Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BB

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Systemic bias issue

There is currently an article renaming debate at Talk:Port Arthur massacre which raises important policy issues related to systemic bias. The facts in brief: the article Port Arthur massacre deals with a mass shooting which took place in Australia in 1996 and in which 35 people died, while Port Arthur massacre (1894) was an event in China in 1894 during th Sino-Japanese war in which 20,000 people are believed to have died.

It has been suggested that there should be a disambiguation page instead of the current preference given to the recent Australian event. I have argued on Talk:Port Arthur massacre that in determining whether one event is the primary topic according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, an attempt should be made to compensate for the effect of bias, namely:

  • One of the arguments was that Port Arthur massacre, in the sense of the Australian event, is linked to more often within Wikipedia. However, this is likely due to the fact that there is a systemic bias (see WP:BIAS) due to the demographic makeup of Wikipedia editors, and events related to English-speaking countries, especially recent ones (see WP:Recentism), are more likely to be mentioned.
  • Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that in determining whether there is a primary topic, the basic criterion is which topic is more likely to be searched for by readers. Because Wikipedia's readers are largely English-speaking, and their interests are also weighted towards recent events, perhaps more than Wikipedia's view should be, it is plausible that they would much more frequently be searching for the Australian event.

However, I believe it is not desirable for Wikipedia to hold absolutely to this criterion in determining the primary topic. For example, to take an extreme case, if it were found that two women had the same name, one the governor of a province of China, and the other a pornographic actress in the U.S., should readers' bias in favour of English-speaking popular culture be respected? In articles where there are a number of paragraphs dealing with a topic in various countries, I believe it is acknowledged that the paragraph on China should, if editors are capable of writing it, be at least as long as the one on the United States, despite readers' perhaps greater interest in the United States because of their demographic makeup. I believe the same should apply to dismbiguation.

On Talk:Port Arthur massacre the objection was made that Wikipedia:Naming conventions calls for preferring names which "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". However, I believe that accepting this argument would be a serious misapplication of the principle. I believe this principle is intended to determine which name should be given to a topic, when there is a choice between different names. For example, it makes sense to name the article Florence rather than Firenze.

However, in the present case, the name most easily recognized by English-speakers, in both cases, is "Port Arthur massacre". I believe that the WP:NAME rule addresses a different issue than WP:DISAMBIG and does not apply by asking, "What do you think of first when you hear 'Port Arthur massacre'?" but rather, "What do you call this?" Of course, in determining the primary topic under WP:DISAMBIG, the first question is paramount, but there is nothing privileging English-speakers in asking it, since it is comparing topics and not names for them. Therefore, I believe all the concerns about systemic bias must be addressed.

Any feedback here and at Talk:Port Arthur massacre would be appreciated. Joeldl 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't have a strongly held opinion. (This issue is not a big deal anyway, so why should I?) I generally subscribe to the utilitarian school of thought. If more than 80% of incoming links are to the Australia article, then that should be the primary holder of the name, based on the goal of avoiding links to disambiguation pages.

However, I make an exception when giving priority to an individual article is patently inappropriate. I briefly tried to sort through the hundreds of incoming links to Georgia, which is a disambiguation page. Its two primary meanings, of course, are the US state and the European republic. This duality has given the category people all sorts of headaches. I noticed that a solid majority of incoming links were to the US state, and almost none were to the republic. Should that mean that Georgia becomes the article name for the US state, and Georgia (republic) is deprecated? No, that's ridiculous. You can't say that the state is more important than the republic - at best, their importance is about equal. So the situation remains as it is.

The same logic might apply in your case. I don't know. YechielMan 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the example of Georgia. That's a good argument for me. Joeldl 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It is. There's still a disconnect between the WP:D guidelines which are centered around "primacy" (which is not identical with "importance"). I think the Georgia example is a good one for changing the dab naming conventions. Under the current guidelines, I would still say that the less-important-but-more-recent Port Arthur massacre has primacy over the older, greater-in-magnitude one. (Speaking as one who knew nothing of either massacre before this discussion.) -- JHunterJ 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, shamefacedly, admit that, although I am aware of the incident in Australia, I know none of the details, and was not even aware that it was called "Port Arthur massacre". The only one I would have thought of would be the one in China. Corvus cornix 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, your likelihood of knowing the details of the Australia event is likely to depend on whether you're Australian, I suppose. I hadn't heard of the Australian massacre at all, but I have no reason to doubt what was stated by the pro-1996 side about internal links. I'm sure it would be helpful for you to add your comments there. I posted here because I also wanted input on the policy issue. But I do find it a bit shocking considering the disparity in death toll. Joeldl 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the major issue is the mentality that determining "Primary Topic" has to be like a prize fight with one declare "winner" holding the crown. We need a culture shift that favors elevating disambiguation pages to primary topic when there are other significant topics that share the same name. I do think systematic bias plays a large roles in this "Primary Topic" prize fights and the Port Arthur Massacre debate is a pretty compelling example of that. AgneCheese/Wine 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's another case. A month or so back I caught flack for pointing MSX to a disambig page instead of to the article on the computer architecture. The fact is that it had little penetration in the USA, so I'd never heard of it. However, I had heard of MSX as an oyster disease. If you're concerned about oysters and the Atlantic, you know about it. I threw in the towel because it was obvious that Wikipedia was always going to have more non-USA computer geeks than American/European oyster connoisseurs, and I'm unwilling to stand guard over an article that way. But in the end it's really kind of hard to say that one spot or the other should be primary. (MSX the disease doesn't have its own article, but mostly because I'm a rabid deletionist.) I think we need to have more of a bias against picking one article as the main, because the test for which is better known is so patently parochial. Mangoe 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess there are two questions then. The first is, where do you draw the line. If we just took internal links, google hits, etc., this could practically be made quantitative, which is attractive. On the other hand, these results are biased. That brings me to the second question. Should we try to compensate for bias? In your case, it was a pro-technology bias. There is nothing that says you should try to discount bias in the wording of WP:DISAMBIG. One contributor above believes this is appropriate because disambiguation pages serve a utilitarian purpose, so we shouldn't get caught up in the symbolism of placing one topic higher than another, and the readers and editors are who they are. I think that the symbolic value is important though, in much the same way that there are detailed rules to manage -ize and -ise spellings for purely symbolic reasons. Anyway, in this case, I guess it was something about the gravity of the 20,000 deaths that made me feel practically as if we weren't respecting them. Maybe I am too caught up in the "prize fight" aspect of it. I wonder if non-contributing readers really care. Joeldl 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think that most non-contributing readers don't, and most non-involved editors. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so the casual reader will not always be faced with the choices before finding the example they are looking for. Even when there is a sizable preference for one similarly named article over another with the readership of WP there are going to be many who will not find what they are looking for, and not everyone is going to bother with the choice of using the disamb function. I am a fan of disambiguation pages; and would prefer that in all but the most obvious cases that it was the default result. Of course, the yardstick of most obvious would be a constant point of debate. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew some of the details of the Australian event and would probably recognise the name. Although I currently live in New Zealand and this event occured while I was in Malaysia and I probably would have recognised it has I stayed in Malaysia. But I don't think I'd ever heard of the Chinese event before today altho I was aware that there were some horrible atrocities during the Sino-Japanese war Nil Einne 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia needs to be objective, and the massacre in which 20,000 people died is clearly more important in a global and historical perspective, even if it is less interesting to Wikipedia editors. It is really rather crass to give the Australian article priority. Aviara 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not always numbers that makes an event more, less or the same in notability. The consequences of an event may impinge more upon contemporary culture, or the cultures of the relevant peoples. The Sino-Japanese War incident was one of many that, although reprehensible, was indicative of the attitudes and conduct of that war. It was not a particularly rare type of atrocity, although larger in scale than others. The Australian massacre, while very much smaller in scale and death count, did very much effect the perceptions that Australians and non Australians had of their culture, being an event almost without precedent. In how the consequences of either single event effected the course of history the perception of notability changes. It isn't simply a bodycount. LessHeard vanU 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think an objective measure might be whether in a French or German world history textbook one was mentioned and not the other. The current effect of the Australian event, would, I imagine, be confined to the issue of gun control in Australia, and will likely not be remembered a century from now. If it is mentioned anywhere, it will be in textbooks on the history of Australia and not in world history ones. The other event, though, might still have a significant effect on China-Japan relations, not to mention that the death of 20,000 people is, by itself, a significant "effect". Joeldl 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I for one support the we should consider 'importance'/notability not just wiki links view. This issue in fact comes up in the Bill O'Reilly move debates. All of them have so far come out in support of maintaning the disambig because both people have a relatively high level of importance/notability even if one of them get's a lot more links because he's a recent extremely controversial American commentator rather then an older cricketer Nil Einne 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think calling the Chinese event "Port Arthur" anything is a sign of systemic bias in itself. The region was called Port Arthur for about 45 years, and not called that by either the Chinese or Japanese. Perhaps it should be Lüshunkou Massacre.

Also these are different types of event, and not directly comparable. The Tasmanian event was the second largest massacre by one person using only a gun, and the largest by one person in the last 20 years, and ever in Australia. The Chinese event was, sadly, only one of a series of similar events in the Sino-Japanese conflict, and not particularly notable amongst the many similar massacres by armed forces of many nations. Gee, I can hardly believe I am talking about the death of 20000 people that way, but that is the reality. --Michael Johnson 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the appropriate name is the one that is most common in academic writing in English. Academics, in their choice of name, could be expected to take into account both bias and recognizability issues in the name they choose for it. It seems "Port Arthur" is at least common, judging by the references in the article. You are correct that the higher body count in the Chinese event doesn't make it 500 times as important, because they are different kinds of event. But the number of people who died is a big factor. Joeldl 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect this but I just remembered something else which hopefully puts to rest the 'links more' argument. There was once a move request for Java with the argument the programming language was at least as common looked at as the island. From a simple comparison Java (programming language) appears to definitely have more links then Java (the island). (although this includes user pages and talk pages and the like, based on the fact that the first 1500 links seem to be mostly free of talk and user pages and there are only about 750 links in total to Java I'm pretty sure that the programming language has more links from articles). Hopefully though, most people here would agree with the consensus in the move debate that there is no way we we should give the programing language equal or more precedence over the island with 120 million people regardless of links. While this may be an extreme case, it does IMHO demonstrate why we definitely have to consider notability and not just the number of links in deciding what get's precendence when it comes to disambig. Edit: Actually I just noticed the Georgia issue which I missed last time which is a similar example although perhaps less extreme Nil Einne 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for resurrecting same, as I can now comment on a thought I had after I considered the matter closed.
The Sino-Japanese massacre was a notable incident within a notable conflict. The Tasmanian massacre is a stand alone notable incident. The Sino-Japanese massacre can also be found from references within other related articles, while the Tasmanian massacre would be only found via itself, or the Port Arthur, Tasmania article. As the latter incident has the fewer links it should be more prominent in the search function. LessHeard vanU 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT and WP:USER - Personal images and code on user pages

There has been a large number of images which people have uploaded to use on their userpages. I am talking about images of themselves and banners featuring their name, which are being nominated for being (and I quote) unencyclopedic, though they are freely licensed for use within Wikipedia and/or the various other Wikimedia projects. There has also been discussion in the past to disencourage uploading of pictures on user pages as they may violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Now, I do agree that non-free images should not be placed on user pages (which is covered by WP:USER).

This may also extend to the use of complex Wikitext and HTML coding that is used on user pages which are used to enhance the look of user pages (guilty as charged there). I'm not in favour of removing code from user pages, but the same old "it could be time spent improving the encyclopedia" always seems to crop up when this sort of thing is discussed.

A previous speedy deletion for a part of Esperanza which encouraged the decoration of user pages with awards was discussed here: [1].

This discussion would also cover the excellent user page award barnstar.

Examples of images and code used on user pages can be seen here: User:The Transhumanist/User page design/Hall of Fame.

Should there now be consensus that making user pages look pretty using code and using free images for personal use on a user page only be greatly disencouraged, as would be covered by WP:NOT#SOCIALNET and WP:USER? --tgheretford (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I was invited to participate in this discussion. I have been nominating a number of images on IFD and using the phrase "unencyclopedic personal photo" so i think that i am at least one of the people this discussion is targeted at. I will say that I have only been nominating images for deletion under this phrase that are also orphans. I have no issue with people having images of themselves, pets, family trips, self drawn graphics, banners etc on their user page. My issue is removing images that will not serve any encyclopedic use that have become orphans. Given that it is likely 99% of all users here would fail to meet the critera set out in WP:BIO, an orphaned image of you in your livingroom is not really encyclopedic. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no objection to a peerson having a single image on his or her user page. While excessive social networking is a bad idea, it is desireable to help remind people that the editors of wikipedia are people, note merely words on a screen. In fact I supported such images when used under a more restricted license, and my image was so used for a long time, but consensus changed on that issue. DES (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I always thought WP:BIO only applied to articles (and indeed) images in article namespace, or have I been away on Wikibreak for too long? --tgheretford (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think what was meant was that since the user isn't using the image anymore (it's an orphan), and nobody else will end up using the image (the user doesn't meet WP:BIO), then the image should be deleted. Sancho 15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, a personal photo is ok. But if they start making their user pages look "too good" and bloggy, then some line has been crossed. Although it could be just me that think "simple" is beautiful. --Kylohk 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Is there a guideline or policy on length of plot summaries? I've looked at the relevant bits of WP:NOT and WP:WAF but they're both a bit vague. There's a debate about this here. Totnesmartin 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:FICT although you won't find a fixed "no more than X words" suggestion three, either. DES (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Avoid "play-by-play" level of details. Focus on what you need to give basic background and to aid the article's real-world information sections. Additional general summary might be appropriate for fiction with large cultural significance/impact like Shakespeare, Superman, NedBoy. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked into that before, here's one discussion I found. Quadzilla99 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Never found anything definitive or concrete though. Quadzilla99 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it still helps. thanks. I'll point the WPers at this section. Totnesmartin 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say three to four paragraphs at most (and that would be for a long novel with an intricate plot like Bleak House or some sort of epic miniseries). Shorter texts should receive shorter summaries. The problem with most of the plot summaries that I have seen on wikipedia (and I have looked at a lot since I specialize in literature) is that they try to retell the entire story in order. Plot summaries do not have to retell every subplot or follow the order of the original text. Wikipedia's pages on "classic" works, especially, should not begin to resemble sparknotes with a blow-by-blow account of the text. Film pages and TV episode pages often begin to resemble fan sites, in my opinion, when they meticulously relate every detail of a plot. I love Star Trek as much as the next person, but there are trekkie sites that fulfill that purpose and an encyclopedia is not the place for it. Oftentimes, relevant plot points or character descriptions (another thing that should go - character lists!) will enter into discussions of the text's or film's themes. Awadewit 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Awadewit, but I doubt we'll ever see this put in play: there are too many new Wikipedians, eager to show their ability, who don't understand the virtue of economy & swamp the article with too much information. There's the same problem with multiple links to the same article; I guess some writers feel doing this emphasizes the importance of the subject. And if we make it a rule (e.g., "No plot summary will be more than 4 paragraphs"), some Wikipedians will feel called on to enforce that rule, even to the detriment of the article. If you have a simpler solution than to educate each new Wikipedian as this matter comes up, I'd be glad to hear it. -- llywrch 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to work the 3-4 paragraph suggestion into the new style guidelines at the novel project right now. You might consider taking a look at the discussion I am involved in regarding the novel template, which deals with some of these issues here. Those are some of the things I'm doing. Whenever I peer review, GAC review or FAC review, I try to encourage economy as well. I'm afraid those are small steps, but the more people I can make aware of this problem, I feel, the better. Do you have any additional suggestions? Awadewit 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
good luck, but WP:FILM is working against you in that case - they recommend 1000 words, more if the plot is "complex". of course, every fan of a film thinks *their* fave film is highly complex and requires detailed explanations of each and every moment (see the lengthy star wars articles) so they will usually be longer - the point where the entire articles dominated by the plot summary.
to compound things, there will usually be other sections ("Cast" or "Characters" for instance) which merely serve as repositories to dump even more plot information ("Mark Hammill as Luke Skywalker, he was born on Coruscant, and raised by his uncle as a farmhand, where he built two robot companions and learnt laser-shooting in the desert..." etc etc).
This finally leads to an entirely "superficial" article which does little more than explain the film to someone who hasnt seen it. Chuck in a few review extracts from metacritic.com, a trivia section copy&pasted from IMDB, and a couple of sentences from the dvd audio commentary and the HBO "making of" special, and you have a featured article.
The best place to discuss this further would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. 86.31.103.208 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
When I submitted Kung Fu Hustle for assessment, the reviewer stated that the optimal word count should be around 900. A technique will be to split the detailed stuff over several sections. For instance, you can add some important story elements in the Characters section, and make things concise and precise in the plot.--Kylohk 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BRFA appeal

Hi - could anybody interested please take a look at this appeal of the close of a BRFA. Please read the archived discussion on the page for the background to the task, and make your opinion known in the !appeal! section :). I plan to close the discussion when a consensus emerges, or when an appropraitwe period of time elapses. Thanks, Martinp23 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists and NPOV

There is a vigorous debate on the issue of difficult lists in Wikipedia as it pertains to maintaining NPOV and not only verifiability. If interested, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#The_difficulty_with_Lists_in_WP_needs_to_be_addressed

The discussion is based on this disputed addition to the guideline: Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_and_NPOV

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Educational Version

I am a teacher for Mesa Public Schools, a school district with 73,000 students in Arizona. All images have now been blocked by our district because of the avilability of images in certain articles that the district is legally obligated to block. Because Wikipedia does not currently have an adequate system for categorizing images and articles that public school districts have to block, all Wikipedia images are no longer available to me and my students. I find Wikipedia so valuable for me and my students, and the restrictions that the school district has place on the site are devestating. Why doesn't Wikipedia set things up so that those articles and images are placed in a category so that schools can easily block them? I talked to an IT guy in the district and they did not make the decision to block Wikipedia lightly (they have been considering it since November). Unfortuntely, they could be held leaglly liable if they do not block those images. Because of the way images are currently stored on Wikipedia (with no categories), the district has been forced to block all Wikipedia images. Is there anything that can be done? Wikipedia is losing about 100,000 potential users in this district alone because of this. --L'Ascolano 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed often enough, but the problem is that it would be impossible to correctly categorize the images. people will always severely differ in opinion, which will lead to endless discussions. It's just too difficult and we could never give guarentees about the correctness of the "classification", so it's usefullness is limited. Add to this the differences that exist between the different regions in the world about these kinds of laws, and it is simply something that people will have to live with. Also, we always try to use such images extremely carefully within the article content. Making sure that each and every images maximizes educational value. I doubt anything to this regard will change any time soon. Note that there is http://simple.wikipedia.org which might be a good alternative for you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For young kids, I'd recommend the 2006 SOS Kids release - a selected 2000 articles and 8000 images aiming at being child friendly. You could also view it directly online here. Does this help? JoeSmack Talk 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Murder vs killing

There seems to be a bizarre NPOV inconsistency being raised over articles relating to people killed in Ireland. There are (1) victims of IRA / PIRA such as 86 year old Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet and James Stronge; (2) victims of Loyalists such as Pat Finucane (solicitor), (3) “victims” of the British army such as Kieran Fleming; and (4) suicides such as Bobby Sands. There is a vocal and persistent lobby which is pro Irish Republican, many of whom belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism, which argues (I think) that a death is a killing until somebody is found guilty of murder even when that killing is generally defined and established as murder by law and in the international press. That lobby argues that the phrase “member of the IRA” should read “member (Volunteer) in the IRA” although this is not the consensus reached to date – the consensus was “member” on the first mention and volunteer on a subsequent occasion. They also argue that Northern Ireland should not be depicted with any flag even though the other constituent countries of UK enjoy flags; a different perspective is that the last flag used by the province should be depicted for consistency. Passions run high on both sides of the argument, many leaning heavily on WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any event, a discussion would be helpful as to when the word “murder” is appropriate, with a view to achieving some sort of consistency. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What Kittybrewster has said is true, but if we could keep the discussion to an attempt to formulate a policy on the murder/killing issue. The victims of the Virginia Tech killings were murdered, although the murderer can't be found guilty as he's dead! Would those who disagree Sir Norman was murdered agree with me?--Counter-revolutionary 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • All we need is Mr. Lauder and we will have the set of monarchists who have been invloved in !vote rigging, ALWAYS vote in "lock step" as one admin put it and vote in a "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT" manner. Pretty much everything your mate Kitty stated is incorrect and the rest make no sense so I cant make out if its correct or not.--Vintagekits 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is nothing but a distortion of the facts. The assassination of Stronge was described as "killing" after a lengthy and protracted discussion, including the insertion of this reactions section which states which media outlets called it murder. Nothing similar exists on the Pat Finucane article as I have pointed out on the talk page, so changing "murder" to "killing" without including a similar section while claiming something like "the Stronge page says killing" is not the same at all. With regard to "victims" of the British Army perhaps you should mention Séamus McElwaine, unlawfully killed by members of the SAS 5 minutes after he was wounded and captured, or countless others who were found to be unlawfully killed in courts of law? One Night In Hackney303 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as an American, I'm pretty impartial to the IRA/UK issue so here is my thought. Murder is a fully charge and POV loaded word and should be avoid if it can be. However if the independent third party reliable sources (in this case international newspaper that are not Irish or British) overwhelming use the word to describe the event then that is what should be used in the article. AgneCheese/Wine 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to avoid should address this (and will as soon as I finish here) - "murder" should be avoided unless a conviction has been rendered, or a coroner/other official has used the word. In rare cases, media consensus could override this, but I am leery of that slippery slope. This came up with Rigoberto Alpizar last year. -- nae'blis 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment as an American - Minor point, but some American citizens were happy to fund various organisations in NI, even when those organisations were declared illegal terrorist groups. —comment added by DanBeale(t/c) 13:34, April 24, 2007
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter! Are all Americans in Iraq terrorists?--Vintagekits 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Bringing this up in response to Agne's comment is damn near a personal attack. Please clarify, rephrase, or redact your statement, as it seems orthogonal to the discussion at hand. -- nae'blis 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Agne said "as an American, I'm pretty impartial to the IRA/UK issue" - I pointed out that it's a non-sequitur. Lots of Americans were funding paramilitary groups -on both sides- in NI. I have no idea how you think that's a personal attack. Dan Beale 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


