemed to counter those laundering concerns. We see it here again, where the personal incredulity of editors who cannot begin to believe that neuroscientists may have a secular, academic interest in a specific type of brain activity. I can’t help but notice how much of the arguments here hinge on “this research group is taking something seriously that they shouldn’t be” without a single actual substantive argument to back that up. We’re being expected to take those arguments as serious and meaningful when they’re merely an opinion of an editor. In all cases WP:RS instantly caves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is made pretty explicitly with

Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do?

This isn’t improving Wikipedia. It’s making certain topics a nightmare to edit on because as it stands FTN cannot be wrong and FTN users are never wrong in their understanding of fringe. Evidence of a misunderstand is always just another WP:PROFRINGE user trying to concern-troll away good articles with PROFRINGE content and anyone who disagrees is, well, see the first large reply this post elicited.

This is, frankly, exhausting. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems pretty arrogant to declare that a slightly contrary WikiPhilosophy of your fellow Wikipedians "isn't improving Wikipedia". This is the kind of rhetoric I see in radical inclusionist spaces often, and it strikes me as inflammatory at best and toxic at worst, which feels like a bit of WP:KETTLE irony considering your complaint is largely that you (or those who follow closer to your editing philosophy) are feeling put upon. I should hope that people advocate for approaches because they think they are right. Differences of opinion are likely to occur, and the solution doesn't have to be thesis/antithesis. If you think that you aren't being heard, then maybe consider the massive length of this discussion. jps (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 90% of this is just common content dispute, with the added complication that Warren keeps describing the policy-based objections to his proposed content as IDONTLIKEIT or "merely an opinion" or lacking in substance. That's pretty typical as well, though it is exhausting. If our goal is to get back to the core concern, which I understand to be allegations of a systemic conduct problem at FTN, I'd suggest that identifying examples where Warren isn't personally part of the dispute might get us some distance from the common content disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the policy-based objections to his proposed content—When the purportedly policy-based objection in a particular case was 'the sources were created by Buddhists' and ignores all other context (that the research was conducted through a research center at a secular university, that the reported result was the rather normal 'the dead monk is dead'), and when the general concern is said to be with patterns of objections that on examination boil down to 'the source/author can be connected to religion', I am hard-pressed to see the substance or policy basis of the objection. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You read all the edit summaries and discussion here and at the talk page, and you found them all to say "created by Buddhists"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries at Tukdam don't seem to haven't gotten much beyond claims like "get better sources" and "This is all WP:FRINGE nonsense claims. Unless non-believers find it worthy of notice, it is not worthy" (the nonsense claim that dead brains don't give off brain activity?). And in this discussion, comments like describing the author as "this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation" and must therefore be unsuitably "influenced by a blinkered religious devotion", or saying that he (JPS) is protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims (the unblinkered, religiously devoted act of saying that... dead brains gave off no brain activity?) For where JPS hasn't hammered at the religious connections of an author, I think Loki has described the situation well in saying JPS seems to say that the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously and that this, somehow, makes the sources unusable for our purposes on Wikipedia. To quote another editor from a recent discussion, JPS continues to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary; the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel becomes a reason to consider the whole enterprise, seculary university and all, as untrustworthy, and this despite our community having a guideline that reminds us that a reliable source can be biased; we just try not to reproduce the bias.
Add to that the expressions of pride in being uncooperative with other editors (preferring "to be dragged kicking and screaming", professing to "enjoy having arguments", and taking on a brusque, short tone that doesn't strike me as treating other editors as respected colleagues rather than as ideological enemies), an attitude of behavior that's explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's expectation that we be reasonably cooperative, and Warrenmck's exhaustion seems pretty understandable. All this time and energy gets put into trying to assuage JPS's concern (except JPS is not interested in being assuaged; JPS explicitly would apparently rather have arguments and be dragged kicking and screaming) instead of getting put into doing as Loki brought up: trimming the content to be its best and most relevant, neutral version. Instead, by repeatedly pushing total exclusion of even the notion that anyone checked for brain activity (and found none!), we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel
It’s worth pointing out this sort of conciliatory tone is pretty common when working with minority ethnic/faith groups. It’s a bad look for researchers to get permission to study a topic within a minority community and turn around and (from the perspective of the community you’re working in) insulting them. “Yeah, their religious belief is wrong” isn’t exactly a shining example of research ethics.
Also I can think of at least one good research paper in geosciences which studied the mythology of Native Hawaiians to fascinating effect. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general. Researchers tend not only to take a neutral tone, but I've often seen that if they're in a paper that's going to objectively demonstrate not-X, they will take a tone that is generous and often deferent to the position of X (among other reasons to indicate that they investigated any alternative hypotheses). (My favorite example of this is from papers on dog and cat cognition, which the authors typically introduce with something along the lines of 'It is scientifically obvious that cats are reproduction machines motivated solely by food, with never any objective evidence of emotion', and the paper proceeds to prove that cats do love their owners. 'Further research is recommended.') SamuelRiv (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general
oh, for sure. Just when it comes to minority groups, especially those who have faced substantial hardship, that tone goes into overdrive. When it comes to scientific investigations of spiritual practices, especially when done in cooperation with monastic/preistly/ordained communities it’s best not to make them feel that working with you is directly undermining their own faith/beliefs/identity (etc.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 03:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for better sources and reverting because content violates FRINGE are both good moves. The sourcing was poor, and FRINGE was being violated. JPS clearly articulated at the FTN discussion and at the talk page at least one way in which the content violated FRINGE, and it had nothing to do with anyone being a believer. Warren reverted to restore the content saying that JPS's reason was just "not liking the research group". I raised REDFLAG concerns, which Warren dismissed as "personal incredulity". I'm not saying anyone's conduct here was perfect, but I have an extremely difficult time seeing W's action as clearing the "reasonably cooperative" bar you mention. Incidentally, "we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle" isn't true for the "checked for brain activity (and found none!)" part of the disputed content. It's been sitting in the article for a few days now with at least rough talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My current opinion is that WP:Fringe itself may be better placed as an explanatory essay, with original P&G sections woven back into their core P&G: Parity under NPOV/DUE, NFringe under Notability, etc.. The role of FTN is overlapped by existing noticeboards, which handle fringe theories and editors regularly without much issue. As a cultural matter, it may be that the referral of editors to FTN, the labelling of their content as "fringe" as opposed to a violation of general policy, itself invites the long often-heated content debates that seem to most often characterize the board.
Closing a noticeboard is a big step, (as would be rearranging a P&G page, but that's the lesser one), and I'd like to spend more time watching there before making a definitive judgement on my own part, but I do see the problems identified, and this is a possible way to try to address them. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if closing FTN would actually help. When a group of editors feels like their interests are served by working together, then it's pretty difficult to get them to stop. We could close FTN and discover that Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism becomes a lot busier, or that coordination is happening off wiki.
It might be nice to encourage the FTN regulars to put NPOVN on their watchlists, though. NPOVN can always benefit from a few extra eyes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that point it would be an ARBCOM case and possibly get them separated from fringe topics in general. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be a good outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I find strange is that this stems from the Tukdam article saying in wikivoice that individuals where still alive after they had died. No-one should be disrespecting religious beliefs, but the context for such things should be that they are beliefs.
If editors have been making uncivil or disrespectful remarks that should be rectified, editors shouldn't interject their own opinions on other people's beliefs it's not helpful or constructive. Equally editors shouldn't be stating beliefs as if they were factually true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, at no point have I objected to removing that line. The only thing I objected to was a total section blanking. Me undoing the blanking wasn't a tacit endorsement of the whole text that was there before and I agree that religious beliefs shouldn't be presented in wikivoice and that line was inappropriate there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors restoring content are endorsing it, by restoring it you are taking responsibility for it. Any section with that in was inappropriate, if it had been restored after improvements that would have been another matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a section blanking and immediately took it to the talk page as clearly it was contentious. That's not out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True but by reverting it you were taking responsibility for it, removing text isn't something that necessary needs reverting while consensus is found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The section was blanked with "removing WP:FRINGE claims" as the sole edit comment. It is very clear that the entire section isn't just fringe claims and it's very clear that the user in question who blanked it has a significant ideological axe to grind they seem unable to leave out of their editing. Here's the diff. Considering how very blatant the bigotry motivating these edits has been, a revert and the comment on the talk page was appropriate. Re-reading this to pull the diff I actually think an ANI would have been appropriate a while ago for some of the open bigotry and how absurd the WP:OWN situation has gotten but by now I think it'd just be rehashing this argument and go nowhere. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ANI would not be a desirable forum right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it may be warranted, but I’m holding off. We have here two issues:
1) a possible systemic issue with FTN and religious topics
2) an editor who is openly editing with prejudice as a base, flinging around accusations, and inventing new site policies to get their way in a content dispute
at this point this whole thing feels… weird. One editor is blanking sections they ideologically disagree with, attacking a source for the source’s religion which has nothing to do with the results, going around “warning” editors for citing sources they don’t like, and just moving goalposts over and over to create a specific interpretation of policy that by all appearances is designed to arrive at a specific foregone conclusion.
But the discussion has become “Why didn’t you remove that one line when you restored the article? You restored bad faith page blanking so now you’re responsible for it.” and broader discussions around the article. The problem is so much time has been spent discussing the behaviour of one (or two, to include me in fairness) editors that the entire point has either been lost or poisoned, because whatever issue with FTN I was bringing up here never got to this extreme with “no they’ve got religion so we can’t trust them” as a basis for editing that people mostly just seem fine glossing over?
If I’m the wrong here I’ll own up to it, but “I don’t see a reliable source for the claim that there’s academic interest in this topic” in response to a research group and a half dozen peer reviewed papers is cut and dry not engaging in good faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mystified how you think it is a problem to WP:REDFLAG claims that people meditate after they are dead. jps (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that other editors are mystified how you think it is a problem to say that these REDFLAG claims have been debunked. Compare:
  • Homeopathy repeatedly says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • Hoxsey Therapy says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • Faith healing says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • But Tukdam – Whoa, we can't say there's scientific evidence against that. That might make people think this religious belief was a valid subject of scientific inquiry!
I know you support the first three. What's so wildly different about someone claiming that a special person can channel divine powers vs someone claiming that an equally special person can meditate after their physical death? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One very small part of what jps removed was about scientific evidence against tukdam, sort of. That brief bit was outweighed by caveats about the research barriers, wikivoice claims that tukdam is real, and promotional content about the research team. The article is better off now that we briefly summarize a published study, but removing the problematic content was an incremental improvement over the status quo ante. Any supporter of the good bits of the content could have partially restored the good bits, just as jps could have partially removed the bad bits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that.  Comments from jps say all of this content is an attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever and an attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience.  He objects to providing information that someone could use as a "they take us seriously argument".  He does not want Wikipedia to say anything that supports any claims that there is scientific endeavor found here.  He does not believe that there is a legitimate research question to answer, so he does not want Wikipedia to report that people have done the research.  He opposes having Wikipedia acknowledge the verifiable fact that these studies were done, regardless of their outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed content started with "Western scientific interest has grown", cited to the self-published website of the research group in question, so many of those concerns are well-founded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my impression that except in the case of violations of copyright or BLP, leaving a page in the status quo ante state is considered reasonable during content disputes. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to merging WP:FTN with WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGE with WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think it's not a bad call, and I'm a regular at FTN. There's too much of a power user concern, and it either needs to not be a full on noticeboard or it needs to be diluted with people who share a goal of improving wikipedia and addressing WP:NPOV concerns but who can do so without a personal religious views very explicitly dictating their editing. Its function is better served as a noticeboard but the commitment to Wikipedia policies is not as strict as it should be for a noticeboard. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTN is primarily concerned with Pseudo-scholarship rather than religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what's being done here is exclusively slandering scholarship as pseudo-scholarship, purely on the basis of the topic and the faith of the author, despite results which are 0% unexpected or WP:PROFRINGE. @SamuelRiv summarized how I see this whole situation best:
You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. [...] That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory.
I think they're meant to be concerned with Pseudo-scholarship, but what we're seeing here is a: at times a majority of FTN is about religious pages and b: FTN is inventing their own conception of pseudo-scholarship and declaring perfectly reasonable academics guilty of it.
See also: the whole panspermia thing
I think there's a lot of "FTN is ____" in here which is a nice ideal but doesn't actually pan out to the experience of FTN. Note I'm not calling for getting rid of it, I just think that FTN by its very nature attracts people who are more on the militant side of skeptic in a way that gets disruptive. I've left it pretty well alone but scroll up and look at the "warning" I received for citing Frontier, then go look at FTN at the context of the "warning" I received coupled with how many times here I've been accused of being WP:PROFRINGE for not damnatio memoriae-ing a peer-reviewed source and tell me if this behaviour is compatible with the norms of Wikipedia or building a better encyclopedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck, i can't help but recall this thread from more than a year ago. I could not care less whether otherkin are viewed as a religion or not, but am just hanging out to find sources for a hard-working group who make a positive impact on the project. If you are at such a hair trigger and on such a mission to get others to conform to your worldview then no wonder you are finding it "exhausting".
Looking at some of the threads you've pointed to i would probably agree that Stapley shouldn't be dismissed so readily and to take a closer look at the content. But i would probably say that content does not justify keeping the current title and it should probably move to 'folk magic' or similar. I disagree with "the regulars" at FTN sometimes, no big deal.
As far as getting Egon Spengler and his UW Madison group's research into the article, well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious. A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis. Maybe try something different because that tactic is one seen probably 2-3 times a day by "the regulars". I shudder to think what some of the content would look like if there wasn't opposition to that view. The test here for such speculative (admittedly so in the papers) is whether or not other researchers take notice. That's pretty objective and from what i've seen mostly applied across the board on a wide variety of topics by "the regulars", but of course no one gets everything right all the time.fiveby(zero) 04:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ve also basically been working on rewriting the entire Otherkin article in that time, feel free to check its edit history. Like I said, I’m a regular at FTN and I try tackling a lot of the faith-centric stuff that comes up at FTN because I’ve got a bit of a formal background in religious studies. I may as well edit in a broad area I know, though I do mostly stay out of Mormonism threads since I don’t know it as well.
I’m not just complaining, I’m actively putting in the work to improve these articles. Let me be a little more clear about my frustration with this: I think FTN has one tool, a hammer, and has decided that they’re collective experts on identifying nails. It can simply result in worse quality articles, the reason I’ve brought up the Panspermia example here is it’s a very cut and dry non-fringe case of FTN just deciding that evidence cannot be allowed to counter their understanding.
well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious.
I agree! But what’s happening here isn’t caution, it’s bigotry. It’s very clearly bigotry. I don’t see the benefit to sanitizing accusations of bigotry, because “these aren’t academics, they’re religious believers and we should ignore their output” is bigotry.
FTN is great with quack medicine, UFOs, etc. but the second the Venn diagram overlaps with spirituality or faith there’s this sort of gleeful attitude of taking the religious down a peg, and not just when it comes to editors but apparently authors of research papers. We have an editor in here accusing authors, baselessly, of academic impropriety, using that accusation to edit articles on the basis of open bigotry, and and I don’t know why we’re tolerating that. We’ve seen recent topic bans for that exact behaviour recently.
A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis.
You do realize the source being argued about here rejects Tukdam, yes? It’s at no level pro-fringe, an editor just doesn’t like the religion of the author and is just being disruptive on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly bigotry? That is rather strong don't you think? Wikipedia's purpose concerns readers, information, and knowledge. I take these arguments expressed in opposition to your to be just that: views concerning readers, information, and knowledge; and how WP should work towards achieving that purpose. I have certain opinions concerning these matters which generate a negative reaction to, for instance, new-agers, postmodernists, evolutionary psychologists, and Canadians.
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam? Applying that standard i would feel would lack objectivity and be a little dishonest. I try to be objective and honest but am probably as full of shit as the next editor.
I'm sure "the regulars" would benefit from hearing about and adapting to my views on how they should edit, but somehow image that preaching to them about it would likely be an unproductive use of everyone's time. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather strong don't you think?: What seems 'strong' is JPS saying things like this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation and is influenced by a blinkered religious devotion, or that academics are actually not academics because they are instead religious believers. I'm hard pressed to see how this doesn't amount to claiming a Buddhist, regardless of academic training or posting or employment, can't or shouldn't be considered an academic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhists make great academics up to the point they argue in favor of dogmatic religious positions in ways that WP:REDFLAG. Arguing that Tukdam is a physical or biological state is a common position of a very particular set of religious believers and, to my knowledge, exactly one American academic group housed at a secular institution is led by such a religious believer. To be clear, I find it admirable that he is open about his belief in contrast to the mess that we are in when trying to consider Ian Stevenson's undercover connections to theosophy. By the way, there is another research group in St. Petersburg, Russia -- but I haven't figured out what they are all about as the sourcing for their stuff is very obscure. jps (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam?
Because that’s the sourcing standard we actively want on potentially fringe topics? This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been around enough, then. We have removed loving debunkings (and accounts) of lots of extreme fringe positions on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. Just off the top of my head, editors gutted the article on modern geocentrism and replaced it with an economic redirect. jps (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn’t a debunking paper. There were perfectly valid secular motivations. That you don’t accept them as truthful is a personal thing and not relevant to Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said, This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. I gave another instance. This is not at all personal for me. Please stop insisting otherwise. jps (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the example, but WP:AGF would be gaslighting myself here, at this point. You’ve made it excruciating clear you’ve got a serious prejudice here and you’re using it to inform your editing and I’m afraid I’m tired of pretending otherwise. As other editors have pointed out, it seems like you’re engaging in WP:WGR and accusing academics of impropriety on the basis of their religion in they absence of any actual evidence and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly in the face of secular interest in this topic.
If you can’t maintain WP:NPOV on these topics you can’t demand other editors treat your POV as neutral in the face of very direct and explicit claims from you to the contrary, and I’m far from the only person interpreting your statements as bigotry. I’m happy enough to just not engage with you at all if you’d prefer, but I’m done pretending there’s been a fruitful endeavour here (seriously, how many times have you directly accused me of being WP:PROFRINGE now? Or playing admin and “warning” me for citing a source you didn’t like?) or that this hasn’t just been you refusing to hear what people are saying about your behaviour here and pretending it’s just just me with an issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
This is measured according to their own (probably wrong) idea of what would help Wikipedia. That means that if an editor believes (however wrongly) that applying a religious litmus test to sources would help Wikipedia, and so they apply such a test, then that editor is acting in good faith. (It does not matter whether the test is pro- or anti-religious.) You might call it "screwing up in good faith", but it's still good faith. Good-faith actions can be harmful.
The opposite of "acting in good faith" is "deliberately screwing up for the actual, direct purpose of hurting Wikipedia". The opposite is not "holds POVs that I find reprehensible" or "espouses views that, if expressed during a job interview, would constitute discrimination against a protected class in my country". That latter point is for Wikipedia:Civility, not for AGF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of FTN’s favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind and openly explicitly running away editors who engage in ideologically driven fringe editing. Yeah, at some point it’s possible to just lose sight of being able to see how someone is viewing their own behaviour, sincerely, as helping build an encyclopedia. I’m only human.
The fact that an admin is cheerleading this bigotry to an extent is appalling, in my time here I’ve come to expect much better from Wikipedia. Maybe I’m just wrong here but I’ve firmly hit a brick wall here and should probably disengage and take a wikibreak. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's precisely correct. FTN probably does run some editors off. (I've run a couple off myself; discouraging would-be contributors who are net harmful to Wikipedia is not an inherently bad thing.) I don't think FTN is known for saying that these editors intend to be harmful; instead, they're known for saying that editors actually are harmful. AGF only requires us to acknowledge that most harm is a misguided attempt to help.
Compliance with AGF means "I reverted that because it's wrong" or "That's not appropriate content for Wikipedia" instead of starting it with "You intentionally vandalized Wikipedia on purpose!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bad faith is a very rare problem on Wikipedia. In the context of FRINGE, far more harmful would be (say) a true believer, desperate that the world should be exposed through Wikipedia to their discovery that energy can be derived from a perpetual motion machine. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't describe bad faith as very rare; if that were true, then Cluebot would be out of a job and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism would be a very boring page. But I do think that it's very rare among established editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the work in question is a primary research result, it shouldn't get more than a passing mention, regardless of its outcome. The only reason we might give it more attention is for FRINGE parity purposes -- if it is the best source we have to contextualize a pseudoscientific claim that is otherwise DUE in the article, it can be used even if it's not at the quality level we normally expect for scientific topics. However, what I suspect @ජපස is concerned about is that this research article really isn't the best way to contextualize pseudoscientific claims because a) it is at least partly sponsored by adherents, and such sources are directly discouraged in several places of WP:FRINGE; and b) using that source actually introduces pseudoscientific claims about tukdam that otherwise wouldn't be in our article, since it actively pierces the veil between religious belief and science that had been maintained up to that point (or at least would be easily achieved by simply removing the in-universe language, without needing any additional sources). By discussing scientific investigation of a religious belief, we're also presenting the pro-fringe position that the belief has any scientific basis at all; if we're going to do this, that position should either already be DUE (i.e. it has had significant secondary discussion by RS that don't debunk it themselves) or the study garnered enough secondary attention itself. But neither of those conditions is the case here, and furthermore the study has a clear conflict of interest in its partnership and predictably tries very hard to legitimize its (pseudo)scientific rationale. That its outcome rejects the fringe stance is irrelevant since the fringe stance apparently isn't even published reliably elsewhere and so doesn't need to be debunked.
Also, to address something raised upthread, the "secularity" of UW-Madison is completely irrelevant when the authors themselves are obviously biased -- it's not like academic research on a drug sponsored by its parent pharma company becomes independent just because it's conducted by an unaffiliated university and published in an independent journal. We are contractually obligated to disclose that CoI for a reason. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this response makes more sense to me than JPS's, I also think that it shows the blindspots of Wikipedians in this area pretty clearly.
Specifically: what "veil between religious belief and science"? The religious claim is that a bunch of people who are clearly dead right now are not dead. When people make clearly false claims in matters other than religion it doesn't suffice for us to say that "Some people believe [clearly false thing]" without also saying "but [clearly false thing] is false". I believe that what you're advocating for is in fact WP:PROFRINGE in the guise of anti-fringe. Loki (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is a "veil between religious belief and science" is a Western viewpoint. It's like the one that says it's perfectly normal and desirable for people to separate their personal beliefs from their professional actions (think "acting in my role as a corporate officer, I say let's raise the food prices after the hurricane, because price gouging will make the stockholders rich" vs "in my role as a member of the community, I say let's keep the prices for necessities as low as we realistically can").
These distinctions seem artificial and contrived to some cultures, but they're commonplace in mainstream/white US culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of "FTN" being used as a collective noun, as in "one of FTN's favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind". As someone who sometimes uses that noticeboard, I guess that's directed at me, too? Because otherwise why not specify who you're talking about? And if you're talking about one or more specific people, that's a matter for ANI, not VPP. Almost 2500 people have edited that page, with nearly 1200 watchers. There are some heavy users, but the top 10 editors have only made about a quarter of all edits.
At the end of the day, there's gray area where people may disagree whether something deals with purely theological beliefs or whether it touches on something empirical/falsifiable/scientific. If someone is repeatedly bringing topics to FTN that fall squarely on the theological side, beyond the gray area, then deal with that person. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a consensus to get rid of WP:FRINGE or WP:FTN happening any time soon. Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should have been an ANI. As I said above, what I came here to raise has never gotten to the extreme it has in this instance, and that’s derailed any fruitful discussion of wider systematic issues.
We both know well enough there’s a cadre of regulars, but the situation in the case that’s come up here has basically removed all ability to look at a wider issue with nuance, though the behaviour of some of the other regulars in here did help make that case a bit. After this situation I’m now of the opinion that FTN should be merged with WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recognizable tactic to attack a personified "FTN" as a proxy for this OP's perceived enemies. Textbook WP:ASPERSIONS. So yeah, this may be better at ANI but not for the reason the OP thinks. This quixotic campaign has been going on for too long across too many areas to be ignorable for much longer. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ANI me if you sincerely believe that, since you’re just teasing threats of it anyways. If my behaviour is out of line here let’s evaluate it and if sanctions are warranted they’re warranted. That’s sincere, I know my utter exasperation with you and jps hasn’t lead to my finest edits. You’ve been nothing but openly hostile and dismissive from your first reply here and your insistence that I’m on some kind of quixotic crusade falls flat in the face of me not being the only one seeing the problem here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to "ANI you", but might contribute if you end up there. Nobody else is seeing "the problem" here because there is no "the problem" stated, just a vague meta-complaint about "FTN" (initially framed as a question about religion and scope) that has valency for a small number of other users' various stances. What your basic complaint seems to boil down to is that one or two editors disagree with you on various points and have the temerity to argue their case, perhaps forcefully! There is a fairly broad spectrum of approaches to editing Wikipedia you know, and it is really not an issue if some editors fall outside the narrow band other editors prefer so long as they remain within the broad spectrum of the community as a whole. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm nobody. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're one of the editors who's bound your own take onto the meta-complaint. Hence your statement of "the issue" is different to anything the OP has stated. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Warrenmck said We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university, I don't see how I'm as far off the mark of anything the OP has stated you claim. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A problematic campaign has gone on for too long across too many areas, but it's not Warrenmck's. The troubling campaign is the effort by a small number of editors to decide whether or not to cite sources by applying religious tests to the authors. Moving into the realm of the hypothetical, it could be right to not cite X source; it could be right to leave out Y content; but it isn't right to do so for the reason that Z credentialed scholar operating in an academic setting is [insert personal attribute, e. g. a certain race, religion, gender, nationality, etc.]. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:ASPERSIONS ("a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence"). It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption? Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not 'classic aspersions'. You have not included in consideration quotations provided elsewhere in this thread that constitute evidence and posts that explain the evidence.
An author's context includes things like academic training and university posting, and members of the community seemed to arrive at a relatively strong consensus in an ANI thread from this year that considering a relevantly-trained and university-posted author uncitable for [topics related to X religion] solely because of being an adherent of [X religion] was disruptive to the point of being a reason to topic-ban an editor who applied that train of thought to Islam, removing and objecting to citations of university-press-published content about Islam solely because the content was written by Muslims. I think it'd be safe to guess that Warrenmck would agree with me that we're not lining up to defend a proselytizing or devotional publisher like Chick Tracts; the goal isn't to say that no scrutiny should be applied to books printed by "Convert People to X Religion Press". Rather, the concern is with saying that academics don't count as academics if they have a religious background, as in the example It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers, when the religious believers were also trained, credentialed, and posted at a research center of a secular state-run university. I wouldn't consider that a "religious exemption" to the necessary consideration of record and context so much as "it seems bigoted to say Muslims can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Islam even when they have academic postings at universities or that Buddhists can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Buddhism even when they have academic postings at universities". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
jps makes an interesting point. Referring to religious researchers into a fringe/religious topic as just "academics" would be a kind of POV omission in many circumstances no? Devout Catholics on the Turin Shroud? Scientologists on e-meters? Mormons on Joseph Smith? Christian Scientists on animal magnetism? Fundamentalists on the age of the Earth? All seems fair play for concern especially where WP:FRINGE claims are in play. And I agree it's not simple, all kinds of contexts for a source apply too. The "problem" here seems rather the push to deny that Wikipedia editors can raise these concerns and argue their case. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where WP:FRINGE claims are in play: And when fringe claims are not in play? The report at issue concluded that despite what some Buddhists believed, no, monks who try to meditate while dying don't display any post-mortem brain activity—dead monks, in fact, exhibit all signs of being dead. It is one thing to discount, say, a Catholic historian who says 'the Turin Shroud is definitely authentic'. It's quite another to discount a Catholic historian saying things like 'X traditional belief about the Shroud of Turin is false' Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue. But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN. In general claims of something require better sourcing than claims of nothing, if that 'nothing' is just the default null hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue: That's good advice.
But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN.: Is it? This has been a thread that is, at least in the OP, about worries of there being an attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile without necessarily having regard for whether content is actually 'fringe'. After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents ('dead monks mediate, their brains still work') was not empirically endorsed by the researchers. The source instead concluded 'when he died his brain stopped doing anything'. And yet an editor explicitly considered that non-fringe-ness irrelevant to deciding to regard it as suspect and unciteable (the words used being the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents
I think it’s also fair to point out that in contrast to many articles like this FTN gets involved in, not one editor here is taking a WP:PROFRINGE stance (accusations aside) on the content of the articles, so I’m hard pressed to actually see any fringe editing here beyond what was there at the start with editors uninvolved in this entire process.
I think raising Tukdam as it was written at FTN was reasonable, the article had some sources and phrasing which were inappropriate and I was the first editor to remove some of that content and raise Tricycle as biased in FTN. What follows wasn’t just fixing the article, but the open hostility to the article topic we’ve seen time and time again.
For what it’s worth (for Bon), I don’t see where we’re disagreeing at all and think you’re actually managing to articulate my perspectives a bit better than I can filtered through exasperation Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption?
If I may, "context" bears much weight here. Just like any other argument you can make in this vein, there is a fine line between analyzing the reliability of individual authors based on their work and what their peers have to say about it, following a complete chain of logical inferences—and skipping that work, going with the latent "vibe" based on the intersection of categories visible about the author (independently if in tandem with the reputation of the relevant institutions). The latter approach amounts to bigotry. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree; it's complicated. And at the other (wrong) extreme I can remember a push at one time to ban any research on COVID-19 if the authors had a Chinese-sounding name. Generally there are factors suggesting a source is reliable that can outweigh any reputation an author might have, but at the same time there are entire large fields of "medical" evidential research Wikipedia puts in the bin no matter how esteemed the publisher or how peer-reviewed the paper because of the field itself (e.g. homeopathy). WP:ECREE is also a factor in this; and the idea that dead people meditate is rather ... exceptional. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that dead people have been scientifically or technologically proven to meditate would indeed be exceptional. A claim that a religion says that a few dead people meditate, OTOH, is no more exceptional than when a religion says that people are mere manifestations of the universe, or that people are being reincarnated through the millennia on a path towards enlightenment, or that people have immortal souls.
AFAICT though, the the objection isn't to the religious claim, but to mentioning that science says that these people are just plain dead, according to every physical measurement they've tried so far. We've got a 526-word-long article that contains only a single sentence about modern scientific research, and even that was removed at one point. These are not difficult claims that require special skills. The religion says part of the body stays warm, so stick a thermometer on it and see if that claim matches reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them.
Look at how my interactions have gone so far in here with the user’s I’m concerned about the behaviour of and ask yourself for a half second why I’d open myself up to more of this. I’m already at the point of a wiki break and am just sticking around now in case Bon decides to ANI me so I don’t get accused of simply not responding to that.
It doesn’t appear to matter what I actually say, what a few people want me to have said gets hot replies and derails any possible discussion, and this entire thread gets derailed. And that’s not in my head. Scroll back up to the top and look at the fixation on faith healing and other things that make empirical claims when my entire thesis was very explicitly about pure theology and a secondary thing of religious intolerance. I don’t thinks it’s even possible to go back to the first point here and the second point I believe has become self evident. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the distinction was as clean as you thought there wouldn't be all this fuss about Tukdam, right? Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy. You can't expect other editors to use it a basis for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tukdam article wasn’t posted when this thread went live and I raised it as an example of the intolerance issue, not the pure-theology issue, though did mention it in the context of FTN being tactless and inexpert.
Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy.
You added the word history there, as history is most certainly not theology. And in what possible way is a belief in something utterly unfalsifiable the same as a claim that can be measured and analyzed? It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added nothing, but copy and pasted the bold bit of your first post to this thread, which I assume was intended to be the main thing you were raising. So all this time you've been complaining editors aren't engaging with your post when you aren't even aware what you wrote? Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at me with egg on my face. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user’s [sic] I’m concerned about the behaviour of ← and here we have it at last. You're concerned about particular user behaviour. So why is that being raised in an opaque way at VPP? Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m genuinely unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. I think you’re so caught up with seeing me as some kind of enemy that you’re not taking the time to read what you’re replying to, a pattern that seems to go quite a ways back in this thread. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of you as an "enemy" at all. But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors (maybe me? I don't know) risks exhausting the community. I really really don't think you should accuse anybody of not reading what they're responding to with quite so much 'egg on your face' (above)! Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Warrenmck already said I agree this should have been an ANI (though I don't consider it a terrible thing to have wanted to find a solution that doesn't involve disciplinary action against a user), I wonder if that's why there's a sense of being unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors
What? Have you considered exactly how many of the things you’ve been at me for in this thread are utter products of your imagination? You pointed out where I made an embarrassing mistake and I immediately owned up to it, but you’ve constantly represented arguments I’ve made any way except by actually assuming I’m not hiding my real motivations. Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith, trying to stop disruptive editing, and dealing with a fair amount of direct and baseless accusations because of that? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean (which might be that you think a "cadre" of users A, B and C are problematic and need to be sanctioned).
Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith ← of for sure you are. But I also think you're wrong. Wrong about how the WP:PAGs apply and wrong about how the community operates. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean
I fail to see how the accusations are distinct. And no, I don’t have a list of users in my head. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to remember that, in the big picture, Wikipedia's handling of fringe theories is working appropriately; see [19] in particular, which goes into depth on how good our handling of fringe topics is. (See also [20][21] for coverage.) I can understand that it is sometimes frustrating or that WP:FRINGEN can sometimes be overbearing, but I'd be strenuously opposed to any significant changes to how it operates when it is, largely, working. Dealing with the flood of fringe material on the internet is difficult, and Wikipedia is one of the few places that has coverage saying we've managed it properly despite being open for everyone to contribute; WP:FRINGEN is an important part of that. (Also, just from a skim, huge swaths of the above seem to be about disputes between a few specific editors who believe each other guilty of misconduct; that's not an issue for WP:VPP at all, and shouldn't be turned into a discussion of FRINGEN as a whole. Conduct issues with individual editors should be taken to either WP:AE or WP:ANI as appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point we're making is that we tackle fringe topics well enough, or even in the majority of the cases, without or in spite of FTN and/or WP:Fringe. And at least one of your citations cut to the point:
    • Steinsson 2023 makes zero mention of FTN (talks about "noticeboards that are frequented by large numbers of Wikipedians" and specifically AN, NPOVN, and BLPN), and only a cursory mention of WP:Fringe, but the bulk of the paper talks about core policies, with NPOV being central -- this may be a methodological choice.
    • Matsakis 2018 Wired is about Gerbic's Guerilla Skepticism, which has come under ANI scrutiny in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone should go down this rabbithole of stupid internet drama, but here is one dumb blog link. The article also makes no mention of FTN or WP:Fringe, or of any noticeboard or P&G (i.e. the role that noticeboards and policies play in general -- it's essentially praising the administrative supereffectiveness of an off-wiki cabal). My main point is that I'm not going to put much consideration into a puff piece about an off-wiki coordinating group compared to a more objective reading from the previous paper.
    • Cooke 2020 Wired talks neither about WP:Fringe nor FTN nor any noticeboards.
    I'll expand on this in a little bit. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To continue on FTN, a snapshot of the noticeboard front page: I make the following measurement of its behavior as a content-conflict resolution noticeboard, versus a WP:Canvassing board as OP suggests in the title. Currently, I count 6 threads in which editors on all sides of the dispute were notified of the FTN posting/discussion in a timely manner, versus 4 threads in which they were not, and 4 additional threads which could not be evaluated in this manner. You can check my work on my sandbox. Additionally, in my opinion, on threads in which all participants were not notified and were not present, there was insufficient (i.e. nonexistent) encouragement by other editors on FTN on threads to ping them.
    While this is a very small manual survey (slow as I have to check the discussion pages on the individual articles), I believe it reflects poorly on FTN compared to other noticeboards, and lends some support to OP's accusation that FTN is being used a great deal, but not exclusively, for canvassing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like many noticeboards (e.g. BLPN, NORN), FTN does not have a requirement for notification in all cases, though editors are required to notify others if they mention them specifically. If there's appetite for strengthening the requirement, we should probably discuss at WT:FTN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, I think, that people are far less emotionally invested in BLPN, NORM, etc. A lot of skeptic editing comes from people who, understandably, view themselves as skeptics in their everyday life. That’s to say it can be a part of someone’s identity in a way that we see with other POV editing but don’t tend to see with more policy-centric noticeboards. This can especially bleed into religion articles as a lot of self-identified skeptics are a little militant in their dislike of religion. I think this is why there’s so much pushback to the notion that a: WP:FRINGE cannot be applied in an openly hostile way to religion (not just religious content being added to articles, which obviously axe) and b: this sort of head-in-the-sand WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT if it turns out some long-held anti-fringe stance is actually more nuanced than originally thought.
    Basically FTN isn’t acting like a noticeboard for policy issues, but a wikiproject for people with strong skeptic stances. Therefore I don’t see how strengthening the notification requirement solves the issue of what can beer into POV editing, because I suspect that notifying would just result in business as usual, plus notifications. People can seem to be unmoved by evidence and are quick to throw out accusations of WP:PROFRINGE (see above) for dissent. It’s better off merged into NPOVN, imo. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamuelRiv, when you looked down the page, did you get a sense for the proportion of topics that were:
    • Move the dispute to the noticeboard to be settled there (typical for, e.g., RSN),
    • Requests that page watchers go to the talk page (typical for most WikiProjects), or
    • Questions more in the "background information" range (typical for a village pump post)?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell looking now, none are about relocating or centralizing discussion, except the UAPDA thread is interesting where the editor challenged with WP:fringe goes themselves to FTN for advice on how to address it; a lot of the comments there seemed counterproductive until people finally got to the point (it had zero to do with any fringe policies from what I can tell). There are a couple that seemed to try to want to fork a discussion onto FTN, rather than redirect it.
    It appears the majority of threats are requesting people comment on existing article discussions (in two cases, the condition of an entire article or AfD).
    In 2 other cases, some general background questions not directly related to an article dispute were being asked. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject: a centralized page to seek help from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. That's not inherently bad; it's good for editors to bring their health-related article disputes to WT:MED and their stats/math questions to WT:MATH. I'm not sure that I'd recommend merging that to a more traditional noticeboard, though, as it's quite a different style of interaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject
    I agree, but I think a wikiproject behaving like FTN would likely be censured on WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL grounds. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Realistically, we usually object to such groups only when they're visibly successful. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron has been the target of similar complaints in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am less convinced than they are that Wikipedia's handling of fringe topics is working appropriately. I see at least two issues:
    1. On issues FTN (one could argue, the greater skeptic movement) doesn't see as its targets, it doesn't do anything, and as a result there's lots of articles on minor religious topics that have wild supernatural claims in them. For instance, see Oven of Akhnai, which repeats a story from the Talmud verbatim in Wikivoice that basically treats rabbis as wizards. Or the recently fixed poor state of Tukdam was also due to this.
    2. On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support. The recent arguments over Tukdam are also a clear case of this, as an example of what happens when FTN suddenly discovers something it believes to be woo-y. My other example is EMDR, which claims a therapy that has been recommended by a huge list of WP:MEDORGs remains controversial within the psychological community per an article from 25 years ago and an article that specifically claims there is no controversy that it does work, because it's on the list of skeptic targets, because when it was initially formulated many psychologists were very skeptical of it to the point of calling it pseudoscience.
    In a lot of ways FTN operates as Wikipedia's immune system, and in this capacity Wikipedia clearly has an autoimmune disorder. It doesn't react to most things it should, and when it does react it way overreacts. The mere fact that most of the things skeptics look out for are not present on Wikipedia is not by itself sufficient evidence that it's actually working as desired. Loki (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support
    This is the biggest issue I can see. It feels like people view themselves as WP:SMEs in “fringe” when that’s not exactly a thing, and sometimes editors assume their own read on complex topics is arrived at from a place of perfect understanding. Panspermia (discussed above) is still the most galling example of this to me, where source after source after source after source was met with “nuh uh” and the way it’s set up on Wikipedia is still potentially actively misreading to readers.
    Merge it with NPOVN and coming down on hallucinated policy interpretations would remedy a lot of this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to Samuel, Loki, and Warren's analyses. "Skepticism" can become as much a crusade on Wikipedia as fringe POV pushing. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like there's been enough back-and-forth with a bit of analysis in there to boot. I plan to start an RfC in a few hours, maybe attract a wider community input, and just let's close out this discussion for the year or so. The questions I intend to put forward: Close (and move) FTN (to where is at discretion of regulars), and close (and move or downgrade) WP:Fringe (with suboptions by vote). Venue will be here for maximum participation and referral back to this thread, unless people think it is more appropriate instead to be at Wikipedia Talk:FRINGE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like an option to just change it to a wikiproject instead of a noticeboard, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I figure that community consensus is not necessary to decide, should FTN be closed, whether its function be placed into a wikiproject or merged into another noticeboard. I think such a thing can just be done. Although perhaps, to avoid having to do a separate straw poll (should closure be the result of the RfC), they'd want people to give their opinions in !votes here. (Maybe if FTN is decided to be closed but WP:Fringe remains, they'd want policies within WP:Fringe to get handled mostly at a NPOVN rather than at NORN, and that's worth saying, I dunno.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think getting rid of WP:FRINGE would be a mistake, especially considering how much fringe stuff makes its way here. I do think FTN’s remit already falls under NPOVN, and given that there seems to be a sort of consensus on FTN to (sometimes) creatively interpret the policies of Wikipedia in a way that we really should be able to rely on each other as experienced editors to prevent. I’m happy enough to vote, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that getting rid of FRINGE is so unlikely as to not be worth asking the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a waste of time suggestive of WP:NOTHERE. But it's done. Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: @Warrenmck: please stop doing weird extra indentation to partially quote people. It's going to be an accessibilty problem for various users (they may be used to our talk pages formatted unhelpfully as description/association/definition lists, but your behavior is signaling to them that some unknown party has injected a comment before yours, between whoever you are replying to and you), and it's visually confusing for everyone else. No one – literally no one, ever – writes the way you want to on Wikipedia, so please just format your comments intelligibly like everyone else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my intent to cause accessibility issues, so I’ll stop, but I’ll die on the hill that indenting quotes generally improves legibility. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the main topic here: After plowing through a lot of this, I find myself generally in agreement with those that do not find there to be a policy or practices issue at stake here. Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism, skepticism, fact-checking, or even basic neutrality with regard to their beliefs is an affront, a wrong, an evil, yet we have to do it anyway. Hand-waving with emotive references to reddit and atheism groups does not demonstrate any kind of actual bias problem on Wikipedia or any bad-acting by anyone in particular, and this is not the venue for that anyway. I see a lot of repetitive complaint and vague accusation or "the sky is falling" stuff from a particular party (who others indicate has been beating this drum for a long time across multiple venues), but there is no concrete problem to solve. Bon)scourage near the top of this over-long thread has it right: when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world ... then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply.

    I spend a considerable amount of time in "religion" articles broadly speaking, from ancient mythology and folklore to modern Christian denominations and their organizational history, and there simply isn't a problem of WP leaping onto and bashing theological claims. However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism], making claims that amount to some element of their dogma being verifiable fact when it is not, or various purported miracles or powers being demonstrably true when they are not, or extremely dubious mytho-history found in scriptures being verifiable history when it is not, or a particular figure or group being the "one true [whatever]" when others in other denominations make competing claims, and so on. All of this sort of stuff is clearly subject to WP:FRINGE. The fact of whether or not a particular Christian denomination treats veneration of saints as idolatry or not and what arguments their "divines" have put forth pro or con such a viewpoint, is not a FRINGE matter, but simply a matter of reliable sourcing. What we don't have any kind of problem with is WP articles on religious matters being written something like "According to the Church of Utter Salvation, the one true path to enlightenment is through omphaloskepsis, but this idea is wrong because [whatever]." In NRM-related articles with too few watchlisters, we do often have a countervailing problem of cult leaders being claimed to have worked miracles, but this stuff does not last long in our content.

    This thread has the same feel as all those perennial complaints along the lines "Wikipedia is doing it all wrong because it won't let me promote [insert outlandish viewpoint here]". The fact is that verifiable reality leans heavily in certain directions (e.g. against "climate change is a hoax", against racial supremacy of any sort, against claims of miracles ever being verifiable, etc.). Wikipedia is not doing it all wrong, and is not broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism
    Ah, yes, the old promontionalism of “arguing that we should keep in academic sources discrediting a religious belief”. Of course. How silly of me.
    Seriously, it feels like half this entire discussion descended into some kind of wild strawmanning where I was arguing to keep WP:PROFRINGE content in instead of objecting to the removal of anti-fringe content. I’ve been accused of everything from being butthurt to summarily described as a WP:PROFRINGE religious believer objecting to the removal of fringe content when that’s clearly not what happened, and I’m very low on faith from a lot of these accusations that many people have actually taken time to read the core arguments and discussions. The status quo of the Tukdam article, which met the satisfaction of many editors I was butting heads with elsewhere, was written in large part by me, and if you look through the article’s history and when it was first brought up at FTN I was quick to remove in-universe language and call out a cited Buddhist magazine as a bad source there. Your accusations are uncalled for.
    The fact that this game of telephone has transformed from me objecting to applying religious tests to credible academics publishing utterly mundane anti-fringe findings into me objecting to the removal of fringe content is exactly why I raised this topic here in the first place: an utter lack of ability to assume good faith (in the typical sense, not specific wikiparlance WP:AGF) and nuance around these topics.
    My capitalization of NRM, which I typically do so that I can switch to using the initialism further down for people unfamiliar with the term, isn’t evidence of some kind of nefarious pro-fringe stance. If you want to accuse me of promotional/POV editing I suggest you bring receipts. A fundamental issue with how many on FTN engage with religious topics doesn’t mean I’m a bad actor here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish, can we talk about this a bit more? I'm seeing phrases like Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism...is an affront and when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world and thinking the first is an anti-religious stereotype and the second expresses an anti-religious sentiment.
    • To claim that "religious believers pretty much always" anything is a stereotype. 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religion. If 85% of humans are "pretty much always" like that, then that's normal human behavior. I doubt that if you chatted up your religious neighbors, you'd find that they're "pretty much always" affronted by criticism. My Catholic neighbors have quite a lot of criticism about their church, and they don't seem the least bit offended if people disagree with their religion. OTOH I have seen a couple atheists who were terribly upset about people not sharing their views – but I've only seen this in university students, and I assume they grow out of it.
    • Who says that religion is forcing itself onto the real world? Religion is a human behavior. 85% of humans engage in this set of behaviors. Religion is part of the real world. Religion should not be treated as some sort of minority or deviant behavior, nor as something separate from the human world. Spirits/angels/ghosts/whatever are not part of the physical world, but religion seems to me to be a human institution. (Believers are cheerfully invited to disagree with me, in whatever ways happen to align with your own beliefs, or to add a caveat like "at least to a significant extent", but I will point out that a List of oldest continuously operated bureaucracies would include the Roman Catholic Church.)
    I think we can do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism: Uh, what? I know it's not universally capitalized, but you say that as if doing so is unheard of in academic circles. I'd hardly consider taking cues from books like New York University Press's New Religious Movements: A Documentary Reader or the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (Routledge) or Religion and Academia Reframed: Connecting Religion, Science, and Society in the Long Sixties (Brill), or from peer-reviewed journals like Mental Health, Religion & Culture, all of which capitalize the term as "New Religious Movement" in the linked examples, as 'promotionalism' rather than 'doing what some academics do'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Recall

Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus reached there established recall with the following process:

Petition
  • Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
  • Open for up to 1 month.
  • Notification is posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
  • 25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
  • The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
  • To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
  • If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
  • Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
Re-request process
  • A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
  • The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
  • For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
    • below 50%: fail
    • 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
    • 60% and above: pass

Background

During phase 1 of WP:RFA2024 Joe Roe closed two proposals for recall with the following close (in part with emphasis in the original):

Considering § Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs, § Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki, § Proposal 16d: Community recall process initiated by consensus (withdrawn), in parallel, there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. However, there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. The dewiki-inspired process suggested in Proposal 16c was well-supported and should be a starting point for these discussions.

When the second phase began the process was, after 3 days, structured in a way that took Proposal 16c and offered alternative options for certain criteria. This was done in good faith by Soni who had originally proposed 16c. Some editors objected to this structuring at the time and/or suggested that a 3rd RfC would be needed to confirm consensus; Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. Post-close discussion among editors has failed to achieve any kind of consensus (including whether there needs to be an RfC like this). As an editor uninvolved in the current discussions about Admin recall until now, it seemed to me that the clearest way to figure out if this recall process has consensus or not is to ask the community here rather than have this discussion in parallel with an attempt to recall someone. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (administrator recall)

  • (involved) The question here is simple: did a two-phase discussion that reached consensus in both phases also achieve an overall consensus to implement? The answer is equally simple: yes, it did. The current strongest argument against this idea seems to be that Phase II's formatting didn't give enough leeway for someone to propose a recall system distinct from the dewiki process (while still using that as a starting point). But there was an open discussion, and I don't recall seeing a different idea gain any significant amount of traction. If we really need to go through an entirely new RfC to double-confirm a proposal we've already accepted in principle and fine-tuned, fine, let's do it, but it seems like a waste of community time to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The open discussion section was closed after three days though. – Joe (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this, people added additional proposals, and additional options to existing proposals, and nobody complained about the open discussion section being closed, for months thereafter. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (uninvolved) Yes consensus was reached. Naturally new tweaks/discussions will come along. Let's have specific RfCs on those. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there is a consensus (uninvolved). A legitimate objection is that the process of managing the second RfC may have stymied other possible outcomes beyond a de wiki style process, and this may have been the case. However, RfCs with perceived flaws tend to generate lots of comments pointing this out (as we can already see below) and I'm just not seeing that that in the 2nd phase RfC. The 1st phase confirmed that the community wanted a recall process, the 2nd phase asked for proposals to be developed for implementation and there was a consensus found within that discussion for a specific variant. In the interest of not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, I believe there is sufficient support for the admin policy to be updated based in this outcome, with further adjustments being made as required (or indeed removing it entirely should a subsequent consensus determine that it should). Scribolt (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely-worded question. No, there isn't currently a consensus for this proposal; but yes, I think we should reach consensus for it at this RfC.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A key challenge in trying to reach agreement by consensus is that interest tends to wane as discussion moves from higher-level concepts to more fine details. One way to address this is to get consensus for a general initiative, obtain consensus for key aspects to incorporate, then work on implementation details. For this specific situation, I think the phase 2 discussion did a sufficient job at taking the support shown during phase 1 and working out agreement on the broad-stroke steps for a recall process. As always, because it's hard to get people to pay enough attention to reconcile specific wording, part of working out the implementation means finding a working procedure that is the central object illuminated from different directions by people's statements. I feel the phase 2 results reveals enough scaffolding to proceed with implementation. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved) Yes. There is consensus per my comments in the post-close discussion, as well as per leeky and Scribolt above. Those editors raising objections to the idea of admin recall or the proposals that gained consensus, but who did not participate in the earlier RfCs, should have participated; phases I and II were both widely advertised (I remember them being posted at T:CENT, VPP, AN, AN/I, etc.). I worry that a third RfC will fatigue the community and disproportionately draw the most vocal opponents to the process, resulting in a small group of people overriding a consensus already twice-determined by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I closed some of the proposals) I don't know why we need an RfC to say "yes, this RfC was correct", but yes. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participated in both Phase I and Phase II. I believe the results of Phase II achieved consensus and should be implemented. I do not see how this contradicts the results of Phase I. As others have pointed out, an actual policy page is still being drafted and might have to go through yet another RfC. Having an RfC on the validity of each step seems like a waste of time. Toadspike [Talk] 07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your question answers itself. "Was there consensus for the consensus"? The answer is obviously yes. Now, if you want to ask a different question, open a different RFC. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there isn't consensus for the recall process proposed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. I'll reiterate a comment I made on the Phase II talk page: taking the mini-consensuses from that phase, then using them to cobble together a process, doesn't translate into a solid policy with broad community consensus. The fact that various aspects of the proposal, even now, are up in the air disproves the notion that "the consensus already exists". Those who are advocating for Wikipedia:Administrator recall need to finalise that page, then present it for a simple yes/no RfC, so that the consensus (or lack thereof) on the policy as a whole is beyond question. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no consensus for this, and I've explained why on the pages where the proposal is being developed. But I think it's unfair to ask this question now, because the editors who support the proposal are still working on it. I therefore think this RfC should be closed as premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had hoped that this RfC would be withdrawn, but it appears that it won't, so I feel the need to say why this RfC cannot establish consensus for the policy change.
      • First, Barkeep49 gets the facts wrong in the statement of this RfC. He says: Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. In fact, he said more than that: I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked... I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this... The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC. [22]. Barkeep49 goes on to quote Voorts as having determined that phase 2 established consensus: Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. But in fact, Voorts drew a clear distinction between his close of individual sections, as an uninvolved closer, and his personal opinions about overall consensus, which were separate from the close: [23], [24].
      • And the bullet-list summary differs in some substantive ways from what appears to be the proposed policy. 25 editors must support the petition. Isn't it 25 extended confirmed editors? Who closes the petition? In fact, this is still being discussed: [25].
      • Since when are policy pages simply a bullet-list? Are we being asked to establish the bullet-list as a policy page, or are we being asked about Wikipedia:Administrator recall? The latter is beyond any question a work-in-progress. So if it needs to be changed as the editing process there continues, are we establishing consensus for the current version, or for some indeterminate version that will emerge in the future? And if the real purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus against, is that a fair process?
      • Phase 1 established consensus for some form of process. Phase 2 established consensus for some particular forms of the process, but did not establish whether those forms are actually to be implemented as policy, or whether those forms are the best version to be submitted as a policy proposal. This RfC muddles two different questions: whether the process so far has already established consensus, or whether the proposal summarized in bullet points should now be adopted as policy. And some editors here have been answering the first question, whereas others have been answering the second.
      • No one has answered the question of what is inadequate with the status quo, with ArbCom handling desysop requests.
      • The bullet-list proposal would be a disaster for Wikipedia if enacted here. It can't even be launched within the first year after the successful RfA? What happens if an admin does objectional things before then? More importantly, we are in a time when many members of the community are deeply concerned that we do not have enough new admins emerging from RfA, and that we are starting to see backlogs. Many members of the community regard RfA as being unattractive to well-qualified candidates, too stressful, not worth the aggravation. So if any random group of 25 users can force a recall, and just a few can start the petition process, how will that affect administrator morale? Will even more qualified RfA candidates decide against applying? Will current admins become too fearful of angering 25 disruptive editors, and hold back from dealing with contentious tasks, such as AE?
    • At least we should have a fully-developed proposal for the community to evaluate. Given that there are editors who are working on just that, it seems foolish to demand an up-or-down RfC now, before they have finished, on the theory that this would save them the trouble of working on something that will fail. Plenty of editors want the proposal to succeed, so they are not being imposed upon by giving them the time to finish. And the proposal here isn't ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (uninvolved) - There is a super clear consensus to have an administrator recall. Still work to be done om the actual policy page. But to the question of this RFC, Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during the last review? Yes clearly, otherwise the right next step would be to challenge that close. This is not the place to relitigate the RFC or how the policy page is being created. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No IMO the question is unclear but I think interpreted as "was it decided that the deWiki version be adopted?". In shorthand, the main close was a general consensus that there should be a recall process, with the related verbiage in essence implicitly saying that it needed to be developed and then approved. The close on adopting the deWiki version was that there was insufficient participation (in this context) to consider it to be a decision either way. So the next step is to develop a proposal that can get wide support and get it approved. While keeping in mind that the first close says that it's already decided that "we want something like this" and so that question should not be revisited, and "There should not be any such recall process" is not a valid argument at this point. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That next step is what Phase II was. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If this discussion is "Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall be implemented?", my answer is yes. That is effectively what the list of points above effectively are. If this question is "Is there consensus already to implement Wikipedia:Administrator recall?" then my answer is also Yes. I think there was consensus via Phase II to do this. If people believe there isn't, then I strongly prefer resolving the first question right now instead of bunting this entire thing to a second RFC further down the line.
    I also personally would have preferred a week while editors already discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall could resolve this. But the cat's out of the bag, and nobody seems to actually close this as premature. So I would prefer going through with this RFC instead of alternatives that draw this out for everyone. Soni (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Soni's first question, my answer is unreservedly Yes. Regarding Soni's second question, my answer is a Very Weak Yes. Also, this RfC is a premature mess. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We do not need an RfC to answer the question "Did the previous discussion, with a consensus close, actually close with a consensus?" Just get it done. Details will, as usual, be refined as we go along. If the entire thing turns out, after post-implementation experience, to be a bad idea, then it can be undone later. PS: If there is doubt whether a close of an RfC or other discussion actually reached the consensus claimed by the closer, the place to hash that out is WP:AN (unless it's subject to a more specific review process like WP:MRV for move disputes, and WP:DRV for deletion ones).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involved yes there is consensus, yes this should be implemented, per those above and in particular leeky. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The partial trainwreck of the discussion that happened at the Phase II RfC meant that consensus for several critical aspects of the recall proposal did not gain sufficient consensus to enact such a significant change to a core policy (WP:ADMIN). And for my own part I failed to see a consensus on some matters at all, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on the matter. JavaHurricane 10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per S Marshall. The process should continue with the understanding that there is a consensus for recall on this basis though details remain to be finalized. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the question here is whether there is consensus for some future version, in which the details will have been finalized. It's whether there is consensus for what it says at the top of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. And my position is that there is (or at least it should be established here) consensus for the form of recall described in the 14 bullet points listed above. Some people in this discussion have queried the precise interpretation of some of the points, so another round of workshopping precise language would not be amiss, but the proposal should continue to move forward on this basis without "going back to the drawing board" because of concerns about a previous RFC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is consensus to adopt an administrator recall process that includes the characteristics that achieved consensus in RFA2024 Phase II. To my eye, the proposal here successfully reflects that consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 editors" is much too vague. Could be 25 IPs? Only logged in editors with some experience should be allowed, and the simplest way is to require EC. Zerotalk 02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done. The suffrage requirements for recall petitions are "same as RFA". That was one of the Phase 2 consensuses (consensi?). Phase 1 consensus set RFA suffrage to EC. Levivich (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, confirm consensus. The weight of community involvement and the clear consensus close are sufficient to grant this process the effect of policy immediately. I will say this: I am absolutely shocked that the second phase of the discussion was not better advertised; given the long-anticipated nature of this process and the importance to community functions moving forward, it should have been better attended. And yet, the dozens of editors that did participate came to reasonable and clear consensus conclusions on various facets of the process. Beyond that, we are years deep into repeated derailing of the creation of this function, despite clear community support for some sort of process. There is absolutely no reason why further discussion to clarify, alter, or amend any provision of the process cannot take place after the process is codified in its namespace. But the time has come for the process to exist, and there is nothing egregiously problematic in what was decided upon in the foregoing discussion. With the caveat that, no matter what the community decided upon for the initial procedure, there are bound to be things we can only think to address and adjust after the first community RRfA discussions take place. SnowRise let's rap 10:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding notifications about the second phase of discussion: a watchlist message was posted, the centralized discussion notice box was updated, and a link was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard (there was also a link present in the announcement of the closure of phase 1). A mass message was sent to what I believe is a list of participants in phase 1. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, fair enough, if it was posted on CD, which is arguably the single best thing you can do to promote an issue. But I do think spaces like VP are a vastly more reasonable place for posting a notice intended to draw in general community input about the recall of admins, compared to AN, with it's limited traffic mostly constrained to admin activity (or at least as much constrained as any open space on the project). In fact, some may argue (though I'm certain it was lack of forethought rather than intent) that the only noticeboard to receive a notice of the discussion being the one noticeboard with the highest admin-to-non-admin activity ratio is maybe the least optimal way to advertise a discussion that would seek to create the community's first direct means for recalling admins. The CD link seems to have been the only notice well-calculated to reach an average community member: the mass mailer, the discussion link in the closure of phase I, and the watchlist notice, all of those were only ever going to reach those who participated in Phase I. Which is good, but again, probably a lot less than this discussion warranted. SnowRise let's rap 17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlist notices get pushed to everyone with an account, no? Also, CD is posted at the top of VPP. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (involved), but I agree with everyone who is saying that this is pre-mature fanfanboy (block) 18:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there appears to be community consensus to implement an Administrator Recall process as described. I think some of the concerns raised are genuine, especially the potential for abuse... But I doubt the community would look kindly on editors who chose to WP:GAME this new system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (involved). The existence of the pre-voting "open discussion" section, as well as the widespread "find a consensus" sentiment was enough for the consensus found to be valid. Mach61 14:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (involved). From the get-go, the purpose of WP:RFA2024 was to reach consensus -- not to workshop a proposal for later ratification, but to workshop proposals and approve/deny them in the same RFA2024 process. In Phase I, Proposals 16 and 16c, the overall proposal for a community-based recall system (#16) reached consensus. On the numbers, 65 editors voted, and it was 43-22. On the proposal for a specific dewiki-like system (#16c), 34 editors voted, it was a 25-9 majority, but this was determined to not be consensus because of the (relatively) lower participation.