The above points were broadly the same as mine with regards to the Finucane debate. A man was convicted of his murder, and as I pointed out on the talk page therefore it would be a simple matter to provide a plethora of independent sources that also used the term. Nobody chose to dispute this, otherwise I would have happily provided them. One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because the murderer isn't caught it does not mean a murder didn't take place! That's absurd! --Counter-revolutionary 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is surely true. Rigoberto Alpizar seems similar to Seán Savage, in that both were killed by authorised government approved people - and therefore the term murder is inappropriate for them. I have no difficulty in perceiving the killing of the Strongs father and son as murder in that it was unlawful, intentional killing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case I'm not sure if you understand NPOV that well. We go by what sources say, not personal opinion. One Night In Hackney303 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources - yes of course. Also natural use of language. In the case of Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet there has been rejection by the likes of Vintagekits of the word murder in the lead section, notwithstanding the fact that reliable sources say:
The killing was called murder by multiple media sources including The Daily Telegraph, The Scotsman, The New York Times and Time magazine and also by the Rev. Ian Paisley in the House of Commons and by Lord Cooke of Islandreagh in the House of Lords.[1]
Sir Norman was described at the time of his death by Social Democratic and Labour Party politician Austin Currie as having been "even at 86 years of age... still incomparably more of a man than the cowardly dregs of humanity who ended his life in this barbaric way."<:ref>In the Shadow of the GunmenTime Magazine<:/ref>
Tim Pat Coogan stated in The Green Book: I, "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics" <:ref>"The Green Book: I" from 'The IRA' by Tim Pat Coogan (1993)<:/ref>. The IRA were quoted in The Times: "This deliberate attack on the symbols of hated unionism was a direct reprisal for a whole series of loyalist assassinations and murder attacks on nationalist peoples and nationalist activities." <:ref>Christopher Thomas, "Ex-Speaker killed by IRA as reprisal", The Times, 23 January, 1981.<:/ref> (The statement did not claim any direct connection between the Stronges and the alleged loyalist killings.)
- Kittybrewster (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The politically motivated killing of a rampant bigot during the middle of a war when Catholic civilians were being murdered in their 100's is not murder in my book.--Vintagekits 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats your whole problem, you dont care what editors who disagree with you say - hence you POV editing. Stronge was killed because of his bad dress sense it was because he front a bigoted rabble akin to the KKK.--Vintagekits 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To me POV is saying, as you did, The politically motivated killing of a rampant bigot during the middle of a war when Catholic civilians were being murdered in their 100's is not murder in my book. It is NOT POV for me to say we care about ref. sources. You defamatory comments also show your PoV.--Counter-revolutionary 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and where his murderers not members of the IRA (a proscribed organisation - within the UK, which, in case you forgot, includes Northern Ireland), who took no regret in murdering an 86 year old man with high-velocity weapons and then bombing his home? --Counter-revolutionary 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The motivation of certain people is becoming more and more apparent. One Night In Hackney303 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my motivation is to express FACT. You'd do well to remember what the facts are. --Counter-revolutionary 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's why you changed the word "murdered" to "killed" on Pat Finucane then, given he was an unarmed man shot 14 times in his own home in front of his family? One Night In Hackney303 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I made it clear on the Talk page that I did that to provoke this discussion. I consider that murder too. --Counter-revolutionary 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So you deliberately breached WP:POINT and expect admin to ignore that?--Vintagekits 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes obviously. Is membership of the Orange Order justification for unlawful murder of an 86 year old? What “book” does that come from? It sounds POV to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is veering swiftly into a discussion of a single article, which should be done at that article's talk page. Issues of general concern regarding inconsistent use of the word "murder" are policy matters, the use of the word in a single article is a content matter. Please stay on topic, and civil. -- nae'blis 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Does alleged "political motivation" cause murder to become a killing? - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To lend my two cents: a rectangle is always a square; a square is not always a rectangle. Or... murder is always killing; killing is not always murder. I say that "kill" be used to remain intentionally vague, then devote a section to those supportive of the killing whom term it whatever term that side deems fit to end a person's life; and also the counter-argument which terms it murder. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I'd say we should use "murder" in the following cases:

  • Someone has been convicted of the murder.
  • A police official or coroner has ruled the death a murder.

In other cases, neutral terms such as "death" or "killing" probably are better-suited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of those are clearly WP:RS. But so are reputable sources such as "Time". Does that justify using the word in the lead section? - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If Time has reported the death as a murder, we could probably reasonably presume that they use similar standards. Unless their classification of the death as a murder is disputed by other reliable sources, yes, that would likely work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The different is that the republican movement were fighting against a state oppressor - the republican movement did not convict British army soliders for killing there members but it was the case when it was vice versa - there is lies the imbalance.--Vintagekits 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even going to begin to get into the fairness or rightness of the situation, this is not the forum in which to discuss that. While writing articles, however, we use information verifiable through reliable sources, not what we think. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that "killed" should be used in place of "murdered" or "assasinated" in all articles related to the Troubles. Inserting/removing these type of words into articles is fairly clear POV pushing on both sides. To quote WP:NPOV, views should be represented without bias and let the facts speak for themselves. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my view is that WP:RS takes priority over WP:NPOV. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade was bang on the money earlier, when he said murder should only be used if:
  • Someone has been convicted of the murder.
  • A police official or coroner has ruled the death a murder.
That makes it clear cut and narrowly defined, and doesn't allow editors any leeway to add terms based on the opinion of a mere journalist. It's quite possible to still have a reactions section as in the Stronge article. One Night In Hackney303 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I take your point, but still feel it is better to have a blanket decision that "killed" be used across the board. At the minute the Louis Mountbatten article states he was killed, despite Thomas McMahon being convicted of murder. It is the same for several other articles in Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA. These inconsistancies will creep in if we don't have a blanket decision. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've no objections to that, just that my endorsing of it might be seen as an attempt to remove murder from a lot of articles. I'm happy with "murder" under narrowly defined circumstances, or I'm happy if it's not used at all except in say a reactions section, but I'm not happy at it being used based on the opinion of a journalist. One Night In Hackney303 09:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I read "In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." I am not sure that coronors' verdicts are invariably available to editors. Natural use of language suggests that Mountbatton was [unlawfully] murdered rather than [sanitised / POV] killed. But he is a good example of edit warring resulting in POV. Why should the WP:RS not prevail as suggested by ONIH and Seraphimblade? Incidentally, I am generally finding this debate constructive and focused which is credit to all. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Acutally I find that offensive, Mountbatton was a leading military and statesman figure who was killed during a time of war - if an enemy juristrication finds a man "guilty" of "murdering" him then it is not a neutral use of the term murder, I would strongly oppose any use of the word murder when it relates to this type of situation. --Vintagekits 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the only edit warring I see on Mountbatten is in the last 10 minutes by two editors who are involved in this discussion, I'd ideally expect them to concentrate on this and see if any consensus can be reached rather than go off half-cocked. The problem with allowing "murder" based on the opinion of a journalist is the vast number of possible sources that could be used, all an editor needs to do is find one journalist who was outraged enough to use the term murder, which isn't difficult especially considering some of the right wing tabloids in the UK. That's why I think it's better off being narrowly defined. On second thoughts, I'm unsure about coroners, for the simple reason that to the best of my knowledge they don't actually return verdicts of murder, unlawful killing is the norm. One Night In Hackney303 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, articles shouldnt be changed until this is ironed out. I find it absurd that an Irish republican can be labelled a murderer by the British Government for engaging in an act of war - it goes against everything in WP:NPOV - now if the judgement was from a European court or other neutral body that it should be considered but where Irish republicans are concern the British government and it judicial system are not neutral - just ask the Guilford Four or Birmingham Six.--Vintagekits 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

  • Comment/thought: I think its good to have this debate, but couldn't we use legal precedence in defining policy? Any one who meets an end quicker than they should have at the hands of another/s is killed. Only when a court has established who did that and under what circumstances could they be defined as murdered, as there is a convicted murderer/s. I think some may be confusing police terminology, where they may declare a murder hunt, but that's police terminology/policy and not legal outcome of any resulting case which will take full precedent. The ony problem of adopting this fully would be cases of manslaughter, where the killing is unplanned, as opposed to murder where there was both motivation and an amount of planning/fore thought. In applying this proposal to the specific cases of the incidents of Northern Ireland, we could dismiss as POV in articles focusing on singular incidents/people any intentions of either side until a court/coroner had ruled which way the specific/wiki-articled incident was classified? The main/top level articles in addressing the parties involved could claim policies and intentions with suitable references; but that specific articles which relate to killings are not classified as anything else except killings until the appropriate court authority had ruled. Rgds, - Trident13 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough points made, however, British courts are not neutral - additionally we went through these arguments when Stu nominated the "Northern Irish murderers" category for deletion - Stu, have you a link to that discussion?--Vintagekits 10:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't find it, this is a related one. VK, I think it would be best if you left your views on people/incidents to yourself. They're not really relevant to these discussion or an encyclopedia in general. I'm referring to comments like "bigoted rabble akin to the KKK". Also, if someone is convicted of murder then they're convicted of murder. You could call into question any court in the world, but your views that it is illegitimate aren't relevant. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree Stu, its just when the usual moarchist editors come on and start labelling the republican side "terrorists" and "murderers" then I feel it necessary that there are two sides to every story, its kind of childish name calling I agree and thanks for the coment Stu - noted.--Vintagekits 11:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that nobody should be labelled a murderer without having been found guilty by a court of law. This discussion is about the articles on the victims or subjects of that which the law (and/or public opinion) determines to be murder. I don’t think a reputable source such as ”Time”, “The New York Herald”, “Hansard” or “The Times” would use the word “murder” inadvisedy. They are accepted by this community as WP:RS. If another RS thinks it is not murder, that fact can obviously be included in the article. I am not engaging with VK on his generalising “monarchist” comments etc; better to let him consider the moon is cheese. In the case of Lord Mountbatten I see that even the organisation responsible for the murder (INLA vs PIRA) is contested which seems to me strange. You would think there would be general acceptance as to that fact (whatever it is). - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're confusing "facts" with the opinions of journalists. One Night In Hackney303 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. I am assuming journalists words in reliable sources are checked and approved by a responsible editor. That is the process which distinguishes Time from "whatever". As you say, we rely on sources rather than opinion. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Trying to pick up the positive points of this debate, and using legal precedent as a way of defining wiki policy, each of the cases highlighted in this debate are still currently termed unlawful killings by a coroner, and are all open murder cases. The reason the journalists feel legally safe to use the term murder is that the police have already termed it a murder hunt - although its not a murder until a court has ruled it so. I don't see why we couldn't use legal precedence, and still quote journalists claiming a "murder" under WP:RS? If we were to implement this as policy, we would need to expand the article on unlawful killing, and I think add two categories - one on Unlawful killing (which articles could move from once the court had ruled), and one on open murder cases (again, moved from once court had ruled). Rgds, - Trident13 11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no legal term I can find for assassin at present under UK or USA law. Its a dictionary word used to describe a murder of a prominent figure for mainly political or sometimes financial gain. There is legal definition around the word Terrorist, and most countries have legal definitions of being a terrorsit or committing an act of terrorism. In the UK we have a law on contract murder, which may or may not involve exchange of monies/goods - but that's a charge on the contracting party, not the murderer. People who commit such acts defined journalistically as assassination would still be tried legally for murder - in some political cases, there my be an additional case of treason. Rgds, - Trident13 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says to let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that, for example, Stronge was killed. If the manner of his death is made clear, it's then up to the reader to make their own mind up. One Night In Hackney303 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that the Stronges and Mountbatten died, were unlawfully killed, were assassinated and were murdered. What is the problem with the word ”murdered” when it is reliably sourced? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a fact they were killed. Anything else is POV. One Night In Hackney303 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The killings were unlawful. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That depends on yer perspective.--Vintagekits 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. They were against the law. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unlawful killing does not equal murder though. One Night In Hackney303 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think ONIH is acknowledging the killings are unlawful. Which is step 1. Step 2 is to define the sub-branch of unlawful killing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think law schools everywhere would want you to inform them what it does mean! --Counter-revolutionary 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With pleasure! Unlawful killing does not mean murder, simple fact. One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sir Norman Stronge did not die as the result of dangerous driving!!! --Counter-revolutionary 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And now, can we please get back to a policy debate? I suggested using legal precedence as a basis for definition of wiki policy. I made a suggestion on expanding the unlawful killing article, and adding two new categories - Unlawful killing; open murder cases. I realise that when applied to certain situations such as Northern Ireland, the emotion and perspective of what is/is not fact can become difficult to debate let agree on. But we are trying to agree a clear policy. I am sure if, using an analogy, Ian Paisley can shake hands Gerry Adams, and look to the future; we can agree a better policy for the definition of terms around the difficult subject of premature death at the hands of another human being - whatever the reasons for that. Rgds, - Trident13 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have a question or two. If someone is described as being killed and it is made expressly clear how they died, do the facts speak for themselves? Does the changing of killed to murdered really matter? One Night In Hackney303 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It clearly does. If it did not, then people would not be so keen to delete the word "murdered" and replace it with "killed". Both perspectives seem to think that "killed" somehow sanitises or lessens the act. I have two questions. Do you think it matters and if so why? Do you agree the killings of the Stronges and Mountbatten were unlawful? - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer my first question, perhaps you would be so kind as to do so. Killed is a more neutral word, and so is better per WP:NPOV. My own personal opinion on the deaths of two people in a lengthy conflict is not relevant, and you also seem to be forgetting that there's another side of the coin. The lead to Séamus McElwaine currently says killed, despite the inquest returning a verdict of unlawful killing. Do you consider the shooting of an man five minutes after he had been wounded and captured to be murder? How about Bloody Sunday? Do you consider the killing of unarmed civil rights protesters to be murder? Those are purely rhetorical questions as I really don't want to get involved in a debate about the rights and wrongs of any particular incident. Killed is a more neutral word, and providing the circumstances in which a person was killed are provided the reader is able to make their own mind up. One Night In Hackney303 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Killed is an easier word to use, and seems to be better for AGF and CIVIL, as well as NPOV. Perhaps "murdered" could be kept for articles about convicted murders; "John Doe murdered " etc? Dan Beale 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I broadly agree, except I'd prefer something like "John Doe was convicted of murdering". One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, clearly the emotions expressed here in this debate, let alone anywhere else show the terms do matter. But, here's a thought following up on your "is there a difference" question/thought. If there is presently no legal conviction of a murderer, then perhaps in opening para's we should say killing or unlawful killing, depending on the current legal/coroner cases. After that in the main article, we could allow the term murder to be used IF we have either a police murder hunt under way with a reference OR three independent journalistic references complying with WP:RS. In reading some of the articles debated here, the facts in the Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet article punch through personally and I conclude it was a murder; while the Pat Finucane (solicitor) case is written as a murder article from the opening, while the facts alone would punch through as a clear murder case - but the words presently used in the article don't allow any other thoughts or conclusion, except murder. Rgds, - Trident13
Very helpful. And yes, I would say Séamus McElwaine should be changed to "unlawfully killed" based on what ONIH says. And FWIW if the statements made in the Bloody Sunday article are true then IMHO that too was unlawful killing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost here, are you proposing using "unlawfully killed" instead of "murdered"? Aren't almost all killings unlawful to begin with, so it's a bit of an unnecessary qualifier surely? One Night In Hackney303 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Stronges and Mountbatten and Finucane were surely murdered. They were unlawfully killed by non-government approved people. The Bloody Sunday victims were wrongfully killed by government soldiers; that is certainly wrong but might be lawful. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'd rather not get involved in discussions about individual examples. What are you proposing policy/guideline wise? One Night In Hackney303 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I rather agree. Trident13 seemed to be coming up with something constructive. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For clarity (1) we use legal precedence as the defining policy (2) Until a person is convicted of a murder, the article on the killing is referred to in it's intro section as a killing or unlawful killing, depending on present legal status (3) in the sub sections (which normally firstly give background on the victim, and then a portrait of the incident of killing), we use the term killing or unlawful killing UNLESS there is an ongoing and referenced police investigation under the heading Murder Hunt OR there are three journalistic references which comply with WP:RS (4) we expand the article Unlawful Killing (5) we create two new categories called Unlawful Killing and Open Murder cases, and (6) the opening para uses precedence murder once someone is convicted of the crime of murder. That's the present proposal. We could go a little further and add a category Appealed Murder Cases for those which are being disputed. Hope that clarifies the proposal. Rgds, Trident13
For further clarity I disagree. No British court has the right to label Irish republicans as murderers. If an Iranian government stated that Bush is a murderer should we state that in his article. This issue is similiar to the terrorist issue - to state someone is a terrorist is purely POV just as is murderer in these circumstances. It should be stated as killed or death not murderer.--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about the victims - not the alleged perpetrators. If Joe Soap is convicted of murder then that is a different issue. If Joe Soap is unlawfully killed in a premeditated manner then the motives of the killer are a matter for the text of the murderee's and the murderer's article. But, e.g., Mountbatten was undoubtedly murdered and there is no reason not to say so. There is sufficient WP:RS supporting that statement. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dandruff wasnt "undoubtedly murdered" he was killed. I am sure you could find WP:RS sources to say he was murdered but he wasnt he was killed, I am sure you could find WP:RS sources to say it was terrorist that killed him but we wouldnt use that terminology in this respect also.--Vintagekits 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, lets test the proposal. (1) legal precedence - if person A walks into country B and kills person C, and is then convicted of murder, then the law which presides is the law of the country in which the crime is committed. I can see that creating some opportunities which I may also disagree with, but it is clear policy and legally correct. Now, you correctly mention mention GW Bush and Iraq as a test: I would add a wiki exemption to legal precedence - we define the murderer as the person who is in the presence and commits the murder, not someone sat a few thousand miles away who defines a political policy or initiates a contract killing. Most of these political cases may journalistically mention murder, but if they are tried in these cases the charges are normally (if ever brought) waging war against country X, and not murder. Rgds, - Trident13
How about this - a US solider is Iraq shoots and an insurgant in Iraq - is he a murderer?--Vintagekits 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Some error in the construction of that sentence. But the US soldiers in Iraq are acting with the consent of the present government and has the authority to kill insurgents, subject to various restraints. Thomas McMahon was convicted of murdering Louis Mountbatten in the Republic of Ireland and was imprisoned there. Undoubted murder. You don't like it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dandruff was Admiral of the Fleet of the British Navy and the IRA was at war with the British military machine - therefore he was killed during the war - thankfully!--Vintagekits 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Test the proposal again - potentially yes, BUT legal precedence would be Iraqi law (killing occured in Iraq), then American and overall UN Human Rights. The insurgent was killed, but if no court brings a case and convicts the soldier of murder then no, it was not murder. The opportunity may be that someone can find three (for example only) Iranian journalists who write that it was murder, but there are also in these cases other journalists who would write that it was an insurgent killing, and WP:POV would take care of the balance between the two sets of sources. We have had cases of British soldiers convicted under British Military law of crimes in Iraq, so the proposal would seem to work. Rgds, - Trident13
VK. McMahon also murdered The Dowager Baroness Brabourne, Mountbatten's elder daughter's mother-in-law (aged 83), the Hon. Nicholas Knatchbull, his elder daughter's fourth son (aged 14), Paul Maxwell, a 15 year old Protestant youth from County Fermanagh who was working as a crew member. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really, Mountsplatten killed them himself - Gardai in Sligo told him on a number of occasions not to sail the boat but his arrogance was obviously something he could not control as he swaned around his fornerly occupied territory and he ignored these warnings and put their lives at risk - infact he is a disgrace for doing it - sickens me that someone would use their own family like that. --Vintagekits 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Will you two please stop bickering - you sound like an old married couple! - Trident13
"Rubbish" - great comeback! Whats rubbish about it?--Vintagekits 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting approach people take. I wonder how VK would describe the murder of two Australians in the Netherlands by IRA operatives? --Michael Johnson 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where they the targets Michael? I suppose you dont think the Irish people should be aloud to stand up for themselves and fight back against a state that has oppressed them for near 800 years. But just ignore that as it doesnt suit tabloid headlines to get past the sensational.--Vintagekits 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The Irish can do what they like in Ireland. But even if we allow the IRA the status of combatants in a war, the attack was an act of war against two neutral countres, the Netherlands and Austraia, and a war crime as it involved the cold-blooded killing of two unarmed civilians. If we don't allow the IRA the status of a combatant, it was simple murder. --Michael Johnson 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Its a bit more complex then your tabloid statements make out Michael as well you know - Civilians were not the target and as for the IRA being in the Netherlands - if the Netherlands allows British Army barracks to be posted in the Netherlands then are likely to be attacked. Why dont you provide a link so that other can really know what happened that day then we can get back to the topic.--Vintagekits 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean the IRA shot up a car carrying two cleancut young men with British plates because they thought they might be British servicemen? To me that just shows, at a minimum a careless disregard for human life. So it is ok to shoot up any car you want, anywhere in the world, on the suspicion it might be the "enemy"? And had there been sufficent evidence, I'm sure the participants would have been convicted of murder. As for the IRA, their carelessness probably did them a lot of harm. In Australia they went from being s respectable cause in political circles to anathama. --Michael Johnson 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Michael, in a lot of ways you right - it was a terribly botched operation and altough I can speak for others I can say that I am very sorry if an innocent civilians die - but I am sure you will agree that 1. no army can stand by ever operation they carry out and 2. I do not support every operation that they carried out no matter what the motivation.--Vintagekits 09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If this degenerates into another political discussion around the pro's/con's of any particular "conflict" past or present, then it suggests that we should close this debate as inconclusive. I thought we were here to discuss policy, and write an encyclopedia, not debate the particular points of view that any of us happens to personally feel about, or gode others about particular cases from the past. Yes, we may use particular articles to discuss how applying proposed policy may affect certain articles, but its just to discuss how the proposed policy could be implemented. Please post your thoughts about whether we should close this discussion as inconclusive below this post, or agree just to discuss policy from this point forwards. Rgds, - Trident13 09:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Henry Kissinger once said, "a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong." Clearly the Irish are not getting it right either.
However the topic is killing -v- murder, let us recall that the the former is easily defined, and the latter term a specific legal term for which a number of things must be true;
  • The act must be premeditated and intentional
  • The act must be unlawful
  • The person committing the act must be of sound mind
  • Someone needs to die within a set period of time as a result
  • A body is not required
Its not an issue of NPOV the difference is simply a legal one. --Gibnews 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a danger this discussion will get sidetracked into a debate over the merits of physical force Irish republicanism, when what we are really about is writing an encyclopaedia. I think it better to keep to descriptive terms and to avoid suggestions of pejorative implications (even if the sentiments are ones which the vast majority would agree). "Killing" is appropriately descriptive. "Murder" is descriptive if the context is a legal one. "Manslaughter" should be avoided except in a strict legal context. "Assassination" should be restricted to cases where the person or organisation responsible explicitly claims a political motive. Of course, quotations should be kept accurate. Sam Blacketer 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am happy with assassination in the case of prominent figures like Mountbatten, the Stronges and Thatcher. Murder is the correct term for Finucane. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher was assassinated? Oh no! Yes, I agree on those. Finucane looks like more a case of revenge. Sam Blacketer 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Could be. But let us keep motivation out of it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we have consensus? - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you think the consensus is? Also we're having a discussion to avoid edit wars, so that isn't exactly in good faith. One Night In Hackney303 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
She was murdered by McMahon. That is not the same as she died. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, we're not here to discuss individual articles. We're trying to find a uniform approach that applies to all articles. One Night In Hackney303 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

  • Apparently there's a bloody discussion going on here. Why was Finucane murdered but, according to her article, Lady Brabourne not? Convictions were gained in both situations and both were civilians. --Counter-revolutionary 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If Pat was a IRA member he was, by your logic, killed in a war - not murdered!--Counter-revolutionary 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The articles aren't the same at present, because rather than have edit wars and/or discussions across a variety of articles, we're having a centralised discussion about what terms should be used. So how about until the discussion has come to a conclusion people concentrate on it, and leave the articles be? One Night In Hackney303 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Righto, If Pat was a IRA member he was, by your logic, killed in a war - not murdered!--Counter-revolutionary 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore anyone he killed wasn't murdered either. One Night In Hackney303 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not if they were civilians directly targetted. Besides a war didn't exist. If it did, we would all agree it was the British who won,and if they did, those men would be charged with war crimes! It's a slippery slope of hypothesis! --Counter-revolutionary 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the discussion anyway.... One Night In Hackney303 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Heading away from Belfast for a second, how would "murder/killing" be applied to the victims of the Munich massacre? Or to the perpetrators of said atrocity who met their ends at the hands of the Mossad? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure, but Mossad are hardly law abiding citizens. I'm still entirely unconvinced that there's a case for including murder unless a conviction has been gained. It doesn't add anything to the articles, it's simply adding a loaded and POV term, and could even be original research on occasions. Per policy WP:NPOV we should let the facts speak for themselves, say who killed them and how, and let the reader make their own mind up. One Night In Hackney303 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, murder has much more negative connotations than killing. Barring that its definition varies too much from worldview to worldview, it adds nothing meaningful factually to a discussion. If the circumstances of the killing are clearly written about, people will be able to make this decision themselves. If it so happens that someone doesn't agree with the use of the word murder in a particular article, they will probably edit it out mentally, but the use of loaded language in supposedly NPOV articles reflects badly on the community. If you are going to use the term at all, I think it needs to be framed by whose(goverment or other group probably) view it is. Something like "Convicted of murder in the United States" or "Considered by the UN to be guilty of murder"; that way people can make their own decisions about the efficacy and legal standing of the claim. Under these circumstances I wouldn't even mind having a religous definition of murder used, so long as the argument is not original research.--Shadowdrak 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. I agree, the default should be "killed". Otherwise murder should only be used when a conviction was made. And it should state who they were convicted by. eg the Louis Mountbatten article could read - "He was killed by the Provisional IRA, who planted a bomb in his boat at Mullaghmore, County Sligo in the Republic of Ireland. Thomas McMahon was subsequently convicted of his murder in the Irish High Court. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's completely in line with what I said earlier, regarding "x was convicted of murder". as Gibnews and Kittybrewster both agree that murder should not be used unless a conviction is gained, we seem to have reached a conclusion? One Night In Hackney303 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
...does that mean it should always be used when a conviction was gained? I think so. --Counter-revolutionary 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Easy tiger, let's just wait for a conclusion before rushing off and amending articles. One Night In Hackney303 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Death is a state of being (or lack there of), killing is an action resulting in death, and murder is crime based on an opinion of the intent or state of mind of the killer. Even if the opinion comes from a judge or jury it is still a point of view. Why should an encyclopedia be judgmental? It seems that we should report that: (a) the person is dead, (b) the act of killing was allegedly committed by X, and (c) that Y was convicted of murder by jury. To say that Y killed X should be qualified by suspected or alleged unless there was a confession. To say that Y was convicted of murdering X is a fact, to say that Y murdered X is opinion. --Kevin Murray 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we have reached conclusion (at last!) Just to answer Kevin Murray's point, we write artciles based on fact, which is not necessarily the truth. Fact is referencable - where as POV is not, or uses selected references to "factualise" its point. Yes, a certain person may be innocent, but if they have been convicted of a crime by a court (which again, we may not agree with the structure or process of), but it is a referencable fact. As I said above in this discussion, I may not like this on certain occaions, but it is a procedure which we can use to construct and edit articles. Rgds, - Trident13 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that reporting a "murder conviction" is a fact, but stating that someone was "murdered" is expressing a point of view. --Kevin Murray 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We generally don't write articles on Murderers, only their victims. See the debate above and the last proposal I made, which states unless there is conviction of a named murderer or three independent WP:RS sources, then murder can't be used in an article - only killing. Are you suggesting an ammendemnt to this proposal? If so, speak up soon because we seem about to close this debate. Rgds, - Trident13
Actually when it comes to the IRA the converse is generally true except for high profile people, we have articles about the killers but not the victims, assuming the killers are notable enough obviously. Also I'll just re-state the consensus as I see it, to make sure everyone else is in agreement. The death of someone will always be referred to using killed/killing/etc, and if someone was convicted of their murder an additional sentence something along the lines of "x was convicted of murder" will be added. Is that correct? One Night In Hackney303 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would go along with both of the above as long is it is clearly specicified exactly who he was convicted by i.e. under which juristiction and what type of court, this is very importmant in terms of NI issues. --Vintagekits 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with a "conviction only" rule on the use of murder. Also just as a check, we are also OK with unlawful killing with suitable coroners verdict? Rgds, - Trident13 15:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost all (if not all) the killings we're discussing are unlawful by definition though, so it seeems an unnecessary qualifier to me? One Night In Hackney303 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see what you are saying, but if we are sticking with legal precedence then normally the coroners inquest is opened and suspeneded pre the murder trial. Hence the dead person would be killed, while the alleged purpetrator would be "alleged that he killed." If we take (without precedence) the UK deaths of soldiers in Iraq and specifically Matty Hull, then the coroner's verdict is an unlawful killing - as would be the same where there was due suspicion but no conviction of a killer. OK? Rgds, - Trident13 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Matty Hull seems a good example - I'm happy enough with the addition of a similar sentence to any articles where a coroner's verdict has been returned, so instead of "x was convicted of murder" we'd use something like "the corner returned a verdict of unlawful killing". One Night In Hackney303 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Matty Hull was unlawfully killed. Thre are no sources saying he as murdered. Nor was it fratricide. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Where is anyone saying anything different? One Night In Hackney303 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading all of the discussion above, I was struck by one overlooked critereon in this discussion: isn't it the job of a coroner to determine cause of death? I feel that if it can be shown that a coroner made this determination in a case, then the person can be said to have been "murdered". Even better if it can be shown that a police investigation was made -- irrespecive of the outcome of that investigation. Otherwise, the terms "killed" or "died under mysterious circumstances" should be used.
I'm also going to head off a few objections here: (1) Yes, a soldier can be tried & punished for murder -- even if the victim is a combatant; beyond that, I'll leave the specifics to an expert in Military Law to explain the finer details. (2) Yes, sometimes the official process to determine cause of death can be perverted; in those cases, I think it's fair to add either an opposing view or details that suggest a contrary interpretation, e.g., "The coroner determined that X had died due to 'accidental causes' while imprisoned, although Amnesty International claims that X had been beaten to death." Or: "The jury ruled that X had been killed in self-defense, although a description of the corpse by an eye-witness shows that X had been shot at least twice in the back."
And lastly, (3) In the case of remains recovered by archeologists, I think it's fair to call it murder if a qualified physcial anthropolgist says it was murder. However from what I've read, any professional will qualify that statement, e.g.: "it appears that this person had been murdered". -- llywrch 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In the UK, coroners only determine if someone was unlawfully killed, or another verdict. They make no decision as to whether the act was actually murder. One Night In Hackney303 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No but they could make it ver clear in the obiter. --Counter-revolutionary 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually they couldn't, unless they are in possession of information about whether the perpetrator was of sound mind at the time of the killing. One Night In Hackney303 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with One Night In Hackney - legally they can't, but they can in commentary make it clear who they feel is the purpetrator/where further investigation should be focused. But, the legal situation would still be an unauthorised killing, which is the term we would use in the article. Rgds, --Trident13 10:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
An "unauthorised killing"? As opposed to ... should I ask? -- llywrch 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Presumably as opposed to something like an armed policeman shooting a murderous civilian or lawful combatants killing each other in a war. Someone can kill another human being but to determine the intent of the perpetrator is not something a coroner can ever legally do. I would say "unlawful" rather than "unauthorised" as the latter carries rather different connotations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

  • Question Particularly in the case of events such as this, where there is a clear POV dispute about the killing, what exactly is the problem with using neutral language except when quoting the different perspectives? e.g. "BrownHairedGirl was shot dead in her home on 32nd March 2007 by two masked intruders who also burnt down her house. The killing was described by Kermit the Frog as a "dastardly act of murder", but defended by Shrek as 'the assassination of a brutal politician'. The Rockall Times, The Onion and Viz magazine all characterised the killing as murder, as did most other newspaper editorials, but Alice, the leader of the Blonde Party, said 'this was not murder, it it was an act of public security. Thank goodness these brave people have rid our society of that odious woman'. The Rockall coroners court returned a verdict of 'unlawful killing', but nobody has been charged in relation to her death." All major points of view reported, without wikipedia choosing making its own judgment on which side is/was right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That looks fine. I am however greatly saddened to hear of your murder assassination state-licensed act of public defence incapacitation! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Namespace

There is discussion at this page about the goal and scope of the HELP namespace. Should it contain technical help? Or any kind of how-to? Or something in between? Suggestions are welcome. >Radiant< 08:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Non English Titled Articles

While doing considerable editing realted to Chile, I've run across numerous articles which are Spanish words. Some of these have an English equivalent, such as comuna and others are somewhat difficult to re-name into English -- ie chupalla. There are also many place names, some of which are translated into English (Cape Horn, others which might be translated into English but have not been (Punta Arenas), and some which are mixtures of English and Spanish such as: Antártica Chilena Province And, there are a large number which fall into areas between those just mentioned.

Possibly there may be similar issues with other languages with which I'm not familiar.

My concern:

  1. Is there a policy about foreign language-named articles?
  2. Do we need some consistency in how articles about things, places etc, which have foreign names, are treated in the English Wikipedia?

--JAXHERE | Talk 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy

See Wikipedia:Security

Please edit and discuss. See the talk page for background to this proposal. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me tailing along, here is another proposal for a guideline on Wikipedia:Personal security practices that I was working on independently of these incidents, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research in talk pages

(I originally formatted this for a RFC page before realizing that this is where it belongs. I've never touched anything other than articles and their talk pages until very recently, so please be gentle.)

You can see the original messyness in all its near-flaming glory on the WP:NOR talk page.

This is a dispute about whether WP:NOR should apply to pages other than Wikipedia articles (most of prominently, talk pages) and whether such a policy change would, in fact, be allowed.

Regarding the policy of changing policy:

  • The current wording of WP:TALK states: A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. .
  • Some editors use this as justification for denying the proposed change.
  • Other editors point out that this line is not present in any of the three "non-negotiable" policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V), and no one has yet produced a quote from these three policies which incidates that original research (including synthesis) is not allowed on the talk pages. Therefore, they argue, the proposed clarification "WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages" can be added and WP:TALK can be changed accordingly--provided there exists a consensus that such a clarification (in the case of WP:NOR) and change (in the case of WP:TALK) would be in the interests of Wikipedia.
  • Therefore, not every editor believes that even a clear pro-change consensus is a valid reason to clarify WP:NOR to exclude talk pages. This issue is distinct from the issue of whether such a change should take place.

Regarding the proposed change (to make clear that WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages):

  • Some editors believe that original research present in talk pages only leads to original research in the article itself.
  • Some believe that sourced arguments are always preferable over unsourced, and that therefore original research (including synthesis) should be prohibited everywhere, even on talk pages.
  • Some believe that original research can be used to settle issues regarding already-sourced material. As long as the original research is not actually included and no sourced material is contradicted, they believe original research should be allowed as a justification for article changes.
  • Some argue that synthesis especially is necessary for the decision making process, and without it there can be no rational discussion of contentious issues.


The second issue (whether or not original research--synthesis included--can be used on talk pages) can be discussed and perhaps voted upon.

It's unclear as to whether any debate or voting regarding the first issue (whether or not clear consensus has the power to make this change, given the opinion of some editors that this would contradict or radically change core, inalterable policy) will matter in the long run. At any point before or after a hypothetical pro-change consensus is reached, the Wikipedia higher-ups can either choose to veto our decision or not. Unless there is some way of querying them directly, I don't see how this issue has any bearing. Nonetheless, it is mentioned here for completeness.


  • Comment I personally feel that this policy is being used as a weapon to win debates and scare off newbies instead of a tool to maintain quality content. Many times in the past, I have used my own NPOV original research to influence my decisions regarding how things should be worded, how pages should redirect, whether sources are reputable (obviously by weighing them against opposing sources, but this also requires an originality that clearly falls under the definition of synthesis), whether cited lines actually match up with their sources, etc. As long as original research does not appear in the article itself, I can't fathom how it can be harmful to use it as part of a justification. The justification for the change in the article is not the same as the justification itself. As long as the change doesn't introduce new content, the spirit of WP:NOR is preserved without unduely hampering rational debate.
No one is arguing that good sources aren't tremendously helpful in a debate, but many times they just aren't enough. Imagine trying to argue for a semantic change (words that you feel are inflammatory and imprecise, for example) without ANY sort of original research whatsoever, including synthesis. The sentence in question is cited, though not directly quoted. Yet, the rules lawyers of Wikipedia would have you PROVE that a given word is a better descriptor than the current one. How would you do that... by citing English professors? It wouldn't work; it would still require a synthesis at some point. At some point you would choose one over the other even though there are sources for both. You might object to this example as unrealistic, but it's happening all the time right now. In at least two recent cases, someone told me that original research (synthesis) was inappliable to presenting a case for rewording a line that didn't quite fit its citations and was prejudicial. Someone else told me that original research (synthesis) was inapplicable to arguing for a page redirect. Someone else told me that illogical (yet cited from a somewhat questionable source) arguments could be always be included without direct quotation, and that synthesis could not be used as an argument to remove it. The sad part is the accusers are invariably committing synthesis of their own, but refuse to acknowledge it as such...
The war on synthesis on our talk pages is a war on rational discussion itself. Instead of explaining our comparitively minor edits, we are encouraged to make them unilaterally and proclaim that they aren't properly sourced--we can't possibly *explain* why they aren't properly sourced without committing the deadly sin of synthesis. This is counterproductive on so many different levels. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I beg you that WP:TALK be altered and WP:NOR be clarified to not apply to talk pages. At the very least, we must be allowed synthesis lest our discussions consist of nothing but direct quotes from the WPs and the sources. --Lode Runner 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everytime you edit you are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". WP:NOR is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. It is a hardline policy. WP:IAR is not policy, it is a guideline, a very controversial one at that, and never intended to bypass consensus. This is not in the best interest of the project, and it's not what Jimbo would want, bottom line. If you want to add OR and synthesis, establish your credentials at Citizendium, or take it to an internet forum. Encyclopedias are for SOURCED information, not original research: not in brittanica, not here. Wikipedia is not primary source, and without verification of credentials, it's not a place for publication of new material. Since we don't know who the editors are, it's no different than a bunch of guys meeting at a pub, or a conspiracy theorist in a 'zine or webforum. Once again, WP:NOR prevents all of that. That is why it is one of the fundamental, inviolate pillars of the project. Can you see that the entire concept of wikipedia having ANY credibility hinges upon it? Your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is misguided: you're really crusading against the concept of wikipedia itself, and it's disruptive and dangerous. The blanket accusations such as "the accusers", "rules lawyers", allegations of WP:BITE, etc are disruptive and the resultant unilateral changes to, again, a fundamental policy, border on WP:POINT. You need to chill out and look at this objectively: On the SOLE basis of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR (neither of which are policy), you want to change at least FOUR policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:TALK, WP:RS and a fifth if you include WP:ATT. Does that make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Because to the rest of us, it is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia." I can rules-lawyer too. And for the actual argument: our talk pages are not encyclopedic content. They are discussion on how to improve the article. --NE2 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's apparently a relatively (i.e. within the past year) change. It used to be a guideline. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
IAR is put forth only to ignore rules that get in the way of improving an article. Discussing the topic in talk pages does not. Discussing verifiability of sources might. However, the rule is there mostly to deal with 3Rs when dealing with vandalism or similar situations. IAR does not mean "there are no rules." It means that the priority of wikipedia is adding/improving wiki pages. SanchiTachi 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Discussion is appropriate on a discussion page. If that leads to the improvement of the article itself, good. If it leads to the inclusion of original research, that should be deleted.--Runcorn 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Our policies are not attributed to the reliable sources (wiki is not a WP:RS), thus, obviously any editorial discussions on the talk pages and in Wikispace have some elements of original research (including this discussion). On the other hand Wikipedia is not a place for publishing long pieces of original thought like your own alternative theories of General Relativity or your own original political ideas, etc., etc. These pieces should be ignored or deleted. While it may sound confusing, usually it is easy to separate the small inescapable original research needed to edit articles from abusing the project by publishing here grand pieces of general OR. Alex Bakharev 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The polices are attributed to the original founders of Wikipedia which count as credible sources/experts in their field. This is verified/proven that they are experts by the stability of Wikipedia now. These rules have also been published and written about by published people. The NOR Talk Page has one such mention at the top. SanchiTachi 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you present us with evidence that the founders of Wikipedia wrote that line in WP:TALK, you should not claim that they are responsible for it. Nothing in the sacred three policies says that synthesis was meant to be banned from the talk pages--indeed, the repeated usage of the word "article" implies otherwise. --Lode Runner 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that original research could be banned in talk pages seems absurd to me. In fact, original research is often necessary in a variety of editorial decisions. You are rarely going to find an author anywhere who has specifically addressed the issue of whether such or such a person or subject is notable. Original research then needs to be conducted to determine the kind and amount of attention the person or subject has received. Issues of spelling, undue weight, whether a particular statement is NPOV often require original research — or, in the worst cases, horror of horrors, the expression of personal opinions — because no research may have been carried out on those topics by anybody else, or we may not have located it if it does exist. And yet these issues must be resolved because the content we wish to present in the article itself may be unquestionably notable and have been the object of reliable research, but we must evaluate issues of NPOV, undue weight, etc., to present the information ourselves. in fact, in these cases original research is more persuasive than personal opinions and can be of great value. It is common sense that to produce any encyclopedia, some original research must be done even if the content itself is not original research.