    We went on to Phase II, where specific proposals for details of the recall system were made. The purpose of Phase II was, clearly, to iron the details from Phase I #16c, not to draft a proposal for submission to the community, but to decide the details, in Phase II. This is evidenced by the many "find a consensus" votes in Phase II (the phrase appears 27 times on the page, in addition to which there are various variations on the theme), which were editors expressly saying they'd rather have a recall system in place with any of the proposed details, than have the proposal for recall fail due to disagreement about some of its details. It was clear that the participants wanted Phase II to end with a consensus for an actual system, not a proposal for a third round of RFC. 93 editors participated in Phase II [26], which is even more than in Phase I.

    Both Phase I and II were widely advertised, tagged with the RFC template, advertised on watchlists, and posted on WP:CENT -- they more than complied with WP:PGCHANGE. They had broad participation, and the fact that Phase II ended with a system very similar to dewiki only confirms the budding consensus from Phase I. The fact that the "open discussion" section of Phase II was closed after a few days does not undermine the consensus-forming process in my view; discussion continued, new proposals continued to be made, and some voted against the entire idea of recall. Nevertheless, consensus was formed on various proposals, leading to the system that is now well-documented at WP:RECALL.

    So, yes, this months-long process confirmed what we all already knew was global consensus (to have a community-decided involuntary recall system, and to have it be modeled on dewiki's successful system); this RFC will be the third time in a single year that this global consensus will be confirmed. When this RFC is closed as "yes," as I believe it will be, we should put the policy template on WP:RECALL and that should dispel any and all doubts as to whether WP:RECALL has consensus. 100+ editors in 3 rounds of voting is more than enough to establish global consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes and No. It appears that Wikipedia:Administrator recall is still being developed and that these dot points are the basis for that development. There is a consensus for a recall policy according to these dot points but as has been pointed out above these dot points are not a policy in and of themselves so cannot be adopted immediately. When there is consensus for a barebones policy (the dot points) it is then developed into an actual policy page before a final RfC to adopt it. That's the normal process and should be followed here. So, yes there is a consensus to have a recall process along the lines of the dot points and that is correctly being developed into a policy before final adoption so, no, there is not yet a consensus to turn the wordy version at Wikipedia:Administrator recall into policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current version is less than 500 words and it's been stable for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it's ready for an RfC for formal adoption as a policy then? I don't think it's appropriate to merge this RfC into that given that the proposal here is a series of dot points that is different to what's at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For example, I wouldn't support 25 editors as listed in this proposal but would support 25 extended confirmed editors. Other questions have been raised above (for example what if there's a concurrent ArbCom case) and I would encourage editors who have raised those concerns here to take them to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall for a further discussion and whether or not they should be incorporated into that proposal before it is put forward for adoption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    25 extended-confirmed editors is already a requirement. A fourth RFC seems excessive. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Yet another reason why this should have been workshopped first: this proposal is missing a crucial part of the previous stage. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have expressed agreement with this sentiment before, I am also a firm believer of not putting everyone through additional WP:BURO after this. So I'd rather User: Barkeep49 or someone else add a link to WP:Administrator recall to the topic above instead of trying to wrangle a 4th RFC. I'd phrased my !vote above to answer the question I think we should be asking anyway. Soni (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: Callanecc and Dilettante's points are accurate and well taken, but this really does come down to a more direct call on community will and BURO. I think the obvious emerging consensus here is that if a version of the policy language has already been rendered which includes all of the consensus elements agreed to for the process, without any glaring contraventions or other issues, then as soon as this discussion closes with a consensus in the affirmative, that version of the guideline becomes policy immediately. Repeating the process yet again for purely pro forma reasons is not necessary, appropriate, or a reasonable use of community time. Let's remember that any version validated can thereafter be reasonably expected to be subject to discussion and further tweaking, particularly in its first months.
    EDIT: Though I do think one reasonable thing that could be done thereafter would be to advertise every major disputed discussion on the guideline talk page at VPP for the next six months (and having a tendency to do so thereafter, really). It is, after all, a new process that has non-trivial consequence to our administrative operations, so continuing to have heavy community input in its initial evolution here can only be regarded as a good thing. SnowRise let's rap 03:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on to the pile that says that we've already gone through so much bureaucracy at this point that any more after this would be really out of the norm. If there's consensus here, mark it as policy and work out fine details as they are brought up. If there's not consensus, let's find out right now, and not after more formal RFC cycles. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on principle, but some points still need to be workshopped. How does 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus work for an election? Is it split in the middle? This kind of details should've been made clear before putting the proposal up to a vote. (Edit: looking at the comments below, this appears to have already been discussed) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's 55%, which was added to WP:RECALL a few weeks ago (following that discussion below). Levivich (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (Administrator Recall)

  • Close as the proposal is still being developed. A draft of a full proposal is being discussed at WP:Administrator recall that refines and adds clarification to the closes at WP:RFA2024. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. I do anticipate that this proposal will come back for community discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted when this was raised on my talk page, the work there appears procedural. There is no agreement even there about whether or not this is already policy or not. Having editors spend time developing something in detail when the core policy doesn't have consensus is a poor use of time in my opinion. If it does have consensus the details can be worked out and will be made to happen. We have seen that happen with Admin elections coming out of the RFA2024 process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you are coming from, but the detailed efforts identified a couple challenges with how to implement the close, and I wouldn't suggest that the policy described above is the exact proposal coming from those efforts (although it is in harmony with the closes in WP:RFA2024). While every policy could be further refined, I am of the belief that our community is best served by bringing forward a more complete proposal for community discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be closed. For most people, whether they support admin recall depends very much on the details of the proposed mechanism. For a sensible RfC, the mechanism has to be spelled out (as above) but must not change for 30 days. That does not match reality at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq genuine question: what details do people need beyond which there is already RfC consensus for? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, I oppose the proposal, but I think you should withdraw this RfC for now. What people still need (or at least should be entitled to) is to see a full proposal, a proposed policy page, not the bullet list summary you posted here, and to see a rationale for adopting the proposal, prepared by its supporters. And editors are working on those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I long ago tuned this out as a TL;DR waste of my time. But curious, is there a consensus that the current Arbitration Committee-led "recall procedure" is not up to the task, and should be discontinued? Or, rather, is there a consensus that both procedures may be used. Can an admin be subject to both an Arbcom case *and* a "community recall procedure" at the same time? Is there a consensus for that? To be clear, I oppose the possibility of simultaneous, competing recall procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wbm1058 Nothing in this above would prevent someone from becoming a party to an arbcom case, or from arbcom issuing any remedy. How would you like a blocking condition to work? Perhaps a prohibition on community recall rrfa launching while the admin is a party to an arbcom case? — xaosflux Talk 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If stripping the Arbitration Committee of the power to desysop isn't part of the package, this whole "recall procedure" strikes me as highly problematic. Imagine an Admin suffering through a month-long Arbitration Commmittee proceeding, ending with an "admonishment" to the administrator, followed hours later by the opening of a "community recall procedure". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bureaucrats evaluate consensus for 50-60% is invalid for the election option, that is strictly a vote - so needs a specific value. — xaosflux Talk 10:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been consensus for 60% threshold for Admin elections. The same has been summarised in Wikipedia:Administrator recall as well (which was intended as a summary of Phase II) but I don't see a link to it in the main proposal here Soni (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So perhaps the description above just needs to be clarified. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be consensus for 55%. Option C stated the midpoint of whatever passed in the other discussion. Option C won there, which was 50-60%, so the midpoint is 55% which is explicitly called out in the first discussion. Pinging @Voorts: in case I'm completely misreading something here. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    55% is correct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux, @Soni, and @Tazerdadog: I've fixed the close to state that it's 55% without 'crat discretion; I think I added that bit by accident because that's nowhere in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving aside everything else, this part is confusing: A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is this implying that if the admin requests a delay then the admin is responsible for creating it? Why not have the 'crat create it after the delay, same as they would for no-delay? Anomie⚔ 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like that part at all. I'd rather see the admin start their own RRFA within some short deadline (7 days - with possibly the option for asking for the 30 day extension) -- and if they don't start it anyone can ask at BN to process the desysop. Crats never have to edit, so requiring the crats to create a pageto move the process forward gives them a pocket veto. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this RFC's summary of that part of the proposal. As I read it, an admin chooses whether to start an RFA (or stand for election), which must be done within 30 days, and if it's not done within 30 days, crats desysop with discretion ("discretion" such as taking into account whether the petition was entirely signed by obvious sock puppets or had the requisite number of qualified signatories, or to extend the period to 32 or 33 days instead of 30 due to the admin's RL schedule, things of that nature). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option E there is where it says the 'crat should open create the discussion. The other options had the admin being required to say "come attack me" within a certain period of time. The combination of E+A is where we got the confusion here, since E didn't explicitly say what should happen if a delay is requested. Anomie⚔ 15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think the closer got it wrong by finding consensus for E. Only 6 people (out of 30+) voted for E. It's A, not E. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, looks like only 9 of those 30+ voted after E was added. That part, at least, seems like it could use further discussion by people who care. Anomie⚔ 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just asked the closer to reconsider it. Levivich (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This point is one of the pieces that has been ironed out at WP:Administrator recall. As I said above, and others have pointed out, this proposal is not completely ripe. - Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I guess the current language at WP:RRFA handles it just fine. @Anomie and Xaosflux: take a look at WP:RRFA, I think that addresses your concerns on this point? Levivich (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    🤷 Looks to me like they changed it from E+A to just A. That does resolve the confusion. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would ever happen, but in theory the crats could just wait 30 days and then decide to revoke privileges without any community input, which seems like a flaw, that part should be reworded to clarify who is responsible for starting the process in each situation. ASUKITE 17:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as premature. The page is a mess right now, as several people have posted above. It isn't anywhere near finalized so of course there will be holes and parts where it doesn't judge consensus. When I said "What we need is an RFC to decide whether or not we need another RFC", I didn't expect anyone to actually do it. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused as to what is being asked here: is this a request for approval of a process? Or are we judging whether consensus was previously formed for it? The latter does not seem to me a good question to ask, as it is sending us further into the weeds of a proposal that has already gotten out of hand with respect to creation and approval procedure. But that's how I read my colleagues' !votes above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need another bureaucratic mess that is another RfC? I think the last one had enough consensus. Ping me if there's anything in particular we're trying to work out and I'm not getting the point of this. I'm trying to take a step back from the more complicated aspects of the project right now but this is important. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as a confusing, duplicative mess. The specific question in this RFC, as far as I can make out, is asking whether the previous discussion had consensus to implement something following discussion, or whether the outcome of that further discussion needs to be subject to an RFC. I don't think it's sensible to even ask that until that further discussion is complete and we can see the differences between it and the consensus outcome. However, above there appears to be discussion of things other than that question, and no clear agreement about what the consensus of the last RFC was (with the consensus as determined by the closer having changed at least once since the initial close) - other than more discussion of the details was needed (which seems to be happening in two places). I don't think it's possible for this discussion to be useful in any way so it should be closed before it creates even more confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I think there might be some confusion about what this discussion is for – it would definitely be silly if it was trying to ask people to assess the consensus of the post-close discussion on talk. This RfC asks the same question the post-close discussion has been focused on: did the Phase I and Phase II RfCs result in a consensus to implement? That, I think, is worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "25 editors" figure in the initial proposal was qualified as being extended confirmed. Definitely not supporting a process whereby any 25 editors, over the course of a full month, can start this process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a consensus ... but whether there is or isn't, "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition." needs to be clarified. You can't support more than five open petitions, but then the next sentence says you can initiate a petition without limit. Those two statements need to be harmonized. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition" is entirely accurate. There are limitations on how often someone can initiate a petition (there are cooling off periods, plus the 5-petitions-at-once limit), limitations that were decided in Phase II and are specified at WP:Administrator recall § Petition. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Close as premature comments, I said my piece above and on my talk page about why I thought (and think) it appropriate. I also don't think I hold any particular status other than being UNINVOLVED in this process. So if some other UNINVOLVED editor wants to close this as premature, I'm certainly not going to push back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For further background, see wp:Administrators_open_to_recall and the associated categories and pages. (including pages related to some actual recalls) When we came up with this back in the Jurassic Era, we intended it to be voluntary. It's interesting to see that there appears to be consensus that some kind of mandatory process be implemented. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a revert?

There is a long-simmering issue when dealing with 1RR, namely there is no policy that covers what a revert is. WP:REVERT which defines a revert as reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. is an essay, and Help:Revert, which is an information page, uses undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.

First issue is that these two definitions contradict each other. ...typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously and ...which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version are mutually exclusive. Something can typically result or result, and there is a large space between them. Secondly, undoing the effects of one or more edits and otherwise negating the effects is a hole wide enough to drive an article about an 80s cartoon character through. Normally, this type of ambiguity is par for the course, but we have multiple policies, bright-line rules, and arbitration sanctionsWP:3RR, WP:1RR, WP:CTOP#Standard_set that call out reverts, and can be grounds for immediate blocking and sanctioning.

So I ask, what is a revert? When does something become the WP:STATUSQUO so that changing or removing it is BOLD and not a revert? Where is the line on undoing the effects or negating the effects? If someone adds bananas are good to an article and someone changes that to bananas are not good has the previous edit been reverted, as the effect was negated, or should the banana-hater have the first mover advantage? Should we have an actual policy defining a revert if we're going to have arbitration sanctions and bright-line blocked if you break 'em rules about reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion on from talk page can be seen at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 33#Clarity on reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A revert is changing anything I don't want changed. Seriously tho, since changing anything is technically a revert, one is forced into examining the exact circumstances, how long since content was added, intent, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rules should be interpretted according to their purpose, which isn't always clear from their literal wording. The purpose of classifying edits as reverts is to identify edit-warring in a semi-rigorous way. It isn't to catch editors out for cooperative editing. If Selfstudier writes "The population of XYZ is 10,000", and I remove it with the comment "I don't like that source", then that's a revert. However, if I remove it with the comment "That's a different place called XYZ, see page 23 for our XYZ", that's cooperative editing. The difference is that in the first instance I was opposing Selfstudier's intention, and in the second case I was assisting with it. Something likely to please the editor whose edit is being changed shouldn't be called edit-warring, ergo not a revert. Encoding this principle in a way that everyone can understand might be tall order, and in my current covid-ridden-and-sleep-deprived state I won't try. Zerotalk 15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR is correct to highlight the "restored to a previous version" aspect, which was always broken. Consider add A, add B, delete A, add C, delete B. Possibly two reverts in there but no two versions of the page are the same. Zerotalk 15:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be able to point to an edit that was reversed. Removal is basically always a revert, restoring what was removed is almost always a revert, rewording? Depends, but in the case of "A is true" edited to "A is not true", one of those editors is doing something more important than reverting anyway. nableezy - 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be a hard rule on when edit B negates the effects of edit A, because there are lots of ways to reword edits, all functionally equivalent to a revert. Unfortunately for the enforcement of the one-revert rule, I think it's also difficult to have blanket rules on when some content has achieved default consensus agreement status, as it's highly dependent on factors such as how many editors regularly review changes to an article. As per English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, the way forward is to have a discussion about what is the current consensus, halting any changes on the contested content in the meantime. I appreciate, though, that has high overhead. The community has been unable to agree upon less costly ways to resolve disagreements. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An edit that deliberately reverses the changes of one or more previous edits, in whole or in part. Cremastra (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a constructive and reasonable clarification. I would say that if you can no longer see the edit you're supposedly reverting in the first 50 or 100 page revisions, and there's good faith reason to believe that the editor was no longer aware that they were reverting, it's no longer a revert. Wikipedia:Reverting: Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version. Andre🚐 22:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like some essays on this might be a good idea (then we can figure out which one is most accurate, refine it over time, and gradually push it towards policy, or at least towards being a highly-respected essay with nearly the weight of policy.) Having hard-and-fast rules risks people gaming them, and I'm not sure it's possible, but there's some definite guidelines that could be helpful. I threw together a quick-and-dirty User:Aquillion/What_is_a_revert with my thoughts - note the two questions at the end, which are the points I'm uncertain about (I definitely saw a dispute recently about the "removal -> restore -> add text downplaying the disputed material" sequence somewhere recently, so it ought to be nailed down.) My opinion is that it isn't a revert - this interprets negating the effects too broadly. As the second example on my essay shows, that logic could be used to argue that once I've made an edit to an article, almost any edit made by anyone in a dispute with me anywhere in the article at all is now a revert, because any addition of other information that potentially contradicts or even just waters down the WP:WEIGHT of my addition could reasonably be framed as undoing the intent of my edit. I add something saying "X is true"; someone in a dispute with me then makes a large addition to the article, of stuff that was never there before but which represents a position that broadly diverges from what I added. I accuse them of trying to water down my statement that "X is true" by making it less of the article by percentage and otherwise shifting the balance I established, effectively reverting me. This may even actually be their intent! It's a common situation! But it's not, I think, an actual revert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your discussion of how things become a lot less clear with 1RR vs 3RR is worth noting. A lot of things become more clear with the repetition, but it's pretty blurry with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, an observation: the community has imposed a 0RR sanction before, which is not intended to be a complete ban on editing. Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Therefore, a revert is not simply undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits and so either that definition is wrong or the qualifier which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version is important.
My general inclination, separate from that observation, is to construe "revert" narrowly. An edit is a revert if it returns the page to a prior state and it's not if not, even if it's intended to contradict or downplay other information in the article. I agree with Aquillion that the cyclic nature of an edit war is an important piece of the puzzle, and therefore am inclined to say that editing disputes that progress rather than cycle are not edit warring even if they don't usually feel great from the inside. Loki (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea of their being a contradiction and a lack of clarity is illusory, and caused by trying to approach this question as if interpreting a legal statute instead of a WP community body of practice. It is entirely reasonable to state that a revert "typically results" in content being restored to a previous version; the point is that the attempt to change it has been undone. This wording short-circuits a WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING loophole. For example, if the article says that what today is western Scotland "was settled from Ulster by Gaels of Dál Riata starting at least as early as the 5th century AD", and you change this to say it was the Vikings, and I then, instead of a straitforward automated revert, have it say "was settled by Dalriadic Gaels from Ulster starting in the 5th century AD or earlier", I have definitely reverted your incorrect change [the Vikings arrived in the late 8th century], to exactly equivalent meaning as the original, but not actually restored the article to a previous version of the relevant content. This is important. And everyone already seems to understand it (or will be induced to understand it quite quickly if they try to skirt 3RR or otherwise engage in editwarring by making reverts that are not to exact versions of older content).

    Whether a page has a template on it that says it is an essay or information page (a sub-type of essay) is pretty much meaningless (except when an essay conflicts irresolvably with a policy or guideline, in which case the essay should be revised or deleted, or an essay advises something that the community otherwise does not support, in which case it should be revised, userspaced, or deleted). Various essays have the force of at least guidelines, they simply don't happen to be written in guideline language and don't quite serve the function of guidelines (which is circumstantially applying policy through best practices). Essays of the sort that the community takes seriously, and treats as operational, are often describing patterns of reasoning or behavior rather than outlining a rule or how to put that rule into practice. This reasonably enough can include definitions of WP jargon. (Some examples of WP essays that have enforcable levels of community buy-in are WP:5PILLARS, which doesn't even have an essay tag on it, WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:CIR, WP:ROPE, WP:NONAZIS, and WP:DUCK, and there are many others, especially those with the "supplement" tag, another specific type of essay.)

    To the extent there is an actual wording problem between the two essays listed at the top of this thread, it is simply that Help:Revert says "results in ... restor[ation] to a previous version", without "results" being qualified in any way. The fix is just basic, noncontroverial copyediting: Help:Revert simply should be edited to agree with WP:REVERT's "typically results". However, a "Help:" page's purpose is to act as a practical instructional summary, mostly for noobs. It is not a definitional document, but a how-to. As such, it is not possible for imperfectly precise wording (pretty typical in "Help:" pages) at the former to magically shortcircuit the higher precision of the latter; WP:REVERT clearly is a defining document, making it clear that a revert need not precisely restore previous content in order to qualify as a revert, but simply undo or otherwise thwart the intent of the change being reverted – to restore the prior meaning.

    This is also, obviously, the resolution of the "Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits" pseduo-problem of 0RR. Any time a policy or procedure interpretation results in an impossible scenario, it means you are misinterpreting the policy or procedure. If you improve confusing old language in article, it might technically "undo" or "negate" a poor semantic choice by an earlier editor, but it is not a revert, because it is not attempting to thwart the intent and meaning of that other editor's input. I.e., your innocent copyediting is not a form of dispute, so it's not relevant to reversion and its place in our dispute-resolution system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand this interpretation but disagree with it. I don't like this because this causes the exact problem we're all here about. I would rather have a rigid definition that can be gamed than a vague one that can still be gamed by WP:WIKILAWYERing a vague wording, and wasting all our time in the bargain. Loki (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewers

Hi. I thought I ask the question here regarding policy on New Page Reviewers. The current tutorial states "The purpose of new pages patrol is equally to identify pages which cannot meet this standard, and so should be deleted, and to support the improvement of those that can. Pages that pass new pages patrol don't have to be perfect, just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion." On several occasions I have noted that new page reviewers have marked pages as reviewed, but for other editors to then go in another as not meeting notability rules. If this is the case is there not a mechanism that the new page reviewers can be reported as not meeting the "just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion" criteria? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of your statement is unclear, could you rephrase? Remsense ‥ 论 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are saying that there are 2 editors A and B. A reviews the page, marks it as reviewed, then B marks it as not meeting notability rules. And the question is whether there is a way to report this inconsistency based on the premise that B is correct, and A made an error. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or vice versa! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for editors to disagree on notability, as is clear in a number of AfD nominations, so a reviewer passing a new page that is subsequently nominated for deletion isn't necessarily a problem. If, however, you see it happening frequently with the same reviewer, you should discuss your concerns with that editor on their talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't have to be unquestionably notable to pass NPP patrol. It just needs to be "not entirely unsuitable". Some NPPers will only mark at patrolled when they're very, very sure a topic is notable; others will mark it as patrolled so long as it doesn't meet some of the WP:CSD criteria, most reviewers are somewhere in between the two. Also, many people use the notability tag not to mean "this isn't notable" (really, if you're sure, you should probably start a deletion discussion), but "I don't know if this is notable, can someone who knows more about this kind of thing come check?" So even if two different reviewers might both agree that a page should be marked as patrolled, that doesn't mean that one reviewer might want to leave a notability tag where the other wouldn't. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:New pages patrol § Notability explains that Opinions are divided on how important it is to consider notability during new page patrol. In my own opinion, notability issues don't always make an article entirely unsuitable for inclusion; as Joe Roe says in his excellent NPP tips essay, NPP is not the Notability Police. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take that essay with a grain of salt. The opinions there about notability and draftification are... controversial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard anybody object to them? No doubt you've amassed a considerable knowledge of the spectrum of opinions on new page reviewing since I granted you the right six months ago, though. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that sarcasm? I also think that essay contains some controversial points. Don't worry about notability seems a little extreme for me. Cremastra (u — c) 16:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does make significant use of draftification and probably has stronger opinions on notability of the articles I usually review, I review very differently but I don't actually disagree with that essay in that it represents a valid way of review. Just my two cents. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection for DYK queues?

For those not familiar with the DYK workflow, its basically anybody can review a submission, anybody can promote a reviewed submission to a prep area, but then we need an admin to move that into a queue, because the queues are fully (i.e. admin only) protected. Once in a queue, an admin bot moves things to {{Did you know}} which is transcluded onto the main page. DYK is chronically short of admins to perform the last step. That's probably the single biggest roadblock to the smooth operation of DYK, and has been for a long time.

There are a number of DYK regulars who are highly skilled and trustworthy, but for all the usual reasons don't want to subject themselves to RfA hell. I started a conversation at WT:DYK#Giving queues template instead of full protection? about the possibility of changing the full protection of the queues to template protection, and making a limited number of DYK regulars template editors. This was met with positive response, so I'm coming here to find out how the broader community would feel about this.

I know it's policy that the main page is fully protected (but I don't know where that's written down). It's unclear to me how much of the DYK queues being fully protected is baked into policy. The Template Editor capability only goes back to 2013, much newer than DYK, so I suspect it's mostly a case of "we've always done it this way". Assuming DYK could agree on the implementation details, would I be within my remit as an admin to change the protection level on the DYK queues and start handing out template editor bits? Or does that require some community-wide approval process? RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal (and suggest that DYK regular admins just hand out the bit as needed). In case anyone is wondering, the DYK template on the Main Page and the next DYK update would continue to be fully protected via cascading protection, so the proposal would not allow template editors to vandalise the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't template editor usually have a host of pre-requirements? As anyone with template editor can change templates transcluded to millions of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. They are described at WP:TPEGRANT. RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't favour expanding the role of template editors simply because the permission may be easier to grant. I would prefer creating a new permission tailored for the role, such as DYK-editor or main-page-editor, which can be assigned to a corresponding user group. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I agree that a finer-grained permission system would be a good thing. In practice, I suspect it would be near impossible to make that happen. In the meantime, we've got zero filled queues because no admins want to do the work, and the people who want to do the work aren't admins and don't want to be. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it would be impossible to gain consensus for a protection level for, say, main page maintenance. If I understand the documentation correctly, only configuration changes are needed. I just don't see template editor as a good fit: I think it requires a much higher degree of trust than editing main page components. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm willing to explore other possibilities. Can you give me a link to where this is documented? RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Help:Protected pages says additional protection levels can be defined by the $wgRestrictionLevels configuration setting. mw:Manual:$wgRestrictionLevels shows an example of defining a permission level, and then modifying $wgGroupPermissions to assign the permission level to a user group (also see mw:Manual:User rights § Creating a new group and assigning permissions to it). isaacl (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. As far as I can tell from that, what we'd need to do is not just create a new user group, but also create a new restriction level. That all seems excessively complicated. RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. Creating the permission level is one line in the configuration, and is necessary to be able to designate which pages can be edited by the new role. Procedurally, it's the equivalent amount of work as designating a page that can only be edited by those with the template editor role, and then assigning users to the corresponding template editor group. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you could write it all out in in detail a sandbox or something? RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the English Wikipedia configuration was modified to implement the template editor role. The change allowed admins to select the template editor permission level when protecting a page, created a template editor user group, and assigned the permission to the new template editor group and the sysop group. The same would have to be done to create a main page editor permission and a corresponding role. The new permission level is needed so specific pages can be designated as limited to main page editors. A corresponding group is needed so main page editors can be assigned to the group. The permission is also assigned to the sysop group so admins can also edit the pages in question. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to going this route, but I'm not confident enough that I understand the details to tackle it myself. If you're willing to take on getting this created, I'll be happy to use it in lieu of my current plan. RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Template editor user right/Archive 2 § Next steps is where the work to implement the template editor role was discussed. Roughly speaking, it seems to consist of configuration changes, MediaWiki message changes, English Wikipedia page protection process changes, and English Wikipedia icon changes. I'm only tangentially familiar with most of these, so I think a better bet would be to crowdsource volunteers to help out. Hopefully an RfC would find enough interested helpers (as seems to have been the case with the template editor role, but then again, by the nature of that role it was probably more likely to do so). I was mainly thinking of what it took to implement the role in the configuration, rather than how to update English Wikipedia's procedures, so I appreciate now that it's more upfront work than re-using an existing permission level. However I think it pays off by making it easier to replenish a pool of editors able to edit the main page, since they won't have to meet the higher requirements for the template editor role. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fine grained permissions are a good thing. Everybody who can be trusted to edit templates or to decide what should be on the Main Page should be made an admin. The only reason we need extra permissions at all is that we do not have a working method to make new admins. —Kusma (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in the interest of getting results, I would suggest to go ahead with changing the queue protection to "template protection" and assigning the template editor bit to a couple of people now. A separate permission could be a later second step that we should take if we need it. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My read on this is that they may say they want to do the work, but they don't think they'd be trusted to. And in that case, why should we trust them to? RFA is still thataway, and we're not doing anybody - not the reluctant candidates, not the current admins, not the DYK process - any favors by bypassing it. —Cryptic 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By bypassing RfA we do almost everyone a favour. The exception is future admins who will have higher workloads because we aren't promoting enough of them. But as long as RfA is so hurtful that failed RfAs have a high chance of putting off people from editing altogether (or at least from running ever again), we need to care for other processes like DYK by finding solutions for their problems without involving RfA. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have important work that isn't getting done. We have people with the skills and desire to do that work. The only reason we can't draw a line between point A and point B is because RFA is totally broken. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the ability to draw a line between point A and point B without making it go through point C (whether that's the admin role or the template editor role). We bundle the lines together to try to avoid overhead in managing the lines. But in this case, where drawing the line would be easy given the existence of a pool of editors with the required skills and interest, I think it's less overhead to draw a direct line, rather than routing it through a different point that requires a larger set of skills. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your read on this is wrong. I don't need everything about me to be vetted by voters who can be very rude for no reason, especially when the only thing I would do if I was an admin would be to update DYK. I don't want to ban editors, delete articles, or do any of that stuff. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bizarre thing about all this is that one of the abilities I have as an admin is being able to edit template-protected pages. Which is stupid because my understanding of non-trivial template syntax is essentially zero. The only thing I know how to #invoke is sheer terror about anything that has more than one pair of curly braces. And of all the stupid things I've seen asked at RfA, never once have I seen anybody quizzed on their understanding of template syntax. RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably trusted with the mop. We'd now be potentially extending that same level of trust to some DYK editors who probably won't have any template coding experience either. —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I can break any template the first time I use it, and I won't go near editing most except for things like adding an entry in a navigation template. I think what we need to consider is whether an editor can be trusted to know what they don't know. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK queue editors would likely not have the "real" template coding experience typically expected by WP:TPEGRANT. They basically are just editing text. But if given the right, they would then have access to other highly-sensitive templates and their actual code. —Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if they abuse that, the right can be revoked. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the abuse that right they could break every page or post anything they like to the main page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested As long as they meet the first 4 criteria of WP:TPEGRANT I don't seen how they'd be more likely to break every page than any other template editor (and in reality, I think the worst a template editor could do is break a little under 20% of pages), and anything they put on the main page would have to sit in the queue first where it could be reverted before hitting the main page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other 3 criteria aren't you meant to meet all four of them? Also doesn't the main page directly transclude templates? If so the TPE right could be abused to push anything to it. As to how many pages could be effect I'm not sure how many pages something like {{cite web}} or {{short description}} is transcluded to, but I'd bet it's more than 20%. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested All templates transcluded on the main page are Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and cannot be edited by template editors. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While these are technically templates, these aren't really templates. Granting template editor rights to editors who have no experience working with templates is completely the wrong way of doing things. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what I'm seeking here is clarification on why the queues are fully protected. Is there some specific established policy which requires that because they feed into the main page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the protected areas listed at WP:ERRORS, it looks like any page content that will imminently be on the MP is fully protected. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, via the WP:CASCADE protection of Main Page (which includes Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow to protect the next DYK queue). —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK queues might be a good use case for pending changes level 2 (disabled for the better part of a decade), or heck, even level 1. The admin bot could be changed to copy over only the most recent approved revision. IznoPublic (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this change was made a few days ago. So far, the world has not come to an end, so let's see how things go. If there's problems, we can always revisit this to see if a different solution would work better. RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this quite surprising given this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question I was asking was "Is there a policy reason which prevents me from doing this". Nobody came up with such a reason. RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, let's see how it goes. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever considered reducing the responsibilities of the posters i.e. more onus on the prep areas being good to go? —Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: In the news criteria amendments

Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?

Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [27] and [28]).

Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject.

Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia.

You may also propose your own amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Proposal 1 would replace the current ITNSIGNIF. Please see the background and previous discussions for the rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding for the record Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to add Proposal 3 above the first signature as part of the RFC question that gets copied to RFC pages. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Notified: Template:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:In the news, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background (In the news criteria amendments)

During a closure review of a proposed ITN entry, several editors expressed a concern that discussions at ITN are closed for subjective reasons because WP:ITNSIGNIF does not provide sufficient guidance for determining consensus. There was then a discussion at WT:ITN where several editors proposed changes to ITN, including amending or abolishing the significance criteria, and amending the update criteria. Some editors proposed replacing ITN with something else on the Main Page. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (In the news criteria amendments)

  • Yes on 1. As of right now, any non-ITNR blurb proposal, especially RDs, is a dogfight where people insist "it is/is not important enough to blurb". No-one's convinced by an opponent because our process is essentially to decide it on a sui generis basis. Clear rules save editor time in such discussions. If something's not on the front page of multiple newspapers, it really shouldn't be blurbed (there's an obvious IAR exception for when the event is so significant we can post faster than newspapers have time to print, like with Elizabeth II's death, but I trust editor judgement in such instances). On the other hand, if something is, it probably should. This should prevent some of the staleness that we see. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 as its drafter, but I also support 1 as a second choice. ITN should in theory be about featuring subjects that are in the news, instead of a simple list of news stories. If there is enough news about a person/place/thing that its article can be immediately updated with significant due content, then it should qualify. ITN's purpose is ultimately to display content that we've recently improved, just like DYK. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also willing to support 3 and replace ITN with something else if reform isn't viable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 as first choice, but if that fails to get consensus, 1. ITN’s slow update schedule fails to incentivize content improvement like the other mainspace sections, and is vastly inferior to P:CE in either informing readers of new events or connecting them to articles they wish to go to (though external search engines make that specific goal mostly irrelevant). Prop. 1 is a decent reform to ITN as it exists since it would reduce repetitive arguments, but Prop. 2 brings ITN in line with the rest of the main page Mach61 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say, I think a standard closer to four paragraphs or 300 words might be better, but that can be amended later Mach61 00:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially suggested the two paragraph minimum, but I'd also support a higher barrier. On top of holding ourselves to a higher standard, it would make it easier to catch frivolous expansions and other undue content that people would try to push through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 3 as well. Yes, all these options are mutually exclusive, but they are all better ways of dealing with ITN than the status quo. Mach61 16:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on 1 or 2, with a preference for 1. ITN has been broken for quite some time, as editors use their own personal criteria to judge what stories are important enough to be listed. (Just look at the discussion surrounding US President Joe Biden's departure from the 2024 presidential race.) Setting aside the tremendous amounts of personal acrimony this generates, any story that does manage to get posted is often significantly out of date by the time it is replaced. For example, as I write this, the oldest story on ITN is a sport final that happened nearly ten days ago. That's no longer "news" by any definition of the word. It certainly doesn't track with reliable sources, as all the news articles about it are at least a week old. The Wikipedia article's views have unsurprisingly cratered. And despite all that, we are still advertising it on our main page to millions of readers. This situation makes us look out of date and out of touch, and it reduces ITN's usefulness to readers (readers being the primary reason we're all editing Wikipedia). It's time to change. The status quo is untenable. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updating after option 3 was added: I'm really close to being open to that option as well purely due to the acrimonious atmosphere at ITN. However, I'd need to see a proposal to replace it with P:CE or similar to actually support. It would be a real loss to Wikipedia if we completely dropped the part of the main page that reminds readers that we are a living and updateable resource. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 per my comments on WT:ITN, oppose 1, as being in front-page news isn't necessarily a good criterion of encyclopedic significance, and things like commercial announcements might end up getting too much weight. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish ITN. The main page is Wikipedia's front cover and should invite readers into the encyclopedia. All content featured on the main page should deserve the spot only because it is a legitimate achievement of Wikipedia editors such that enhances the image and public reception of Wikipedia. A reader arriving on the main page is met with a list of promises: "Click here for something good". A promise needs to be made and needs to be delivered on. Featured articles are worthy of being featured because doing so highlights editors' ability to create very good content. DYK items are usually not very good content but are worthy of being featured because the hooks promote the perception that Wikipedia contains many interesting facts, that its articles also have some entertainment value, and they are backed up by at least adequate, presentable content that was recently created, drastically expanded, or improved. "On this day" is a traditional element that counterbalances the lightheartedness of DYK and highlights the vast work of editors who have developed comprehensive coverage of historic events. Each part of the main page communicates a promise along the lines of "there's something good here—click here for more", and has something to back that promise up with. Except for ITN. The weird old news panel. Old news and non-presentable articles on "significant events" are non-featurable. Instead of highlighting good work, Wikipedia is highlighting a curated list of world events selected through a non-encyclopedic process that manifests a systemic passive-aggressive contrarianism (not blaming anyone, it's a group dynamic and a systemic tendency arising from the incompatibility of the encyclopedia format with the news format) relative to the mainstream media discourse. Instead of promising good content and delivering on it, the message is, "we know what is really important in the world". That has turned out to be the whole point of ITN. It does not support the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. It does not help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news—because the content is usually ridiculously stale for something put in proximity of the word "news". Readers can find and quickly access such content without it being added to the main page, and there is no reason why they should be directed to recent events content in an encyclopedia before being led to any other section of the encyclopedia. Yes, Wikipedia is different from traditional encyclopedias because it is a "dynamic resource", but that is obvious enough without it being advertised on the main page, and there is no particular reason to advertise this fact above the fact that it is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit (that is what makes it a truly dynamic resource). It does not showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. Content on current events that is actually good exists, but it is relatively rare; ultimately, it is not even that content that gets featured because ITN items only have to pass a very low bar in terms of quality and are actually selected on the grounds of significance. ITN does not deliver good things to a reader and isn't backed up by good content. Pointing readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them is served by DYK. ITN should be abolished entirely. If it isn't abolished, I support Proposal 2.—Alalch E. 23:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is difficult to read without paragraph breaks. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: I've user-essayified it: User:Alalch E./Everything on the Main Page is featured —Alalch E. 17:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikipedia is different from traditional encyclopedias because it is a "dynamic resource", but that is obvious enough without it being advertised on the main page. The fact that Wikipedia has interesting information is also obvious, yet we have DYK. The fact that Wikipedia has high-quality articles is obvious, yet we have TFA. The fact that Wikipedia has information on historic events is obvious, yet we have OTD. That's a non-argument, except in the context of wholly reforming the main page.Sincerely, Dilettante 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-argument comes from WP:ITNPURPOSE, and I'm identifying it as a non-argument for having ITN. A thing such as ITN is not needed on the main page to emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. —Alalch E. 23:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this sentiment as well. ITN was born due to 9/11 and it is dividing Wikipedia apart. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 per @Thebiguglyalien. Oppose 1. I think it would significantly restrict the types of articles that get featured at ITN. As for abolishing ITN, while I appreciate @Alalch E.'s concerns, I think we ought to give ITN a chance before invoking the nuclear option. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also largely agree with @Masem regarding option 1. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even if this RfC ultimately results in no consensus as to any particular option, it would be helpful for the closer to identify broader areas of consensus that might help to focus future discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, weak support for option 3. Given the number of ITN regulars claiming that there's no problem with ITN in this discussion, I'm not sure that we can do anything to fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an involved editor at ITN, I will not explicitly vote here. I still believe the level to which ITN is broken or "broken" is heavily overstated. That said, I would be in favor of some variety of change to INTSIGNIF, if something must be changed, and would like to propose a impacts-based assessment of news items for ITN inclusion, whereby editors discuss the impacts (particularly long-term and lasting ones) of the events comprising the blurb in question. My rationale being that readers likely wish to engage with impactful news rather than events that may be of lesser effect or are ephemeral. This would fit with ITN's purpose of guiding readers to articles they may be interested in reading, while still filtering out some of the garbage news (ie celebrity drama) that may generate interest, but is of fleeting concern. Granted, there is no objective criteria here, but my belief is that I do not believe any criteria that are both objective and reasonable for ITN are possible. I may be proven wrong here and am willing to see if I am, but I have doubts that this shall happen. And I really do believe proposal 2 is just not tenable at all for the project's purposes and could make ITN way too subject to media bias (particularly western media). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarkSide830 If you're concerned about western media bias, your proposal would make things much worse in that regard. The metapedians who comment on pages like ITN are more likely to be western and much more likely to be men than our readership. Of course their prospective on what the most "impactful" events are will skew towards what affects them Mach61 00:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that at all. If our concern is coverage, then the nominations that would be most successful are Anglosphere based events, because Anglosphere publications cover them the most and most extensively, and these are the publications that the English-speaking editors of this wiki would most frequently consult. Either way, I don't know how my proposal would negatively change anything from this perspective. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well, if the regulars are partaking, put me down as leaning support on proposal 1 and fairly solidly opposed to 2. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 [EDIT: changed to oppose both in comment below] [EDIT 2: added oppose 3 in comment below] seems well enough if ITN regulars think it facilitates their process. The guideline should be worded well that a "sufficient" criterion does not mean "necessary". [A sufficient criterion of notability says nothing about being necessary for notability, and it definitely says nothing about being sufficient for inclusion.] It seems that #1 excludes #2. I don't think #2 is bad, and it'd streamline the guideline in some ways, but I doubt it fixes anything, and if the problem some in ITN raised is a lack of objective standards, then I don't see how #2 addresses that. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 eliminates any consideration of significance, leaving only the quality and amended update requirements. Under that option, any article that is of sufficient quality and has two new paragraphs or five sentences added about a recent event would qualify for ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't that just punt the question of "is this notably internationally groundbreaky newsy enough for ITN" completely to the ITN editors, by omitting it entirely? They'll still have to discuss it. I know there's no fixed notability thresholds now, so it's not technically any worse, but it wouldn't be any better either. And as the problem still exists, wouldn't someone just say in three months, "why don't we have a minimum standard for notability?" I guess at least if you have no notability section, it's a blank slate so that next time ITN can hammer out a more robust solution? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamuelRiv It would work exactly the same as the recent deaths section does now; there would be no discussion of extra notability beyond what is necessary to avoid an WP:AfD nomination, and any arguments about significance would be discarded for consensus purposes. Mach61 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Old-era-style significance arguments that don't attach to the remaining and amended criteria wouldn't contribute to consensus and such activity wouldn't be able to prevent posting. Notability standard is over at WP:N. A five-sentence addition to a preexisting article about a notable topic would be judged using the actual encyclopedia criteria for content, primarily WP:RECENTISM. If the recent expansion has overburdened [the article] with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens, it fails both update and quality criteria, because that newly added content should be editorially addressed through removal, so there's no ITN candidate to be had. There's no "well, recentism is bad, but it's really subjective" in RECENTISM, or "it's important to summarize, but it's highly subjective whether something has been summarized or not" in WP:SUMMARY, and there's no "the question of who is responsible for achieving consensus for inclusion is a highly subjective matter" in WP:ONUS, etc. Good judgement is required when editing and it's easy to see when it's absent. It's only in ITN discussions which operate on a parallel plane divorced from recognizable best practices that things can be subjective. It's time to put Wikipedia back into ITN. Failing that, ITN is a foreign body. —Alalch E. 01:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote to Oppose both in response to voort's comment that This proposal would completely replace the current [subjective] criteria (in response to question of how this amends the existing text). This proposal seems to want to address existing complaints by disregarding the reality of discussions around it, from my impression of the ITN talk samples given in this RfC. As I noted before, there may be some argument for tearing it all up and hoping that what is later written will work better for ITN, but if that's the plan then just say it. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine saying that that's the plan. For option 2, the goal is to eliminate the subjective significance criteria entirely. Content should not appear on the Main Page based on subjective impressions and local consensus. Option 2 would require ITN discussions to evaluate whether a new contribution about a current event meets NPOV. In my view, if an editor makes a due, well-written and sourced contribution about a current event to an article that meets ITNQUALITY, that should suffice for ITN. The added benefit of forcing ITN to focus on due weight is that it would become a built-in system to clean up event-cruft. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference in what is DUE in the context of an individual article and what is DUE in the context of the main page of a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think most contributions about recent events that meet this criterion, as well as WP:ITNQUALITY, would be as due for inclusion on the main page as most DYK hooks. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Add Oppose 3: ITN is not the cause or the propagator of wp:recentism and wp:notnews. I am confident that the creators of Mike Pence's fly were not motivated by the existence of ITN. To address recentism/notnews would require a concerted wp-wide awareness of how to pre-evaluate the historical context of current events articles (i.e. 10-year-test, and more), how news is a primary historical source, and how often news events may be better presented in context of existing articles rather than entirely new ones. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both ITN's purpose has been to feature high quality WP articles that happen to be in the news, with 9/11 the catalyst for its formation. To that end, ITN has always been curated similar to the other main page sections (like DYK and TFA) to avoid systematic bias that would otherwise favor English-language or Western (US and UK primarily) news coverage. It has been operating fine until the last few years, which I believe is tied to the fact we have problems with trying to keep WP:NOTNEWS in check across WP, with far too much detailed coverage of news events happening on WP (indeed, this is what Wikinews is supposed to do, not Wikipedia). The impact on ITN is that some editors want to see more news coverage, rather than see quality articles that are in the news, which leads to editors creating articles on events that lack enduring coverage. Dealing with NOTNEWS is a separate issue beyond this, but it should be addressed before fundamentally changing the purpose of ITN. To the specific proposals, Option 1 would end up affirming the systematic bias that would imbalance coverage of US and UK news (particularly politics), as well as discriminate against less "popular" news items like medical and scientific discoveries. And Option 2 would effectively be the same, with now systematic bias affirmed by editor bias that would give far too much focus on US and UK topics. Both also discourage the quality aspect, which has always been the primary requirement for ITN and for having the section on the main page in the first place. It would be far better to make sure what the purpose of ITN, determine if there are issues with getting nominations in the first place (which hasn't been done), and then determine if changes to the significance criteria are needed. --Masem (t) 00:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem
    • Option 1 would end up affirming the systematic bias that would imbalance coverage of US and UK news How? Prop. 1 doesn't even specify that the front pages be printed in English, much less in the anglosphere.
    • Both also discourage the quality aspect Prop. 2 literally makes quality the only relevant factor in posting.
    Mach61 01:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is true, the bulk of ITN candidates overall have been based on English-based sources, with maybe one or two stories every few months based on foreign langage ones. Until we also get over the editorial bias that comes with systematic bias (that most of the editors here are English-speaking and primarily read English sources, and thus have more interest in those topics) that would still be prefferentially favor the US and UK stories. And Prop 2 basically just eliminates the media bias for the systematic editorial bias of what interests editors the most rather than what best reflects an encyclopedia. ETA: We already have demonstrated problems with editor systematic bias via the issue with recent death blurbs, where famous and popular deaths get a huge wave of supports without concern for quality, while trying to get actually good quality BLPs of major figures is very difficult. I know this discussion is not covering recent deaths, but it is part of the same ongoing problems that ITN has had in the last several years. — Masem (t) 01:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On geography bias: How is the bias that would exist under Prop. 1 (not disputing its existence) be any worse than what currently exists? Certainly, in absolute terms more articles about the nonwestern subjects will be posted; that seems more important than the ratio of western/non-western posts. Seems like you're making the perfect than the enemy of the good.
    On Prop 2 basically just eliminates the media bias for the systematic editorial bias of what interests editors the most rather than what best reflects an encyclopedia. Again, the "perfect v. good" dynamic comes into play. All the subjects ITN already posts will be posted, its just that more events will be posted alongside them if Prop. 2 passes. Why is this so bad? I can give one very good reason why increasing the total number of articles posted would be good, namely incentivizing editors to improve them up to the quality standards without worrying if their efforts will prove fruitless. I really don't think any possible PR damage from fluff being posted will outweigh that. Mach61 17:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the current approach, we can easily combat geography bias, making sure that we have reasonable means to include stories outside Western regions that fall below the fold, typically disasters that happen in third-world countries. Prop 1 would create too much weight on what stories get repeated the most in national headlines, and a fundamental issue is that, not every headline story in newspapers makes for a good WP topic or even appropriate for inclusion on WP. We are looking at topics with long-term, enduring coverage, and the bulk of what newspapers feature on front pages are day-to-day events that may deserve a line or two update in an existing article, but not the endless dissection of news topics that we are currently generating in many places.
    Discussions below explain why Prop 2 is a terrible idea, because that would allow anything that has an update from being in the news to be included, and that would mean tons of celebrity stories, pop culture elements, product unveilings, and so on.
    We would like to increase the number of posts but I am pretty confident this is more due to the problem of low number of nominations to start (which points to more a volunteer process to get more topics nominated), many nominations present poor quality articles (which includes article that rely too heavily on reaction sections to carry the weight) and the fact that many nominations are news events that fail NOTNEWS in the first place (such as the initiating blocking of X in Brazil story). Most of this comes from righting the entire ship when it comes to NOTNEWS and getting editors back to writing encyclopedic articles that happen to include current events. Once that is re-established, then it should be easier to tackle what we can do to encourage more nominations to ITN. — Masem (t) 12:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing what Masem says here, I do believe the NOTNEWS issue is massively understated when it comes to ITN. Quite frankly, there is way too little consideration for NOTNEWS across the entire site. This basically puts any new article into play, no matter how trivial. I'll just provide an example from my area of expertise. Last year, 8 tropical systems in the Atlantic had individual articles written on them, four of them fairly insubstantial and with limited impacts. That said, these articles are each well-sourced, with at least 30 citations each, and are well-written. If your priority is well-written articles, hey, I can see how you'd like that. But these are relatively mundane weather events all things considered, and generally lack long-term impacts. Are these articles that the readers are generally looking for? Do we need to feature these articles beyond those which are generally features at ITN? I'd say no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, this is one of the problems with ITN - this "gatekeeping" of excluding systemic bias. It actually makes ITN its own walled garden, and elevates things that may be of less interest or importance to many readers, but adds them to the main page, because ITN thinks it is important. Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you should be then asking TFA and DYK to be more focused on what we thing readers "want" rather than to demonstrate what the best work that WP can produce, to align with this. This is, of course, a very bad proposition for obvious reasons. — Masem (t) 02:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about other main page projects. But where does it say that "Wikipedia must fight systemic bias"? To me this is a WP:RGW situation. ITN should show what is "in the news", whether that is a lot of US/UK news or not. If there is more of a certain type of news, so be it. Natg 19 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essay WP:BIAS states that the systematic bias created by the media and editors is one that falls under NPOV, in that we should not have any preference or deference towards topics due to what area of the world they occur in. So the approach to the selection of topics featured at TFA and DYK are geared around avoiding excessive preference towards one specific region, and thus have coordinating admins that work by consensus to judge what topics should and when they appear. ITN is meant to feature quality work on WP on topics that happen to be in the news, not merely to be a news ticker, and thus requires more thoughtful selection and consideration for what topics should appear rather than "its in all the headlines" Masem (t) 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Oppose 3, because I think the issues at ITN are not around it's format nor are something that can't be fixed, but that to fix ITN starts with fixing the problem around NOTNEWS across all of WP. (this both deals with when it actually appropriate to create articles on new events, how much to write about new events to fit into WP's summary style, and the net quality of new event articles) I am not blind that there is discourse at ITN, but it is not ITN that is the source of it. With NOTNEWS as the problem, there is a fair amount of "crap in, crap out" aspects at ITN, fundamentally not a problem with ITN itself. So eliminating ITN makes little sense. Masem (t) 21:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either 1 or 2, with a preference for 2. I am a current participant at ITN, and do agree with a lot of Alalch E.'s concerns. Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #3, oppose the other two. The first would make many currently-ITNR items unpostable, and the second would be even sillier, viz Meta Platforms would be postable since there's a small update about its recently-demoed augmented reality glasses (such a nomination has no chance of passing ITN right now). Banedon (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality requirement can be increased, and even then, that update currently doesn't pass the bar. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can easily add a couple more sentences, thereby hitting the threshold. Banedon (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At which point it falls back to regular editorial processes, and it would be weighed against WP:NPOV and WP:RECENCY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that not indicate the proposed amendment is not working? Banedon (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the whole point! There are established practices for applying policy and following sources when working with content, but it seems that most ITN editors don't even know these practices exist, let alone have experience applying them. Just look at some of the horrified responses from editors who are more experienced with higher-end content writing and reviewing in the recent close review. The rest of the community is trying to tell ITN that its "this feels like it's an important subject" is not welcome on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see your point. Implement this change, and I can add a couple of sentences to Meta Platforms and get it featured, which you seem to think is a bad idea. But it's this change that allows for the nomination. You can't oppose the nomination either on policy grounds (since it explicitly passes). Assuming you still think it's a bad idea to feature this, then you must argue that "this policy doesn't work", ergo, one should oppose the policy now. I don't see how what you wrote is relevant to this train of logic. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We decide whether the update conforms with WP:NPOV, the same way we do with any other article. If you're adding content to an article when sources about the article's subject don't indicate that it's significant to that subject, then you're doing it wrong and another editor would be justified in removing it. This is the same thing I tried to explain to you at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship not too long ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that adding information about Meta's upcoming AR glasses would violate NPOV? Banedon (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PROPORTION, specifically. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it's a tall order arguing it's undue, but even assuming it isn't, how does this policy stop one from nominating iPhone 16? Banedon (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    iPhone 16 is a really weak article, and I'd want to see a lot of work done on it before approving it for the main page. But if that's done, and you can find multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage for the release? Then the subject is notable, and it's in the news. I see no grounds to oppose it at that point except gut feeling. And gut feeling is not a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you genuinely believe that featuring iPhone 16 on the main page is conceivably a good idea, then we disagree on a fundamental level and there's nothing more to discuss. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The condition is that there's enough information for a great article. We merged a ton of articles about Samsung phones a while ago. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in either of these proposals requires there to be enough information for a "great article", it just requires there to be a few sentences of information that is DUE for inclusion on an article about a notable topic. Nobody can argue in good faith that the release of a new iPhone model is UNDUE for inclusion on the iPhone and List of iPhone models articles. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I get it now. I don't think the iPhone 16 has enough stuff for two paragraphs, though I agree that the quality barrier should be increased, as it is currently satisfied with mere sentences. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    iPhone 16 currently has 150% the median number of words as the median Wikipedia article, and 325% as many refs as the median article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a good measure for absolute quality, plus Alien also clarified that only parts added into an existing page count, which I believe is good since anything of encyclopedic value is placed in context. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, you could define 90% of Wikipedia articles as being substandard, if you wanted to, and sometimes people write five thousand words with 50 citations of pure garbage (just ask any English teacher).
    But it's also possible that "mere sentences" is exactly what most Wikipedia articles are, and that expecting ITN, or the Main Page generally, to only link to articles that are statistical outliers in terms of how many "mere sentences" they contain would be unreasonable.
    BTW, the numbers for the middle 50% of Wikipedia articles are:
    • 123–782 words
    • 5–29 sentences
    • 2–9 refs
    • 12–46 links
    Think about that the next time you see a new article rejected because it "only" has the normal number of refs. Wikipedia is not Lake Wobegon, and we should not expect all the articles to be above average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect that. I expect that we feature quality articles on the main page. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both, 2 strongly. ITN does need to change, but I'm unconvinced that either of these proposals will fix the issues without introducing more, bigger ones. With a limited number of slots available there has to be some sort of gate to stop it being overwhelmed by niche subjects - the current problem is that the gate isn't letting through enough things not that it exists at all. Proposal 2 would do away with the gate entirely which does resolve the problem but only at the cost of worsening the systematic bias and losing the truly notable updates in a flood of minor ones Proposal 1 just throws away all the context of it being on the main page in favour of the context of individual articles - a five sentence update about a newly manufactured "feud" between Kpop stars is entirely encyclopaedic and DUE in those star's articles but not encyclopaedic in the context of the main page of a global, general purpose encyclopaedia. It's not just entertainment topics that will suffer from this - minor political scandals in especially the US and UK will have all the same issues, as will literally dozens of sports results every week (if not more and more frequently) - certainly the result of every single soccer league in every country that has an article (and in the UK at least that goes down into the double digit tiers), things like the opening of (or major milestones in the construction of) a new railway station, the entry into service of a new type of train, plane or cruise ship, weekly (or more frequent) rocket launches, the launch of a new model of car or smartphone, each stage of a criminal investigation and trial, mayor elections in medium and larger sized settlements, etc, etc. Given that most of the content added to the English Wikipedia is written by English-speaking western white men that will automatically bias the content to the topics updated by those editors. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that your K-Pop example would be considered a due addition or that many of the sources reporting on such feuds are reliable. In any event, I think editors debating over that rather than some subjective notion of what mostly white men consider to be "significant" would be infinitely better and actually allow for a true evaluation of consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, part of the issue with proposal #2 is assuming these concerns are addressed at the article level before a nomination occurs, and as we've seen with some nominations in the past (there seems to be at least one NEVENT concern a week, for example), we can't assume this. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the K-pop example may or may not be considered DUE (it's not a topic area I edit in), every other example I gave would definitely be DUE and I didn't think of things like battles, deaths, music and book releases, weather events, sports player transfers, candidates entering or leaving contests like 2024 Conservative Party leadership election or Big Brother, and many, many other examples.
    Separately, I also Oppose option 3 unless and until there is a consensus about to replace it with. Personally I think ITN is fixable and the current problems are not a reason to throw it away. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are things like battles, weather events, and sports trades that could receive two due paragrpahs in an article any less appropriate for the front page than the current ITN entries, such as a bus crash (which in my view probably fails NEVENT and likely won't have any sustained coverage beyond this news cycle) and a gang assault of a town in Haiti? To answer my own question, because ITN operates on an extremely subjective significance standard that reflects whether ITN regulars think something is important. Even if options 1 or 2 aren't perfect fixes, nobody has proposed anything better and we should try something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that battles, etc. are inherently unsuitable for the main page as a class, but there are so many of them that if all of them were to be posted (as these proposals envisage) then the spell each event would have on ITN would be a matter of hours when, in an ideal world, it should average probably 2-4 days.
    Changes need to be made to ITN, almost everybody agrees with that, but that doesn't mean we should try something that will make things significantly worse (in multiple regards) just because it would be bad in a different way to present. It's much, much better to spend the time to get the right solution that will return ITN to the working state it used to be in rather than to implement something, anything, right now, regardless of whether it will result in a functioning ITN or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should events last 2-4 days? Ideally, I feel that events should roll off of ITN in 1-2 days (earlier to me is not a problem), which matches with how the other items on the main page work. This rarely happens now at ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2-4 days on average is about the length of time that events of the significance we should be posting remain newsworthy on average. Some die quicker, others slower, partly depending on what unscheduled events happen. Something of the significance of e.g. Hurricane Helene or the UK general election should remain for a couple of days rather than be pushed off in hours because a third tier football team won a title, the leader of the opposition party in South Australia resigned, two musicians independently released an album, a long-running character in a soap opera had their last episode, the King of the Netherlands made a state visit to South Korea, a horse won race, a Formula 1 driver won a race, a NASCAR driver won a race, a rally driver won a race, a motorcyclist won a race, an actress won an Italian reality TV show, a dancer won New Zealand's got Talent, an inquiry into a minor political scandal in Bavaria was announced, a new tram extension was opened, a new model of smart phone was released in Brazil, the date of the next general election in Ireland was announced, a cruise ship broke down in the Caribbean forcing the cancellation of two sailings, a small cargo plane crashed at an airport in Kenya, and the first of three rounds of voting for a provincial governor in Indonesia took place. All of those could plausibly have five or more sentences of well-written prose updated with the same 1-2 days. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I touched on this below. If something is important enough to stay on for several days, then there are going to be new updates that warrant a new blurb or an ongoing slot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? That isn't going to be the case for the majority of national election victories, major sports championships, Nobel Prize awards, Oscar awards, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow the sources. If they don't give it extended time, then neither do we. You decided that those are the important things that should stay up, but you are not a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspapers, etc continue to cover those events for several days with additional reaction, etc. that doesn't generate a new blurb or make it suitable for ongoing. I am not a reliable source, but I took that list of examples from WP:ITNR which consensus has determined are things important enough to always post under the status quo, which we both agree is too conservative. My point is that there needs to be some filter because otherwise lifetime will be measured in hours or minutes, and that at least equally undesirable to the status quo. We can disagree about how many days the ideal length of time is, but it is unquestionably somewhere in the 1-7 range. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about implementing some form of WP:ROUTINE at the ITN selection level? We already acknowledge many newsworthy topics aren't eligible as standalones or contribute to notability of a larger topic due to being too...NOTNEWSy. Surely a similar concept could be hammered out for which types of otherwise-DUE article updates are "too routine" for the main page? JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what happens currently. It's just that there is a disconnect between opinions about what is and isn't "NOTNEWSy" Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It implicitly happens currently, as part of gauging "significance", but a structured definition of "routine" would preempt some of the problems you and others anticipate occurring under both proposals. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per Masem. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2: per my comment in discussion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 which is shut down ITN unless the regulars can self-police and stop their endless bickering. ITN is evanescent and the digital equivalent of bird cage liner. Its only value is to promote article improvement, but that happens best through normal editing to improve articles of interest rather than desperate efforts to get an article on the main page, which is all rapidly forgotten by everyone, especially our readers. I happen to favor creation of articles about new topics, but improving articles should always be prioritized over endless and contentious debates about what should be on the main page for a "little while". All that energy should be deployed to more long lasting goals. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 I gotta say that "equivalent of bird cage liner" gave me a good chuckle and a disconcerting mental image EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close down ITN per Cullen. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1/2 as per Masem. Sharrdx (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 since, besides getting rid of (some of) the worst parts of ITNC, it also gets rid of one of the few parts it gets genuinely right - things like the Turing and Hugo awards are big news in their fields and usually well-updated, but they're hardly front-page-of-traditional-print-newspapers material even in one country. And what does multiple mean, anyway? Two? Five? Two if it's the United States and China, five if it's Nauru, Mauritius, Andorra, Transnistria, and Belize, or Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland?
    I'm somewhere between #2 and #3. I starting reading Wikipedia when the main page looked similar to this. I can easily see replacing the ITN box with a list of links to articles recently updated from the news, either to the article itself if it's new, or to a section like HMNZS Manawanui (2019) § Sinking if it's an update. (We can add anchors if that's unclear, so that we could link, say, John Hopfield § Nobel Prize instead of John Hopfield § Awards and honours.) I don't think full-length blurbs are viable if we eliminate WP:ITNSIGNIF entirely, and this also lets us get rid of the inevitable bickering about death blurbs. —Cryptic 17:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3, 1, 2 in that order of preference, but find a consensus, oppose no change. Any of these proposals are worth trying, and certainly better than doing nothing; my preferences between them are slight.

    Proposal 3, abolish ITN -- meaning, remove it from the main page (TFA can expand to fill the empty space) -- is the right first step IMO, because Wikipedia should get its ITN act together before rolling out a new ITN on the main page. That means experimenting with the format/selection criteria, having a "dry run" of a couple weeks or a month of nominations, then examining whether the format/selection criteria works well, before launching it on the main page. That would be ideal.

    Proposal 1 (as proposer) replaces the subjective judgments of editors for the objective data of current event WP:RSes -- e.g. top-tier mainstream media aka "papers of record." A news item is globally "significant" if it appears on the front pages of multiple countries' papers of record. There are free websites that compile the world's front pages, e.g. [29], [30], [31]. Website front pages are often personalized, but print front pages are not; those are intended for general audiences. We know that RSes agree something is "significant," of broad interest to many readers, if they put it on their print front pages. By looking at multiple countries, we can ensure a global perspective and protect against systemic or parochial bias.

    Proposal 1's criteria can be further tweaked: require only 2 front pages for broad inclusion, require more (3, 4, 5, etc.) for narrower inclusion. It can also be tweaked to further protect against systemic or parochial biases: e.g., require multiple continents, or one from each populated continent/area (e.g. N. Am., S. Am., Europe, Asia, Africa, Pacific); or, require it to be on the front pages in both the Global North and the Global South, or in both the Western world and the Eastern world; or, require multiple languages. We can ensure that news pertaining only to one country is globally significant by requiring that it be on the front pages in countries (or continents, or regions) other than the country where the event took place. There are lots of ways to experiment with this -- and as I mentioned earlier, I prefer to pull ITN, do the experimentation, then re-launch it, hence my preference for Proposal 3 over Proposal 1. But with an objective, data-driven test for inclusion like Proposal 1, we would eliminate subjective arguments over what is "important" and what isn't.

    Proposal 2 is also a good idea and would certainly be an improvement over the status quo. However, my concern about 2 is that it would be over-inclusive; I think the revised update criteria would be met by very many articles, including most if not all of the WP:TOP25 articles (maybe out to the top 100 or more), and this would, in practice, turn ITN into a TOP25 clone (meaning: all popular articles about current events would be listed, rather than just the most "significant," as determined by RS). So I prefer 1 to 2. Still, if we did 3, we could experiment with Proposal 2 (and Proposal 1), and see how it panned out. If Proposals 3 and 1 don't have consensus, Proposal 2 -- essentially live experimentation -- would still be better than the status quo, which only results in endless arguments over editors' subjective opinions of importance, and an ITN that is in equal parts bizarre and stale. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose both. I don't see how either of these would improve ITN or provide a better service to readers. Option 1 is hugely lowering the bar for what would be posted, and is unworkable anyway. What would count as a 'major national newspaper'? Front pages aren't really a thing any more as newspapers are increasingly online-first or online-only, and they customise their front pages based on geolocation. Option 2 is even more permissive, making everything that has a Wikipedia article somehow important enough to post in ITN given the most minimal update ITN allows. There's no way ITN/C could keep up with the torrent of de minimis items either of these proposals would allow. Nor would it be helpful to readers, who surely want a minimum level of importance for ITN, not a news ticker that posts the most trivial of items. ITN certainly has problems and could do with posting more items, but the problem is primarily getting quality updates, not the significance criterion. I also agree with Masem that there's a compliance issue with WP:NOTNEWS which has had knock-on effects on ITN. Modest Genius talk 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it that Front pages aren't really a thing any more when there are hundreds of them, and I'm linking to three different websites that show you them? They are most certainly still a thing, and print front pages are not customized. A "major national newspaper" is one that is (1) national rather than subnational in distribution, and (2) has the highest circulation in the country (or one of the highest circulations). Finally, something would not be "de minimis," by definition, if it was featured on the front pages of multiple nations' major newspapers. The whole point of looking at print front pages in multiple countries' major newspapers is to determine objectively if it is considered de minimis or de maximus by multiple top current events RS globally. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course print front pages exist, but what newspapers put on them no longer reflects the most important events of each 24 hours. Instead it depends on what images are available, how the time of day the event occurs at lines up with the print schedule etc. On your other points, nations have very different sizes, and 'highest circulation' is a very different criterion than 'major'. It would exclude most quality newspapers, favouring tabloids full of scandals and celebrity gossip, which is a very bad idea. In some cases, the relevant data isn't publicly available (e.g. in the UK many newspapers ceased making their ciculation numbers public in 2020 or 2021). Modest Genius talk 16:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What newspapers put on their front pages no longer reflects the most important events of each 24 hours? I don't understand that: you're saying that newspapers put the most important news not on the front page, but somewhere inside the newspaper?
    And what do you mean by "lines up with the print schedule"? Are you saying newspapers don't all print in the morning? It's true that some newspapers have afternoon or evening print editions, but surely you'd agree that even those newspapers also have a morning edition? Are there any RS that say that newspapers no longer put the most important news on their front pages, and they don't print morning editions? When did this change?
    As for circulation and quality, sure they don't always match (e.g. Daily Mail is among the highest circulation in the UK), but I trust editors can figure that out and come to consensus about whether a particular source is an RS or not, as we always do. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the main issue here is that most of the ITN regulars don't have any meaningful content writing experience, so they don't have a solid understanding of how we consider sources on Wikipedia. The "sources first" philosophy—critical to how Wikipedia works—is almost non-existent. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The traditional morning daily newspaper was printed overnight, so it could be delivered early in the morning. The press deadline might be around midnight, and then the printers spend several hours printing the papers. The papers might go to distribution at four or five in the morning, so it could be delivered to homes before most people woke up and to newsstands before commuters were underway. I suppose this is "printed in the morning" in the sense that 2:00 a.m. is "the wee hours of the morning".
    The evening dailies followed the same process back in the day, but offset, with papers being ready for the paperboys to deliver to homes as soon as school let out in the afternoon and to newsstands before the evening rush hour. Those were the ones that really got printed in the (daylight-hours) morning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and both the morning and evening dailies print every 24hrs, and put the most important news from the prior 24hrs--since the last printing--on the front page. I'm surprised somebody would assert that it no longer works this way. Levivich (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather that "highest circulation", a better limit may be Newspaper of record. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per Masem, Thrydulf, Modest Genius. Option 1 will not reduce discussion in practice - what's a major newspaper? What counts as frontpage (and no, no-one will check the printed frontpages, nor those newspaper aggregators)?) Option 2 would open the floodgates for the proverbial K-Pop break-ups, Taylor Swift concert tour updates, etc - it would not be an "In the News" section, but a "Recently updated articles" section. Option 2 would also re-open the gates for each RD being posted as blurb - so when it's not a Pop ticker, it would be an obituary. What I'm missing from the various discussions so far is: what is the "new" ITN section supposed to look like? Without a vision of what we want to achieve, the proposals don't really lead anywhere (and the fact that "abolish ITN" is even a third option - again without a vision of what should replace it, is telling in this respect). Khuft (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Khuft @Khuft what's a major newspaper One that is heavily circulated and nationwide rather than local. An incomplete list can be found at Newspaper of record § Examples of existing newspapers. And no, no-one will check the printed frontpages Yes, they will, this heuristic already has some use at WP:ITNC, which makes sense because print front pages have limited real estate and aren't dynamic like online home pages. Mach61 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposals for now, status quo, no change. I haven't been following this discussion but I don't see that this is the way to improve ITN. Personally, I think ITN is important and should be expanded. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we're resisting the idea that everything in the 21st century is a feed, with social media, and a constant stream of new information. I think a reform to ITN would make it react faster and respond to change quicker. I appreciate the attempt by Proposal 1 to create a more specific set of criteria for inclusion and I think that's a good impulse, but I don't think the front page metric is what I would use. I think a metric based on something more rooted in verifiability and reliable sources would be useful. Andre🚐 20:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 Shut down ITN as it has been dysfunctional for some time. Every other main page section functions comparatively smoothly, changing its content every day and presenting a reasonably encyclopedic variety of topics. ITN is chronically unable to do this and what it does manage to post is quite peculiar, seeming to be utterly obsessed by death, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3, option 1 as second choice. Oppose 2 as this may too easily be gamed (or at least used) by projects, and could lead to very minor stuff like some county election or similar being posted, or some of the myriad of WP:NOTNEWS articles about minor incidents, knife attacks, ... which get created immediately and then deleted later as they turn out to be of no lasting significance at all. Having these articles is bad enough, having them on the front page would make things only worse. And then there is the endless opportunities this will give for companies or fans spamming the new release of song X, movie Y, game Z and smartphone QQQ. It's "in the news" and has some prose, but do we really want it on the front page? Please, no, never. Fram (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 and 2. I don't think 1 will really work very well, and 2 is extremely problematic and will cause the main page of the whole site to be flooded with minor news updates which very few people will care about. Weak Support 3 since ITN has been dysfunctional for a long time now and I'm not sure if it can really be fixed at this point. I also find it unusual that this is the only section of the main page that isn't dedicated to quality content, instead focusing primarily on recent content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe 3, maybe 1 with some provisions. Developing some guidelines covering broad news topics we generally consider "too routine for the main page" would really cut down on the concerns about celebrity and tech news being nominated.
    Something that could address the "bias problem" would be to have some slots that follow our normal qualification process, and then additional slots dedicated to the topics receiving major news coverage in specific regions of the world. These regions could rotate if it's too difficult finding acceptable articles for all of them each cycle.
    I do want to note that for all of the non-Wikipedians I know who regularly look at the main page, ITN and sometimes TFA/P are the only items they care about. I don't think anyone outside of Wikipedians even knows what ITN is "supposed" to be -- my friends certainly think it's just a digest of major world news topics. So if our main focus is to satisfy our readers, the emphasis should definitely be "significant encyclopedic topics in the news" rather than "quality articles covering topics that happen to be in the news".
    EDIT:If there's nothing to replace ITN with, then I don't really support #3. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head I don't think specific regions would work. What comes to mind is something like floods in India that don't get posted because they happen during an Africa week, while equivalent floods in western Europe do get posted because we don't have a slot for that part of the world. We can't control when or where events happen and there will be times when by coincidence there is a disproportionately large or small amount of news from a given part of the world (e.g. if there is a major earthquake in California and a plane crash in Florida on the day of the US presidential inauguration then ITN is going to be heavily US-biased but not through systematic bias, ditto if the events all happen in Indonesia) Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I meant we would have like a dozen semi-overlapping world regions but only 4 or 5 slots running at a time, plus a floating slot that could be filled when needed. Like "Middle East" and "Central Asia" might normally be combined but if there are candidates for both in a cycle we could split them using the floating slot. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that would work either. What happens if there are three newsworthy events in the same part of the world at the same time? Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing stopping one of them from being in the main slots...and anyway we already have to make these judgment calls on which items are MP-worthy, I don't see how having dedicated spots for certain regions would change this. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per Masem. Seems like we are trying to fix a problem that does not really exist.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposal 3 Have there been any complaints from IPs or casual readers/visitors about what's included or excluded from the ITN template? If not, it seems a bit strange to see so many experienced editors in a tizzy over 4-5 ITN blurbs, along with a small list of ongoing events and recent deaths, appearing on the Main Page, while most casual readers and visitors don’t appear to have any major concerns with it at all. Is there a disconnect between the editing community and casual, everyday Wikipedia readers? It might be a good idea for WMF or whoever to put together a survey or questionnaire to gather feedback and hear from casual readers and visitors (especially those who aren't in the loop with the behind-the-scenes processes) about their thoughts on the main page of Wikipedia (including ITN, DYK, etc.) before we start "abolishing" anything. Some1 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    General readers seem to pay little attention to ITN. Posting of an entry at ITN makes little difference to the traffic for topics in the news as most of their readership comes from search engines such as Google. If such a reader did have some feedback, they would find it quite difficult to comment as Wikipedia is impenetrable for most of our readership and so we get little feedback on anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... makes little difference to the traffic for topics in the news ...: Depends how you define little. For one recent death post of Eric Sievers (a non-household name), he died on April 10, was posted to RD on April 14, and received ~7,000 more views that day after trending down the previous days.[32] Not sure about the effect of a blurb, or a pictured blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    7,000 is a tiny number for a global web site. A topic in the news such as Hurricane Milton will get much more traffic regardless of what ITN does. The top read article yesterday was Ratan Tata with over a million views. That was another recent death and it's a vital topic but its ITN nomination is mired in toxic discussion with the usual disparagement of "OLDMANDIES". Our readers just ignore this gatekeeping and flood past to read the article regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    7,000 is a tiny number for a global web site: That's 7,000 more views than the day before, and it had been in the news for days already. ITN can't make a topic more "intereesting" than it inherently already is, but it does bring it to a reader's attention who might not have been looking for it or even known about the news item. —Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    7,000 in one day is huge. See Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views: The median article gets one page view per week. 93% of our articles don't get 7,000 page views in an entire year. Even if you could attribute only a small fraction of that to the ITN listing, that would be a significant number of readers.
    There's another isolated bump on May 8th.[33] I wonder what caused that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is all relative. One page for which I've been following page views is Big Bend (Florida), which normally gets about 100 views a day. On September 26 it received over 75,000 views, and the next day over 80,000. There is nothing about that article that would qualify it for ITN, but rather the coast/region was mentioned in news reports as where Hurricane Helene would reach shore. Predicting when or if an article will experience a huge surge in views is not very fruitful, but I doubt placement in ITN is a major factor. Donald Albury 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson, what's your data source for the claim that General readers seem to pay little attention to ITN. Posting of an entry at ITN makes little difference to the traffic? Have you done chronological comparisons via https://wikinav.toolforge.org/ (which identifies the sources of traffic)? Or is this just a personal impression?
    Wikinav is currently displaying August's data. You could pull the August data for September's ITN articles today, and see how their pre-event traffic compares to their post-ITN traffic. September's data will probably be posted very soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started looking at WikiNav which seems an excellent tool but it's a month in arrears, as you say. But the issue seems to be what is meant by "little attention". You seem to think that 7,000 views is huge. For an obscure DYK topic, it's good exposure. For a global news story with a potential audience of billions, it's functionally zero.
    I'm quite concerned that the traffic on Wikipedia articles about prominent topics is generally much lower than it might be. I started the article about the Google Knowledge Graph. That has now evolved to present AI summaries for searches and these tend to push Wikipedia under the surface. When there's such competition, you have to run hard to keep up. ITN is literally an amateurish effort to present the news and, with some professional polish, it could be so much better.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposal 3. Deleting ITN from the main page would significantly lower the utility of the main page for me. I see no upside to myself our our readers by removing it. The main page is, arguably, the only important portal, and removing ITN from it would make the main page significantly less useful and more boring. Whatever problems ITN has on the back end should be fixed in other ways, without deleting the entire ITN section of the main page and without deprecating the entire ITN page/WikiProject/whatever it is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only news sources my partner actively visits are Slashdot and ITN...removing ITN without replacement would be a devastating blow to his informedness. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think a reset of ITN would be a good idea. Most of the time what's featured on ITN doesn't really match what is actually in the news. I like recent deaths, but it's needlessly adversarial (there's no need for people to "oppose" every request, just have a running list of things that still need fixing or something). I do think Wikipedia should have news on the front page, but ITN in its current iteration is both toxic and not doing a good job. Legoktm (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITN is not meant to reflect what is in the news (ITN is not a news ticker), its meant to feature high quality articles about topics that are in the news, as to match with all other main page content as a reflection of WP's best work. When it is flipped to be trying to feature news on the front page, we get problems with poor quality articles that may likely fail NOTNEWS in the long term. And NOTNEWS itself means we should not have this unhealthy focus on current news, itself a major problem across WP. — Masem (t) 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To me, hearing someone say "ITN is not meant to reflect what is in the news" confirms my belief that ITN is not doing what it's literally called, and that's a problem. I feel like ITN has invented its own unique sense of what is newsworthy and what isn't, and it seems very out of touch with what basically everyone else considers newsworthy. And then that just leads to toxicity (some actual quotes from ITN/C right now: "OLDMANDIES", "unimportant country") because people aren't on the same page. Idk, a news system that only tells people about hurricanes after they make landfall seems pretty broken.
      The semi-joke that I've been telling people is that people who want to comment on ITN/C (and breaking news things) should first have to take 6 months of journalism school. Someone recently took me more seriously and said we should have a MOOC for it. I don't know what the solution is, but I am supportive of a reset. Legoktm (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The purpose of ITN has always been to showcase quality articles related to topics that are in the news, not to be a news ticker. Many people have complained about this over the years but the very few of them who have proposed to change it have always failed to get a consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Masem said exactly that. I understand what you both think the purpose/goal of ITN is, I am saying that I don't think that's a good goal, because it is disconnected from everyone else considers to be "in the news". (And all the other things I said.) Legoktm (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is done with ITN, for God's sake we should not remove a section from the main page unless we actually have an idea for something to replace it with. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sections such as the Featured List and Featured Picture appear intermittently and so the main page structure is not rigid. And we have multiple ideas for replacement in draft below. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pish. We can come to a consensus here to remove it, and not actually remove it until a followup RFC figures out what to put there instead. (Plus, we actually have plenty of ideas, stated right in this RFC, for what to replace it with.) —Cryptic 16:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 3 per Alech E. and cullen, who both make cogent arguments; those who argue that we should keep it due to 9/11, or because some not broke-don't fix it thing, miss the point that it is unencyclopedic material. If anything, it should be added to WP:NOTNEWS, rather than lauded on the main page as the example of Wikipedia's finest work at, err, trying to out-NBC/BBC. Per Alech E., also support 2 secondarily. Bring on the bludgeoning!SerialNumber54129 18:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 per what... everyone else said above. The Main Page should be reserved for the English Wikipedia's best work, whether that be Featured articles, lists, pictures, and DYK which is about new and improved articles. ITN is none of that. As much as I understand why it should be kept, this an encyclopedia, not the BBC. The Main Page is for Wikipedia's best content (For On this day, most articles featured there are pretty good. On this date, October 10th, 4 out of 5 are either good or featured). ITN also clashes with the fact that good articles are stable, and topics in the news are the exact opposite. win8x (talking | spying) 19:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and also, by being on Wikipedia, it requires consensus. As a result of this, some news only appear after a full week on the Main Page, when it is no longer "In the news". win8x (talking | spying) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some form of option 2 could work to only feature quality. GoodArticles are stable, yes, but quality articles can also be unstable due to expansion. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 3 because I think ITN is clearly valuable on the page as is. No opinion on the other two; my sense from reading the front page is that the result of ITN is not broken even if the process feels broken from the inside, which is IMO an important distinction to make. Loki (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it looks fine from the outside is part of the problem in my opinion. The selective nature of subjects and the participants pushing their own POV about the topics that should go up are creating a warped news feed. And this weird obsession with counting how many people are dying to decide whether something is relevant adds a sensationalistic undertone to the final result. It's not just unhelpful, but it's a disservice to readers to give them a reflection of our own POVs about what subjects are "important" instead of an accurate overview of where there's new information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 Per Masem and Alach E. ITN causes more headaches than it is worth and has accelerated the growth of primary sourced news content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: Masem !voted "Oppose 3". —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. He believes it can be reformed; I believe it is better off being removed in the current form. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose removal of ITN as someone who created 2020 Belarusian protests and 2022 Oder environmental disaster among mamy others, there would be no way those articles would be even half as good if there was no ITN. They were breaking news when I created them, I nominated them to ITN which caused the article's to be expanded significantly with the help of many other editors. As events unfolded, these were also updated accordingly. If we get rid of ITN, we will miss the chance to improve and highlight many many articles, especially biographies which really should be cited. Aside from this, ITN does highlight often news events that otherwise go unreported in vast parts of the world. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the wrong section for the survey, think you wanted to put it in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Survey (In the news criteria amendments) btw. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, moved now. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all About the 1st proposal, blurbing only events "reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries" would be restrictive WP:CREEP in practice that would likely narrow our collaborative coverage and be difficult to consistently enforce. For example, some scientific or archaeological achievements of the magnitude of the discovery of malacidins or new poems by Sappho wouldn't likely appear on the print front pages of major national newspapers, being instead tucked somewhere inside at best. Proposals 2 and 3, with their abolition of ITNSIGNIF and removing ITN, are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Brandmeistertalk 14:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of "ITN should list what I think is important, not what RSes think is important." Levivich (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't blindly follow RS' choices per WP:NOTNEWS, but apply editorial judgement. Double filtration purifies news reporting as well after the first stage of making into RSes... Brandmeistertalk 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliable sources are writing newspapers for the purpose of making a profit by selling newspapers that portray the news in a manner favourable to the political views of their owner(s) and their target demographic in a specific geographical region. We are writing a neutral, general purpose encyclopaedia for a global audience. What makes you think that what is important for one would (or even could) match what is important for the other? Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why I support Proposal 3: what you both are describing -- Wikipedia editors decide what's important and put it on the front page of Wikipedia -- is not something that Wikipedia should be doing. In articles, when we decide what to include, we base it on the prominence given to that aspect or viewpoint by reliable sources, not based on what aspects or viewpoints editors feel are most significant. That's core NPOV policy, a cornerstone of this encyclopedia. That we would reverse it on the main page? Unthinkable. I have far, far more trust in the journalists and editors of the world's profit-seeking major news media than I do in random people on the internet. That's why we have V, NPOV, and NOR: specifically so the encyclopedia doesn't contain what its volunteers think about something, but rather what reliable sources publish. We should not abandon these core policies on our main page. Levivich (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News reports are primary sources anyhow and we should not be relying on them to begin with. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this, and adding that as far as I'm concerned, it's a type of WP:CPUSH. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both 1 and 2. Strongly oppose 3. We need a few changes, but, none of these proposals hit the mark. Ktin (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3. We should endeavor to make the main page representative of our best content in all areas, and ITN does not contribute to that goal. Fritzmann (message me) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 3 per Win8x. ITN is outdated and an outlier. Cremastra (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all All of these are half-baked ideas that shouldn't be implemented in their current form. Option 1 is promising, but the concerns above (about various forms of possible bias, and the fact that newspapers and encyclopedias have different objectives) are substantial. Option 2 is a non-starter unless we want ITN overrun with sports and film trivia. Option 3 is a non-starter unless there is something new to replace it that will place links to high-profile news stories on the homepage. (A whole scale removal would also get rid of Recent Deaths, which I don't think anyone is complaining about?) Walsh90210 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with sports and film updates if they're quality content? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Individually there is no problem with them, but there are so many of them that there would be no space for anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I would start working on the other stuff so it's not just sports. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would just make the problem worse. There is a finite number of slots (currently 3, a theoretical maximum of 8 if all the blurbs are very short, circa 5 is more common). If every sports update gets posted then each update will be on for only a few minutes at most, then consider all the film updates, book updates, music updates, war updates, politics updates, and criminal justice updates that will also get posted. Then realise that there are also extreme weather updates, theatre updates, product updates, construction updates, and biography updates to post too. After that you can start thinking about the updates to topics I haven't mentioned (science, visual arts, technology, ...). Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the amendments I propose, you're considering the case of a Wikipedia with ~84x our current amount of activity, which we should consider only at that point. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? All those topics get updates that meet your proposed ITN criteria. Not that many get nominated at ITNC today, but that's in part because almost none of them meet the criteria for ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 per Cullen328. Oppose 1 and 2.—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3. ITN has been broken for some time now and it needs WP:TNT-ing and rebooting in some other form. The other two proposals don't address this either so Oppose 1 and 2. Caveat: RD seems to work quite well though, and should be part of any replacement ... or could it possibly be absorbed into OTD in some way? Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 3 As a reader of Wikipedia, I find it ITN interesting. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find all sorts of things interesting. That isn't always the best reason, though. Cremastra (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ILIKEIT is usually a poor reason to oppose the deletion of an article, but this discussion is not about the deletion of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, your argument in favor of abolishing references another argument that ITN doesn't properly feature Wikipedia's best content ([citation needed]), nor does it actually explain why you believe it is "outdated and an outlier" as you claim. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 and 2. Option 1 isn't feasible as the sole criterion as hundrers of different topics are mentioned on front pages. Also I fear that in practice it would strengthen the systemic bias, as the topics like the Sudanese civil war (currently the worst humanitanian crisis in the world) are unlikely to appear on the front pages. Option 2 is unclear, how would it work in practice with lots of articles being updated every minute? Alaexis¿question? 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only those that get nominated and get consensus that they're quality writing will get posted. I don't see any edits that meet the criteria in the last two minutes of recent changes. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe I've exaggerated a bit, but for sure editors "add[] substantial due coverage" to many more article in a day than it's feasible to feature on the main page.
    Now that I'm thinking about it, this would make things worse from the systemic bias point of view. Wikipedia suffers from it to the extent that reliable sources are affected by it. Historically ITN has worked differently offering a different perspective. I think that implementing proposal #2 would make ITN more similar to generic Western news outlets. Alaexis¿question? 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically ITN has worked differently offering a different perspective. – This is just another way to say it engages in POV pushing by diverging from the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment here. Mentioning Nobel winners rather than a particularly weird Trump rally may reflect a certain point of view but I think that many readers would prefer this POV. Alaexis¿question? 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That did not have any substantial-enough update that passes the requirements. With the amendment, it will never have such an update either. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also humanly unfeasible to nominate so many updates. If the concern is that hooks move too rapidly, raise the quality requirement. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hundreds of different topics are mentioned on front pages Not on multiple front pages, which is the Proposal 1 criteria. Look at today's world front pages and you'll be hard pressed to find five different stories that are on multiple front pages in multiple countries. And we can make that criteria tighter or looser by adjusting how many front pages are required, and from where.
    I fear that in practice it would strengthen the systemic bias, as the topics like the Sudanese civil war (currently the worst humanitanian crisis in the world) are unlikely to appear on the front pages. Have you looked at the front pages of African newspapers? Proposal 1 can significantly reduce systemic bias by bringing in front pages from developing nations. We could also do things to fight systemic bias like requiring multiple continents or regions to be represented (so not just multiple Western front pages). I think the risk of systemic bias would be much lower if we based selection criteria on the front pages of newspapers in developing countries, than if we based selection criteria on what a group of overwhelmingly Western, English-speaking, white male volunteers think is important (which is the status quo). Levivich (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds good in theory in theory but to support it I'd like to see concrete criteria that would also be easy to apply (otherwise the system won't work). In fact I did look at the front pages of African newspapers on the sites linked in the proposal and was disappointed. Front Pages have only 3 newspapers on the whole continent, with two of them is South Africa. Pressreader has a bit more but still only a few African countries are represented and the ones that I did find looked a bit dubious (the only newspaper in Ethiopia, the only newspaper in Tanzania). China has 20 newspapers, while New Zealand has 84!
    In any case, applying the sort of criteria you're suggesting is non-trivial from the operations point of view. This is not to say it can be done - we have lots of volunteers from all across the world, but I'd like to see a thought-out proposal. Alaexis¿question? 18:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh idk how many print newspapers there are in Africa, compared with other parts of the world. But FWIW, here is a list of African news outlets from a university's website. I'm not sure how many of them customize their online front pages the way Western MSM do, there are ways to browse anonymously to correct for that, so I think viable African RS representation is possible. I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like exactly (ie, what specific criteria we should have), but I like the idea in theory of requiring significance to be demonstrated with RS (and not just editor opinions). Levivich (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like the idea "of requiring significance to be demonstrated with RS," my beef is with the lack of concrete details and lack of impact assessment. Alaexis¿question? 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2, then 1, then 3 per above. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 per Cullen. It's about time ITN kicks the can, the endless amount of useless bickering and article puffery has virtually driven the poor thing to death. People oppose articles on quality and yet don't decide to work on the articles, just leaving them wasting away for longer, and longer, and longer. Either some people need to step up and start improving the articles or figure out whether "oOoOoOOoo spaceship caught in mid-air!!!" is notable without having to use enough mindpower to electrify a whole neighborhood. Kline • talk • contribs 21:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really a workable reason, given that all of WP is a voluntary practice and we can't force anyone to work on anything. There is a issue where we get tons of strong support votes based on significance but none of those lift a hand to address the quality issues that get raised, and if anything, that's where the onus lies for improvement. But we have never required anyone to take steps for quality improvement, just that someone needs to do that before posting. Masem (t) 18:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 3 As excessively nuclear. ITN has its share of issues, but I disagree with the presentation that it is fully dysfunctional. As an example, this year Nobel week has been progressing fairly well so far, especially considering that last year the Peace Prize winner was not blurbed due to quality issues if I recall correctly. Curbon7 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposal 3. I agree that the current ITN is flawed, but before removing it, I am in favor of making an attempt to fix it. I believe the correct time to revisit proposal 3 is if and when the implementation of proposal 1 or 2 does not end up improving ITN. 169.236.78.21 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hit the wrong reply and I don't know how to fix it, really sorry 169.236.78.21 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to survey. C F A 💬 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposal 3 I still believe that ITN serves a purpose on the main page. While Wikipedia is not news, it is within its remit to cover current and currently unfolding events of presumably enduring significance. This is not obvious for an encyclopedia, and conceptually the ITN section of the main page is a very good way of demonstrating this to a general readership. I am insufficiently familiar with the behind-the-scenes process to comment on the other two proposals. Felix QW (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support 2, without prejudice against 3, which i know will not pass - everything i'd have said has already been said better above. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 per what Levivich has written about it. Oppose 2 per the concerns that it’d flood ITN w/trivial news & not gives blurbs enough time to get attention on the main page. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all 3 proposals - If #1 were a bit less stringent, I might go for that. But as it stands, the only things that will qualify are political news, scandals, war, crime, etc. It will also add bias in that certain countries' politics are front page need in many countries (the British royals, US elections). Major news events in science, for example, would rarely qualify because it's not appealing to the 5th-grade-reading-level consumers of print papers. Option 2 won't do anything. Option 3 is equivalent to taking away toys because toddlers get fussy. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 and 2 - per Masem mostly. There is a huge problem with NOTNEWS violations all over Wikipedia - solving those will likely lead to a return to our purpose - being an encyclopedia. Weak support 3 because as others have stated, perhaps removing the ITN section from the main page will reduce some editors' drive to violate NOTNEWS and reduce recentism. This would obviously require further discussion on how to revamp the main page to account for its removal. But ultimately this problem is beyond ITN - Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should not try to be presenting recent events to readers. ITN only encourages people to quickly create articles so they can be featured on the main page (or serve as news articles) and that's a problem in and of itself that ITN doesn't help at all (and likely hurts). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, my !vote can be seen as a "delayed option 3". In other words, not an immediate removal - but another discussion should be held to identify either a new section to replace it on the main page (for which I am short on ideas), or another section that can be expanded (perhaps TFA can be expanded to have a longer blurb) - and the second that there is any idea with remotely a consensus to implement it, ITN is removed from the main page and replaced with that new idea. That new idea can then be iterated on through normal change processes. But I don't think "we don't know what to replace it with" is a valid enough reason to oppose removing ITN in concept - any !votes that are simply based on "what will replace it?" should be treated as either neutral or supporting delayed removal after further discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 3 I don't have much experience with the behind-the-scenes work at ITN (just not my cup of tea), but the end result generally looks OK — neither remarkably good nor remarkably bad. I don't think the idea is fundamentally at odds with building an encyclopedia, or with what an encyclopedia website should put on its front page. I don't think the implementation is completely broken. Regarding option 1, I think it's fair to say that an event is worth putting on the front page if it is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries. I disagree with the idea that that is the only way an event could be ITN-worthy. In other words, I could endorse the original statement of option 1, but not the "clarification" that turned it from an if to an only if. I also oppose 2 because "two paragraphs or five sentences" on any notable event is far too low a threshold. XOR'easter (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you support 2 if the requirement were instead two paragraphs to an existing article? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People will just insert more trivial details like they already do to articles to get them over the threshold. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People can read that it's just fluff and oppose it for bad quality. It's not like I can add two paragraphs of pov-pushing and hoaxery and get posted either. Meanwhile, editors who use their own feelings gilded with a thin layer of quality to !vote can be warned and sanctioned individually. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a false dichtomoy. Doing both 1 and 2 would not produce a conflict, simply two distinct criteria for adding something to ITN, both of which are likely to be sensible for various cases (i.e., some updates would be reasonble under point 1, others under point 2, some under both). I don't support option 3; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone is unhappy with a long-standing element of community practice, the solution is to seek consensus to adjust the practice, not nuke it from orbit out of spite.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support option 1 if it were an if and not an iff, which is how Levivich clarified his proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I would still support Option 1 if it were an if and not an iff. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1. As long as 1 is not the only route of how blurbs can be posted, it's worthwhile to establish an objective test for ITN candidates. Too much time is wasted on ITN by people using highly subjective tests of what is and isn't suitable for the section. It may be better if a method that was less dependent on websites with a seemingly limited selection of non-Western newspapers and sensitive to research being done the day of, was developed as well. Perhaps something like "a story can be blurbed pending an update if it has been covered by six different reputable newspapers published in six different continents." Weak oppose option 2 as probably too far at this point in time, though the similar update to RD was ultimately fine. Oppose option 3 as overkill. ITN has issues, especially with timely posting, but it does represent some of Wikipedia's best work as frequently acknowledged by sources (i.e. accurate articles on current events). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (In the news criteria amendments)