If it has become a common problem that people raise the original research issue as an objection to an argument not itself intended for inclusion in the article, but intended instead as an argument in favour of one editorial decision over another, then I would favour clarification of this point in WP:NOR, although I would have thought it unnecessary. On the other hand, some issues central to editorial decisions may have been the explicit object of reputable research, and in these cases, that research should be given precedence over editors'. For example, if a reliable source has said that the spelling sizable is more common than sizeable in edited prose, that should outweigh a Google search done by an editor to determine which spelling should be used. This should also be noted. Joeldl 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages are not for debate or the like, so the OR that you are talking about would not be found there. It could be found in places like RfC which do not fall under the same guidelines (they have their own policies). SanchiTachi 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It has become a common problem, and I'm glad someone else has finally figured it out. I've become quite sick and tired of people saying that an attempt to make a decision about article content--as opposed to something that *is* article content--is original research. Ken Arromdee 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't a decision, or indeed consensus, itself a form of original research? We are not referencing a prior understanding, but constructing our own. It would invalidate the purpose of talk pages if the conclusions reached were disallowed under rules, policies and guidelines. LessHeard vanU 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No. A decision is not original research. A decision is an administrator tool and it deals with Wikipedia as an internet company as opposed to it as an Encyclopedia. The same concept is the publisher of Britannica does not need to use references when taking his work to a binding company or a printing press. However, I believe that your comments were put forth more to be silly and to troll than to contribute anything useful to this discussion. I put forth the fact that you call a decision by an Admin as OR as evidence of such. SanchiTachi 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A decision is almost ALWAYS original research--or rather, the reason behind a decision will inevitably include original research. If you don't understand this, please read the description of WP:SYN again. It bans any and all logical conclusions not explicitly stated in the sources. This might be fine for the article content itself, but it makes justification for a decision nearly impossible. As I've said, even my most basic decisions such as rewordings and page redirects were challenged because I provided synthesis in my explanations. --Lode Runner 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not put things on an equal line above someone else's post, because it makes it more complicated. It is proper to put it at the end of the line after the appropriate indentation mark. Decisions do not need sources, as I explained below. They deal with the mechanics and business of Wikipedia, not with content, so it has nothing to do with OR or anything you are talking about. However, normal users are unable to deal with the mechanics in such way, so they would never be in such situations. Stop your argument now, because it only shows a lack of understanding or an attempt to misconstrue to completely different things as one. Furthermore, I have already addressed this concern. That means that its not proper ettiquette to ask the same exact question in a different post, when you could have left LessHeard van U's post below as the questioning post, or you could have made a tiny note that you second his question. However, since I already answered it, it seems that you do not wish to discuss, but want to post as much as possible without actually following the discussion. SanchiTachi 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"They deal with the mechanics and business of Wikipedia, not with content" then you are not talking about the same decisions that we are. Deciding what word to use (in a passage that has sources, but is a summary of those many sources and thus is not a direct quotation) is a decision that cannot be supported by sources alone. And no, you have not addressed this issue at all. --Lode Runner 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I am kindly asking you to stop insulting people by telling they don't understand issues, claiming that their responses are improper because you think they've already been addressed, and lecturing them on (unsourced, or sourced but with your own unsupported interpretation) proper ettiquette. This is a waste of time and space, and is against WP. If you want to give me posting pointers, feel free to add them to my talk page. Any further off-topic attacks will be deleted. --Lode Runner 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RFC 1. "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies." WP:EQ 2."Work toward agreement." 3."Work toward agreement." 4."Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." 5. "If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break." 6. "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you, but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." 7. "Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy." 8."If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong – a common example of this is religion." 9. "You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article." "Be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate," "Work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project," 10."Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." SanchiTachi 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You comment that there is an aspect of talkpages that does not need to comply with article space guidelines (which is the premise of this discussion). If it is allowable to determine certain actions as tools, rather than content, is WP:SYN (as suggested) permitted on a talkpage to arrive at a conclusion even though this cannot be used in the article space? I would be interested in being provided with the link, too.
Trolling? Careful with your language, it may be considered as a personal attack by someone with a different style than I. LessHeard vanU 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Trolling is an action in which you state something that you know is purposely wrong in order to get a negative reaction from others. Mediation and other such administrative functions are tools. They operate on different standards and they exist in order to make Wikipedia run smoothly. A decision by an Admin exists as a mediator in many situations. By bringing up "decisions," you have attacked the whole concept of having an administrator or, at least, you have failed to separate Wikipedia as a running website and wikipedia as content. Administrators bring decisions to pages in order to represent the company/make it work well/keep people from breaking the rules. That is not the same as editing pages or how the talk pages exist to work primarily on editing pages. SanchiTachi 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis of the different functions within discussion on talkpages. Your understanding of the technical aspects has been helpful. I would, however, suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the pillars of WP:Civility and WP:Good faith (this is specifically in relation to your suggestion that by questioning I am attacking concepts). You have used the construct troll(ing) twice in your interactions with me, in regard to my debating style. I have been contributing to WP for some 15 months and this is the first time anyone has taken that stand. I suggest that you do not do so for a third time. Again, thank you for the answers provided. LessHeard vanU 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen nothing in this discussion written by LessHeard vanU which I would call trolling. To be clear, asking rhetorical questions is not trolling. Joeldl 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To everyone who is against this proposed change: I would like for you to explain to me what happens in the case of, say, a page redirect dispute such as the one I was recently involved in. There are no reliable sources out there that say "all encyclopedias should redirect X to Y (instead of Z.)" NONE. The arguments, therefore, must rest on a collective, reasoned understanding of the issue and the semantics involved. This understanding is clearly synthesis and is thus original research. This was told to me already by several people involved. What these people did not tell me (perhaps could not tell me) was how we were supposed to present our arguments with no sources available and no ability to use unsourced material (including logical conclusions drawn from reliable sources.) So I'm asking YOU now: how is such a debate resolved? --Lode Runner 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It goes to RfC and the comments stop. If you are busy arguing over stuff without sources, then you are not contributing to the page and it shouldn't belong on Talk. Furthermore, common protocol is you put forth one thing and then you wait for comments. Remember, there is No Point of View which means that you are not here to defend yourself, as there are no winners. No one should be attacked to any idea, so it is not your job to "win." This means that Wikipedia is not here for debate. This is not a chatroom nor a debate forum. Please respect that. SanchiTachi 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of that is completely irrelevant. I give you a hypothetical scenario about synthesis, and you bring up NPOV. You post is almost completely off-topic. Stop lecturing me and pay attention to the scenario, in particular these clarified points: 1. THERE ARE SOURCES. 2. THE SOURCES ARE BEING USED TO PUT FORTH A LOGICAL ARGUMENT. (SYNTHESIS) 3. THIS *IS* A RFC PAGE. 4. THE SOURCES ALONE DO NOT CLEARLY POINT TO ANY PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED REDIRECTION. 5. NO ONE IS USING POV TACTICS. Call it a debate, dispute, disagreement, WHATEVER... how is it resolved? How does one determine which course of action is the best? --Lode Runner 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course talk pages are for debate. That's exactly what they're for. For example, read Wp:rfc#Request_comment_on_articles - where does the actual RFC for an article go? On it's talk page. Article talk pages are exactly the place where you write stuff like "I heard this interesting fact, but don't know where to go to look for sources", and "I'm worried about this statement in the main article, this source says X and that source says Y, which is reliable, should we say both, what does 'the world' really think about this subject?" Answering all that requires research. What we end up with has to be sourced, but the process certainly takes research. Certainly sourced arguments are preferable, but unsourced ones also have value. For example, I have one link in my argument right here, that makes it stronger; but if I didn't have that link, I'd like to think I'd still be making some sense. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced information has no value. Remember WP:EQ "You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article." Any information that is OR is not essential to the article. Asking for opinions on what is put in already or asking for clarification, etc, is not OR. However, it is expected that all responses deal with verifiable sources, because the Talk page is intended only to deal with the Article. SanchiTachi 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I will not continue this discussion until user SanchiTachi is blocked or otherwise instructed to stop spamming us with off-topic information. His posts are almost entirely devoted to criticizing other people's posts--not for their content, but for their STYLE, for their violation of his own interpretation of the rules (an interpretation no one else agrees with.) He is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Lode Runner 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Perhaps "almost entirely devoted to" isn't true, but he inevitably reverts to it whenever someone questions his views about the topic at hand. See also his behavior on the WP:NOR talk page. --Lode Runner 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me get this started again. I suggest some practical distinctions :
  1. An editor on a talk page cannot say this is not true, because I have analyzed this and my conclusions lead me otherwise.
But an editor can say This is not true, because I (or others) have published information that shows otherwise. But in that case, no particular weight is given to the published work of an ed. as compared to the published work of a non-ed.
And an ed. can say on a talk page: this source is not a reliable source because its information is self-contradictory. (or other matters susceptible to ordinary logic and observation.
And an ed. can say on a talk page: this source is reliable because I find it has been accepted in the field
  1. An ed. cannot say, I know this to be true (or false) because of my knowledge, status, or experience in the field and you must follow my judgement unless you have greater knowledge, status, or experience in the field.
But an ed. can say, I have some knowledge, status, or experience in the field, and I offer you my advice that this can reasonably be considered true (or false) because ...
  1. We can not do research on the talk page about the facts of the matter or what o[pinions one ought to hold
but we can (and must) do research about is about what people consider to be the facts of the matter, and what opinions people do have.

DGG 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I definately agree with that, but I believe that your last "research" is different than the OR, because polling isn't research in the same way, but more like following the WP:Ettiquette and WP:Consensus policies. But yeah, even then information should be based on verifiable content. If you didn't have such obligations then there would be many people up for blocking/banning based on how people feel about them as opposed to citing particular issues, rules violations, etc. Its a slippery slope. SanchiTachi 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not being clear--I was not referring to the opinions of WP editors, but opinions expressed in published RSs relevant to the article--that's what we need to find out, and report. Our opinions on the topic itself are of course irrelevant.
Ensuring that all WP eds. who are interested have a fair voice is essential in any discussion, but how to get sufficient participation is another question.DGG 05:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a WP:NOR policy on talk pages. It is enough to say that talk page contributions not directed at producing an article free of OR are off-topic. In fact, I believe this is done more or less where it is said (WP:TALK if I'm not mistaken) that talk pages are not a general forum for discussion of the article's topic. Contributors have given many examples of how original research may be necessary to deal with mundane issues as simple as the wording of a particular sentence — no dictionary is ever going to say outright, "This word sounds better than that one in this sentence in this Wikipedia article." It is not desirable to try to categorize ahead of time what OR on a talk page is for legitimate ends, and what OR isn't, because talk pages are a place for any discussion directed in good faith at producing a good (hence OR-less) article. The only exception is that talk page contributions should satisfy those policies whose rationale goes beyond mere article quality, for example, excluding unsourced negative material about living persons, because the effect of such information on a person's reputation can be negative even if it's only on a talk page. If people in a particular discussion feel that an editor's talk page OR will lead to article OR, then they need to address the issue specifically in those terms, not by attempting to apply WP:NOR to talk pages.

SanchiTachi, you placed your reply to my previous comment above someone else's who replied before you. Please try to avoid doing that. Joeldl 06:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think SanchiTachi understands what people have been saying, but disagrees. I do not really understand SanchiTachi's arguments, and I doubt I will. I would be happy to agree to disagree with SanchiTachi at this point, and see what other thoughtful editors have to say about this issue. A poll on a concrete proposal might be in order soon. Joeldl 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of part of SanchiTachi's position is that conclusions, decisions, etc. are administrative functions, and fall outside of the subject matter and are therefore not held to the same application of NOR as the debate itself. LessHeard vanU 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok everybody -- what is Refactoring talk pages -- Essay? Guideline? Cleanup method

This one has been burning for quite a while here, what is WP:RTP? WP:EP#Editing_and_refactoring_talk_pages infers that it's a guideline, WP:TPG#User_talk_pages doesn't say much, there is no template on the page and I'm wondering if this can be interpreted as policy at all. (I've seen this used to 'refactor out' (delete) users comments on another talk page so I'm wondering what people think about this.) MrMacMan Talk 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not everything in Wikispace is policy/guideline/essay. This would be a simple how-to. >Radiant< 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So would this be a  ? MrMacMan Talk 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Requirements for sourcing?

Is there a policy on articles which are really unsourcable, but "everyone knows" already. Here is an example to show what I am talking about.

I have run Evil laugh through AfD and it came through with no consensus. It had also been nominated for deletion as the page Mwahahahaha in a prior AfD but it was decided to keep and rename to evil laugh. I could not see where anyone could provide a citation specific to why it needed to be kept other than it is a common cliche or that it is a "Well-known concept" and the only external links are to a .wav file on a webcomic and to a site for "a proposal for an evil-laugh-activated hand dryer". In addition to this, the Evil lair article seems to meet the same walls, but I have not bothered with the AfD for it since evil laugh seems to bring out some protectiveness.

Evil genius is another article with so many unsourced or unsourcable items, I don't know what could be done with it. My understanding is that, when someone adds something to Wikipedia, if they cannot source it, it should not be added. I could add an article today with tons of made up data that sounds somewhat reliable, but leave it unsourced. Unless we enforce adding sources for content additions, we really are creating a Wikiality or consensus reality. I can't see how requiring sources lessens the quality of Wikipedia. Slavlin 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Your question is based upon a false premise. If you actually read the AFD discussion, you'll see that I cited several sources that deal with the subject of evil laughs and evil laughter. Your mission Jim, should you choose to accept it, is to perform some collaborative editing, building upon the work of other editors, and add appropriate citations to the actual article.

    The problem here is not that the articles are unsourcable. Clearly, there are sources for the one that you nominated for deletion. The problem here is that you are employing deletion as if it were the only tool in the toolbox. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, before nominating an article for deletion as unverifiable it is incumbent upon you, the nominator, to look for sources. I strongly recommend that you look for sources for evil genius (Hint: Don't stop until you hit Descartes.) and attempt to fix the article working from sources. Deletion is not the tool that gets you, a Wikipedia editor, actually writing a good sourced encyclopaedia article. Actually looking for sources yourself and then hitting the "edit" button and writing is what does that. Uncle G 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Uncle G- I disagree with you completely here. I know that deletion is not the editor's only tool, but I do not think that the original creator and future editors should get out of their responsability for sourcing the article. Also, for all the sources you listed, which I can't really see how they constitute reliable sources anyway, you did not add any of them to the page. Instead you just listed them on the deletion discussion. With evil genius, I would love to see what you can quote from Descartes to support the description of an evil genius in that article.

      What I am trying to get at here is that the onus should be on the shoulders of people wanting to add information to Wikipedia, not on people wanting to remove it. It would be different if people were revising it or trying to upgrade the article. I think that getting rid of unsourced opinions, original research and some of the various pieces of fluff that exist in Wikipedia would make it much better. As it gets larger, I think cleaning out the attic will likely have more of a quality impact than writing a page. In the case of Evil Laugh and Evil Genius, it seems the only things that anyone is ever willing to do is throw a "Keep it" on an AfD. I have tried to improve them some. For example, I removed the HUGE example list from evil genius.

      Simply put, I want to improve Wikipedia, or else I would not ask the questions. I could just ignore it and just not look at the pages, but I feel that not holding people to some level of sourcing is ultimately harmful to the project. Slavlin 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

      • WP requirements for articles include; verifiable. Note, not verified but verifiable. WP is a community and does not require the originators to provide sources for articles, if the article has a good source then it will likely be found. Eventually. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The other thing to keep in mind is that some of these articles are pretty old, when the requirements for citations and references were less zealously enforced. Rather than saying, "This article is not up to current standards, let's get rid of it," the goal should be trying to get it up to current standards. howcheng {chat} 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • LessHeard vanU, please look at that little link for verifiable under your edit box. Link it and see where it says "Burden of Proof" Let me quote from there for a sec.

            The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

            From this official policy, it is NOT the responsibility of the nominator of an AfD to look for sources. Looking at the "in a nutshell portion, you can see that The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Comments? (BTW- Sorry if this comes off a bit snippy, but I get the same thing in corporate meetings all the time at work.) Slavlin 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • There's burden of proof, and then there's just argument from laziness. "I couldn't be bothered to find any sources, so sourcing must not be possible." is not an argument for deletion in itself. Now, people shouldn't be creating articles without sources, but just because an article isn't up to standards at the moment doesn't mean you can't just clean it up and rewrite it yourself. Find some sources, as Uncle G did, work from them, borrow anything useful from the old article, and replace it with a decent one. Invoking AfD for valid topics is just laziness. Now, I'm a supporter of prodding new articles with zero sources to light a fire under their creators to source them, but AfD is a very inefficient way to add sources to old articles compared to searching yourself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • yes the "burden of sourcing" is on those who create the article/add content to it. as per night gyr, its nice if you help improve a poor, unsourced article, but there is no obligation on you to do so. 86.31.103.208 12:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Invoking AfD for "valid" articles is NOT laziness. First, it is a pain in the butt to do an AfD in the first place. Secondly, an article that is created with no sources listed lowers the quality of Wikipedia. An unsourced article is not a valid article. The who reason for the "Burden of Proof" section appears, to me, to be something to prevent the very argument you are making, that the nominator should fix it rather than ask that it be deleted. If no one cares enough about the article to source it, why SHOULD it be kept? Slavlin 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "I do not think that the original creator and future editors should get out of their responsability for sourcing the article." — You are a future editor of the article, and trying to get out of your responsibility, to look for sources where none are cited in order to support a claim that something is unverifiable, is exactly what you are arguing for here. Once again: Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, before nominating an article for deletion as unverifiable it is incumbent upon you, the nominator, to look for sources. Unverifiability doesn't mean an absence of citations. It means an absence of sources, which requires looking for sources if the article doesn't cite any, to ensure that the article cannot be fixed by ordinary editors using ordinary editing tools. Deletion isn't the answer for articles that ordinary editors can fix using ordinary editing tools. Ordinary editors actually using those tools is. Those editors not using those tools, but instead arguing "the burden of fixing the article is the other fellow's", doesn't get the article fixed. Uncle G 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Slavlin, the section you quoted says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" not "If an article topic cites no reliable, third-party sources ..." I agree with the other editors here that while citation of sources is the ultimate goal, lack of citations should not call for deletion of the article when it is likely that reliable sources exist. -- DS1953 talk 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DS1953, the verifiable policy does say that the burden of citing and sourcing falls on the person wanting to keep it. However, looking at Deletion policy vs. Verification policy, there is a conflict that I see and I have posted a comment about it on the Deletion policy page. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Conflict between Deletion policy and Verifiability policy for details, but I think that resolving the conflict between the 2 would be definately worth the time.
  • Note Uncle G has done a LOT of work resolving the concerns that I have had with the Evil Genius page. Look at this comparison [[2]] and see the work. I went ahead and awarded Uncle G The Resilient Barnstar for his work in improving that. If this kind of improvement is the outcome of me being a pain in the behind, I am willing to take one for the team on that. :) Slavlin 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional note: I have been marking several of the category:Clichés articles as unreferenced (rather than mark as AfD or PROD) and came on this excellent example of an article. Thinking outside the box is one that I would not have expected to actually be able to source, yet it is incredibly well sourced, in my opinion. If an article is created like this for some of the other things that "everyone knows" then Wikipedia will get better and better. From the talk page, it was the AfD that prompted the revamp and rewrite of the page, so that does appear to have a value to it. Now if we can just get one for "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey". Slavlin 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, one way of proving those laughters is to record a video of that game at the particular moment into a file, upload it on YouTube or something, and then use the cite video template. That should be attributable. Or you can use a reference and mention the game, its level and console and so on so people with a copy can verify the facts.--Kylohk 15:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Password

Pis pthere pa policy page pon passwords panywhere? Simply south 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:PBJAODN pis pthat-a-way... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? See Wikipedia:Passwords and Special:Prefixindex/Password, notably Password, Password policy, and the links in the "See also" sections there. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the disambiguation suffix necessary?

There is only one thing called Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue, but the article is at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway). I've looked for guidance from the naming conventions but have found nothing concrete. --NE2 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a clear guideline that says "only use this when necessary" either. If other New York Subway station articles do not use it, then maybe you could move it back to the redirect. Have you asked at the related New York wiki-projects listed on the talk page? I assume that whoever made the original redirect probably had a good reason. Adrian M. H. 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been an argument at the relevant project. --NE2 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as someone who is not in a position to be familiar with the NY subway, I suppose I could appreciate the at-a-glance clarification that it would provide if I stumbled across this or a similar article. But since that is not the primary intention of this type of naming convention, I would have to say that it is quite redundant. As you point out, there is no potential for misunderstanding. Adrian M. H. 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DAB says: "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate". Also namingconventions imply to use the most recognizable and correct name. We had similar discussions about this on titles of television episodes. The conclusion was; don't disambiguate when not required, but disambiguated redirects are allowed to simplify coding the lists and creating scripts. However in this case... the subway station is most likely itself NAMED after Stillwell Avenue for instance, which could be cause for confusion. So it's a bit of a gray area I think. Something like Heroes (TV series) for instance primarily uses dab, because Heroes is also the plural form of Hero, which could be cause for confusion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikiprojects that produce many articles generally want to stick to a single naming convention across all articles, rather than have some titles disambiguated and some not. It makes to-do lists simpler, for starters. The project to produce election results in the U.K. parliament uses "(UK Parliament constituency)" for the parliamentary constituency articles, for example. The simple answer to the conflict between that and editors who want to eliminate disambiguators is "Redirects are cheap.". Have the article at one title and a redirect at the other. Uncle G 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing or reforming infoboxes

Is it necessary to achieve consensus on every page that uses an infobox before removing sections from said infobox? This has been suggested at the discussion on the ethnic groups infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Scrap the infobox. To me, this seems like a recipe for bureaucratic paralysis. Any comments would be welcome.--Nydas(Talk) 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All optional parameters should (never seen it done yet) have an option for "NOT NEEDED", to avoid people adding it back in later. Scrapping theentire infobox is possible, but sometimes a stripping down of the infobox, a redesign, or designing a new infobox, can address the problems. Carcharoth 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In the present case (Template:Infobox ethnic group) I've been bold and implemented a solution that provisionally hides the field but notifies readers of the removal and gives editors an easy way to reinsert the field on an individual basis ([3]). However, this has been criticised because the change will not show up on everybody's watchlists. In this instance, the template in question seems to be used on almost 1000 articles, so that notifying all its users on all the relevant talkpages is practically impossible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists

I've noticed several lists of sports awards are presented in chronological order (NFL MVP, NFLDPOY) and several are presented in reverse chronological order (NBA Finals MVP, NBA MVP). It seems disorganized to have them in one order in one list and in another order elsewhere. Comments? Tayquan hollaMy work 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment specifically about awards lists in Wikipedia, but in the motorsport Wikiprojects, the general convention is to display lists of title winners in reverse order (per the accepted convention outside Wikipedia). By the same token, detailed results tables for teams and drivers are ordered chronologically. So I would expect to see a list of award winners in reverse order, provided that external convention either supports it or does not obviously favour the opposite method. I would raise this at the relevant Wikiproject if I were you, just to see of there already is a favoured method. Adrian M. H. 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering states that you should use earliest-to-latest chronological order. 84.66.65.170 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Then that guideline needs to be amended to accomodate external conventions. Adrian M. H. 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Exclusion Proposal on User talk pages

After looking through some of my bot's edits and some of the edits of Staeckerbot and OrphanBot, I occasionally see a user frequently removing bot notifications for duplicate images, copyright issues on images, etc. For those that don't want notifications comming from a certain bot, or even all bots I think it would be nice if there was a standard exclusion code created to prevent unwanted notifications. For example to disallow bot FooBar from issuing notifications on their talk page they could post:

<!--Disallow:Foobar-->

at the top of their talk page. To disallow all bots they could post something like:

<!--Diallow:ALL-->

I'm not suggesting this be an absolute rule though. Vandal bots or bots warning someone to stop some form of abuse wouldn't have to abide by this. It would only serve as a strong indicator that this user doesn't want any non-critical information, such as image deletion notifications, image copyright issues, duplicate image notifications, etc.., posted on their talk page. How does this idea sound? --Android Mouse 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You'll have to discuss this with the people who operate bots. A bot could quite easily be programmed to heed such tags, and some bots already do (e.g. the archival bots must know which pages to archive). >Radiant< 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because they remove them doesn't mean they don't want the not in the first place. Once you've got the message, there's no reason for users to keep these notes around so they remove them immediately. I think it would be a bad idea to not leave these notes for users at all, though, because they notify people of important happenings relevant to them.

I know that some people don't want them at all because their edit summaries explicity say so, etc "Remove more unwanted bot messages AGAIN". For these people, this exclusion code would be useful. --Android Mouse 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OrphanBot at least, and probably others, already have an "opt out" mechanism upon request. If a standardized way for users to tell bots not to message them was agreed upon I'm sure most bot owners would be willing to implement it. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard would probably be a better place to get relevant input though. --Sherool (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a new topic on the bot owners noticeboard. In order to avoid two discussions please place all new comments on that page. --Android Mouse 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

mass image cleanup for Digimon

WikiProject Digimon is facing a mass image cleanup task, started by the need to update images from using {{Digimonimage}} to a more appropriate tag. Most of these images contain no source information at all, or fair use rationale. We've let it slide for a long time, and unfortunately there are 1,160 images that likely require updating. To assist in this task I've updated the project's banner, {{WikiProject DIGI}} with a notice, and started an instruction page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon/Images. I've only created a very basic page for now, and would really appreciate any help with improving the instructions page. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template contentions

Following reasonable success at resuscitating WP:CHICOTW, I am expanding my efforts into building up the assessment division of the WP:WPChi project. I have recently had a bot tag articles within Category:Chicago, Illinois. Of the first 7000 or so articles identified by the bot two have been contentious. One of them has relented to having a {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag. This leaves only Jon Corzine as problematic. It is my understanding that a talk page project banner template is for the purpose of assisting a project categorize relevant articles. For example, the aforementioned tag would place articles in appropriate subcategories of Category:WikiProject_Chicago. Thus, it is useful for helping to administer the work of project. 2 or 3 editors of Corzine's page, seem to have a problem with the fact that our bot is adding the template to pages in the subcategory Category:University of Chicago alumni. In a sense, (from my perspective) they are attempting to WP:OWN the page and set policy for a project in which they are not a member by removing the Chicago project's template. I admit at first I said they had the option of removing it, but since the only other party who was given this option chose to accede to our project template I thought they would too. Now, I have asked that they allow the project to use the banner and they have continued to remove the banner. Does a WP Project have a right to place its banner on reasonably associated pages or can non-members of the project insist on its removal when it is somewhat relevant. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note retailatory WP:ANI post as a result of this post. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In summary, Tony is a single editor, attempting to tag a page against the consensus of three editors. Their opinions may be seen at Talk:Jon Corzine or WP:ANI#Disruptive edits by Tony the Tiger. If someone else sees a point to including Corzine in the Chicago WikiProject, when his only connection with the city is his status as a UC alum, please do explain it - and no, WP:OWN does not mean that the Project (or its <awestruck music>Director</music> can do whatever they like, anywhere on WP. (Corzine does not, and should not, have Category:Chicago, Illinois; so the bot is misdescribed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Really, Tony, you make much too much of yourself. I didn't know this post existed when I asked an admin to pay attention to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(note I have reordered the page in sequence if that is not a problem) It is difficult for me to contest your claim of ignorance if you insist on having a valid claim of ignorance. However on the merits you are changing editing conventions to voting contests. Talk page banners are not majority consensus things. They are the purview of projects. I have repeatedly pointed you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale. It is not the case that people outside a project can by majority consensus controvert a projects banner policy by changing parameters and destination pages. Suppose a majority of people from Chicago decided they wanted to change the parameters of all WP:BIO banners to be top priority for Chicagoans. We would not have a right to do so. Project banners are the domain of project members. My project members know I am working with bot administrators to get our project tagged so we can pursue our goals. I have pointed you to evidence that I am not a one man project. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One page "relented"? Does a project "have a right"? Phrases like this make me wonder if you have internalized the spirit of WP:CON, Tony. -- William Pietri 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is: A WikiProject has no rights at all; editors have the right to act for it. That right ends, as always, when other editors object; as they have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think you should back off on this one. In fact, I question whether WikiProject Chicago should attempt to add people whose only contact was attending school in the area. The stated purpose of the Project is "to coordinate work on articles related to the article Chicago in the English Wikipedia." Are members of the Project advancing its goals by spending time on people whose principal tie is that they spent years here in college? In my opinion, articles on those people are not "related to Chicago" in any meaningful way. I have a somewhat similar issue with editors adding a person as a notable Evanstonian because the person attended Northwestern or because his mother happened to choose Evanston Hospital as the place to give birth, even though the person never lived in Evanston after he was two days old. Let's concentrate on meaningful relationships to Chicago and move on. -- DS1953 talk 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP does in fact work on consensus. However, you must set consensus in the right place. Consensus on use of the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag is set by active members of the project. If you would care to join in our efforts to better the project your opinion is welcome in setting our policy. I wonder if William Pietri understands consensus. Consensus is not set by the uninvolved. DS is makes a very good exaggeration by talking about place of birth as if that is the issue here. It is not. He is welcome to contribute to the WP:WPChi efforts. A new WP:CHICOTW will begin momentarily. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In terms of consensus, Jon Corzine c/o Septentrionalis is one in 7000 against our efforts. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on what goes on any individual page, in terms of project banners, is or should be set on that page. No wikiproject is a walled garden excluding the rest of the project from participation. DES (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, there is no reasonable way that thousands of editors could know that you were considering planting a flag on the articles they were working on, especially when their articles are so tenuously related to your project, so painting them as uninvolved doesn't wash. Further, the editors on 7000 articles not saying anything isn't proof of agreement; it could be amused indifference or grudging tolerance just as well. And you probably don't mean it this way, but your behavior here comes across as bullying to me. Rather than seriously listening and appreciating the concerns of not one but three different editors at Talk:Jon Corzine or attempting to find consensus with them there, you've dragged the whole community into this, starting off with a one-sided introduction. I'd encourage you all to calm down and submit this to some mutually agreeable option in dispute resolution. William Pietri 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution would be fine. Thank you all for your Wikipedia:Third opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#WikiProject scope. As I've tried to tell Tony in the discussion at that link (including a recommendation to avoid the alumni categories!), indiscriminate tagging using categories is fraught with perils. Categories are often inappropriately applied, and fringe categories can cover tenuous connections. WikiProject banners are not, in fact, meant to provide a listing of all the articles under the scope of a WikiProject. Categories (the ones applied on article pages, not on talk pages) can be used to do that. What WikiProject banners are good for is to tag articles that can 'usefully' be assessed and improved by members of the WikiProject. Note the emphasis on 'usefully'. Articles with only a tenuous link to (in this case) Chicago are just a waste of time for WP:WPChi to look at. You might as well look through the list of articles that link to Chicago and add all those to the WikiProject scope (that is not meant to be taken seriously!). Getting the focus of a tagging effort like this correct is as important as doing the tagging itself. Carcharoth 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm also going to repeat what I said over there: "Article categories allow you to find articles to check the Chicago-related content of articles, but ones tagged for a WikiProject to deal with should be largely to do with Chicago, not just tangentially related. The tagging shouldn't be a way of generating a list for the WikiProject of all articles related to Chicago - the article categories already do that. The tagging should be picking out the articles that the WikiProject can usefully spend time assessing and writing/improving." Carcharoth 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's pursue dispute resolution. I am going to start to write up the disagreement at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot. Hopefully we can agree on a neutral description of the problem and then pursue outside opinions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Please let me know on my talk when you are done editing this; at present I see no reason to do more than to quote DES's and Carcharoth's comments above. It would be simpler, however, if Tony would listen to the several editors here who disagree with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Geez, we're having a brawl over a template at the top of a talk page? Or, to be more, correct, an addition to a template at the top of the talk page, an addition that isn't even visible until the reader clicks "Show"?
          • I could understand if fight were about something in an article, and possibly if it was about something that took up a lot of space at the top of the talk page, but ... really? Removing this tag (addition to a template) is among the most important matters for several editors? Absolutely amazing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I wholly agree with John Broughton. The rules are clear - the BOT tags the articles with something with XXX in it (in this case Chicago), and then the project team needs to engage with the article editors. But the decision at the end of the day lyes with the article contributors, not the project creators. Sure, the BOT can place a tag on an article, but having read the article in dispute its clear that the subject attended UC but has little further connection with Chicago, and therefore by default the Chicago project. Why it reached this page is not understandable when the rules are clear, and it could have sorted out quickly at an article level. I can't see how its an issue of policy? Rgds, --Trident13 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be the project participants that decide what articles should be catalogued for their projects. Project templates are no longer disruptive, as recently a {{WikiProjectBanners}} enclosing/hiding template was invented to ameliorate this issue. I think it's clear that Corzine is related to Chicago in a significant manner and it's not beyond reason that WikiProject Chicago would want to catalogue his article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of international wheelchair symbol

This topic has been discussed in a number of places, notably here, but I'd like to get broad community input on this issue.

The issue concerns the use of the International Symbol of Access (ISA) outside its article. The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. However, the symbol is copyrighted and so derivative works are not permitted.

UPDATE: Some derivative works are permitted, see the last bullet point on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Why we ought to use the ISA —Remember the dot (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Until recently, the ISA was used in places such as Template:Infobox Disney ride to illustrate handicapped accessibility. It has been replaced with a crudely drawn (but freely licensed) alternative,

So, here is the question: Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates? Please continue the discussion in this section, and then indicate your position in the poll below. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why it is in debate. Yes, it isn't a free image, but any concievable adaptation of the encyclopedia by any entity could use it the way we do, because it may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. Last I checked, it's pretty unambiguous that "This image may be freely used in situations X, Y, and Z" copyrights are allowed. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates?

Yes, permit use in articles and templates to illustrate handicapped accessibility

  1. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Badagnani. This is such a non-issue that it shouldn't even have to be up for discussion. Let's return to creating great content. Badagnani 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. [4] gives permission to use the symbol "to promote and publicize accessibility of places, programs and other activities for people with various disabilities" and encourages visitors "to place these symbols next to the relevant information in all publications and media". The fact that the image is copyrighted is irrelevant: there is no such thing in Europe as a copyright-free image, except for those on which copyright has expired. The license granted isn't entirely free, but it's about as close as you get. JulesH 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Here we have a prime example of image-license wikilawyering being bad for the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Of course yes. Ridiculous copyright hysteria run amok. Jenolen speak it! 08:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes. I have worked with people with disabilities in the past, and have found that badly thought-out or stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offence, and therefore the most prudent option is to stick to official symbols. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. –Crashintome4196 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. I believe that it makes sense to slightly modify or clarify our fair use criteria to indicate that a limited number of "official symbols" like the International Symbol of Access are not replaceable and do not require specific rationales for each use. This appears to be in line with what Jimbo implied (see below). --NE2 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. It's the symbol for handicapped accessibility, and is freely usable within that context. (You can even profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.) The arguments against using it sound like the sort of thing I might say if I was trying to make a WP:POINT against overly strict interpretation of the image use criteria. If this requires a one sentence addition to the fair use policy saying that we can use universal standard symbols for their intended purpose without fear of repercussion, which should be obvious anyway, then so be it. --tjstrf talk 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. This is very much like Crown Copyright, which provides explicit permission provided the material is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading depiction. The ISA is universally recognised as the symbol for accessibility. Some random vector someone whipped up in Inkscape is not. This is very much a case where we need to interpret our rules in spirit, and not in letter. There is no violation of copyright law here, as any use to designate accessibility is not only fair, but expressly permitted. Chris cheese whine 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. It appears from the discussion below that this is a technical violation of Wikipedia policy. However, I believe that the policy is intended as a way to ensure that we don't run afoul of copyright law, not as an end in itself. Given our confidence that we are not in fact violating the copyright, and given that there is no reasonable alternative to use of this image, this is an ideal time to ignore skirt the policy and do the right thing. Matchups 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Seems like this is a good time to make one of our rare exceptions to the fair-use policy. --Carnildo 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. An exception should be made in this case. We need to be as disability friendly as we possibly can. This is easily within our abilities to do, so we should do it. The reasons against seem to be that it's against the rules, nothing more. That means the rules are wrong or incomplete. Using a poor alternative is doing a poor job of being disability friendly. - Peregrine Fisher 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Although voting is, of course, evil, I think it's important to point out that the Foundation resolution on the subject of nonfree content allows for exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". This is a prime example of the sort of use which should be allowed. Even if the image is technically "unfree", the intent of the copyright holder is clear. If we need to add a sentence to WP:FU to cover this sort of thing, so be it.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. See my comment below. Yes this image can be used, as long as it's usage is properly documented and discussed. We don't need to change WP:FU for just one exception, as long as the rationale of it's usage is properly noted, the image properly categorized, this discussion is referenced, and enough users sign off on it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    1. I would like to point out that the scope of the usage of the image should be clearly defined. We cannot use it everywhere, but to say we can't use it ANYWHERE is just stupid --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. This discussion is fully involved at this point. There's clearly the ability to change policy when needed and rational, and people are arguing that we can't change it because... it's not been changed? get over yourselves. -- nae'blis 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yes. The image is free (as a speech) to use for the purpose we want to use it. It is forbidden to use for the other purposes for the damn good reason. It is morally wrong and probably illegal to use something else for the purpose we intend to use it. What elase can I say? Alex Bakharev 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Yes. I think some people (below) are being way too anal in insisting on policy for policy's sake. Using this image for this purpose is perfectly legal and moral, and doesn't violate either the letter or the spirit of its license or result in anybody being under any risk of being sued. It's technically "unfree" because there are conditions attached to the image, but they are conditions that no reasonable reuse of Wikipedia content would violate. *Dan T.* 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. What a fine showcase of ridiculous copyright paranoia.  Grue  10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Create the appropraite exception document and/or modify the policy to celarly permit this any any simialr logos to be used even though copyrighted, provifed that the license or other legal basis for sue is spelled on on the relevant image page (or its talk page), and provided that any such license is complied with, and provided that the rights granted are broad enough that any plausible non-valdalism use on Wikipedia will be legal. DES (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Since any potential redistributor can use this symbol to illustrate handicapped accessibility, it's really pointless to say that we can't because it has a non-free license. -Amarkov moo! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Yes, allow its use. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for libre images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. Johntex\talk 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Yes. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Yes, obviously. But more importantly, Image:Wheelchair.svg should be deleted as an unauthorized derivative work, unless User:NE2 is willing to argue that Wheelchair.svg is a protected work, such as a work of parody. The current situation is akin to replacing all our images of Mickey Mouse with a user's hand-drawn "Ricky Rat", and then claiming that "Ricky Rat" is in the public domain. That's simply untrue, and the action violates the original work's copyright. --Quuxplusone 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Yes, as it is an international standard, which should preempt our copyright concerns, given the fact that we only intend to use the image in an approved context. —Scott5114↗ 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Yes, we use a similar symbol to denote Wikipedians in wheelchairs. Why not other areas of Wikipedia?--Ispy1981 07:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Yes, I think it should be alright to use in the template, no I am not going to debate about it, this is just my thought. Next up maybe I'll spark up another huge debate whether or not image:International Symbol for Deafness.svg can be used in the template as well ;) --blm07 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Yes. I also think it is ironic that we allegedly cannot use this, as it is a symbol if accessibility, meaning anyone can access. -Indolences 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Yes, per everyone but especially TenOfTrades's Q&A, and TSP's argument about the Euro symbol. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Absolutely. The Foundation has recently clarified that we can decide, as a project, whether we want to allow certain types of non-free content in our Exemption Doctrine Policy, as long as such use is legal where the project content is predominantly accessed.[5][6] This is a perfect example of a case where this is a good idea. We should not allow a minority agenda to derail our project's fundamental educational mission. — Omegatron 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Yes. I hope we can ammend the image use policies to allow for this and any other similar cases when the copyright holder allows for the free commerical use of the image. Biomedeng 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Looks like a good time to apply IAR to me. --Gwern (contribs) 06:47 6 May 2007 (GMT)
  33. Yes, it's the international standard. I wouldn't worry about the copyright for now. Tim.bounceback(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen) 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Yes, allow it and it is ironic that we cannot use this image, as it is a symbol of wheelchair accessibility... - BWCNY 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, display the symbol only to illustrate the symbol, do not use it to illustrate handicapped accessibility

  1. Since it appears we are not allowed to use other licences which allow free use of images but do not allow modification, at least on articles of living people (and I'm thinking of Template:NZCrownCopyright here), I can't see why we should use this. I don't agree with the policy, but we should enforce it equally.-gadfium 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, do not have the poll

First, we do not vote over policy proposals. Second, this is an issue of copyright law, which is obviously not trumped by consensus. Third, we have rather stringent "fair use and free images" rules for reasons imposed by the board, which means we're not going to use a copyrighted image on templates. I suggest you ask Jimbo to make an exception but he likely won't. By the way there is too "something in Europe as a copyright-free image", for instance those in the public domain or those licensed under the GFDL or somesuch. >Radiant< 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Radiant here. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fully agree with Radiant. —xyzzyn 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - Discuss, don't vote. anthony[review] 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: GFDL content is copyrighted, GFDL is a license for distributing copyrighted information. --Kim Bruning 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of copyright law, it is an issue of Wikipedia policy. We may legally use the image to indicate handicapped-accessible railway stations, Disney rides, etc. The copyright holder explicitly allows the symbol to be used in this way. The question is do we want to do that.
This poll is to give us a general idea of what members of the community think. No, we don't vote on policy, but a vote can help us get a general idea of where the community stands. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for free reign to use this as though it were licensed under a free as in freedom license — I am not asking for permission to use this on userboxes or in talk pages. I'm asking whether the community feels that limited use to illustrate handicapped accessibility is (or should be) acceptable. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo has been asked: User talk:Jimbo Wales#International Symbol of Access and licensing. His comments seem to imply that if our fair use policy is changed, we can use it under fair use; but right now, our fair use policy prevents us from using it because it's replaceable and needs a rationale for every use. --NE2 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion may result in a slight change to the fair use policy, whether it be the letter of the policy or the interpretation. Again, I don't want us to go wild over the use of the wheelchair symbol, but limited use where appropriate would be nice. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In the event of the "fair use" policy being changed, it would be good to see that change applied to similar cases - as Gadfium pointed out, Crown Copyright (UK, NZ and other Commonwealth nations), is an analagous situation of reproduction allowed with no modification , and 500 plus images are threatened by recent spate of deletions of crown copyrighted material by free use ideological purists.
The present Fair Use policy is based on US copyright law with some additional restrictions. Unfortunately this
1. tends to exclude images from other jurisdictions so increasing the present US content imbalance and
2. provides a false sense of security that users of Wikipedia images are not breaking copyright or other laws, (some of the crown copyright images have been allowed because they fit within "fair use", when their use could break other nations laws).
There appears to be no reason to consider US law superior to that of most other OECD nations, nor for a policy to be based on anyones law at all.
The reason/retrospective excuse for a policy based only upon US intellectual property law is that wikipedia servers are based in the US, and "fair use" provides protection for the Wikipedia Foudnation against breaches of other nations copyright laws. This reasoning has two flaws - firstly, it does not protect users, as against the foundation, secondly, it does not protect either against laws other than copyright (e.g. defamation).
Ultimately I think we need international lawyers involved in a rethink of the whole policy from the ground up. In the mean time, for the little it is worth, my opinion is a common sense solution might be a relaxation the ideological purity of complete "Free use" position. Reuse without modification is hardly the most onerous requirement, and simply tagging this on the image should warn users of the danger and protect Wikipedia from liability.
If policy in this area is changed a change I would like to see is the abandonment of the Orwellianly loaded terms "Fair Use" and "Free Use", - it appears to me that discussion of change has been chilled because the policy contains the warm and fuzzy but not particularly accurate words "Fair" and "Free". I suspect if a newbie had renamed these policies they would promptly have been deemed POV and reverted :-) Seriously, attempting to discuss the policies seems to provoke at least some readers into irrational knee jerk assumption any one questioning Fair and Free use must be against fairness and freedom. Winstonwolfe 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This poll is funny, and it won't change anything. We can't use the symbol, and people would rather argue to use it than make a better looking free version. Holy crap, people, it's not that freaking hard. I mean, just freaking look at it! We can't use the international one, it's painfully clear, deal with it. This isn't even close to being one of those grey areas we usually discuss here, not by a long shot. This is one of the most obvious situations of when to not use fair use that I've ever seen. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is not "can we?" It's "should we?" We may legally use the image. This poll, so far, has shown great support in favor of using the image, no matter whether the policy currently allows this or not. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Any free alternative is inherently going to not be an internationally recognized symbol. Thus, any free replacement will be inferior to the International Symbol of Access. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Legal issues don't matter, our policy, our non optional policy, says no. Being "inferior" is an absurd thing to say. How is it inferior? It might not look as pretty, but that's not significant. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with the policy, it's our policy, and it's been set by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It's out of your hands, and the poll completely lacks the authority to do anything about the matter. Sorry, but that's the way things are. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about adjusting our policy. Again, the only argument against is that our rules say so. If there's no other reasoning, we should change our rules. The poll will be a good thing to take to the foundation, if they're the ones who have to decide. Finally, the free image is inferior because it isn't a recognized symbol. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anyone won't understand what the free image is implying, and because of that we don't need an internationally recognized symbol. We're not actually helping handicapped people by using this image, and we shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a guide for the handicapped. People don't need to use Wikipedia to see if handicapped parking is available at some train station. Even if they do use it, which we can't really stop people from doing, it's plain as day what the free image means. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But hey, whatever, if you guys want to give the Foundation your poll results, ok. But until they change our policy (which is not limited to just Wikipedia, but to all Wikimedia projects), we can't use the image. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A passionate defense of nonsense, Ned; appropriate for April 1st... Side note: Is this not the classic case of WP:IAR? Aren't we supposed to use independent thought to judge and balance these issues? Shouldn't, in this one case, WP:IAR trump WP:FU? Jenolen speak it! 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, IAR is not a loop hole that anyone can just use when they don't get what they want. Free content is the very reason Wikipedia (and it's predecessor, Nupedia) was started. Asking to be exempt for such minor situation in face of that is just absurd. Continue to discuss if you want, but those who violate our policies will be dealt with accordingly. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Dealt with accordingly??? Accordingly to what? And by who? You? Oh, dear god, PLEASE sign me up for an accordingly dealing. (Does it involve Jimbo reading me the anti-creator screed from "Freedom Defined" over and over again until my ears bleed? (Its hysterical (in every sense) reference to "God-like creators" seems to indicate WP:NPOV is certainly not in effect there...)
I love that WP:IAR is a policy... which, apparently, is only a joke, and is NEVER supposed to be actually used. "Heh, heh, you don't really believe all that stuff about ignoring stupid rules to help make Wikipedia better, do ya?" Uh, yeah, I do. That's why WP:IAR is a policy -- and asking you to have an original thought about this matter has apparently scared you so much, you can only fall back on another policy, which you must believe is somehow "immune" from the reach of WP:IAR. I'm not talking about using WP:IAR to turn Wikipedia in to the world's number one fan site; I'm talking about a one-time use of a sensible "check" on the insane dedication to a contradictory and messy set of unencyclopedic fair use standards. A dedication which is, in this case, emperically HURTING Wikipedia, by making it non-standard, non-International, and disabled unfriendly. But how can you process any of that? I mean, you have a very simple "program" - "Copyright = bad. No use on Wikipedia." Which is fine, and all, but both common sense and the law would permit the ISA's use on Wikipedia. I urge you to stand with common sense and the law, and perhaps, just maybe, realize that the answers to all of life's problems can't be found in WP:FU. Jenolen speak it! 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It means you'll get banned for breaking the policy. If you use the copyrighted image, get reverted, and keep trying to use it, you will be blocked. You obviously don't understand a fundamental point here on Wikipedia, that our fair use restrictions are actually more restrictive than the law requires, not because of legal issues, but because our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL. There's no major benefit to using the copyrighted image. Now you're resorting to inappropriate personal attacks on me because I'm simply telling you the facts of the situation. It's laughable to think that we would bend our fair use policy over something so trivial. You've completely missed the point. You're all hung up on something that isn't even an issue. No significant improvement will come from using the "official image" at all. Your argument is weak and lacks logic. Wikipedia will not be better for using another fair use image, it will be worse for using another fair use image. We are about promoting free content and using free content whenever possible, and only using copyrighted content when we have no other options. You are disagreeing with a fundamental value of Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And really, who cares if it's blue or not, or exactly the same image. It doesn't matter, EVERYONE will know exactly what it means. Are you really going to fight this tooth and nail, over something so absurdly unimportant and insignificant? You want us to bend the rules for this?? Are you batshit insane? -- Ned Scott 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ned, it's not batshit insane to say that it's appropriate to use a nonfree image that has been released by the copyright holder for exactly this sort of use — especially in light of the Foundation resolution on unfree content, which allows exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". It is reasonable to say that a crudely drawn substitute is not an acceptable alternative, because the ISA is internationally recognized, and the crudely drawn susbtitute is not. The Foundation's resolution says that nonfree content "must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A reasonable argument can be made that the crude substitute does not serve the same educational purpose as the ISA. So please, refrain from calling people making reasonable arguments "batshit insane". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But this is specifically about incidental use of the symbol without any educational purpose. The issue is not to remove the symbol from International Symbol of Access, but not to use it in an infobox of e. g. metro stations. There, the non-free symbol serves no educational purpose, which can be done just as well by a free symbol; therefore, it must be replaced. The symbol is also not an ‘identifying protected work’ in that context. —xyzzyn 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Josiah, they're talking about using the image in templates and stuff, like for train stations. I have no problem with using the image in articles that discuss the image. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. I maintain that the use of the ISA in templates to identify handicap-accessible locations and facilities is an educational use, because it establishes in a clear, unambiguous, internationally recognized manner that the facility in question is handicap-accessible. The substitute image does not perform that function; nor would a text message, which would not be accessible to non-English speakers. Yes, we are the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that we should refuse to use internationally recognized symbols which we're legally entitled to use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A text message in English would perform this function perfectly, since we are the English Wikipedia. That there are other means to express the same thing shouldn’t bother us especially if those means are in contempt of very basic policy. —xyzzyn 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm dumbfounded at your response, Josiah. Our content is supposed to be free of copyright red tape, so that you can use it for anything, educational, commercial, whatever. We don't allow educational-use only images (unless under WP:FU) or even images that people specifically for Wikipedia-only use (such images can even be speedy deleted). Wikipedia is specifically stricter than the law requires, because we're about free content. WP:FU isn't how it is because of the law, it's that way to prevent needless copyrighted images in a free-use project. This is so fundamental that it hurts my head. -- Ned Scott 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that this is not needless — it is offensive to substitute something that looks a bit like an internationally recognized symbol but isn't it, when there is no good reason not to use the internationally recognized symbol. It's like representing a country with an image that looks a bit like its flag, but isn't. If Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg were copyrighted and Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png were free, would it be acceptable to use the latter in UN-related articles? After all, it looks a bit like the UN flag. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I've covered this already, but unless you know something I don't, using an alternative image in place of the ISA will not be offensive (why the hell would you think it would be?) to people who are disabled. Disabled people don't have an attachment to that image, it's just an informational icon. It's not a flag, it's not a symbol of hope, it's just a damn icon to tell you if there's a ramp somewhere or if there's closer parking spaces. Other people and places commonly use alternative symbols to note disabled access all the time, and do so without incident. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that it's legal to use the ISA. It is not clear to me that it is legal to use a similar "free" image, as that might be considered a derivative work which is not allowed by the copyright holder's release. Matchups 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A derivative work is just that. A work which is similar to another work but was created independently isn’t derivative. —xyzzyn 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this is a gray area where it's hard to tell if we have a derivative work or not. - Peregrine Fisher 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a legal expert, but the concept of a stick figure in a wheel chair is one of those things.. OfficeMax used to have a mascot that was a little stick figure, noted by a unique marking on his head. Other stick figures are very similar, but obviously OfficeMax can't make the claim that those stick figures infringe on their copyright. I'd think that same logic would apply here. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does fair use even apply? If the image isn't used on a page that discusses the image, then it seems like it doesn't. We wouldn't be using the image under fair use, we'd be using it accordin to what its copyright grants. It isn't going to be released since it's copyright allows anyone to use it, as long as they're designating something that's handicapped accesible. If it were made free, it could be misused to lable something that isn't handicapped accessible, so it isn't going to be released. I wouldn't even want it released. The only change would be that people could misuse it. We should just explain its status on the image page, and then use it for anything that is handicapped accessible. There doesn't seem to be a tag for this sort of thing, so not sure what to do there. - Peregrine Fisher 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is supposed to be used for anything, educational or commercial. This is why we can't use images that allow for education use only without a fair use rational. Fair use is the only way we could use this image. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ned, we're suggesting that this image might be in a third category: unfree, but not fair use. The Foundation's resolution allows us to create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) for unfree content. These exemptions must be limited according to item #3 of the resolution:

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

The ISA is clearly an example of "identifying protected works such as logos", and we would be within our Foundation-delimited rights to include it in our EDP. At the moment, en.wikipedia's EDP is WP:FU, and obviously the vast majority of nonfree content on Wikipedia would be determined by our "fair use" policy — but "fair use" is immaterial to the use of this image, whose copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it. I, and others, are proposing that en.wikipedia's EDP explicitly allow the use of the ISA and other copyrighted international symbols whose use is uncontroversial in any other context.
Ned, you say that you're flabbergasted by my response. I'm somewhat puzzled that you apparently don't see how using a different image in place of the ISA is problematic. If it's sufficiently unlike the ISA not to be a copyright violation, it's potentially confusing and/or offensive to disabled people, who know, use and rely on the ISA. If it's close enough not to be confusing and/or offensive, it's a derivative image. Either way, we're better off using the image itself, and adjusting our EDP accordingly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've explained in private to Josiah just how close I do know about disabled people. There's no risk of confusion, and the offensive concern is not an issue. I'm really not sure why one would come to the conclusion that using a different image would be offensive. I've even seen different images be used to indicate disabled parking, ramps, etc, and they're purely informational, nothing emotional or significant about them. These are not flags, and disabled people do not have an attachment to the ISA image. I don't know why anyone would come to such a conclusion, and I know you don't mean anything bad by that, but if I were disabled I'd be a little offended at your view. Why would you think that this image would be.. "holy" (or whatever) simply because it's used on maps and parking spaces? You've got it all wrong, offensiveness isn't a factor in this at all. No one's feelings will be hurt, no one will be offended. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Q & A

Is this image 'free' (in the libre sense)? Nope. There are restrictions on its use.

Is this a bad thing, or a reason not to use it on Wikipedia? Nope. In fact, it's what makes it worthwhile as a symbol—its meaning is clear because of its licensing terms.

Is there any reason why we would want or need to use the symbol in a way that is prohibited by its license? Nope.

Is this a 'fair use' issue? Nope. We would only be using the image in a way explicitly permitted by its license. 'Fair use' is a defence to a charge of copyright infringement; it would only be an issue if we were violating the license terms.

Wait—it's selfish to only think about our own use. What about people who redistribute Wikipedia materials for a profit? They're covered. The image can be redistributed in commercial materials as long as the terms of its license are followed.

Ah, but they can't freely modify the image, create derivative works, or use it without restriction. What about those people? Sucks to be them. If they want to abuse the International Symbol of Access to fuck with the mobility challenged, screw 'em. Wikipedia tolerates hundreds (thousands? more?) of Crown Copyright images which are free for use in educational materials, but require permission for commercial redistribution. Wikipedia tolerates thousands of non-free, copyrighted images under very tenuous 'fair use' claims. We expect that when people make copies or derivatives of articles incorporating these images, those people will take appropriate care to check the licensing of all the images on the page. Here, with the ISA, we have an image being used appropriately and which will likely propagate without harm into reasonable derivative works and commercial copies. Why are we choosing to get stuck on this particular point? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what tag should go on the image page? - Peregrine Fisher 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Images with ‘tenuous’ fair use claims should be tagged accordingly or sent to WP:IFD. Other crap exists, but that’s not a reason to add to it. What about people who find themselves hindered by the third pillar? Well, sucks to be them. —xyzzyn 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how this is fair use. - Peregrine Fisher 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia are either free on unfree. There is no inbetween. This is en policy and was recently clarified in the foundation's licensing resolution, which states that images must be free (as in libre, which the ISA is not), or covered by an EDP, which is for the limited discussion of copyrighted works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed g2s (talk • contribs) 21:57, April 1, 2007

Please read the Foundation resolution about what EDPs can and can't cover. As I noted above, the Foundation allows us to use nonfree content for "identifying protected works such as logos". There is no reason not to adjust our EDP to allow use of this image, in accordance with the limits the Foundation has set. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That EDP page is interesting. Has anything besides Free and FU been discussed before? - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Our policy already allows for "identifying protected works". Its use on the ISA article is not being debated. Using it as a replacement for the text "disabled access available" is not "identifying [a] protected work". ed g2s • talk 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We wouldn't be using it under fair use protection. We'd be using it under the rights granted to us by its copyright. - Peregrine Fisher 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Let's ban the use of the Wikipedia logo and the Wikimedia logo. After all, they're subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and not licensed under the GFDL, so they must be worthless and a detriment to our cause of creating free content. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia logos have been removed and taken down from many pages, banners, and such for those very reasons. Image:Example.jpg used to be the Wikipedia logo, but because it wasn't a free image we took it off. Most people don't realize that Wikipedia's logo is not free use, which is pretty much the only reason we haven't taken it down from non-official uses, or uses unrelated to guidelines, policy, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So what's the best way to take this to the foundation? It looks like if it was up to us, we would have a consensus to use it to identify handicapped access. At the least, we have a consensus to ask. Jimbo's page doesn't seem like the best place. The last time we tried that, it devolved into snarky comments, and he seemed to tune out. We should probably include the International Symbol for Deafness, and other ICTA symbols in our request. - Peregrine Fisher 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
foundation-l --Kim Bruning 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you choose to e-mail them, please emphasize that the ICTA is not going to release this under a free license because they surely only want it used to identify handicapped accessibility. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol. That would undermine the value of the symbol as an international identifier of handicapped accessibility. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's use the mailing list. Since this is where we're talking about it, let's discuss what points need to be made. I'll try and list the pros and cons so far. Copying some of the words used in the discussion so far.

Pro:

Using it to designate handicapped accessible objects does not violate its copyright.
The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility.[7] The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. It's copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it.
Its meaning is clear precisely because of its licensing terms.
Stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offense.
It is non-replaceable, except by Image:Wheelchair.svg or words such as "wheelchair accessible." These are not internationally recognized symbols.
You can profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.
It is universally recognised by design and common usage over many years.
It's use would be disability friendly.
The wikimediafoundation does sometimes allow exceptions with an EDP, which currently is WP:FU. FU doesn't speak to this issue.
It would not be used in userspace.
It is easily recognised by non-english speakers.
Using Image:Wheelchair.svg may not be legal, as it may be a derivative work of the ISA.
It is unlikely to be made free because it's copyright's only restriction prohibits its use to designate objects that are not handicapped accessible. Making it free would remove this restriction. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol.

Con:

It's not free, and it wouldn't be used under fair use, unlike all images on wikipedia.
The symbol is copyrighted and so derivative works are not permitted.
We have a substitute image Image:Wheelchair.svg, or can use text such as "wheelchair accessible."
It's use would be a violation of Wikipedia policy.
Since we don't allow other free uses of images which which allow modification, we shouldn't do it in this case.
While it wouldn't be used in user space, it could be used in a template, and wouldn't have a (free use?) rational for each page.
They're may be international issues that are not raised in US law.
Wikipedia is not a guide for the handicapped.
It's use is not important.
It serves not educational purpose.
Our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL, which this image would not be.
Images on Wikipedia are either free on unfree. There is no inbetween.

Did I miss anything important? - Peregrine Fisher 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled by this idea that not using the ISA image would be offensive. I'm not being rude here, I honestly am baffled. Have any of you known or lived with a disabled person? Also, while the ISA owns the blue wheel chair image with a stick figure, they can't make claim to every stick figure wheel chair image. Do you think that anyone was offended/confused, or even gave 2 seconds of thought, to images like these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]? No disabled person is going to be angry or confused when seeing these other images in real life, on streets, maps, restrooms, rides, or ramps, why would they be? You guys need a touch of reality here, and you're making an issue out of nothing. Your over anticipating and trying to preemptively be PC for someone that most people, disabled or not, never even thought was an issue. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I've never lived with a disabled person. I'm not going to say I'm offended, but the fact that our policies prevent us from using these easily understood symbols is troubling to me. My guess is that when someone sees our version of the wheelchair, they'll think that it probably means disabled access, but they won't be sure. People who don't know they can click on the image and gain additional information will remain slightly unsure.
Those image links you provide seem to be standard uses of the ISA. If using a red version like your first example is legal, but not restricted by the ISA copyright, I would be cool with that. We can just use red versions of all the disabled access symbols. I think they're all just legal uses of the ISA, though.
Will disabled people be pissed if we don't use the standard symbols? Some yes, some no. As we know, WP is mostly edited by able bodied white mails aged 15-45, or something close to that. We're not going to be good judges of what's best for the disabled. Because of this, I think that if we go out of our way to help the disabled more than seems necessary to us, then we'll be getting closer to what's right. We discuss FU vs. Free Use all day, and that makes it seem very important. If you were disabled all day, that would seem important. - Peregrine Fisher 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd go farther than that and say most disabled wouldn't even give which image used significant thought. We have no evidence to show otherwise, and only wild and unproven speculation. I'm not willing to "prove" my own experiences with such situations, for privacy reasons, but this is the first I've ever heard someone even suggest that a person might be offended because the disabled icon isn't exactly the same. It's really nice that you guys want to go out of your way to help people, but doing this.. thinking that it is helping disabled people, that's not what's happening. You're not hurting them.. but it's just kind of.. null. That's like me blowing at a house that's on fire, with my mouth, thinking I'm helping. Good intent, but at the end of the day it honestly makes no difference. Really, I'm not making this up. You guys have nothing but unfounded speculation to come to these conclusions. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give to you that this discussion is opinion, same as all talk page discussions. I don't know what you mean about proving your own experiences, but even if you yourself are disabled, that doesn't mean you speak for a whole segment of society. I just think we should err on the side of helping disabled people. This is something that some of us think will help disabled people, which isn't silly. Maybe this doesn't make that big of a difference in the lives of disabled people. I don't think that means we shouldn't try. Some things help the disabled a little, and some thing a lot. I say do both, if they don't hurt us. We should do everything we can, and this is easily within the power of the foundation, so we should do it. - Peregrine Fisher 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
While it's true that even if I was disabled (I'm not) that I wouldn't be able to speak for all disabled people (calling them a segment of society is a very inaccurate way to profile disabled people, who are individuals and have their own views), having some experience with disabled people would seem to trump no experience whatsoever. I don't mean to try to speak with authority, I just mean to point out that there's no evidence to support that there would be any confusion or cause of any offense. Your heart is in the right place, but using the ISA image on things like templates for Disneyland is painfully insignificant to a disabled person's life. We don't bend the rules just because you mean well, because in the end you're still wrong. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would call all of those examples derivative works of the ISA, except this one and possibly this one. The legality of derivative works is questionable, but it doesn't look like the ICTA is concerned about them because they are only being used in the context of illustrating handicapped accessibility. Thus, the restrictions the ICTA imposes on creation of derivative works of the ISA appear to be fairly relaxed. This is another thing to mention in the case for permitting use on Wikipedia.
I doubt that any free replacement would be used outside Wikipedia, even if the two symbols are of comparable artistic quality. It may seem counterintuitive to readers to use a symbol completely different from the one actually used in the real world. Thus, there is value in using the internationally recognized symbol in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the world.
The symbol is copyrighted for a very good reason. Do you deny this? If you do not deny that it's copyrighted for a good reason, then why should we refuse to use it in our project? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My point in showing the other images was to show that people often use images that are similar but not the exact same as the standard ISA image, and do so without any incident whatsoever. We do not need a white on blue stick figure that is exactly like the ISA one. It won't seem counterintuitive to readers, there won't be confusion, because it's so minor no one will give it any thought. You have no evidence at all to support your speculations, and are blindly ignoring common sense. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, lengthy debate here. The point is that the Foundation tells us to use free images whenever possible. We can use a free image here rather than a copyrighted one. That's the wiki philosophy. >Radiant< 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, this discussion is just stupid and pointless beyond belief !!! And Jimbo saying that we can't use the image without changing the FU policy is even more STUPID (Sorry Jimbo, i really do feel so). We don't have a tag for it  ? MAKE a tag !! We don't have policy that says we can use it? MAKE it a policy that we can use this specific image!!! To say that we need to explicitly have an exception to the policy is just stupid for a single image. We could have 20 respectable editors sign of on it on the Image page and say: "It's ok to use this copyrighted image, in relation to disability topic within wikipedia etc etc etc." Categorize it as copyrighted image, Categorize it as "free to use, not to edit" and get it done with. This is Wikipedia bureaucracy that is pointless and disrupting even. Get over yourselves and over Jimbe (Jimbo is not WikiGod) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you haven't yet signed the poll, I would like it if you would do so so that we can get an idea of the number of people agreeing and disagreeing. Another way to phrase the question would be "do the benefits of using this image outweigh the copyright restrictions?" Many of us say yes, and many say no. By all means, continue to discuss the issue. However, without signing the poll, it's hard to tell whether 90% or 50% of users support using this image. This is a question hard to decide by consensus, so it would really be helpful if we could at least identify strong support for one side or the other, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Conduct a survey. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't force people to use a survey. It's pretty obvious that we have tons of editors that would disagree with the usage you are trying to promote. My guess is a lot of people don't even think this is worth the trouble to talk about. It's that simple. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, by my estimate, approximately 75% of the Wikipedians who have took place in this discussion have supported using the ISA to indicate handicapped accessibility. If you are claiming that the silent majority supports your position, then let me reiterate to you that the silent majority is silent, i.e. they haven't told us what they think.
I'm still waiting to hear your position on using the unfree Wikimedia logos in places such as Template:Interwikitmp-grp, Template:Commons, Template:InterWiki, Template:Meta, Template:Wikibooks, and Template:Wikiversity, not to mention every single page on Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to ask the Foundation, but my guess would be that the logo can be used for operational tasks of Wikipedia, but not as actual article content without a rationale. But for all we know, we should take them out of those templates too. The logo was Image:example.jpg for years before it was finally taken out. Most people don't even know the logos are not under the GFDL.
As for the sidebar itself, that is not considered to be part of the article document, just a part of the page displaying the content. About.com can display their copyrighted logo along side their mirrored copy of Wikipedia content, because the article is not "the entire window". The entire window is just how the end product is produced, nothing more than a UI, and the article is within the UI.
As for the silent majority, you can't just ignore past discussions about similar issues simply because it's not in -this- discussion. We do not ignore the thoughts and concerns of our fellow Wikipedias just because they can't watch every possible discussion, especially when we know they have strong positions on such matters. Do you honestly think we can't round up an assload of Wikipedians to push that little survey the other way around by simply making this discussion better known? A poll, even if recent, does not just debunk previous discussion or well known arguments of active Wikipedians. Like I said before, no one has probably bothered to get more attention to this discussion, or has seen the discussion but passed it up, because many of us feel this is such a minor and obvious issue. Keep pushing the issue if you really want to be proven wrong so badly, but I'd rather you not, for the sake of using all of our time more wisely. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are these past discussions? Who participated in them? How similar are they to this instance?
You assume that these other Wikipedians support your position and that is why they are not commenting. However, Wikipedians such as Amarkov and Badagnani indicated the exact opposite, saying that it is very clear that we should be able to use this image. Even if the other Wikipedians are all rolling their eyes at this discussion and staying aloof from it, their disinclination to participate does not indicate support for one side or the other.
You may be surprised to know that I sent out notices to several editors who participated in previous discussions about this exact same issue, and that there is currently an RFC open on this topic. By all means, please inform other editors who you think would like to participate. We could even open a request for mediation, although unless I misunderstand the policy, all 24 (by my count) Wikipedians who have commented would have to sign off on it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Guessing what wikipedians who aren't commenting think isn't binding, obviously. But, my experience with these wikipedia name space talk pages is that this is where the strict interpretation crowd hangs out. It would be cool if we could get a watchlist notice like WP:ATT has right now. I think the more diverse the group of people brought in, the higher the proportion of support for these images would be. The proportion of support is actually enormously high considering who traffics these page. - Peregrine Fisher 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A watchlist notice is an interesting idea, but we should wait until the WP:ATT controversy blows over before putting up another notice. That way, we'd be less likely to anger Wikipedians over overuse of that mechanism. And by that time, we may already have this discussion resolved. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't want to try and do the watchlist thing now. Maybe after this discussion plays out, and if we have a consensus, we should implement the changes in policy that we've been discussing. It seems like Jimbo and rest of WP didn't even notice the whole WP:ATT merge until after it was done. After that, we can discuss the watchlist notification if people have a problem. - Peregrine Fisher 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt they'd make a watchlist announcement for something like this. If you guys really want to get down to business then I suggest we make this a little more organized and less poll-ish, maybe using a separate, structured discussion, RFC page (summaries on one side, structured discussion on the talk side). We might also get some good insight by asking for comments from Wikipedians listed in Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition's subcats. Feel free to even keep counts and comments that are already existing, but right now the discussion is all over the place and needs to be a little better formatted. I still think it's a waste of time, but it might be a good lesson for you guys. Remember, you can have good intentions but completely miss the point, especially when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about in the first place.. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An RfC might be a good idea. What's the procedure for keeping counts and comments from what's happened before? - Peregrine Fisher 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
DJ, the issue is when the image isn't being used in articles about disability, instead being used in articles like ones for Disneyland rides (in the infobox, with only the icon being shown). -- Ned Scott 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Disneyland rides are just one possible use, and probably a minor one. If we can get the copyright stuff figured out, we could include any of the 13 disability access symbols on appropriate pages. Things like museums, libraries, television programs, and books. - Peregrine Fisher 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For a moment, lets say all of these images are free use images and we have no such problem. The images are being used as if we were some kind of travel guide, rather than helping article content. Just because the guide seems like it's for a good cause doesn't make it any less of a guide. Now, I'm sure we don't need to take out stuff simply for that reason, as long as it doesn't get out of hand then who cares if Wikipedia helps you find a handicapped ramp, but that's a secondary concern that is outside of the article's real content. Don't forget that we are an encyclopedia, not a place to dump every possible tid bit of info. Information for disabled people is abundant and easily accessed for the kind of uses you guys are talking about, and there's no demand for us to fill this extra role. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like encyclopedic information to me, when used within an already encyclopedic article. A list of disability accessible whatevers would seem to be more of a guide. Also, because other sites may have similar info doesn't mean we shouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
List of New York City Subway stations is an example of its use; essentially it makes the table smaller than saying "handicapped accessible". --NE2 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I could see how having this information for the NYC subway might be helpful to researchers of disability accessibility and as such I think it belongs in wikipedia --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I can see that point, but that doesn't require the use of the ISA image. There's no reason, other than convenience and appearances, that we can't use text, which would tell everyone what is being noted, not just those who know what the image means (most people know it's something for disabled people, but often they think it's a wheelchair only sign, etc). The ISA image isn't the most informative option simply because it's a graphical symbol. Blind people using text readers won't be helped by the image, but I guess it's ok to ignore those disabled people. -- Ned Scott 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's such an international symbol that it IS better then text. And I think it's a very bad reason to in this specific case not allow usage of such a logo just because of our Fair Use policy. Also for blind people there is the "alt" attribute of the image and the mousehover text. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Im admittedly jumping in late to the party here, but the goal of wikipedia is a freely reproducible, usable encyclopedia. Sure, all the uses we have for the symbol are legit, but by the GFDL we have to give all downstream users of the 'pedia the right to modify it, and this breaks that. Fair use is a neccesary evil in cases where free alternatives are available. This has a free alternative. Using this is just blatent disrespect to the liscense of our work where there need be none. And the notion that disabled people would be offended would be shocking if it werent so patently absurd. Its hyperbole from an undefensible posistion. Look in the top right corner of the page, you see our logo and the text Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. That doesn't mean no cost, that means freedom. Get off your mock-indignation that we actually intend to support free culture and use the freely liscensed wheelchair image. -Mask 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This image may or may not indicate disability services.
It's the classic free vs. encyclopedia argument. I guess you feel the free part is more important in this case. Other people here feel the free alternative (assuming it isn't just a derivative work) doesn't do the job well enough. The 13 disability access symbols are free, as long as they're used to identify disability services. You can even make derivative works such as this one, as long as it is used to identify disability services. The reason why the real images should be used is because a person can be sure that it isn't identifying something without the correct services, precisely because of its copyright restrictions. - Peregrine Fisher 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thats frankly not my call to make, it's Jimbo's and he's been quite clear on that. I dont know if you remember way back, but there were fair use images everywhere till the Foundation approved rampage got most of them. It's why 'Wikipedia is Free content' is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars deemed the core essence of wikipedia. And while you're here, its Jimbos world, you just play in it. Got a problem with it? Because of that wonderful GFDL, you are perfectly welcome to fork the project and start your own. -Mask 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We're just discussing it and hoping to get the foundation to think about it, and possibly grant us an exception for these symbols. - Peregrine Fisher 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought the board's resolution allows each project to set its own Exemption Doctrine Policy, without nailing down firm rules about what will and will not be permitted by these policies. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to jump in again. Isn't our own wikipedia logo copyrighted ??? I mean how hypocrytical would that be. You say to use a (forbidden) derivative work of an internationally recognized logo, a logo which is internationally freely usable to identify accessibility issues, whilst not even having your own logo using the same "standard".... Sorry, but this is just laughable. You cannot say that the wikipedia logo not being GFDL is "rightful" and then the ISA logo, which i'm 100% sure is more free then the wikipedia logo is not usable. And I checked, the wikipedialogo is in use ALL OVER the place where it might not be 100% compatible with the current license for downstream usage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is used inside of the encyclopaedia, where it isn't fair use, it should be deleted - there was discussion on this matter some time ago over banners. Two wrongs don't make a right -Halo 08:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Above, someone wrote, in defense of not using the ISA, This has a free alternative... Not really. Just because someone makes their own non-standard, non-Internationally accepted version of the handicapped access symbol doesn't make it an "alternative." It is, however, non-standard, and non-Internationally accepted... not unlike my own Stop Sign design I'm hoping will become the new standard. Jenolen speak it! 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the wheelchair stick figure we created is a derivative work, although I don't know a ton about copyright law. Imagine if you put that image on a sign, and put the sign in front of a non disability accessible building. That doesn't sound legal to me. You probably can't know for sure without going to court, but people have been sued over stick figures like in the Xiao Xiao case. Or to think of it another way, what if Nike's symbol on their shoes was the ISA. I think they would sue you into the ground if you came out with a shoe that had our wheelchair symbol on it. - Peregrine Fisher 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify something: we do not use non-free licenses ... EVER. This is Foundation-level policy. They are simply forbidden, completely. No matter how reasonable you think they are. Any argument that goes along the lines of, "but the license say we can use it for ..." should be completely ignored. It is an unfree license (per the Foundation's definition) and as such of no interest to us whatsoever.