So it functions as a baseline, and then editors can bring in other considerations to exclude entries such as a controversy at a high school worthy of two paragraphs? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. There would be no other considerations. The point is to get rid of the significance requirement entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would that example of a controversy at a high school then be posted on the front page? For example a shooting or it closing down due to economic issues? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely there would be enough sources to produce multiple paragraphs about a school controversy that would comply with WP:NPOV (WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION). If someone nominates to ITN with WP:RECENCY issues, the end result will be most of that fluff getting cut from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I disagree. I think two paragraphs about a school shutting down due to a controversy or a shooting would not be UNDUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a different example, as you are politically minded, every person announcing they were running for president would be eligible for the front page, i.e. Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a more interesting case study. For reference, this is the article one week after it was created: Special:PermaLink/883544133. It's 767 words of prose, and the sources are about her campaign specifically (or her potential campaign for older sources), so there's no immediate challenge to whether it's due content. When I proposed what eventually became option 2, I also suggested that it could exclude newly created event articles (so Amy Klobuchar would need to be the article where multiple paragraphs would be due), but that didn't gain any traction. So yeah, if the oversectioning were fixed, this one possibly could have gone through. But keep in mind that it wouldn't have been hundreds die, solar eclipse, World Cup, Amy Klobuchar is running for president. This change would bring ITN closer to DYK, where lots of things run for a short period instead of a few "big" things for an excessively long period. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The churn response is interesting, as the flipside of eliminating significance to get in ITN is significance to get off the front page. The example cited above a lot is 9/11, and I suppose an Amy Klobuchar running for president type event could knock that off the front page in a matter of hours. Which I would find equally disagreeable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point, but ITN already has a way of addressing "big" things that need to stay on long-term: ongoing events. The current criteria to be placed there are that it meets the requirements for a blurb and that it also has regular updates. If something is so big that it's still getting major updates after it rolls off of ITN, then it can be listed in ongoing until those updates stop. Or another option would be that new major updates could start being new blurbs for the same article as the previous one falls off (instead of just rewording the blurb mid-run like we do now), but that would probably be a separate discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example of how the invasion of Lebanon by Israel would be presented when Israel-Hezbollah conflict is already an ongoing event? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would hurt anything to either blurb the invasion article while the conflict article is listed as ongoing or to lift the conflict article out of ongoing for the duration of the blurb, depending on what the community determines is better practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, this speaks to my ignorance. Could you describe what you mean by blurb here? Do you just mean list it as an item or feature it with a picture? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "blurb" is just the listed item. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it's a bulleted sentence (as opposed to "Ongoing" which is a mere page link). —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as opposed to RDs (recent deaths), which don't need to be "in the news" and aren't allowed photos (yet). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for discussing this with me. I will be voting against 2, as the elevation of niche topics to the expense of large events seems bad. I read Thebiguglyalien's solutions as possible, but also as attempts to launder a significance criterion through existing processes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is to disincentivize creating a new article ...: WP:ITNUPDATE currently allows new articles:

In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs.

It's a general notability question, not ITN specific, on whether a new article is suitable. Per the WP:N policy: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. —Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to replace

For those supporting complete removal of ITN, I think it would be worth offering some insights into what exactly should replace it. Granted, technically this discussion isn't about that, but I think the wider editor and readerbase may be more convinced that such a change is worthwhile if a clearly better alternative is proposed. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Picture should take the top right slot in the Desktop view as this would balance the Featured Article nicely and they are both supposed to be our best work. This would be an immediate replacement providing time for a new section to be implemented.
A good replacement for ITN would be a section of helpful navigation links. This might be called Topical Topics, to give it a meaningful title. These links would include:
These would provide most of what ITN does without all the discussion and drama. You might have a featured headline topic too – a single blurb for big breaking news like the 9/11 incident which started ITN. But I fear that this would require discussion which would start the drama all over again. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with my previous comments about POTD taking the top right slot, it removes the way to describe the image and create a blurb like for TFA and TFL but even with a blurb, it could leave out necessary space to show the image off in a good resolution and size. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Andrew's suggestions, there are other more important aspects of Wikipedia that don't have their own spot on the main page. One option would be a place to feature several good articles of the day, like TFA but several small blurbs instead of one big one. DYK kind of does this, but the emphasis would be on quality over newness. Another option would be a section that explains anyone can edit Wikipedia, explains how to get started, and maybe provides links to basic instructions pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I would oppose the GA showcase idea, as it both encroaches on the differentiated function of TFA on the Main Page—and in doing so, it frankly seems likely to emphasize work that isn't our best in a way I'm not comfortable with. Naturally, there would be an extra stage of review for GAs that appear on the Main Page, but I'm not presently convinced the community has the ability to consistently ensure a higher standard of quality than the theoretical minimum—i.e. that one other editor signed off on the article passing WP:GA?. In my opinion, that minimum standard is insufficient to merit a more prominent placement on the Main Page than is currently facilitated by DYK. Remsense ‥ 论 00:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a process could be established, but it would have to be established first, and that would require consensus on what standards to apply and how to apply them and setting up the processes to support that. It would also need a group of editors interested and competent in reviewing content against those criteria and I suspect most people who fit that description are already fully engaged at existing processes like FAC, the existing GA and DYK. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a "Today's good article" would be better than a list of good articles recently promoted. I took a look at another wikipedia, itwiki's Main Page, and it has a section for "Quality Articles" which I am assuming is their Good articles. While I do see some other people in this thread have problems with it being not that well of a process, DYK reviews is less of a process than GA reviews and is allowed to be on the main page. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there are three paths to DYK: (a) new article; (b) GA; (c) 5X (IIRC) expansion. (b) and (c) are maybe 5% of DYKs, which is why DYK has the (deserved) reputation as something of an embarrassment for the daily errors it puts on the front page, not to mention the half-baked articles readers find when they click through. As I advocate below, a number of problems are fixed in one fell swoop by changing DYK rules to eliminate path (a) (and mAYBE (c) -- not sure). Then DYK effectively becomes a GA showcase. The current DYK review process would still be there on top of the GA review, just like now -- a process simultaneously duplicative and full of holes, but no worse than it is now, and with the "new content" route eliminated, errors at DYK would go way down. EEng 23:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding that would probably just be a clone of TFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of TFL? Basically a clone of TFA but for lists. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. TFL still has value as it's list-exclusive, while "TGA" would just be a much worse clone. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good ideas. I made very basic mock-ups of all four at User:Levivich/sandbox: Topical Topics, POTD, GA, and Learn to edit. Anyone should feel free to edit the sandbox pages directly to change the mock-ups or add new ones of your own. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like "topical topics" or POTD (today's featured picture). POTD makes a lot of sense next to TFA. Just a note, Wikipedia:Top 25 Report is marked with the {{Humor}} tag, with the text This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously., so this should probably not be on the front page, unless it is vetted more by the community. Natg 19 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be less overt humour in WP:TOP25 than you get at DYK which explicitly tries to be quirky and often goes for a cheap laugh. So, as there's no obvious reason for the {{humor}} tag, I've removed it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With or without the humor tag, those blurbs are not written for general readers and that page should not be on the front page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of internal Wikipedia pages with bold links on the main page and so our general readers are clearly expected to use them. These include Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Village pump. These may all have an informal tone and so there's clearly no prohibition of exposing such to our readers. We want our readers to understand that Wikipedia is not written by an exclusive elite but that they are welcome to edit too. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever we settle on, my main concern will always be user engagement. ITN may have it's flaws, but I believe in it's purpose as it is to guide readers to articles they may wish to read. My concern with ITN removal is I don't believe most of the proposals I've seen would entice me to engage as a reader rather than an editor. Learn to Edit is an interesting one, but I feel like putting it at or near Other areas of Wikipedia is better (ie, not a box amongst the 4 on the main page). To me, TFP is better as a long box as it is now. I don't think the image without a blurb is really useful for readers, and each box has a dedicated picture as it is. Topical Topics to me seems too mundane and sterile, and just exacerbates the issue ITN has with supposed irregular updates (0 is less than infrequent). And I feel like Recently-listed good articles is just DYK without the interesting hook that may encourage readers to click on the articles (I believe my concern with a TFL section would be the same). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dark if we find consensus to abolish. I like the idea of Topical Topics, but it desperately needs actual content instead of just links to not be sterile and provide a glean. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular at POTD, the second one is challenging to look at. The blurb is meant to be like a DYK hook, it's supposed to quickly explain and describe the subject without going into too much detail. Completely removing and it and just having a link to the article and then the image just ruins the teaching ability of POTD. Even with a blurb, there isn't much room to write one. However, the GA and Learn to edit sections are the best imo. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the GA box. I think it fits nicely with FA, exposing readers to more of editors' good work. I agree with @Cowboygilbert regarding not placing POTD in that slot. I'm Gray equals sign= leaning oppose on Topical Topics. There's very little discussion at Portal talk:Current events so I'm not quite sure how consensus to post works there. I'd like to hear what the @FLC director and delegates: and other TFL/FL regulars have to say about doing TFL every day. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of running FLs more often, independent of where on the page they are. --PresN 15:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately thought this as well. It seems that, unless a concrete proposal or slate of proposals is promptly established as to what should replace ITN, the !votes for its removal are essentially being thrown away. Remsense ‥ 论 23:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my flames of foresight, I see four rows, for TFA, DYK, OTD and TFP. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works on consensus, not one editor's crystal ball. If you want to see that design for the main page you need to actually propose it get consensus for it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it proposed (again). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially make TFL a daily occurrence instead of something that only appears on Mondays and Fridays, or we could move POTD to ITN's current location. I don't really think highlighting GAs like that is a good idea, since they haven't been vetted as thoroughly as FAs. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support having Today's featured list as a daily occurance but not to the moving POTD to the ITN section because I feel like it could limit the amount of the blurb that you can write and to show the image in a great resolution and size. It works for TFA and TFL because the image is not the sole purpose of the main page activity. Though the comment of, "since they haven't been vetted as thoroughly as FAs" also doesn't make sense because DYK is allowed on the main page and DYK is easier to pass than a Good Article review. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've long said that DYK should feature ONLY GAs and drop the riduculous "new content" fetish, which might have made sense 20 years ago but now operates to force into the spotlight largely half-baked articles. Imagine if all the effort that currently goes into DYK reviews went into GA reviews instead (1/3 as may of them of course -- another requisite for improving DYK quality is decreasing throughput). The GA backlog would be cleared in no time. And if there are people who don't want to go to the effort of writing GAs, tough. EEng 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the "new content fetish" quote cracked me tf up lmao
Unfortunately, a lot of articles aren't up to GA standards and have DYK-able quality prose. It's whatever though. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I completely agree. Any interest in the two of us teaming up so we can make this happen together? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert, I'll have you know that ... Oh wait. You're agreeing with me. OK then. The answer is yes and no. I have zero time for the next week, and very restricted time for the indefinite future after that. But if you'll take the lead I'll be right behind you.
What we're up against is this: if you search the DYK archives you'll find a couple of times where I've suggested that, and was always shot down. It's taken as axiomatic that DYK's function is to "showcase new content". There are a lot of people who like getting links to their new little articles on the main page, without doing too, too much work. It will be very hard to overcome that, as that group dominates the participants at Talk:DYK. It seems to me a two-phase approach might help:
  • Open a discussion (scrupulously avoiding a supports and opposes situation) during which the implications of such a change could be discussed -- the reduction in DYK throughput, increase in quality.
  • Based on what's learned during that discussion, think about where and when to actually propose the change. Talk:DYK is not the place -- such a proposal would absolutely die there. An RfC at VP might be right.
I'm going to ping my goto guys Levivich, Tryptofish, David Eppstein to see if we can get them on board as well. EEng 01:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the function of DYK on the front page is to encourage editors to create new content much more than to encourage readers to read new content. I think that's still a worthwhile thing to encourage. But then, I never intentionally go to the front page so my opinion on what we see there may not be worth much. Also, did you know ...that the did you know section is not shown to mobile app readers? ...that in 2021, roughly twice as many people per day used mobile than desktop? Keeping those things in mind, what we put into DYK may not be very relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that most mobile readers use the website, which shows DYK, instead of the app? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the function of DYK on the front page is to encourage editors to create new content – Absolutely, but creating new content doesn't have to mean creating a new article. Twenty years ago the quick-and-dirty way to use DYK as a motivator was "Hey, create a new article and you can have the satisfaction of seeing it on the front page!", and that made sense when so many missing articles awaited creating, but six million articles later, a need at least as big as creating new articles is expanding existing articles to bring them to a higher level -- like bringing them to GA. But the axiom that DYK exists to showcase "new content", and that "new content" means "newly created articles", continues to have everyone hypnotized. EEng 22:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu is right. Page views for the main page show (for daily averages this month): 1.82 M on desktop, just 51 (that's 51, not 51 M) on the mobile app, and a weighty 2.48 M on mobile web. So 1) unless this month has been wildly divergent (and it doesn't seem to be; I checked the year's averages too), almost nobody uses the mobile app, and more people still use desktop than everyone seems to think.
Here's a piechart of readership for this year, based on the device type for average pageviews:

Percentage of pageviews for the Main Page by platform, yearly average 2024

  Desktop (43.2%)
  Mobile web (56.8%)
  Mobile app (0.00000770884%)
Pie charts aside, I have to disagree with EEng. (Disclaimer: I am, in fact, a person who like[s] getting links to their new little articles on the main page, without doing too, too much work). I think it is fine for DYK to showcase things that are GAs. GAs take time; showcasing some new content on interesting things of decent quality is good. (Disclaimer: I have so far epically failed to elevate an article to GA). It's an encouragement for lazy editors like me. Sometimes it can be a good "first step" where the next ones are peer review, GA, FA, TFA, and RAGFAWKO. Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mobile app does not use the main page as its landing page, hence statistics of mobile app views of the main page are irrelevant. That said, I'm pretty sure the usage of the mobile web main page is leaps and bounds beyond usage of the mobile app, but I can't find the statistics that I once read. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it's the main page we're discussing, so it should be main page pageviews we should be looking at. Cremastra (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David's premise was that most Wikipedia readers don't use Main page (and instead use a landing page with Top 10, FA, and OTD), and thus he argued that DYK is irrelevant to the modern audience. To evaluate this argument, we would need to look at the usage of the mobile app's landing page, not the views of Main page from the mobile app. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they made the assumption that mobile viewers all use the mobile app. So what we need are statistics on mobile usage of browser vs app. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found it. Mobile web clearly and significantly dwarfs mobile app usage. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to ping.) If this is a discussion about how to replace EEng, I'm in favor of doing so. If EEng wants me to support the idea of making DYK into a GA showcase, I'm strongly opposed to doing so. I like thinking up hook-y hooks for new pages, and I think all the hyperventilating over DYKs pointing to embarrassing content is a case of protesting too much. Much of Wikipedia as a whole is deeply flawed, because it's a work in progress, and there are even editors who are deeply into FAs who regard GAs as an embarrassment. Personally, I'm not wild about Featured Lists, so there. As for ITN, which seems to be where this discussion started, I'm no fan of recentism, but it's not something I care about that much. I often check the obituaries, perhaps to see if I'm listed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nominators want to see their articles on the Main Page. They don't want to do any more work to get them there. Anything that takes more work from the nominator to get them there is a non-starter. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only way DYK will ever get meaningful, productive change is if it actually grinds to a halt from lack of volunteers. This is coming from someone who appreciates DYK. I've got an article appearing right now. But I'm completely demoralized by the tyranny of the consensus there. Valereee (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there could be 2 featured articles? A completely random proposition but I don't see why that wouldn't work. win8x (talking | spying) 22:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think two boxes that only have two total target links isn't helpful. The Main Page is, by definition, largely focused on featuring quality content which is great, but does an article being featured quality entice readers to read an article enough to justify changing from a multi-target box to a single-target one? DarkSide830 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last I heard, less than one new FA is produced per day and so TFA is already doing reruns and scraping the barrel. It's DYK that is overloaded with fresh content and could use more space. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page seems exuberantly healthy to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15 years ago, that page listed 1200 articles.  10 years age, it listed 1300.  Five years ago, it was 900.  Today it is 700.  The trend is not in a healthy direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how going from down 400 to down 200 is an unhealthy trend, and the FA criteria has also traveled in a healthy direction. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the trend continues, and especially if it accelerates, then we will eventually run out of FAs to put on the Main Page. The Main Page needs 365 articles a year. The last time we saw 365 new FAs being promoted in a year was 2013. This is just simple math: If you start with 700 in the pool, add 300 new FAs, take out 365 being shown on the Main Page, then the next year you have 635 in the pool. And in 10 years, you have nothing for the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it honestly be a bad thing if featured articles were allowed to reappear on the main page? I get the preference for new stuff, but I don't see why we can't reshow older featured articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there isn't an issue if we re-run articles (I'm pretty sure I've seen a featured article appear on the main page twice before). But I don't think there is a need for two featured articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rules were changed in 2017 to permit FA reruns as issues were already apparent then. See discussion, "FAs are not being produced as fast as the TFA slot uses them. The number of available featured articles is also reduced by the fact that many older FAs have degraded to the point where they are no longer suitable for TFA. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAs can already be rerun since yes, they aren't being produced fast enough. But readers won't remember a featured article from 2014, so I don't think there's an issue with that. win8x (talking | spying) 13:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones from 10 years ago are not usually suitable for running. They're not up to the current standards. In some cases (e.g., medical topics, recent political topics), it requires truly major effort to re-write them. For example, Autism was a TFA years ago. At a glance, about a third of the ~400 sources currently violate WP:MEDDATE. That's just one of the problems in that FFA. I really think that re-running that would basically require starting over from scratch. In the category of less dire situations, Menstrual cycle has appeared twice as TFA, but it required two months' work from multiple editors to make that happen. Some of those editors were giving up time on writing new FAs to rescue this old one. These are both subjects of broad interest that I could imagine editors deciding to run them every five or ten years, but the amount of work necessary to make that happen, and the opportunity costs involved, should not be underestimated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I am in no way involved in TFA or featured articles in general, so I wouldn't know. Thanks for the insight. win8x (talking | spying) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I think this discussion should be moved to its own section at WP:VPR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make any sense to split this off until the RFC is closed and that that close shows support for Option #3. Otherwise, you'd do a bunch of extra work that doesn't get implemented if option #3 does not have consensus. Masem (t) 00:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was the discussion is already happening in parallel. I disagree that this discussion would lack value even if there's no consensus for option 3. Given that there appears to be a strong consensus that ITN has problems (notwithstanding the potential consensuses for options 1 or 2), some editors might want to continue discussing and workshopping ideas for the future. Closing this discussion with the rest of the RfC would effectively create a break in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support any replacement for ITN being in any way connected to "current events". The problem with ITN is that it gives editors an excuse to violate NOTNEWS and stray from our purpose as a historical reference. Replacing it with a link to current events (with its own processes to have things listed) is just moving the problem elsewhere. I would much rather a new section idea emerge from this discussion - I don't have any ideas currently but if I think of one I'll come back. In lieu of a new section for the main page, I'd much rather expand today's featured articles to be longer (and move DYK and OTD to the same side, or keep them where they are and just expand TFA to take up the whole top half). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact missing

The proposer's rationale for the reform centers on the process. I've very little knowledge of the current process and cannot really weigh in but I think when evaluating a reform we should primarily consider what impact this reform would have. Which of the news that are currently featured on the main page would not be there and which news would appear instead? ITN exists for the readers and the readers care about the news and not about the process.

To give an example, today we have the following news:

  • The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson (pictured) for their studies of global inequality.
  • The comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS) is visible in the western sky after sunset.
  • The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded to South Korean poet and novelist Han Kang.

I checked the front pages on Pressreader and I saw many more mentions of Trump's weird campaign event than of Nobel winners and comets. Does it mean that this is what we would feature on ITN? Alaexis¿question? 18:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Trump example only applies for the current form of proposal 1. I've commented on its nonapplicability to proposal 2 here, and if the proposal's current volatile-ish state is retained, then the Trump example would roll off the front page fairly quickly. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would en.wiki properly write about in regards to Trump's town hall, in considering NOTNEWS? It absolutely should not be a separate article, and at best we would (properly) include maybe one or two sentences about it on the Trump campaign article. Which would fail to be a proper update for ITN in terms of quality. Now, I haven't looked, but I can envision that in this current environment of how poorly NOTNEWS is followed, editors would have added tons of opinions and commentary and reactions that came from this to make it seem more important than it really is, give the news' emphasis on this. That type of content is fine at Wikinews but not en.wiki where we are meant to summarize for the long term. That's a very strong example of why proposal 1 is unworkable because of the disconnect about what news prioritizes, and what an encyclopedia prioritizes. Masem (t) 21:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the front pages of UK newspapers (they were a mix of the 15th and 16th). The story with the greatest coverage was objections to changes to National Insurance contributions that might (or might not) happen in the forthcoming budget. At most there would be a single sentence somewhere about this, but people objecting to political decisions that haven't been taken yet is not encyclopaedic information (because a different set of people would be complaining if a different decision was on the cards). Also highly covered was the new manager of the England football team, that is encyclopaedic information and plenty can be written about it but is it really relevant to a global, general purpose encyclopaedia? There are apparently 211 men's teams affiliated with FIFA, is a change in the manager of all of them relevant? What about women's teams? What about other sports? Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to Proposal 1, when this question was asked during the RFCBEFORE, I raised the example of Polaris Dawn (ITNC discussion). It wasn't posted; oppose votes included:
  • "It's not a major milestone in human spaceflight"
  • "it wasn't actually even a full space walk"
  • "I don't see what makes a commercial spacewalk so special"
  • "this would only have been notable if the spacewalk had gone wrong"
  • "Disagree that there is anything particularly notable or groundbreaking about the first "commercialized" spaceflight"
Posterchild for the kind of thing that I think ITN needs to never do: base its decisions on whether editors think something is important or not. Meanwhile, it would pass the "world front pages test," e.g. front page in major national papers in Spain, France, and Austria. Now I know, those three are all European countries, but forgive me, I'm the one who collected those examples, I know what the major papers are in those countries, so at the time, I just went for three easy examples to show that it was front page news outside the US.
It's hard to do this for Proposal 1 because I don't know of any easy way to search historical archives; just today's papers, and sometimes I happen to save the links to the images (as above). But anyway, I looked at today's papers, and what would be posted under Proposal 1 is Canada expelling Indian diplomats over the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. As you might expect, this is front page news in both Canada and India, and the US. But it's also on the front page in Japan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and South Korea.
Tomorrow, maybe I'll take a look and see if anything is front page news across the world. Proposal 1 wouldn't necessarily generate a posting every day. And that's OK. Levivich (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A core issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What makes headlines does not equate to appropriate encyclopedic content. Newspapers (generally) are keeping its readers informed of what's happening 24/7, whereas we are supposed to summarize events in a manner for the long-term, and not every 24/7 event merits inclusion. To use the example of Canada expelling Indian diplomats, that's a short term aspect of a larger story which may or may not go anywhere. Diplomatic relations between nations are strained all the time. Obviously, in connection to Nijjar, this particular incident should be documented, but it's nowhere close to apparent that that is a news event that will have enduring coverage - in most cases, these relations are mended within months and it becomes a distance memory. That's why any criteria that rests solely on what is making headlines without any type of editorial oversight on WP runs against WP:NOTNEWS. We can certainly use what is being widely covered as part of the reason to post, and the significance criteria already includes the consideration of how a story is covered in major papers/headlines. But we also need all editors to keep aware about NOTNEWS as a fundamental principle of WP. If one wants to write about news events without the concern about the encyclopedic purpose getting in the way, then we have Wikinews for that. Masem (t) 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dealing with NOTNEWS is a separate issue beyond this, but it should be addressed before fundamentally changing the purpose of ITN"
"the fundamental issue being the NOTNEWS factor"
"Most of this comes from righting the entire ship when it comes to NOTNEWS"
"NOTNEWS itself means we should not have this unhealthy focus on current news, itself a major problem across WP"
"With NOTNEWS as the problem"
"in this current environment of how poorly NOTNEWS is followed"
Why reply to my comment to say it a seventh time eighth time in the same discussion? There's a survey section where you can express your view, there's a discussion section ... this section is asking for impact, not about what we think about NOTNEWS.
Meanwhile, what WP:NOTNEWS actually says:

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.