All that is left to consider is whether it is covered by our EDP. For "identifying the protected work" on the ISA page it is. As a replacement for the free and adequate text (WP:FUC#1), "disabled access available" or a footnote, it isn't. ed g2s • talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

‘In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not the [artist]’s purpose’[14]; ‘Especially, [the licence] must not specify any usage restrictions’[15]; ‘All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License,’ ‘as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition’[16]. And that’s why we don’t use ‘usable free of charge for limited purposes’ material. —xyzzyn 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my question: What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license?
Also, if that's really what you think, then you should go remove the copyrighted logos from Template:Interwikitmp-grp, Template:Commons, Template:InterWiki, Template:Meta, Template:Wikibooks, and Template:Wikiversity, as they are "of no interest to us whatsoever". —Remember the dot (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Trying to predict every possible outcome of creativity and artistic process is pointless; trying to sort such outcomes into legitimate and illegitimate ones is entirely futile. I don’t think about what downstream users are going to do with free material; I let them. I think that’s the spirit of the definition of freedom recently made official by the Foundation.
The Foundation’s logos should be removed where they do not meet the usual criteria for non-free logos, but I’ll leave that to somebody better able to handle the ‘response’ by you-know-who and just post my opinion in the discussion. —xyzzyn 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that the foundation refused to license the logos under the GFDL? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy in real life and unable to participate in this debate as much as I would like, but after private correspondence with Ned Scott I'd like to retract my earlier claim that the ISA is like a flag and that alterations of it may be offensive to people with disabilities. This was based on a misunderstanding on my part.

However, I still think that Peregrine Fisher's concern that the substitute image may be a derivative of the ISA is an important one. If Image:Wheelchair.svg is a derivative image of the ISA, then if we want to use it we will have to carve out an exemption for it in our EDP — and if we did that, there would be no reason not to use the real, internationally recognized symbol instead of its derivative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Josiah, Do you agree with me and remember the dot, that if the ISA image needs to be an exemption by the EDP in order to be used, that the wikipedia and wikicommons etc logo's also need an EDP amendment ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes — and I think that EDP amendments should be made, both for the various Wikimedia logos and for the ISA and the other ICTA icons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We just need a new image

I think the problem is just that is too closely modeled on the ISA symbol. That's the reason it looks silly. We need a totally different idea. I would suggest a direct icon of a wheelchair wheel, something like , but optimized to be more particular to the context (perhaps an inner guide wheel, a different arrangement of spokes, whatever works).--Pharos 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we then just use text. There is no point in using a "comparable" image to an internationally recognized symbol, that is so different that it's not a derivative work but also still recognizable as "the international logo". That would just be a "working ourselves around wikipedia policies"-attempt, without having to actually think about why the policies are there. In my eyes, the policies are the problem here, not the use cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
But icons are practically useful to us, and not just when they're "international standards". See all of the different icons at Template:Infobox Disney ride. I feel that a wheelchair wheel icon, easily recognizable as such, would help our readers, without embarrassing us with a silly image, or forcing us to give up our valuable free images policy.--Pharos 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel ;-)
Users should be able to tell immediately what the image represents, rather than having to learn a new symbol used only on Wikipedia. It would be much better to use a partially unfree image than to confuse our readers. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Text would be better than a symbol which would be meaningless to readers. The advantage of a symbol is to convey information quickly and efficiently. The ISA does that. does that too, only more awkwardly and in a fashion that may be a derivative use of the ISA. does not — my first thought on seeing that image was of the Ashoka Chakra in the middle of the Flag of India. (Do we want to say that a given railway station or Disneyland ride is accessible to Indians?) I don't see how the icon of a wheelchair wheel, of whatever design, will convey what the ISA does.
Furthermore, I believe that any attempt to create an ISA replacement for Wikipedia's use is doomed to failure, because the ISA is the only widely recognized symbol for accessibility. As I've said before, only an image similar to the ISA will be widely understood, and such an image is probably a derivative work. Any image sufficiently distinct from the ISA will be too unfamiliar to readers to be of any use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm not really someone who's absolutely dead-set against text. Although it wouldn't exactly be unique to have an icon that only exists on Wikipedia, like for example Image:SingleRiderAvailability.png. I do feel that it would be probably be possible to come up with an icon that in the context of transport articles would be recognizable as a wheelchair wheel symbol; but perhaps I'm wrong, and we should just use text. I don't think we could be "doomed to failure" in any case as the goal is rather modest — just an icon that would be usable at Wikipedia; this shouldn't be interpreted as some sort of grand challenge to the ISA.--Pharos 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just ask the ISA itself?

Ask them what they think of the issue. That might help.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure their answer is already clearly demonstrated by the copyright they have given the image: "No, we don't mind you using it for its intended purpose. No, we aren't changing the license." --tjstrf talk 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's unlikely that the ICTA (the organization) would release the ISA or the other accessibility icons under a free license, but I suppose there's no harm in asking. If they say "no", then at least we know for certain. It would be good if someone with some experience asking for free licensing did it. The ICTA's contact info is here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
When we tell them "It would be nice and all if you prefer us to use your logo, but because of the licence you use, we are not willing to use it, what do you suggest we do?", they might come up with a solution for us. Remember, they are the experts in the area, and they might think of things that we haven't thought of yet. Martijn Hoekstra 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We should use the image as intended by the ISA. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for libre images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. Johntex\talk 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not "a ridiculous extreme." The point here is, no matter how noble a purpose we may think is served by this license, we do not use licenses which restrict use of a work more than the GFDL would. It would be exceptionally easy to simply replace instances of this symbol with text-"wheelchair accessible." (And indeed, if our goal is greater access to the disabled, this would be much easier for the blind using screen readers then an image anyway.) We only use restricted images under very limited circumstances, and when absolutely no alternative is available. In this case, alternatives are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It definitely is a ridiculous extreme. A small minority of people are too afraid of non-free content. We need to be less restrictive in our use on non-free content, not more restrictive. Our primary goal should be to build an informative and easy to read encyclopedia. If a different image can help with that fine, but we shouldn't avoid this image just because it is non-free. That is not a good use of our time or resources. Johntex\talk 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Our primary goal, actually, is to create a free encyclopedia. That doesn't just mean "free of charge," nor even just "free for anyone to edit." It means that whenever possible, we use content which is permissible for anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or modify. In some cases, a non-free image is the only possibility for illustrating something, generally when the image itself is being discussed. For example, the article about the ISA would have to use the ISA, because it is discussing the symbol itself. That is a valid use, and no free alternative could serve that purpose. The same would be true, for example, in discussing an iconic, notable photograph or painting. But in most cases, free alternatives can be used or created, and we should not use unfree content in those cases. In this case, the free-content phrase "wheelchair accessible" will serve the same purpose as an unfree image-illustrating that the location in question is accessible. Given the choice between something free ("libre") which will serve the purpose, and something less than that, we always choose the free alternative. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
About blind users using screen readers, the screen reader should pick up the alt attribute and read that text, making either text or the image equally accessible to a blind reader. There is no reason to prefer the text over the image because of accessibility concerns. The question is, for the majority of users, would we rather present them with the ISA?
I and others who have commented hold that the ISA, as an internationally recognized symbol, is irreplaceable. No free equivalent could be created, as any free equivalent would be used only on Wikipedia and not in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not Wikipedia policy. The problem is international law. Who the *beep* copyrights a standard symbol, and puts limits on its use!? What next? The letter "A", or the symbol "$" ? %-/ --Kim Bruning 12:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is quite common. We live in a world of protectionist laws, and as such you need to have the copyright and what not in order to defend the usage of a verbatim or similarly looking text/image. I would also like to point out that in many countries it's not possible to "give-up" the copyright, you can only license your work freely (or not of course :D ). Note that the usage license is the problem here, NOT the copyright. Almost all major International standards are copyrighted, luckily most don't define their own images. I still think it's stupid not to allow the use of this logo btw. I still think it falls under current Fair Use law, just not under our Fair Use policy.
It's like saying you are gonna write an encyclopedia in mores code, but you can't use the symbols for mores code, because the international mores code standard says that it would be illegal to switch the meaning of the dot and the dash. There just isn't a point in that. Sometimes you need to see where your own rules simply exceed the commons sense. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. note that almost all the fonts are not free for use. Your suggested situation is already a reality and always has been. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The Latin alphabet was first published prior to 1923. The ISA was not. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
However, that's not quite such an esoteric point as it sounds. The euro symbol, €, is copyright. "The copyright for the euro symbol belongs to the European Community, which for this purpose is represented by the European Commission."[17] Yet we freely use it to represent the Euro currency, just as organizations and companies all over the world use it, include it in standard fonts, and so on. How are we able to do this? Because "The Commission does not object to the use of the euro symbol, indeed it encourages the symbol’s use as a currency designator" - just as with the ISA, the copyright holder allows the symbol to be freely used to indicate the information it is intended to indicate. The ISA does "object to use of the symbol in commercial logos, particularly where a third party aims to obtain trademark protection for a logo"; but as we are not using it in this case, there seem to have been no copyright objections to it, despite the fact that our users are not totally free to take parts of Wikipedia including Euro symbols and use them in whatever way they like.
I think a lot of people are seeing the use of this image as more outrageous than it is, because people think that there are two basic statuses - "copyright" and "free". This is, of course, wrong - most free works, including Wikipedia, are copyright, with the copyright retained to ensure that they can be distributed freely. Wikipedia isn't released without restriction - you can only use its content IF you give adequate credit to Wikipedia. Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is considered a free licence as long as the provisions do not restrict third party use. But, yes, we do set a line, based on the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which neither the euro symbol nor the ISA meet. However, a new exception, as proposed below - "Internationally accepted symbols that are copyright protected but released for use by anyone to represent a piece of information may be used to represent that information" - wouldn't seem to me to be unreasonable at all. Users can continue to download, use, alter, modify, and so on, all those parts of Wikipedia that use the ISA, euro symbol, and other similarly-licenced symbols. The only thing they can't do is take out those symbols in isolation and use them in entirely different ways to how they are used in Wikipedia. This isn't optimal - we'd like the symbols to be entirely free - but given that using something that is not the internationally-recognised symbol will not be as good as using the internationally-recognised symbol, I'm not sure that we should utterly deplore these nearly-free symbols. TSP 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fork

This discussion has forked into Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Usage of Non-free wikipedia logo not compliant with current EDP?. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving on with the consensus

I'd like to point out that, despite the vastly disproportionate amount of text, there is a large consensus so far to use the image. The "no" responses are generally in the section "No, do not have the poll", by a few people claiming that their narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy trumps 26 supporting editors, These people have talked at great length (especially Ned Scott), making it look like there's more disagreement than there is. To not use the image to illustrate accessibility would be against consensus.

Of course, I recognize that it would not be correct to claim that the image is as freely licensed as, say, a CC-By-SA image. The solution I propose is to simply note the image's (very liberal but not entirely free by our definition) copyright status on its image page, and work out a guideline for when it is okay to use the image (which I propose should be the same as the ISA's guideline: when it indicates handicap accessibility). It would be kind of like fair use, but most of the restrictions of fair use don't apply: we don't need to use a reduced resolution version, it doesn't just have to be for critical review, and we're encouraged by the ISA to use it when an alternative is available.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is rational, reasonable, and entirely appropriate. I fully agree that there is a large consensus to use the image. Let's work on figuring out a way to satisfy both the desire of the community, while protecting (as best as can be done) the wishes of the vocal minority who would prefer we didn't use this standard International symbol. Would this require a change to our current EDP? Or is this a good time to actually use the oft-invoked, seldom acted upon WP:IAR? Jenolen speak it! 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have to ignore the rule, that's a sign something probably needs fixing. However, this is a very narrow exception, so it could be as simple as something like "Internationally accepted symbols that are copyright protected but released for use by anyone to represent a piece of information may be used to represent that information" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the entire discussion seems to be driven by the use of the image on Template:Infobox_Disney_ride where it is trivially replaceable, and on userpages which wouldn't be in conformance with the license terms for the icon. To me, this seems a bit dishonest... like folks who are trying to advocate a break from our restrictive policies have found some image that they can cry "think of the disabled!" about. But perhaps I'm missing something... In any case, the decision to hold this conversation here is an example of forum shopping.. and as a result the poll tells us nothing. --13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmaxwell (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm pretty sure the license terms would allow us to use the symbol in userboxes if we wanted. However, I'm not making that an issue.
If the village pump is forum shopping, then where would you rather we held this discussion? —Remember the dot (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
An excellent point. If the page dedicated to discussing Wikipedia policies is now deemed by a high-level, well connected admin to be an inappropriate venue for discussing a change to Wikipedia policies, we're deep in to 1984 territory. But I'll bite, in hopes the admin responsible isn't just being a jerk ... where are we supposed to discuss this proposed policy change? You wouldn't be trying to stifle debate/discussion of this issue because it's patently ridiculous, and makes Wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of high school debate club students run amok, would you? Let's again remember what's at stake here - Wikipedia is taking a stand, apparently, AGAINST using an internationally recognized and, in some cases, legally mandated symbol for disabled access because... uh ... because... well... you know, because it's not libre enough. A fine reason to some, no doubt, but I would guess the vast majority of those in the "sensible" community would find it somewhat puzzling that every effort isn't being made to include this simple, simple, harmless standardized icon. Jenolen speak it! 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple angles from which I feel comfortable calling this forum shopping. VP has a much higher concentration of new/inexperienced users than most other Wikipedia policy forums. There are also several designated places for discussing copyright related policies, while VP is very high traffic with a poor SNR, so our users with the most knowledge and experience in copyright matters will not usually see a discussion here. In any case, I find it hard to respect anyone who is trying to argue that we should permit a restricted use based on completely unsubstantiated claims that we are legally mandated to do so. --Gmaxwell 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


We don't need a special exemption for just this image; we need to address the underlying problem.

All the "no" votes are actually in the "this poll is invalid" section, claiming either that:

  • This is a copyright issue; not a policy issue
  • These policies are not subject to community consensus

and therefore the concept of asking the community what they think is fundamentally invalid.

Of course both are false. The image is licensed such that it can be used legally, and our policies are decided by community consensus and popular support. The Foundation has not mandated that we only use free content; they have given us the freedom to decide as a project which kinds of non-free content we want to allow. This is where we decide, and popular opinion is clear. — Omegatron 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The foundation has laid out a narrow set of guidelines covering the area which projects may decide to use legal non-free content. Using this image as userpage and template decoration is not within the scope of the foundation's permission. Furthermore, the use of it in this manner may well fall short of the copyright restrictions under which it has been released. --Gmaxwell 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said. Should we ask the Arbitration Committee to put their stamp of approval on this change (see Jimbo's comment)? Or should we just be bold and implement the change? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no, you're not even close to showing a need for the image, and there's no way in hell that change is going to happen by being bold. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And popular opinion is not how we do things here. This is not a vote, not a democracy, and not a place for flawed speculations. Our policy is very strict, what on Earth makes you think this is ok simply because a bunch of misguided users have their hearts in the right place, but not their heads. I've never seen so many people become so blind to logic because they wanted to be "PC". The arguments for using the image are painfully flawed. No other image is acceptable? Says who? Has a single disabled person even been involved in the discussion? Gmaxwell hit the nail on the head in his comment. The ISA image will not be used in Disneyland infoboxes, or other unneeded places, deal with it. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should ask whether a disabled person has participated in the discussion. In fact, Ispy1981 voiced his support for using the ISA (note that Ispy1981's comment was made with the assumption that the ISA (in black and white) was still used on User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User Wheelchair).
Essentially what you're saying (unless I misunderstand) is that the policy is not subject to debate, which is not true. And I can't wait for you to go around removing every instance of the character € because it can be replaced by the text "euros". —Remember the dot (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you misunderstand. Our policy is subject to debate, just not subject to weak arguments and flawed logic. And I hate to break this to you, but "€" is considered text.. Even if it wasn't, why the hell would I do something like that? I love images and symbols, but the ISA image has copyright restrictions and can be easily replaced by another image or by text alone. How does that lead you to think that I would replace the symbol for euros.. You've misunderstood me a whole lot if you can't even tell that. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The euro symbol has similar restrictions to the ISA. It is copyrighted to protect its usefulness. The main difference with the euro symbol is that it is included in most fonts, while the ISA is not. The ISA does have a Unicode codepoint, U+267F, showing up as ♿. A compatible font such as DejaVu Sans must be installed to view the character. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Euro sign is copyrighted? -- Ned Scott 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
While most people probably don't have something like DejaVu Sans installed (I didn't, but it was pretty easy), using unicode for the ISA image would be a great solution to this situation. ♿ -- Ned Scott 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Euro sign is copyrighted, but it may be freely used to designate the Euro currency. Please read [18]. Whether we represent the ISA as a character or as an image makes little difference to our goal of using free content. Most Linux readers would probably have no trouble viewing the ISA as a character, but the majority of our readers use Windows and would just see a question mark. It would make more sense to simply represent the ISA as an image, rather than asking all the Windows users to download and install a new font just to see one symbol. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"The copyright for the euro symbol belongs to the European Community, which for this purpose is represented by the European Commission." I'm no lawyer, but that almost sounds like public domain if the European community is considered the copyright holder. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep reading and it will make more sense. "[The European Commission] does however object to use of the symbol in commercial logos, particularly where a third party aims to obtain trademark protection for a logo." In other words, the European Commission acts as the copyright holder and restricts companies from using the euro sign as a logo. People might confuse the euro sign with the company's logo. If the euro sign is significantly altered to alleviate confusion then it would be OK to use it in a logo.
In any case, it's not something that we need to worry about. The euro sign is free for practically any purpose. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Granted it's not relevant to our discussion, but that's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

←Well, if you're OK with representing the ISA as a character in text, then there shouldn't be much problem representing it as an image either. The only difference is how the content gets to the reader's computer, whether through a font from another website or from our website directly. The end result is the same. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The end result is the same, but the difference is we're not hosting or distributing the image itself.
As crazy as it sounds, I've often wondered if we just created an unofficial FU server, then allowed people to optionally download a plug-in to their browser, and then display the images from the FU server in-line to articles on Wikipedia that had meta-data markers for where the image would go. Right now I'm thinking about how to make such a meta-data market for {{Episode list}}, and then make a Wikia Wiki that would host LOEs but in a locked form and updated from Wikipedia by bot. Users would use the Wikia site only for uploading the images and image captions (via templates it would be easy). To update the list all users would still update the same copy, the Wikipedia copy, but would allow for an screen-shot version to exist. (Not to say that I'm totally against screen-shots in LOEs.. I'm still a bit undecided about that).
The GFDL allows us to have our cake and eat it too. There's no reason we can't take our content and put non-free images all over it, but there's also no reason why it has to technically be hosted by Wikipedia (provided we have reasonable navigation back and forth).
The font is an extra-easy way to do something similar, allowing us to embed an image without hosting the image file ourselves. -- Ned Scott 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a separate wiki for non-free images would be of questionable legality since the people hosting the content would not be the ones using it for critical commentary. If we're going to use an image, we ought to have the guts to host it ourselves.
As far as a version of Wikipedia without unfree images, I'm sure a proxy server could be created that would filter out unfree images. But I doubt there would be much demand for it. Most people don't look at at an article and feel offended that we included an unfree image in it. Rather, I would imagine that most people are happy that we are able to use unfree images to create a better encyclopedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The second Wiki would be hosting an active copy of the content, so there would be no such legal concern. This has nothing to do with "guts" because we wouldn't be doing this out of "fear"...
I'm not talking about making Wikipedia free from all non-free images. I believe such images do have a place when they are vital to the article. My idea is for non-vital, but still legally fair use, situations. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that undermine our goal of creating free content because people would just visit the more relaxed version of Wikipedia? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I thought of that too. That's why the split version is locked and is only used for the image uploads and article viewing. The articles would be copied over from Wikipedia automatically, so if you want an edit to show up there you would have to contribute to the Wikipedia copy. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case people would only visit the regular copy if they were going to edit it. The ordinary user would just browse through the relaxed version. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And? -- Ned Scott 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There would be little motivation to create free content. People might think "Why should I bother taking a picture and releasing it under a free license? Anyone can already look at the promotional photo on Wikipedia Relaxed if they want to see a picture." —Remember the dot (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it's better to do this on Wikipedia itself? We have thousands and thousands of web sites with non-free content that doesn't really help make people motivated either. When I come to an article without a picture for an actor, I just do a Google image search. If Wikipedia itself isn't hosting these files then people will be motivated to upload free versions to Wikipedia, since these FU forks will not be apart of Wikipedia's normal redistribution or apart of printed or CD/DVD versions of Wikipedia. If anything happens to the FU fork, then that will be lost, unlike Wikipedia which will hopefully have continued support from the community in later years. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As crazy as it sounds, I've often wondered if we just created an unofficial FU server, then allowed people to optionally download a plug-in to their browser, and then display the images from the FU server in-line to articles on Wikipedia that had meta-data markers for where the image would go.

Other way around. The people who are so vehemently opposed to all non-free content need to create a fork that strips it out. Wikipedia has always allowed non-free content when it helps us write a high-quality encyclopedia, and we shouldn't give this up because of a loud minority of agenda-pushers. — Omegatron 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's as about ass-backwards as you can get about Wikipedia, Omega. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The logo isn't going to be used on Wikipedia in any way that violates the ISA's restrictions. It is worthwhile to have due to universal recognition. It is the responsibility of end user (readers who print it out, forkists, etc.) to insure that they do not violate the ISA's use requirements. This is true of all fair use images, and cannot be refuted as incompatible with the GFDL unless one would suggest abolishing fair use images entirely. Wikipedia needs to adapt to "semi free" images and cast aside the binary free/unfree method of thinking. If Wikipedia is to encourage openness it must not impose any restrictions not already attached to the image. It is a sad day when an organization is willing to allow us to use their logo in purposes beneficial to the encyclopedia and it is Wikipedia's own red tape that prevents is from doing so.--HereToHelp 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow! A long and interesting debate on free use/fair use - amazing. OK, seems there is a consensus on a proposal to ArbCom, but here's just a thought. If I want to use the ISA image in the UK, it has to comply with certain regulations - for instance, if I want to apply it to a building, then I have to have it applied at certain heights/locations/sizes; and my building needs to comply with certain building regulations first before it can be applied. My thought would be that's why its copyrighted. Effectively its out there and could be argued to be fair use - but its in its implementation in use that the need for copyright is the simplest legal format for controlling application. Lets say for instance ArbCom agree it can be used - the next questions would be where and how? I found this page on the UK's Royal National Institute of the Blind website which tackles the implementation of the UK's Discrimination Act, and what is "accessible", quoting a case where a disabled person sued the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and won Aus$20,000 in judgement (interesting that the RNIB, a leading UK disability organisation don't use the ISA on their website). So, much as though debates can be had on whether its fair use of not, the key question for me still revolves around the HOW? We could open up more of a legal can of worms than just free use or not/change of policy. Rgds, --Trident13 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thought -- I would presume that we would display the ISA only if the metro station, Disney ride, etc. being discussed also uses the ISA. That way, we are merely reflecting what is already there, instead of making judgments about what does and does not qualify as handicapped accessible. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, in any case we'd be clarifying the meaning of the symbol by using the HTML title attribute or by putting text alongside the ISA. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving on (again)

Thanks to all who have expressed their views. I think that the consensus is even more clear now that this change in policy is supported by the community. I think that we should ask the Arbitration Committee to place their stamp of approval on this change (a specific exception for the ISA) in order to avoid an edit war. Jimbo has made a comment suggesting this as a possible option for approving changes in policy. Any thoughts on this? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not how it works, and this is not what's going to happen. Popular demand is not consensus, flawed arguments do not make consensus, and you don't even have anything to show you have widespread community support (again, the poll ignores a lot of input, and is hardly valid). -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the image is not per the new foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and, seeing as how we already have our EDP, unless you design to write a specific exception in that document to allow you to use this image in an infobox, the image should not be used. BTW, how is Jimbo's comment relevant? --Iamunknown 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've requested arbitration for this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for policy change certification authorizing use of the ISA. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is the wrong body for deciding this. They're there to apply policy to cases, not write it. I'm going to suggest the narrow exception at WT:NONFREE. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#A_proposed_exception from Night Gyr. Discussion extends to the euro symbol now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

When I revert an edit that isn't vandalism, but is still blatantly false, what should I put as the edit summary? Thanks — Juansidious 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just give a short explanation, or write a long explanation on the talk page and say "see talk page". —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false often means "Removed as Original Research" (with link to OR policy) or "Removed as unsourced claims at odds with other sourced information". DreamGuy 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also guidelines

I have a question about "see also" policy. Wikipedia:Guide to layout says

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

.

The issue is about not repeating links already present in the main body of the article. I find it very helpful to have a list of a few of the most important links within an article down at the bottom of the article, in the "see also", for instance. I've been putting some of these "most important links" in the See Also, but the Guide to Layout says that you shouldn't.

What is the best thing to do: duplicate the most important links in See Also (many editors automatically take them back out), or have a "most important links" section? Is there a better title than "most important links", or does something with a better title already exist? Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In some rare cases, such as when an article is split into multiple articles, I would agree with you about their relevance to /* See also */. Note the see also navbox at United States containing several such articles and Comparison of internet forum software at Internet forum. I can see where the rest of the community's coming from, however. It would create chaos to strike the line quoted above, given the wild variance in folks' definition of "important". MrZaiustalk 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The idea is to help the reader. The editors are more in a position to know what links are most important. The reader shouldn't have to go though the entire text and guess which links are most important. Bubba73 (talk), 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to having occasionally repeated a link in a See Also section, when it is significant, but I try not to duplicate anything. There should not normally be any need to duplicate links (you wouldn't do it in the text itself) and readers are capable of deciding for themselves which links they will follow. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a simple (and typical) example of what I'm talking about, the article Lucena position. If you read that article, it is pretty likely that you will also want to read about Philidor position. That article isn't mentioned in the text, but it is in the See Also (just as it should be). However, the two articles endgame and rook and pawn versus rook endgame are euqally important, but they are mentioned in the text. None of the other articles linked to in the text have the same importance. I put these articles in the See Also too, to show the reader other articles of similar importance. Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
PS, there are links to File, Rook, etc, that a reader probably doesn't need to follow (but they can if they want to). I think that having knowledgeable editor reiterate the important links aids the reader. Perhaps a "Recap of major links" section would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Wikinews as references

Why is this happening? Is this a policy? —Zachary talk 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a quote from an edit summary: "We should NOT use wikinews as a reference, as otherwise the wiki-community could be accused of producing its own references" —Zachary talk 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:CITE "Note: other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources." and i'm quite sure similar remarks are present in a couple of other guidelines/policies. Just use external reliable sources... --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikinews is not "other Wikipedia articles". Wikinews is a different project, and its articles are useful as sources. News summary pieces on Wikinews are particularly useful. Wikinews has always had a strong sourcing policy, and so a news summary that has reached published status will cite many sources — all of the reports that it is summarizing. Citing a single Wikinews news summary piece effectively cites all of the sources cited by that piece. Uncle G 09:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikinews is not inherently more reliable than a Wikipedia article. Feel free to link to Wikinews articles as "further reading", but if you need a cite for something you should cite the original source material, not a summary of it. --Sherool (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Wikinews suffers the same reliability problem that Wikipedia does, it can be edited by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Whilst it may summarise existing news sources it may give undue weight to the interpretations or agendas of these publications. It has little stability and no editorial oversight, beyond the popularity contest which is endemic in the various Wiki-projects. ALR 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Nonetheless, what I said above still stands: Citing the news summary piece effectively cites all of the sources cited by that piece, and Wikinews is useful in that regard. Uncle G 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews was originally/is still explicitly intended for the generation of reliable documentation of recent events. The whole purpose of wikinews is to provide reliable sources for wikipedia (and -incidentally- it also covers the news ;) ). If people are now removing wikinews links, Something Is Very Wrong. So like, why is that happening? --Kim Bruning 12:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Given your sometimes opaque sense of humour I'm not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not. Why bother with an intermediary? ALR 12:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikinews does things that wikipedia doesn't, including synthesis and original research (Sorry, I mean original reporting ;-) ). Suffice to say the community is geared to do those tasks correctly and well. Think of it as a particularly reliable news source. (IIRC the NYT doesn't always link all its sources, for instance). --Kim Bruning 12:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC) That, and actually anything marked with a recent events tag should actually have been on wikinews, (it's duplication of effort)... and we've actually gotten in trouble for covering recent events ourselves... but there you have it.
      • Re the duplication of effort point, would firmly agree. It leads to some p!ss poor writing. I do need to find time to back to the article on the recent Iranian hostage taking incident in the NAG and turn it into something readable, rather than a fragmented timeline. And see what I can do about getting rid of some of the detritus surrounding it. ALR 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty clear that we should provide external links to wikinews, but when it comes to sources, we shouldn't cite wikinews articles but rather use their citations. — The Storm Surfer 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikinews provides original reporting as well. Taking into account the original reporting guidelines I linked to earlier, does that interfere with your view, in the long run? --Kim Bruning 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The link you posted isn't working for me. Anyway, I think that any statements originally made on Wikinews will be regarded as unreliable by the Wikipedia community. — The Storm Surfer 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that extrapolates to a general point about using news media as sources, rather than applying a range of criteria to a source and considering whether it is reliabale or not, regardless of where it comes from. Wikinews lets anyone edit, so the synthesis could quite easily be garbage. Many of the sources used by wikinews editors will not themselves be inherently reliable, or have a clear editorial bias; The Sun or the Daily Mail for example. ALR 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Or the New York Times? How about Encyclopedia Britannica? Meh, I don't think any data source actually possesses the magical fairy dust of reliability. Beyond a certain point, the best you can do is have everyone supply their own sources, and allow people to decide for themselves. When someone does provide sources, I'd say they provide more reliable information than someone who doesn't (at least you have an idea of exactly how bunk it is ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I've given up on contributing to the WP:RS debate. It's just too wearing to fight against the school of thought which says This source is always reliable, and this source isnt. I think I'll just continue to assess sources on a case by case basis, and ignore the guideline.
For me, Wikinews is an intermediary, I'd prefer to go to source.
ALR 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this policy illegal is the US, and UK? I propose changing this policy to only ban them if they actually do something wrong.

No, they are perfectly capable of following the normal legal avenues to make a legal complaint, and can also e-mail the Foundation directly. This policy is solely against legal threats made on the wiki, which are not allowed for the reasons listed in that policy page. —Centrx→talk • 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is something for the lawyers to speak on. Mangoe 03:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not going to get an official response from the Wikimedia Foundation on this board, and there is no need anyway. No one has any right to make legal complaints on wiki, just as no one has any right to go into a sandwich shop and threaten the employees and the patrons; a legal threat is conveyed through official channels, which anonymous editing on a wiki is not. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean their lawyers; what I meant was that the opinion of someone who isn't a lawyer is worthless in this wise. Are you a lawyer? If you aren't, then you are speaking out of turn. Mangoe 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you verify that anyone you are speaking with on-wiki is a lawyer? You can't. So asking for strict legal advice is moot. --Iamunknown 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Which illustrates some of the point quite well: There is not on wiki legally effective evidence that the person making the threat is even the correct person. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community doesn't want people to engage in legal threats, so we block them. Though there may be good legal reasons for doing so, there are also good social reasons, i.e. such activity is disruptive. Dragons flight 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Under the U.S. Constitution, I believe the answer is probably that the Wikipedia community can continue to abridge free speech in the manner we are currently doing. Although the U.S. Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins upheld a provision of the California Constitution guaranteeing an individual's right to free speech at privately owned shopping centers, the Court has not mandated free speech in private settings as a matter of Federal constitutional law. In a recent U.S. District Court, Langdon v. Google[19], the judge dismissed the plaintiff's first amendment claims against search engine companies that failed run the plaintiff's ads. The judge noted that the defendants were private companies, not state actors. Wikipedia is not exactly private, particularly with its policy that "anyone can edit", but it seems unlikely to me that at this point in the development of the law the Federal protection of free speech would not apply to Wikipedia. Of course, many state constitutions have more expansive free speech guaranties (as did California in Pruneyard), so it is possible that we may still be crossing the line in some states. -- DS1953 talk 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) My posts are not legal advice, are for informational and educational purposes only, and are not a substitute for proper consultation with legal counsel.
I figure it's like, say, I own a restaurant. Someone comes in and notices a bad step, or trips on it. He says, "Hey pal, you should have that checked, someone could get hurt and sue." I thank him and probably fix it. Or, he could come in and say "I'm going to sue you!" Am I still going to serve him dinner? No, I will tell him to leave as long as he has a legal threat hanging over me. There is nothing in the law that requires me to associate with those who have threatened me; in fact, most would probably say it's bad form, like a defendant and plaintiff meeting outside court. --Golbez 08:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I second that. That policy in practice is used by many retail outlets everywhere around the world. If an overly irate customer gets too enraged and threatens legal action and what not, the manager has the right to ask him to leave. Even when you have free speech, it doesn't mean you can't abuse your freedoms. Imagine the world where people threaten legal action against any dissatisfactions, these policies are definitely to prevent it from happenning.--Kylohk 14:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mango's point that there are other potential analogies besides the store owner analogy, and perhaps there might be unforeseen complications. For this reason, the general community doesn't have the expertise to see all the potential angles, and caution may be appropriate for any given explanation --because it may not be entirely clear exactly what a wiki is legally (is it like a sandwich shop? like a shopping mall? like something else?), any analogy used may not always fit. Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers have reviewed the situation and are satisfied with its legality. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Legal threats are so out of line and over-the-top I can't see why anyone would defend them. Quadzilla99 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One-sided accounts of events as biographical articles

Please read the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Crystal Gail Mangum. I've put forward a view of the application of the neutrality and no original research policies to biographies of living persons, and a suggestion that we can work on. There's discussion there and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in, too. Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot less neutrality tags being distributed these days than there should be. SanchiTachi 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear; sometimes even POV articles are hard to decipher though. Jmlk17 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back BLP abuse

The current situation with WP:BLP has gotten way out of control. The policy was initially intended to prevent a recurrence of something like the Seigenthaler controversy, by ensuring that biography articles were carefully watched and that unsourced gossip and rumor was not included. However, a few administrators have recently begun to interpret it to exclude anything, even if it was published in a reliable source, that might reflect badly on someone. Entire articles have been deleted and salted because they are somehow considered to be "inherent BLP violations," even though by the original understanding of BLP there is no such thing. This trend clearly violates a core Wikipedia policy, Neutral Point of View, as well as the basic principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Consequently, I think it's time that the unnecessary cruft be removed from the BLP policy, so that it can no longer be used as an excuse for high-handed, out-of-consensus administrative actions.

I propose the following wording, to constitute BLP in its entirety:

When biographical material on living people is involved, it is extremely important that all core Wikipedia content policies be followed carefully. This includes, but is not limited to, the following standards: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Reliable sources.
Any unsourced or poorly sourced biographical material on living people may be removed without discussion. Such edits do not count towards the Three-revert rule. If a biographical article consists of nothing but material that violates Wikipedia standards, and there is no good version to revert to, then it should be deleted. At the discretion of other editors, a new, compliant version may later be created at the same title in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Things have gotten way out of control on this issue. We can't rely upon Arbcom to make policy; they clearly don't want to, and it isn't their job. This needs to be worked out within the community. And the feedback I have seen over the past week within the community makes it clear that a majority of editors do not like the expansive, overreaching manner in which BLP has been applied. *** Crotalus *** 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Entirely sensible, but you may need to add a little, er, "cruft" to flesh out some parts. But I think you've got the right idea - it nails the letter and the spirit of the policy while making it easy to understand and difficult to abuse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes any version will violate the spirit of BLP.--Docg 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Those versions are unsourced or poorly sourced, and thus don't meet our core content policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not all about sources.--Docg 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you offer some examples where the BLP policy has been applied improperly? --Kevin Murray 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Recent deletions of articles, like the whole QZ shitstorm and Crystal Gail Mangum have taken place even though the articles were perfectly sourced and contained nothing negative that wasn't attributed, because some people felt that BLP meant we shouldn't be a platform for saying embarrassing things about people that they didn't think deserved to have those things said about them. Up on DRV right now is a case where people are claiming that BLP prohibits us from having an article about kids who were switched at birth and the subject of a TV program because of that, because our article might come back to haunt them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Hard to see a problem with QZ since there were many experienced and respected editors indicating delete over three AfDs, and not citing BLP. But the CGM deletion seems unwarranted. I worked on the Bruce McMahan article for a while trying to keep the content out of the gutter, while not caving in to special interests trying to whitewash the article. In the end both sides became so disreputable that it wasn't worth the hassle. The Mangum article may have been more trouble to babysit than the information was worth.--Kevin Murray 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with this analysis. WP:BLP is a crucial policy in the effort to maintain encyclopaedic standards for Wikipedia. If anything it needs to be enforced more rigorously. FNMF 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, but within reason and without becoming censorship. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of proper place for this discussion

Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. If you have any specific cases of overreaching, please post a notice in the BLP noticeboard. And if you have specific concerns about admin actions, please post a notice in the Admin noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi hasn't wheel warred. That requires using admin tools. You're just trying to demonize an editor who disagrees with you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 02:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, uh. You don't get to play this off your hypocritical policy citing. "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article." Show us where Jossi does this. Reverting an edit is not an administrative action. Don't make any excuses. Show where Jossi has done this. — Someguy0830 (T | C)
That means providing diffs, by the way, not just saying "Jossi did it". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You've cited nothing. You're claiming a difference of opinion to be wheel warring, and it's complete nonsense. Jossi hasn't reverted a single edit of Swatjester's. Jossi has barely even edited the page. Nor has Jossi undone a block, protection, or any other administrative action of Swat's. Jossi's endorsing of the removal of a link in opposition to Swatjester is not wheel warring, it's called discussion. I realize this concept may be lost on you, but people do have differences of opinion, and your claims that such a difference constitues wheel-warring is completely false, as well as fairly ignorant. Until you can bring forth evidence, not your opinion, as to why Jossi is wheel-warring, I suggest you drop it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, and this is why you have no argument. You cannot back up your argument with diffs, you can't correctly quote the policy, and you devolve into ridiculous hypocrisy when you're out of material. Quoting a policy and giving no link to where it was broken isn't a cite, it's wikilawyering. I'll say this once more. Prove it. Where, when, and in what fashion does Jossi wheel war? Provide a diff, provide a link, hell, link to a section, but accomplish something instead of trying to assassinate the character of everyone who disagrees with you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
SanchiTachi: I think that you'd be better-off taking a break. You are in embarrassing yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have proof, why is it such a chore for you to provide? Surely such damning evidence would be easy to copy and paste. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue is between myself and Jossi's allusions and threats to block me on multiple occassions dealing with BLP. If you would like to add yourself into the conversation, please provide evidence to why you are important in deciding anything on this matter. If you feel that you can add yourself to mediating between Jossi and myself, please provide evidence that you are capable and qualified ot doing so. If you feel that you are an interested party because you have encouraged Jossi into posting such things on their Talk Page about me, please state so. Otherwise, this is an issue between Jossi and myself, and my only demand is that Jossi recuse theirself from this discussion based on possible NPOV conflicts. If you do not want to do any of what I have stated, please state that. SanchiTachi 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That didn't sound like an answer. That sounded like dodging the question. You can't expect to come on a public page and get a private conversation. I ask again, where's your evidence? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Someguy0830, I have no response or reply for you on this issue unless you fall under one of the mediation catagories above. If Jossi would want to ask the question of me, I will respond. If you want to read this as WP:EQ "Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste." Do so. If you want to contribute in a way that I proposed above, please respond as requested. Thank you. SanchiTachi 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because I'm not going to play your game. I do not have to be a mediator, as this is not a mediation case. This is you accusing an admin of wrongdoing with no proof (on a policy page no less). I want proof. I ask a third time, where is your proof? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis (WP:BRAIN )

The WP:NOR discussion page has significant discussion on the WP:SYN section of the synthesis policy. WP:SYN currently prohibits "synthesis that advances a position" but there is no coherent Wikipedia:Synthesis policy that defines "synthesis" or shows what is appropriate and inappropriate forms of synthesis. I have started an essay that highlights this dilemma, (WP:BRAIN but I don't know where to draw the line on "good vs bad" synthesis. Please help me edit this essay to assist formation of a coherent synthesis policy. Peace, MPS 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your essay is quite good for discussing when "using your brain" and discussing synthesis is allowed (on talk pages, for example)... but it could use some ballancing statements to clarify when it is not allowed (in articles). Blueboar 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ *Time (in partnership with CNN), 2 February, 1981 [20]
    • The New York Times, 30 January, 1981 (13th article: "Murders bring fear to Protestants on Ulster border")[21]
    • Commons Hansard, Rev. Ian Paisley, 1992-06-10 [22]
    • The Spectator, 13 December, 1997 [23]
    • Lords Hansard, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, 22 March, 2000 [24]
    • The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland), January 19, 2001 [25]
    • The Daily Telegraph, 22 November, 2001 [26]
    • The Scotsman, 10 April, 2006 [27]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_BB&oldid=1089267453"