Levivich (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so adamant that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", then why even have a "In the News" section? Having an "In the News" section goes against this entire principle, as many (incorrectly) believe that ITN is a "news portal". That is definitely what I thought when I first came across it. Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just adding this idea if it wasn't said already.
TL;DR: We could use conventional traffic and clickthrough rate data to figure out which criterion gets the most engagement
L;R: I was always under the impression that the purpose of most sections on the main page was to increase engagement with Wikipedia's contents using something akin to clickbait. For example, featured pictures are visually appealing, featured articles are highly informative and enjoyable to read, and DYKs give one-line hooks that play on the reader's curiousity. Along these lines, I thought that ITN's purpose is to be yet another form of clickbait that hooks readers who're curious to learn more about a recent event. If editors can't agree on the best selection criteria for recent events to increase engagement (assuming that this is the goal), why not use more data-informed methods to figure this out? This same line of reasoning goes for determining whether to remove ITN or not. How would that change affect engagement?
This data can be gathered by taking e.g. the last 2 years of ITN history and figuring out if there's a relationship between (i) the event topic category or (ii) the amount of news coverage of the event and the increase in the # of views of the event articles after they are published in a new ITN entry. spintheer (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the goal is, or should be, to help readers find what they're looking for. That will increase engagement as a secondary effect, but increasing engagement (getting the reader to click on a link) shouldn't be our goal. However, your idea is a good one anyway, as it will help us measure if we are helping readers find what they're looking for. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toward Next Steps

Firstly, I can see merit in editors who are asking for this thread to be closed. None of the three options being presented are the solution to the issues that we have. I am going to be deliberately provocative here -- but, I will caveat it by saying that it is not directed at one single editor or group. Here goes -- this thread is meaningless and is an example of the WP:BIKESHED fallacy in my opinion. The truth is that we are using 20th century tools to address 21st century problems. Furthermore, we are hoping for a process to solve a problem that is inherently a technology problem. What do I mean by that? While we have gone far far far away from the notion of a static web in all other fields and yet, we continue to operate the ITN box as a static entity made much worse by the fact that we have processes that have degenerated and admin capacity to administer processes practically non existent.

The true future of the ITN panel is in a dynamically (algorithmically) controlled output with some amount of manual interventions to avoid runaway situations. This is a technology solution and the unfortunate truth is that none of the folks in this group can solve this technology problem and hence we will always go round and round on the process front.

I had outlined this earlier at WT:ITN. The future of the panel is in three levels of personalization of the ITN panel and definitely not in some group of editors fighting it out. The three levels are as follows.

  1. Trending topics (no personalization, but still dynamic)
  2. Trending topics near you (personalized by geography) and
  3. Recommended topics for you (personalized for you)

The truth is no one in this group can implement this without working hand-in-hand with the software folks from the foundation. Case in point the grounds-up iOS Wikipedia app has somewhat solved this problem with the trending topics panel. The homepage needs to go toward that solution, not tomorrow, not today, but almost a few years ago. And I repeat, I am being provocative, but, I am being honest -- none of the participants in this discussion forum can solve this one. PS: In the meantime, what we have going is as good as we can get to. We are in a maintenance mode. But, we should not throw away we have going without getting a strong replacement in place. I wish everyone the absolute best. Ktin (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those are still effectively option 3 (removing ITN), and that's not gaining traction.
As I've commented, I believe the bulk of the problems at ITN stem from the fact that we have not been holding WP to the NOTNEWS standard, which leads to editors creating too many new event articles that really aren't encyclopedic topics in the long term - and the impact on ITN being the nomination of news items stemming from these articles. Until we course-correct on NOTNEWS, so that people are not rushing to create event articles just because a newspaper covered it, and thus cut back on the poor nominations at ITN, then we can see if there's further issues with the significance criteria (which honestly, I don't think that will be the case once we get everyone focused on what are encyclopedic news events and not what should be at Wikinews.) Masem (t) 00:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are again falling back to hoping to solve a technology problem through people-processes. Hard no. PS: If you read my message above, you will see that I strongly oppose #3 before putting in place a technology solution. We, unfortunately, are no where near that and this group is not the right group to get us there.Ktin (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Should be on Wikinews” I agree with the principle of your statement on NOTNEWS, but there is nothing reviving that corpse of a project and its numerous, numerous, numerous issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "top 25 report but blurbless and short-range" would showcase our quality content. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the minimum standard of quality ITN bar could be left to DYK. Both of the Wikipedia apps already showcase trending content on their homepages without problems that I'm aware of. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is good for the official iOS and Android Wikipedia apps, I refuse to buy the argument that it is not good for Wikipedia Web. Ktin (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"has no problems" does not equate "good". I really agree with Alach's featurability principle that the main page should showcase achievement. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how an "AI generated" (dynamic) solution is better than the above three proposals. There is no community support for a "trending news" box. If it is desired, I don't believe there is a "technology issue" - it could be done. Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic is not necessarily the same as AI generated. Ktin (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I don't know what this means Firstly, I can see merit in editors who are asking for this thread to be closed. I don't see any editors saying this. This is an open discussion that has not yet run its course. Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how I read that one wrong. Fixing my comment. Ktin (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI will prevail. TNT Wikpedia. Damn Skynet. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The apps have a nice option to "customize the feed". Each section of the main page is presented as a card and the display of each card can be turned on and off to taste. The web-based formats are comparatively inflexible and do not allow the reader such choice. The WMF should do more to empower the readers. The idea that a handful of community insiders should decide what the readers get is not sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which ties back to my idea of having WMF or whoever conduct a survey to gauge what casual readers themselves want on the front page, but I understand there’s a fat chance of that happening. I also seriously doubt that casual readers would be happy with the "insiders"' decision here to remove ITN from the front page and replace it with a boring list of links (to GAs, editing tutorials, portals, etc.) or yet another FA box, which have been proposed in the section above. Some1 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't come to Wikipedia to read the news. Most people get their news from news apps and websites, and television. I find people often share articles about odd historical events or idiosyncratic people on social media, so I think a list of recent GAs (perhaps with one sentence blurbs each, like DYK), would be of interest to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why ITN has been to showcase quality articles that happen to be in the news. Our goal has never been to keep readers informed on what has happened in the last week, but instead to showcase how well we are as a dynamic resource, featuring articles that have been in the news. They may not be of GA quality, but they should have significant updates from the news coverage and in decent shape to show editors visiting the front page how we can work as a wiki to update something quickly. Masem (t) 00:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your contention that it is valuable to show editors visiting the front page how we can work as a wiki to update something quickly.
  1. The front page should be for readers, not editors.
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for news analysis.
voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on the front page has the goal of enticing readers to read articles and encourage them to become editors if they can add more information to these articles. And NOTNEWS has nothing to do with news analysis, it is about keeping coverage of news topics to an encyclopedic summary style. (We don't want news analysis, we want want the long-term impact would be of an event) Masem (t) 00:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If readers want to find something, they can search for it. We don't need social media-style "personalized feeds". Keep people's minds open. How about a big "random article" button? Cremastra (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

split

i think galaxy a3 (2017) galaxy a5 (2017) and galaxy a7 (2017) should be unmerged 2600:6C4E:CF0:9E0:944:9332:35D4:D82 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing to suggest on Talk:2017 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series. Because the respective sections are so small, you should give substantial reasons for separate articles: either that you would have substantial amounts of content to add separately to each, or that they are such substantially different entities covering different topics to have separate discussions. (An example of the latter would be if the A5, and only the A5, had extensive controversy on launch and massive explosions and lawsuits, a significant digression from the flow of the main A Series article -- that would warrant a separate article for the A5.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in and is the product of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 189#Do we really need over 600 articles on individual Samsung products?. There was a strong sense among participants that many such mergers should be done. I performed the merger of the 2017 Samsung Galaxy A phones creating 2017 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series. You are probably noticing an inconsistency insofar as these phones don't have standalone articles while many others have. This inconsistency will be resolved over time by also merging those other phones into articles on generations of models.—Alalch E. 00:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Indic transliteration and WP:INDICSCRIPT

I know this is biased but I find it to be really unfair that we cannot use the scripts that were written Indian languages all because of one user did something back in 2012. Like, we could have use the scripts for cities for example. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that WP:IndicScript, for the lede and infobox, has been discussed several times from 2012 thru 2017. Since we're past 7 years from the previous discussion (at least as listed on the policy page), it's probably time to have another discussion, to get the beat from editors as to where ethnonationalist edit-warring on this is at nowadays, and consider a new RfC (even if just to reaffirm the old policy). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some RFC includes a longer moratorium period (I doubt that we currently have, or ever will have, such a long moratorium on anything), any 7-year-old RFC consensus can be reopened because Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Animal lover |666| 10:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close or move to some other forum or talk page. No substantive reason to change anything has been expressed. There's no clear proposal either. "Not fair", "one user did something" and "7-year-old RFC" are not actionable items on which it is possible to form a consensus. —Alalch E. 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest starting a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles. It looks like the issue has been brought up before, but there's been no updated information on vandalism posted, which is the key consideration. Maybe you'll want to solicit such information first by announcing your intentions beforehand, and post a notice on WP:Wikiproject India.
Then at any time, review the previous WP:Requests for comment linked at WP:IndicScript, and then begin a new one on the MOS talk page, following similar guidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, I tried to propose a relatively small exception to the current guideline a year ago or so and was met with pretty significant pushback, so I'd expect a similar response to any suggestion along SpinnerLaserz's lines, despite being sympathetic to it myself. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What might be practical is a change to permit especially pertient scripts (e.g. of top 2 or 3 official and majority languages in a relevant location, or those most culturally appopriate with regard to some historical person or event). The central issue is that there are dozens of writing systems extant in and around India. This "it's all because of one user" stuff is nonsense; WP:INDICSCRIPT exists to address a practicality issue. But it may need revision, to not take a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same problems exist in many parts of the world other than South Asia. It has always struck me as rather odd that we single out Indic scripts in such a way. One by-product of this is that it can be difficult to find sources for subjects that do not have a fixed Roman transcription. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Default unban appeal terms

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

I want to suggest default unban appeal terms. Namely to incorporate WP:SO into it. Something along the lines of this:

Unless stated otherwise in the ban, a community ban may be appealed not less than six months from the enactment, or six months after the last declined (or inappropriate) appeal. This includes bans as a result of repeated block evasion, bans as a result of a block review by the community, and bans occurring de facto. This does not apply if there are serious doubts about the validity of the closure of the ban discussion. A ban from the Arbitration Committee may be appealed not less than 12 months from the enactment, or 12 months after the last declined (or inappropriate) appeal. None of these appeal provisions apply to arbitration enforcement blocks, such as blocks enforcing contentious topic restrictions, or community sanction blocks.

I am pretty sure that this is sensible for most bans. While the ArbCom part will require an ArbCom motion, the community part could happen almost immediately. Awesome Aasim 02:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating this in VPPL to get further input. I think this should be added to the Banning policy. We can further refine it to get the right wording that can then be added in one swift edit. Awesome Aasim 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I'd like to hear from people who don't know much about Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.

The topic is on what romanization system to use for Korean history articles. seefooddiet (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on reform of WP:FTN, WP:FRINGE

This is obviously not going to happen at this point. The idea of merging WP:FTN into WP:NPOVN got marginally more traction than that of downgrading WP:FRINGE, but probably requires some more workshopping and a fresh, standalone RfC. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following the previous month's discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS, the questions were raised as to the future of WP:FTN and WP:FRINGE:

Question 1: Should WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (WP:FTN) be disbanded and deactivated?

Its existing functions may be moved elsewhere, at the discretion of editors. Examples: FTN function could be moved to a WikiProject discussion page; it could handled by other policy noticeboards (namely RSN, NPOVN, NORN, BLPN, and AN).

Question 2: Should the Wikipedia guideline WP:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) be disbanded? You may give specific options for resolving guideline sections, including:

2A. Downgrade WP:FRINGE from a guideline to an explanatory essay;
2B. Deprecate and archive WP:FRINGE guidelines altogether;
2C. Merge sections of WP:FRINGE into the larger guidelines that refer to them:
Option 2C examples (this is a partial attempt at a comprehensive list): WP:V section REDFLAG cites FRINGE as main article; WP:RS has a "Fringe" section that cites PARITY; WP:N has a "Fringe" section citing NFRINGE; WP:NPOV has a "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" section as well as scattered citations to FRINGE and its various sections; WP:BLP does not cite WP:FRINGEBLP, but FRINGEBLP cites BLP and NPOV.

Affirm or reject either, both, none, with any number of suboptions (nothing must be mutually exclusive).

This RfC follows from discussion from the previous month at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS. Please continue discussion here. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications (FRINGE)

Notified: WT:FRINGE; WT:FTN; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism; SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (FRINGE)

  • Reject both, WP:FRINGE has no need for any such changes. The fact is that this all arose because FRINGE POV-pushers of religious topics got angry that their pseudoscience claims were being appropriately described in our articles as pseudoscience. It's ridiculous we're even entertaining this RfC at all when that's the background context and reason for it. SilverserenC 00:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that this all arose because FRINGE POV-pushers of religious topics got angry that their pseudoscience claims were being appropriately described in our articles as pseudoscience.
    What!?’ With all due respect this is wholly divorced from the reason this came up. The specific issue was removing a peer-reviewed study demonstrating a fringe topic was not real, because that user rejected that academics at a secular university could be trusted because they were themselves Buddhist. As the person you’re accusing of being a “FRINGE POV-pusher” here I’d appreciate that struck, it’s uncalled for. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and No. WP:FTN fulfils a necessary function on Wikipedia, and has done for many years. A centralised noticeboard is far better placed to tackle issues which very frequently involve multiple factors when considering such disputes. They are very rarely just about sourcing, just about NPOV etc. As for the guideline, it is just that - a summary of policy etc laid out elsewhere, emphasising the relevant parts of such material. There are certainly sometimes issues with the noticeboard, and quite possibly the guideline needs improvement in places to more accurately reflect policy, but the alternatives offered here seem to be based around the premise that the noticeboard is the root cause of 'fringe material' problems, rather than the material itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. Just seems like unhelpful process-ology, with no rationale give. NPOVN and FTN and both busy enough, so making a mega-board would just create something unwieldy. WP:FRINGE is a well-established guideline and Wikipedia's handling of fringe content is one of the conspicuous successes of the Project according to academic assessments (though not, of course, according to advocates of fringe idea who are frustrated by Wikipedia's standards). The world of sources 'out there' is not becoming less contaminated by pseudoscience, misinformation and conspiracy theories. If anything, the opposite is true. So weakening Wikipedia's defences in this area would seem most unwise if the Project is to continue a knowledge-based mission. Bon courage (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No Those thinking the anti-fringe group sometimes overdo it might be right, but downgrading FRINGE would give much worse results. Woo nonsense attracts a lot of followers and they can swamp a topic. Ensuring that articles reflect reality is necessary for an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes 1; Yes 2C else 2A. From our previous discussion, it took me a while before I came to this point. But I feel like WP:FTN see WP:FRINGE as a hammer and everything around them as a nail. The other noticeboards (RSN etc) handle fringe topics and fringe editors fairly regularly without a problem (and usually without bringing up any FRINGE guideline), and per the preamble the FRINGE guideline is already a patchwork of cross-references from existing guidelines. FTN moving to a WikiProject will likely change very little, which is a major part of the point -- the noticeboard does not really function like other P&G noticeboards. And back-merging FRINGE will change no policy too, which is also pretty much the point. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no. This plan would also shift many discussions and reports over to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There should be a notification there also. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    notification at NPOVN 03:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Rjjiii (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes/No: There's IMO no serious problems with WP:FRINGE, though I'd like some expansion of WP:FRINGE/QS and WP:FRINGE/ALT, and generally more clarification when something is not fringe. However, I feel like FTN behaves in a way that pushes a very particular hyperskeptic POV over the sources when they contradict, and that it often overfocuses on pseudoscience and woo to the point that it usually misses even obviously supernatural claims outside those domains. For this reason, I'd like it to be merged into WP:NPOVN, which currently is pretty slow and which behaves much more normally in these situations. Loki (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were merged, would that affect the rate and behavior at NPOVN? DN (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hopeful. Loki (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. FTN is and has been a valuable platform for discussing how fringe topics and POVs should, and should not, be presented in Wikipedia articles. If enacted, these proposals would considerably weaken the project by making it easier for fringe-POV pushers to populate WP articles with all sorts of unreliably-sourced, non-encyclopedic nonsense. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject both (Linked from NPOVN) This idea seems pretty out there. With all due respect and good faith, why is this even an RfC? Seems like an obvious waste of time to suggest we remove one of the most important safe-guards Wikipedia offers, one that sets it apart from any other platform. I have also noticed increases in the amount of new users and editors doing what some may consider POV pushing (of Fringe) over the last year. Maybe due to the elections in the US, but it is noticeable. DN (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total rejection of both: One of the most ridiculous and even outright insulting proposals I've ever seen on this site and that's saying something. A complete and total waste of time for everyone verging on the point of violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Wikipedia is under constant, relentless attack by fringe proponents and any attempt at weakening our safeguards instead of further strengthening them should be considered extremely suspicious. If you've ever been physically threatened or witnessed attempted outing on this site by fringe groups, you'll know how outrageous this proposal is. These groups range from confused and well-meaning to organized and outright dangerous. They are not something to fetishize or give an inch. We are extremely lucky to have the editors that we do who are willing to deal with fringe topics. I personally think it is time for us to start pushing back on the lack of support or appreciation Wikipedia shows for this small group of specialized editors who do so much for the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, Wikipedia keeps becoming a bigger target for special interests, and if it's going to survive into the next decade it needs to be much less open to bad actors. Ask any admin. The firehose of misinformation and stoking of bad behavior is beyond overwhelming by design, and it's only going to get much worse unless those in charge do something about it. On a lighter note, if the project wasn't working then they wouldn't even bother with us. Cheers to success. DN (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No: It seems fringe theories requires folks well-versed in combatting fringe theory proponents and how to deal with them. It's not a huge lift to make a separate space for fringe theory discussion, or to have the fringe theory guidelines. I see no good reason to get rid of either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. WP:FRINGE is a subset of WP:NPOV that helps ensure our articles on conspiracy theories, woo science, and religion remain empirical and evidence-based. These folks do great work keeping our encyclopedia free of junk. There's absolutely no way the encyclopedia would be better off without this work. comes across as WP:CANVAS. The correct way to deal with someone notifying a noticeboard that has a POV you disagree with is to do your own notifications, such as to notify a WikiProject talk page. Notifying noticeboards, article talk pages, and WikiProject talk pages is (in my opinion) never canvassing. This kind of looks like a case of an editor trying to change the entire system, instead of learning how the system works and the good reasons why it works that way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. The guideline and the noticeboard are extremely important in helping maintain neutrality and high quality referencing in topic areas that are susceptible to POV pushing. I oppose any effort to carve out a toehold that legitimizes crank theories. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes/2C - effectively merging FTN with other existing noticeboards like NPOVN and RSN will have the double benefit of putting more eyes on fringe issues and also breaking up the hyperskeptic cabal issues mentioned by other supporters above. Merging the guideline will have the benefit of fewer policies/guidelines. WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN are duplicative of NPOV/NPOVN. (I'd also support merging NORN for the same reasons.) Levivich (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that create an extremely large board, making it harder to navigate? DN (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that when fringe topics end up at WP:NPOV it just leads to confusion from editors with little experience in the topic, sometimes even leading to confused editors siding with the fringe proponents, wasting volunteer time all around. These aren't just NPOV concerns but often intentionally obfuscating, often organized attempts at gaming the site. We need a specialized board for these specialized matters that includes editors who are willing to do the research and the work necessary to keep the site from becoming just another fringe platform. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so now we can look at this claim. There's not a lot of fringe stuff on the NPOVN front page, but there are several on the most recent archive (113), from late August to late September. It seems like 'Myers-Briggs' and 'Muslim gangs' were resolved pretty well at NPOVN, while I'm not sure if 'WPATH' ever got resolved in its article. Would you have something to compare from FTN discussion resolutions? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not playing this game. There is no question that we need specialized support for the unique needs that come with editing fringe topics and your apparent goal of removing what little support we have for this on the site raises a parade of red flags. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and no. Not everything is fringe but fringe is fringe. Andre🚐 05:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to both. I do understand and respect the canvassing/'cabal' concerns, and FTN is very useful to me for finding and rehabilitating articles of fringe topics that need improvement. We definitely want more eyes on the FTN, but just merging the boards would just make things more difficult for everyone. Feoffer (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, No. WP:FRINGE as guideline is fine, FTN should be merged with NPOVN. In practice, FTN is WikiProject Skepticism- it doesn't really function like a notice board. In theory it could be something else, but it is not. This lends itself to a type of editing that while occasionally good constantly causes problems with some topics. In my experience, I often have thoughts on the topics raised at that board, but it's difficult and hostile to contribute to as it is far more insular and WikiProject-esque than any other noticeboard, even when I largely agree with what they're saying. As someone with an interest in "fringe topics", even when it would be extremely helpful to get other eyes on a topic from people who aren't pushing fringe (what a "fringe noticeboard" should hopefully be good for) I don't even bother due to how exhausting it seems to have to deal with the very specific hyperskeptic pov some people there push. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no. I just wasted two hours on reading a thread that only exists because an article contained something amounting to "he's really not dead, Jim! Although a study said he is." Someone deleted it, which was an improvement, someone reverted that deletion. And now the reverter is butthurt and says the deleter is a bigot, and the idea came up of nuking the place where those two clash sometimes, and someone else started this farce just for the fun of it although everybody including the reverter said it will not fly, but everybody needs to read the thread. And it did not fly. Yeah, let's make a study to find out whether a dead person is dead, and let's start a survey to find out whether a waste of time is a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a study showing that people alleged to be in a state of Tukdam were in fact dead. The line adding this study got reverted, which I would normally associate with WP:PROFRINGE since it's removing evidence against a supernatural claim, but in fact was from an FTN regular who apparently objected to even the idea that one might be able to study this.
    This is what I mean when I say FTN is both overactive and underactive: in its pursuit of a hyperskeptical POV it's actually caused its participants to make WP:PROFRINGE edits in this case. Loki (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no. I'm not an involved editor but I have read this and the previous discussions with interest. I conclude that the FTN regulars deserve all the thanks and Wikilove we can send their way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, no: per PARAKANYAA primarily, although i sympathize with those who disagree with the premise of this RfC in the first place. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    addendum: i think the comments here and elsewhere characterizing those critical of FTN as fringe POV-pushers kind of proves the point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m surprised to learn I’m just butthurt and a POV FRINGE-pusher. It’s amazing how far the game of telephone has gone considering how easy it is to scroll up and see the actual points raised. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. WP:FTN has functioned as a successful and essential forum for applying WP:CONSENSUS in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming yet another online source of misinformation and disinformation. Of course, POV-pushers of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories don't like it. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe and No. Largely per PARAKANYAA. There are problems at FTN, and some editors there confuse anti-FRINGE with NPOV when they are not the same (the former is just as much a POV as pro-FRINGE) and with seeing bad-faith and/or pseudoscience when it isn't there (it's not pseudoscience if it doesn't claim to be scientific; there is a difference between "proven wrong", "unproven" and "unstudied"). These problems are largely behavioural rather than structural, but perhaps the structure is enabling the behavioural problems? I think a better first approach would be a detailed, structured, independent review of the behaviour at FTN (perhaps by arbcom). There is far too much wailing and gnashing of teeth that Wikipedia will be overrun by pseudoscience and "woo" if we even consider that something about how we currently deal with the topic area might not be 100% perfect, and that needs to stop - as does the automatic assumption that anyone who isn't actively against saying anything remotely positive about something that is even arguably FRINGE is a pov-pushing and trying to defend or include pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. Remember the N in NPOV means neutral not anti. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think FTN is incredibly useful and want to keep it, but it definitely needs more eyeballs and review. There's truth in the basic realization that anti-FRINGE is an important facet of NPOV, but NPOV isn't synonymous with anti-FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes The Guerrilla Skeptics are explicitly organised as an off-site cabal to push their POV on Wikipedia. They have a point but are so dogmatic in their pursuit of it that they come across as a fringe religion themselves. They seem to have a specific agenda as they constantly go after particular soft targets rather than being skeptical about the large amounts of other BS that's out there. The obsessive labelling of topics as fringe and pseudoscience is itself pseudoscientific and is so preachy and proselytising that it is counter-productive. The fringe noticeboard is clearly used to canvass by this cabal and so should be shut down. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) there was an arbcom case about gorilla skeptics a few years ago, and they were pretty much acquitted of all wrongdoing. 2) it became clear during the arbcom case that gorilla skeptics organizes off-site, and does not really use ftn or a wiki project, 3) I remember not recognizing most of the publicly identified gorilla skeptic members, whereas I recognize most of the ftn regulars –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this idea that the vast majority of FTN regulars are GSOW members is unfounded in my experience. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never even heard of this group. This comment should be struck. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who raised the thread that lead to all this mess I’ve never heard of this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bloodofox@Warrenmck, enjoy:[34] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to establish even a prima facie case that there have been conduct issues involving multiple users, much less that it is systemic, around FTN as a nexus, or that removal of the board would make a meaningful improvement. I would suggest that if this is proposed again for the same reason, a review in line with what Thryduulf proposes be conducted beforehand. Such a review could also submit evidence in the interim to boards such as AN. I doubt Arbcom would chose to take it up at this point, as community resolution methods have not been exhausted, but if they eventually do, they could simply implement as a remedy what resolutions they see fit, making the community proposal redundant. I would not be opposed to revisiting this proposal should a community review find both the requisite evidence and a need for action without ending up involving Arbcom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh; no. I don't have strong feelings either way about FTN, though it looks to me that the issue that prompted this is really the alleged misbehaviour of a relatively small number of individual editors rather than FTN as a whole being irrepairably flawed. Even if there is a systemic issue with FTN, I'm not seeing from reading this proposal or the above discussion any sort of argument for getting rid of or downgrading WP:FRINGE. Indeed, the people arguing for that outcome are specifically saying that it won't change policy, so... why bother? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No WP:FRINGE is an extension of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and its status as a policy does a lot if heavy lifting to help prevent fringe POV pushers from spreading junk science, misinformation and fraudulent research. And, most importantly, it helps editors in general to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. WP:FTN does a lot of the hard work to enforce this and the idea of disbanding it is absurd. If there are instances when FTN is used in a questionable way (I don't think there are many, if at all), then people should let those editors know what they are doing wrong, not disband a place where a LOT of important work is done. (Oh, and anyone who brings up GSoW in this discussion has no idea what they're talking about, are getting their information from cranks and frauds, and deserves to be WP:TROUTed.) VdSV9•♫ 12:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the interested, there was an Arbcom case: WP:ARBSCE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point, in short, is this: very few of the active editors in FTN are part of GSoW. The Arbcom case has nothing to do with what people do at FTN. VdSV9•♫ 13:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No/No while the board occasional gets it wrong from because of hyper hatred of anything fringe, resulting in normal dispassionate treatment of some subjects being considered too friendly because they aren't hostile enough, abolishing the noticeboard or downgrading the policies/guidelines/whatever will cause much more frequent problems that are much worse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense and Nonsense: WP:FRINGE needs more support, not less. Its basis is in our fundamental policies and, indeed, should really be added to WP:NOT. ("Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting the theories of lunatic charlatans", perhaps...) SerialNumber54129 12:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One issue is that some editors at FTN have trouble distinguishing those trying to achieve NPOV from those promoting a pro-FRINGE POV, labelling them all as lunatic charlatans, which doesn't help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it certainly doesn't help those attempting to push fringe theories. SerialNumber54129 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment demonstrates you've completely missed the point. The failure to distinguish between NPOV and pro-FRINGE POV actively harms the encyclopaedia, and hinders the cause of NPOV and those seeking it while doing absolutely nothing to the goal of those pushing conspiracy theories that restricting the aspersions to them would not. Ideally there would be no name-calling or aspersion-casting at all, but one step at a time. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. As others have said in other ways, WP:FTN has been successful to the point where there is a lot of questioning around if it is needed are not. It continues to act as a bulwark against a significant number of groups trying to get their unproven/random musings in what should be a encyclopedic work. There is enough volume that having its own separate policy and noticeboard continues to be needed. spryde | talk 12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. While I am cognizant of the concern expressed by Andrew Davidson of off-site organization intending to push a POV, getting rid of a particular noticeboard does nothing to prevent things from happening off-site, the activities of which will likely then just move to other Wikipedia noticeboards. The discussion that we are having here is likely sufficient to bring additional attention to WP:FRINGE, so that a broader slice of the community is involved in its discussions. BD2412 T 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No/No In agreement with the above, where it appears there's more a problem that is beyond FRINGE, which is how we label those that are promoting fringe theories, which falls under NPOV and BLP concerns. As long as fringe concepts have been readily disproven by reliable sources, there's zero harm in making sure they are labeled as such, but it is a problem to further that labeling onto those that promote them without significantly strong backing to get around the POV issue. Other issues like offsite canvassing are those that are not a specific issue to FTN but misuse of WP in general, and have other remedies available to handle than to shut down a key noticeboard. --Masem (t) 13:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's a frequent topic at WP:BLPN right. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. Per WP:PROJGUIDE, A WikiProject is a group of editors interested in collaborating on a specific topic within Wikipedia. A WikiProject is a group of people, not a set of pages, a subject area, a list of tasks, or a category. I think the same applies to a noticeboard; functionally noticeboards and WikiProject talk pages often differ only in name. Shutting down an active noticeboard is therefore primarily a question of taking administrative action against those editors, to stop them from collaborating. That sort of action should be reserved for WP:ARBCOM. Deleting the pages and moving the functions elsewhere does not seem like it would achieve anything meaningful. WP:FRINGE is a logical extension of core policies and demoting it would be taken as an invitation to promote theories that do not align with NPOV or V.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no. Wikipedia is a bright spot on the Interent at least in part because we really do try to comprehensively get things right, even if we often fail. Part of "getting things right" is keeping out material that is well outside what is mainstream, as represented by reliable sources. I see some comments that FTN, or some participants at FTN, are hyper-skeptical. My impression is that charge is coming in part from the failure of FTN to be sufficiently differential to extraordinary claims made by some groups. - Donald Albury 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. Disbanding the noticeboard would have no effect other than to move discussion elsewhere, so why bother. Anyone can view or comment on the noticeboard so how would having the same discussions elsewhere make any difference. As to the idea of disbanding or downgrading FRINGE it is patently ridiculous. If editors have issues with other editors they should take it to ANI or ARBCom, rather than tilting at windmills. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and snow. This proposal is DOA, as it should be. The fringe policy is an important firewall and the noticeboard is how we use it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and No. I don't think our policies and guidelines are what's in need of revision right now. The matter of concern is, to borrow Loki's words a pattern of behavior enabled by the structure in which a 'hyperskeptical' POV is pushed over and against sources and often using bigoted reasoning. When academically trained and university-associated scholars get treated by FTN participants as uncitable 'woo' again and again, , with no regard for the training of the authors or even the content of their findings, the attempt to achieve NPOV is inhibited, not helped. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A PhD in woology is not proper qualification. Nor is a Nobel Prize, or a PhD in Chemistry Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb Yes, if the discipline is itself fringe, but scholarship is not made unreliable in and of itself by the scholar being a member of a particular religion, which is something people at FTN often argue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Bob believes that magical dwarves live at the center of Jupiter, and goes "Trust me, I'm an astrophysicist, I wrote papers on the topic, I'm the foremost expert on this, magical dwarves do live at the center of Jupiter", Bob is a nutjob and their paper support Jovian magical dwarves is equally vapid and devoid of validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the claim in question is clearly out of step with other literature, of course. But that is not what the issue is. Someone being a member of a particular religion does not make their scholarship inherently fringe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What Bob does or does not believe has absolutely no relevance to whether their paper supporting Jovian magical dwarves is valid. Whether the paper is or not valid depends entirely on how reliable sources rate the content of the paper, particularly the methodology and whether the conclusions match the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Bob is a member of the Church of Jove and manages to publish an article in the Journal of Vaguely Related Engineering about the striking evidence for the existence of magical dwarves, there is at least an itty bitty amount relevance that his membership in the church could serve as a WP:REDFLAG. Agreed that one might come to this conclusion anyway through source evaluation, and I absolutely accept that church membership is in princinple compatible with WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship. But there are enough examples I have seen of poor scholarship following that model that I think a complete taboo of such a heuristic is just as problematic as someone who outright dismisses a source based on the religious affiliation of the author. jps (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...but what if Bob, a member of the Church of Jove, is a respected expert who publishes research suggesting that magical dwarves do not exist? Because that's the actual analogy for the situation you're talking about. Loki (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. I know that is the argument that was leveled, but this isn't the full story. There was, in fact, only a claim that one means of trying to measure some phenomenon came up with a predictable null result. jps (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob's membership of the church would still not be relevant. We judge how extraordinary claims are by how much they differ from the prevailing consensus of opinion in reliable sources, not by who makes them. We judge whether the claims are supported by sufficiently strong evidence based on how reliable sources report on them. If claims are noteworthy but have not been assessed in reliable sources then the article must express no opinion on their veracity in Wikipedia's voice (if the claims are not noteworthy we don't mention them at all). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We judge how extraordinary claims are by how much they differ from the prevailing consensus of opinion in reliable sources, not by who makes them. This isn't strictly true. I can think of many instances where we do not use sources precisely because of who is making the claim even if the claim being made is in-line with prevailing understanding. And I'm not even arguing for this kind of strict excising. I'm just saying that we can use the identity of an author as a datapoint when evaluating the source. jps (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PhD in woology is hardly what I'd call the qualifications of professors of psychology, psychiatry, education, and Asian languages and cultures affiliated with a research center connected to the University of Wisconsin–Madison, especially when the outcome of their research was "no, the dead monks do not show any signs of being alive", yet it was such material that got broad-brushed as bad sourcing, seemingly merely on the grounds that some of the researchers being Buddhists disqualifies them from being academics. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and No. I didn't expect to end up !voting in this way - I was really surprised to see the headline of the RfC notice, and immediately thought "are you kidding me?!" But having read through these discussions and thought about it for a little while, I do agree that it would be best to merge this together into the npov board. The arguments in favour of ending the noticeboard articulate something I had observed for some time but not really thought through myself. I disagree that this would have no effect except to move the discussion elsewhere. (If the discussion is moved to npov and the fringe regulars immediately overpower the npov regulars such that there really is no effect on the fringe discussions, well, that's not really an outcome that looks good on the fringe regulars trying to argue that they're not part of a hyperskeptic bloc.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and No I have often found the fringe theories noticeboard to be helpful when dealing with fringe topics and ideas, but I agree that the purpose of the board heavily overlaps with NPOVN, and there is a evident lack of interest/activity at NPOVN (I have had several posts on NPOVN that I thought were significant issues not generate any real noticeable reponse), and perhaps merging FTN with NPOVN could sort this issue. The fringe guideline is itself good though and I see no real good reason to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. I see no net benefit to either proposal and potentially great harm. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no. I see a lot of vague claims of FTN being abused by individual editors acting as an organized hyperskeptic bloc, biased FTN editors holding a hatred of anything fringe, fringe subjects being unfairly treated with hostility, etc. We would need evidence in the form of diffs to evaluate the need for actions suggested by the survey. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and Maybe 2A. Thryduulf pretty much covers it. The problem isnt FTN or FRINGE. Most of the editors there do good work and are a net positive for Wikipedia. The problem is that a handful of editors that hang out there also routinely ignore NPOV and CIVIL and, because they otherwise do good work, the system gives them a pass. Bonewah (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and No I clearly think FTN has issues, and I think the sheer volume of WP:PROFRINGE accusations being thrown out here and above, in the absence of any PROFRINGE actions or statements from any user should show that there’s a problem. This has gone way beyond civil in places and an inability to actually have a nuanced discussion around FTN is a symptom of the wider problem.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Sorta/no’. I've long thought that the lower traffic content noticeboards, FTN, NPOVN, and NOORN would be more effective merged into a single noticeboard. Fringe is part of NPOV already, and combining the eyes from those noticeboards would address concerns about canvassing to a particular group and draw attention to discussions that generally have too few participants. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. This seems a drastic measure when no fringe policy and noticeboard serve a useful purpose and have been relied upon. Other available options include suggesting specific changes or clarifications to WP:NOFRINGE and editors productively trying to engage content experts in religious topics that have garnered the attention of FTN.MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. Neither the noticeboard nor the guideline are broken. Both are necessary. Scattering the discussions from FTN across other boards would just invite forum-shopping and general confusion. If there's a conduct problem with one or more editors, take them to ANI or ArbCom. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and No. This doesn't mean there are no problems, but none of the proposals will make things better. Zerotalk 04:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (FRINGE)

I just want to note regarding some of the comments about FTN being an important safeguard, some of the last bit of our discussion above was about precisely this point. Does FTN really mitigate against fringe edits and editors? Does having a separate FRINGE guideline page mitigate similarly? Is there evidence of this in our experience? SamuelRiv (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the sort of question to be asking before launching a waste-of-time RfC? There was no traction for your odd ideas and you were advised they were pointless. But here we are. Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We did. That's the discussion linked at the top of the RfC. The discussion at the top of this page. The discussion I have been referring to in every comment. The discussion everyone voting here should probably consider at least glancing at. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody at all agreed with your idea to ditch the FRINGE guideline (you were told it would be a waste of time to ask). You also seemed not to understand basic things about how noticeboards work, saying for example they should not be used for content issues. This RfC just looks like a pointless way to preside over process and stoke up drama, rather than build an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my post history for that entire discussion, including the very last posts where I state my reasons for starting the RfC, I strongly ask that you strike this comment. I really should not have to take this. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing, dealing with, and reporting on fringe groups require specialized editors with expertise in their topic areas. Fringe-specific boards allow for the cultivation of such editors. Additionally, fringe groups very frequently organize and brigade the site, requiring a counter-response from Wikipedia editors, for which our fringe boards and fringe guidelines allow. Given the repeated attempts at systemic gaming of the site we've seen from extremely well-funded and well-organized fringe groups, especially new religious movements, Wikipedia needs far, far, more fringe-specialized editors and it is quite frustrating to see attempts at reducing what little safeguards we have. To put it frankly, we are very lucky to have the few editors we do willing to put up with the abuse, harassment, and outright death threats that come with editing in what is by far the most stressful and outright dangerous part of Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point: I think this association is double-edged. This stuff isn't usually the most stimulating to think about—never mind to have to fight with bad- and gray-faith strangers about else we allow the wiki to get blatantly worse before our very eyes. Not speaking about anyone or anything in particular, I'm serious, but in the broadest possible terms—I think in certain moments that dynamic can lead to a negative connotation for editors that do put up with it, something like "they like to fight" or "they're always talking about wiki detritus". Sometimes, the exhaustion shows on my conduct, and I'm not a member of this class even. Remsense ‥ 论 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's time to start showing appreciation for these volunteers—they are by far putting up with the worst that the project offers and if even a single one of them sticks around, they need spines of steel. Editors who deal with the unecessary bullshit that comes with editing fringe topics need better support. It's obviously not coming from the WMF but it needs to come from somewhere. Debating removing what little support we have for them is unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you, I'm just elaborating on some of the possible reasons I think the dynamic takes the shape that it does. Reflection is worthwhile. Remsense ‥ 论 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire impetus for the discussion above was the problem of FTN having non-specialist editors claiming authority on specialist science topics, in several FTN threads on the current board page. Is there a specialist in fringe theories that would be better equipped than experienced editors at RSN, NPOVN, etc? When it comes to WP, what additional skills would they have? If it's dealing with problematic fringe editors, then my challenge again is to look at the results (which we do in the prior discussion). SamuelRiv (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) : Is there evidence of this in our experience? In my experience, yes. In yours? Well, with all due respect, perhaps you should have reviewed the current FTN topics and, of course, the FTN archives, sufficiently to answer those questions yourself prior to initiating this RfC. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I link to the discussion thread above. In the most recent posts I review FTN threads in a systematic manner. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I review FTN threads in a systematic manner I am going to assume good faith here and suggest that you withdraw this RfC. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we run the RfC for at least a day so we can see the opinion of the broader Wikipedia community who are not FTN regulars. I agree that if the writing is on the wall then there's no reason to drag it out any longer than few days rather than a week or a month Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Does FTN really mitigate against fringe edits and editors?" Yes. I would also note that from my personal experience in the realm of rhetoric, the phrase “is it really?” is often employed in the dissemination of Fringe as a persuasive device.
Does having a separate FRINGE guideline page mitigate similarly? As a matter of personal opinion, yes.
Is there evidence of this in our experience? Yes, and while examples may be given, it's important to frame the terms of what is considered acceptable evidence. DN (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is clearly placed in direct reference to the discussion at the top of VPP, this page, linked at the top and bottom of the RfC. ("some of the last bit of our discussion above...") The question is asked and analyzed in detail in that discussion. I am not trying to persuade anyone by asking a question. But I do expect people who respond to an RfC to at least take a moment to glance at the preceding discussion when the RfC says that it is the culmination of that discussion. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect people who respond to an RfC to at least take a moment to glance at the preceding discussion There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the people who have responded to this RfC have failed to do that. That comment is a borderline, if not actual, violation of WP:AGF. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how someone may see my reply as somewhat pointy, but for the record I don't take offense. I would guess they may be frustrated at the results they are getting and trying to make sense of why some editors are not reacting as positively as they might have hoped. DN (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. I made clear above before starting the RfC the extent of my expectations. Responses I have gotten here have been borderline, tangential, or directly insulting to my character as a person and an editor. I'm becoming short because nobody, not an IP, not me, deserves that shit. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want pushback, you might have tried showing the slightest ounce of concern or respect for the handful of editors who actually deal with the threats, attempts at outing, and harassment that come with editing in fringe spaces. It gets so bad in these areas that it's amazing no one has been hurt yet: I know I have personally been repeatedly threatened and you can easily find attempts at outing me and I am just one editor. Without question, the small group of volunteers who gather at the fringe noticeboard and apply Wikipedia's fringe policies are the only thing keeping the website from being overrun from unrelenting, well-funded, and organized attempts at converting it into a fringe platform. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think personal dangers experienced by editors, however important, are not relevant to this particular discussion (and oddly the one credible RL threat I've had on Wikipedia has been as a result of editing a NRM topic). What is concerning is the aspersions and othering in these VPP discussions, with "FTN" being used collective noun and proxy for casting aspersions. Warrenmck's continued use of this tactic is particularly shabby, but they are not alone. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is relevant because it is apparently something we have to put up with as fringe topics editors and nobody seems to be discussing the real world danger. Without going into too much detail, I dealt with a group of editors who attempted to stalk and potentially harm me, hunting down some poor individual (who wasn't even me) at his workplace, among a few other instances. Editing non-fringe topics isn't likely to trigger this kind of thing — this is one of the reasons I think we need unique support systems and forums for editing on fringe topics. After nearly 20 years of this, I have no shortage of horror stories. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise, but surely you can see that if we extend special treatment to editors because of things that heppen (or which they say happen) in RL then ... that way madness lies. I can think of non-fringe topics that are also fraught if one's real life identity is known (abortion, organized crime, espionage ...) Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some type of support system needs to exist, or at least a true zero-tolerance policy, but I don't see that happening as long as the site remains little more than a cash cow for the Wikimedia Foundation. In any case, it was foolish of me to edit in these spaces to begin with, I initially followed the breadcrumbs from hijacked folklore-related articles, and these kind of discussions just make it more obvious to me that I should much more narrowly focus what little time I have for Wikipedia these days on non-fringe matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually not okay with you continually referring to my real concerns as a “tactic”, you’ve done nothing but assume an underlying agenda or crusade on my part here and your inability to actually even acknowledge that the concerns and criticisms raised may be legitimate and being raised in good faith is pretty much exactly one of the problems I see with FTN. I wasn’t even engaging yo, here. If you can’t assume good faith, then that’s not on me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike what exactly? What personal attacks did I make? DN (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion/catalyst for the RfC, it did not look like there was a consensus for it, but you seemed to take it upon yourself to do it anyway. Are the reactions all that surprising? DN (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not go in depth, but I would say I looked it over. I give you points for courage and assume you are acting in good faith. I had no involvement there so my opinions on the legitimacy of this endeavor are strictly based on face-value. Best of luck. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv: The editor who kept mentioning the pushback they received about merging Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia has never edited either article.[35][36] People disagreeing does not mean that they have not considered or looked into the discussion above. Rjjiii (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true there are problem editors in this space, just not in the way some editors seem to think. If you're unaware of how Wikipedia noticeboards work, or how FRINGE is generally handled on Wikipedia, you might get the idea from these VPP discussions there was some kind of problem with WP:FRINGE, rather than a quixotic campaign from one or two editors with bees in their bonnets. Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rather than a quixotic campaign from one or two editors with bees in their bonnets
and yet other editors see a problem, and when they point this out you’ve disagreed that they see the same problem as I do over their objections. You need to knock off the aspersions yesterday. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an really an aspersion: it's criticism of you. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of opening this entire thread in bad faith with a secret unarticulated agenda is casting aspersions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's "bad faith". I just think you're very wrong and disagree with the substance and manner of what you are doing. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how not editing the article when what I was proposing was a contentious move is an issue. Editing an article isn’t the only way to work on an article. Talk and noticeboard discussions prior to sweeping changes are perfectly reasonable, and the only way to disagree that “Panspermia” is still used widely to refer to what Wikipedia calls Paeudo-panspermia is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, not any kind of reasoned position, because it’s clearly true. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your dogmatic position was "It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. It took a lot of discussion to get you to recognize this was wrong. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not wrong, and the “convincing” was people saying “it’s wrong” and providing no comment whatsoever on the evidence provided. For anyone reading a long, my argument was not that the fringe theory panspermia is anything other than a fringe theory, just that the same term is used in the literature for the one that isn’t a fringe theory, which is demonstrably true. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were shown a load of journal sources and had to concede it's not "absolutely erroneous" to say panspermia is a fringe theory but that both terms are used, seemingly with panspermia being the most common term for the fringe theory. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
both terms are used
this was the claim.If both terms are used in the literature to refer to the non-front theory then “panspermia is a fringe theory” is misleading, rather a specific fringe as hell theory which is also referred to as “panspermia” is distinct from the “panspermia” used by scientists, which is why my proposal was “Panspermia (astrobiology)” and “Panspermia (fringe theory)”, not making some case that the fringe theory isn’t a fringe theory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pointless to continue, so you can have the WP:LASTWORD if you want. Editors can see what actually transpired if they wish, and see the consensus crystalized in the relevant articles. Per the sources, panspermia is the fringe theory and pseudo-panspermia the non-fringe one. If this turned your prior understanding on its head, that's not a problem with FTN but with published knowledge itself. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources, panspermia is the fringe theory and pseudo-panspermia the non-fringe one. If this turned your prior understanding on its head, that's not a problem with FTN
I’m a WP:SME in meteorites. There’s a reason I was easily able to provide a huge pile of sources disagreeing with the characterization on Wikipedia, and it’s not because I’m WP:PROFRINGE trying to pick sources to soften the stance on the absurd panspermia fringe theory.
At no level do I expect anyone here to take my SME perspective on this (hello, Essjay controversy), but I do expect self-described skeptics to re-evaluate a previously held stance in the face of evidence, which didn’t happen and that’s one of the issues I see with FTN. FTN is mistaken in their assessment of this and I was able to provide plenty of sources, but that didn’t matter, which strongly informs my perspective of FTN as engaged in WP:POV editing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. What relevance do these differences of opinion have to Wikipedia policy? MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, without me even commenting on this vote going on, it keeps getting presented as an unsubstantiated personal crusade on my part rather than any sort of genuine concern and good faith attempt to address that, and the above example is a pretty good one for FTN rejecting sources that counter a specific anti-fringe POV being used to edit even when nobody, at all, is taking a WP:PROFRINGE perspective.
But broadly you’re right, and it’s clear this proposal is going nowhere. I hope that nobody’s taking some of the above characterizations uncritically at face value. I’m going to make a sincere effort to disengage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been loosely following the discussion and have reread it, I'm not ready to enter a comment yet but my initial impression is that there isn't a sufficient case for such a drastic action. I'm not really seeing much evidence that this is definitely a systemic issue vs one of a few users, if any. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coherent case. As the OP admitted, this should have been at WP:ANI because it's really a complaint about users. Just not delivered in an up-front way. This ruse is probably the root of this entire mess because some users have become confused into believing it was ever about genuine issues with FTN/FRINGE themselves. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this ruse
You seem incapable of engaging with this thread, from the start, without accusing me of a secret agenda, engaging in ruses, having an axe to grind with specific editors, and engaging in WP:PROFRINGE behaviour. You’re beyond out of line here, Bon, and if you’re not actually going to read the discussion you’re engaging with without passing it through a conspiratorial lens then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your own approach. You’ve constantly misrepresented arguments, decided it’s acceptable to cast me as some lying pro-fringe editor trying to sidestep normal pathways of dealing with issues, and engaged in strawman after strawman. The reason this entire thread has been derailed away from any discussion about the topic raised is partially because you showed up accusing me of an agenda from the very first reply you made and wildly misrepresented the entire thing from that first post, and you continue to do so.
Knock off the aspersions Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an aspersion. I'm criticising you specifically for couching what you have admitted is an ANI/user issue in opaque complaints about an entire noticeboard. Predictably, this has caused a big old mess. Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said specific behavior, which is recurring from a large number of users, was the impulse for a policy discussion about something that was leading to those behaviours. As @Hydrangeans agreed, it’s reasonable to want to seek a resolution outside of sanctions. You then extrapolated the discussion to be “that’s what this is exclusively about” and have refused to budge from a position of accusing me of lying about my motivations for the VPP thread repeatedly, ignoring the entire context of the statement you’re repeating like some kind of spell that shows I’m engaging with this whole process nefariously. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "lying". I think you're wrong on the facts and damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach. Anyway, we shall see from the RfC how convinced the community is. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the discussion you're referencing is difficult to parse in terms of understanding why this RfC is up. Your last comment there was..."Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes." DN (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious problem with noticeboards is canvassing, where members feel emboldened to skirt civility because there is a group of like minded supporters to dog whistle for help. The noticeboard should be held to higher standards of civility, and have a lower bar for sanctions. Society works this way, positions of public trust (politicians, police, teachers) can get hit hard when they cross a line. The fringe group have a responsibility to behave well, or else; just because the other person has a fringe view is not a reason to act like a jerk. What we need is a noticeboard guideline and set of rules so members understand the issues with noticeboards and best practices. -- GreenC 06:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's practically impossible to WP:CANVAS at noticeboards, as they are so well watched. Calling for assistance is often the point. BLP questions? Ask at BLPN; original research issues? NORN; questions of FRINGE? FTN. Most fringe topics are WP:CTOPS so realistically editors are already on notice to be on best behaviour. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for assistance is often the point, you can call that canvassing, or "assistance", whatever you like. Noticeboards can and often do become a place to "call for assistance" ie. getting like-minded people to help you in a dispute. Anyone who denies that is not being honest. I've done it, I've seen others do it, it's very common. Since we believe we are doing it for a higher cause, and believe we are right, most people won't even recognize it as a problem, rather see it as doing the right thing. It's human nature to collaborate towards a goal, it should not be avoided. But it can be regulated through guidelines. Noticeboards are different from normal random editor involvement in a page. -- GreenC 14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Getting more eyes via an appropriate noticeboard is a way to widen and deepen consensus and helps the Project. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant and all that. Of course editors hate in when they "lose" because of extra transparency over a particular point of contention. Some of them might even bear grudges: some people hate "FTN"; some people hate admins; some people even hate Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is how neutral the notice is, not the notice itself. Otherwise notification of any project (literally a group of editors all interested in the same subject) would be canvassing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above, people accuse FTN of being Wikiproject Skepticism. But I'm more religious studies and anthropology, and I find articles I can improve and expand via FTN. Just merging it into NPOVN would make it harder for me to spot where I can be of use. Isn't there some technical way we can keep FTN separate, but also transclude it on to NPOVN so people there see it? Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "merge noticeboards" idea just sounds like a kind of punishment beating fantasy to teach "FTN" a lesson. It wouldn't achieve anything to change the work being done, just make a bigger more unwieldy noticeboard with editors being bothered with more threads they aren't interested in (already a problem when watching most noticeboards). Hell - why not merge all the noticeboards into one? Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Feoffer Well people and sources that are related to "skepticism" (the community/discipline/whathaveyou, not the general concept of skepticism) have been interested in topics that relate to anthropology and religion, so I don't really think that defeats the charge of being more-or-less WikiProject Skepticism. I understand its usefulness - despite almost never contributing, I find it to be an interesting place to find topics I would want to work on/would be able to improve - once it's been a month and the topic has been archived so I don't have to deal with what comes with posting on the noticeboard. The problem is the board shares a very specific hyperskeptic POV that conflicts badly with many topics and is often unnecessarily hostile, which leads to canvassing. When raising an article there the problem is often solved, and several more are introduced. Or at least how that's how I feel from lurking on the board.
I'm well aware that merging into NPOVN won't actually happen despite voting for it, but I considered saying that less waffling then hey, it probably shouldn't be deleted but something has to be done about how this works in practice but I know nothing will ever be done PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of "a very specific hyperskeptic POV"? Here are a few instances of the neologism, but none seem to match the positions of those I see active at FTN, so I would like to understand what you mean by the term. jps (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස I mean people who take a hardline stance on many of the issues and interests associated with "skepticism", to the point of being hostile/aggressive and accusing people of pushing fringe when they are not, or labeling things as fringe or debunked more aggressively than they are in the actual literature (someone made a very good post about this before but I cannot find it).
Often, people are actually pushing fringe and it's fine but sometimes an issue is not so clear cut and everyone has blown it up out of proportion and then the article is unbalanced. In fairness that is not exclusive to the fringe board. I was not using the word "hyperskeptic" as a conscious neologism, merely referring to people who are well, hyper-skeptical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "accusing people of pushing fringe when they are not" mean? How does one objectively determine that this has happened? I, for one, have always argued that people can be WP:PROFRINGE without necessarily believing the fringe theory being promoted. Devil's advocates exist, for example, and if the actions of an account are functionally equivalent to promoting a fringe theory, I do not shy away from pointing that out. Does that make me a hyperskeptic? If so, where do you draw the line? jps (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස "Pushing fringe when they are not" means, to me, accusing someone of pushing fringe when the relevant consensus is not actually deeming that belief fringe; being the minority view, for example, is not strictly fringe. Over correction. As to how one can tell I don't know, I'm not pointing out any individual's behavior (or I would have taken it to ANI), more the pattern I have noticed over time looking at the noticeboard. I don't know you or the way you edit, as I have not watched your edits.
Also why would someone promote a theory they themself do not believe in/get material gain from? I don't get what you mean in that sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the attempt to decide whether a belief is "strictly fringe" or not is perhaps taking Wikipedianisms too far. Surely there is a spectrum of consensus understanding and there is also a contextual basis for an argument. Trying to decide that an idea is being called fringe when it isn't strikes me as an endeavor that is just not well-posed.
The reason people do it can be for a lot of reasons, but out of a sort of sense of justice or support for the underdog, I have seen people make arguments here that Wikipedia has been overly mean to this-or-that fringe group. What sticks most in my head were some now long-gone admins who policed the biographies of climate change deniers some 15 years ago or so. jps (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a spectrum of consensus, so it doesn't have to be 100% declared that as long as it is generally accepted to be, but the problem I find is that the board sometimes overreacts and declares things much more fringe than they actually are, out of proportion. If it is in proportion it is fine.
As to the second point, fair enough makes enough sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble I have with this kind of complaint about "out of proportion" reactions is that it requires judging what exactly that "proportion" should be. That's where WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA come into play, but this seems a more behavioral/cultural matter that is unrelated to the existence of a noticeboard or a content guideline. jps (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think it's fair to judge if posting things on a noticeboard often gives a result that has a specific tilt one way, that posting your concern somewhere else would not have. You could take the same exact issue to NPOVN or FTN - as it is in the scope of both, and have two completely contradictory proposed solutions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the board sometimes overreacts and declares things much more fringe than they actually are, out of proportion Not to be overly dense, but do you have any specific examples of that behavior from FTN that you can share here? Any diffs? If fringe claims are supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources but are nonetheless dismissed as a matter of course at that noticeboard, then a broad-stroke criticism about "out of proportion reactions" might have merit. But without such evidence... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In sceptic discourse elsewhere I've seen people accused of "promoting pseudoscience" because they wished to discuss something (reflexology in this instance) with more nuance than ridiculing the whole thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What nuance do you think is appropriate to apply to reflexology? Genuinely curious. jps (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing that some people are willing to throw around the word 'hyperskeptical' but as yet the concept of 'hypercredulous' hasn't been put on the table in this discussion. Bon courage (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people accused of "promoting pseudoscience" because they wished to discuss something (reflexology in this instance) with more nuance Because we are still discussing FTN (I think), I do not recall any such discussion there, but my memory is not exactly fabulous. In any case, I am unaware of any discussions - or sceptic discourse if you prefer - at FTN where "nuance," if supported by independent, secondary sources, has resulted in people being accused of "promoting pseudoscience." Perhaps some diffs would be in order, as I might be wrong about that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reflexology discussion was several years ago not on Wikipedia so I cannot give you diffs of it. From memory the nuance sought was something along the lines that the act of massaging the feet can have benefits to the feet and things that help you relax can be good for overall health so even if the claims about massaging a specific part of the foot curing an ailment in some other part of the body are rubbish (my gut feeling is they probably are, but I've not looked), ridiculing the whole thing as useless/harmful (I can't remember which it was) was too blunt. They were accused of trying to promote reflexology, of believing in pseudoscience, etc. for those comments. I've seen similar sorts of attitudes from some editors at FTN in the past (not related to Reflexology, I don't think I've ever read a discussion about that on Wikipedia, it's been a good couple of years at least since I've even read our article about it). I can't point to anything specific without doing research I haven't got time to do right now, but I'm clearly not alone in getting these sorts of feelings about the noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But when it comes to justifications for disbanding a noticeboard and/or a content guideline, vague feelings are really thin soup. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will freely admit that people have less than warm feelings about the noticeboard. But I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing.
What you have reminded me of is a similar slate of complaints about the way certain subjects were described. The argument goes, "Even if proponents sometimes employ pseudoscientific arguments and the system itself lacks evidence for efficacy, if the practice or belief is mostly harmless, then why beat people over the head with the lack of evidence or labeling it with derisive labels?"
I think the problem with this kind of accommodationist approach is that it can easily slip into a kind of dishonesty in presentation. This is the fundamental friction that happens with the question of how one approaches these subjects stylistically.
jps (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who occasionally reads and comments on the board I'm not a 'skeptic', let alone a 'hyperskeptic'. This again appears to be about individual behaviour not the board, behavioural issues should be handled at ANI or ARBCom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying everyone who has ever posted there has that point of view, but relative to other places on the project it is tilted a certain way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, do you have any actual evidence (that is, diffs) to support your broad - and vaguely aspersional - claim that "[FTN and editors who comment therein are] tilted a certain way," a "tilt" that makes it unworthy of retention? Anything at all? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the endless "notifying projects is canvassing" discussions (it's not). A noticeboard isn't a private off-site group, anyone can post there or watchlist it, so closing it wouldn't change the behaviour you're concerned about. There are routes for dealing with behavioural issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1252317411"