Wikipedia talk:Attack page

Attack Page/WP:UNDUE?

I would be interested in others' view as to whether the following restaurant page contains a section that violates this guideline, and/or wp:undue. See Di Fara Pizza. Most of the coverage of this pizza place is positive from what I can see, but this section re health violations though I expect accurate is rather larger (compared to the rest of the article, as well as coverage of the restaurant). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The parts Pizza and Restaurant sounds like it came from the news article of a jealous rival. Also even though the news article says he had flour on his shoes he can't forever have flour on his shoes!AnnaLin9 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

hgsyhysqisah h hcdcyd lHWI;IE HGDDL;q oq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.226.226.198 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Page status

I was looking at this page and thinking it seems more like a guideline. A little digging in the history reveals it was originally a guideline and in July 2007 unilaterally changed from guideline to policy with this edit. There was no talk discussion before or after, but the edit was unchallenged, with a somewhat cryptic edit summary (for an unannounced action) possibly a contributory factor. The user was indefinitely blocked some months later as a possible sock. Anyway, does anyone else think it should be a guideline? Rd232 ^talk 06:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the existing policy is best. Yes, the page is brief and somewhat informal, but editors have complained about some policies being too long and too formal, so this page seems good. At the top is a navigation box listing the deletion policies; each of those items (including this page) is a policy, which seems desirable because whatever our personal view, it is the case that a policy is stronger than a guideline. I cannot envisage a scenario when an attack page should not be subjected to the procedures in WP:ATTACK, so it is appropriate that it be a policy. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I mention it because (a) the issue wasn't previously debated and (b) because it seems a fairly subsidiary explanatory page to WP:CSD#G10. Making it a guideline instead of a policy wouldn't weaken it, because it's basically a giant footnote to G10, which remains one of the clearer and more undisputed principles of policy (whilst this page doesn't do a whole lot to clarify the applicability of G10 - it's mostly procedural). Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Inaccuracy

"keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate."

This is actually false. It's equivalent to saying, "keeping a list of the government administrations crimes, behaviour and transgressions" is unconstructive....yeah sure it is, for the *admins* and *mods* here who don't want records of how much they breach the guidelines themselves.

"Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." What happens if that "dirt" is actually truth of broken rules and guidelines for behaviour on wikipedia? Kinda funny how these truths are not important to wikipedia at all.PeterHarlington (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When disagreements arise, matters need to be discussed calmly and in a collaborative manner. There are thousands of places on the Internet where people can and do abuse each other, but Wikipedia is not one of them (abuse occurs of course, but such abuse is removed, as you have found). Rather than trying to explain why you are correct, you should think about what others have said (I looked at the background to the above comment). Any questions about procedures should be placed at WP:HELPDESK, and suggestions for a change in policy should be at WP:VPR. The only comments here should relate to improving the Attack policy wording. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." IS true.

You can feel free to keep such information privately by all means, but keeping dirt on someone in public is destructive and counter-productive to a mutually support community of editors.

No User:XXX is akin to a government. User:XXX is your neighbour. Admins do not rule. Admins have access to higher technical buttons, are entrusted to close discussions, and are expected to hold higher standards of behaviour, but they are still neighbours.

If you have evidence of a user breaking rules, list it on their talkpage. If no one agrees with you, consider that this is a big place, and find somewhere else to be constructive. If one other agrees with you, take it to Dispute Resolution of start an RFC/U. What you shouldn't do is mount signs on your own front lawn condemning neighbours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:PeterHarlington. Non-admins should be able to keep lists of admin actions they think are questionable. Establishing consensus is the only way non-admins can check admin power, and being able to keep such lists is part of building that consensus. --Surturz (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Of course an editor can keep a local file on their computer with a record of anything they want. However, maintaining a public list of enemies is totally unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Further restrict negative spinout articles

02-Aug-2011: I think the section "Negative spinout articles" should also note:

• "The spinout article must also meet WP:GNG for long-term individual notability, as a separate issue; otherwise, long-worded text should be summarized to fit the length of the original article, where it lacks notability to justify a separate page."

I am worried that the current wording, which has omitted concerns about WP:Notability, might give editors the impression that any long-worded negative section can become a separate article, as long as the recent editors agree in a WP:Consensus. That impression would not be correct, because any spinout section, negative or positive, must have individual notability (as the expected long-term dedicated coverage for months/years). The negative-spinout is a slippery slope, which opens the door to improper negative pages, so more restrictions should be embedded on that slope to avoid the violent arguments when a consensus of spinout editors, wanting to expound a negative event, meet people who think Wikipedia is being used to WP:SOAPBOX the negatives where related positive events should be in the same spinout article. Perhaps even state that a negative-spinout article is rare and might require weeks of discussion to reach broader consensus. Do those restrictions seem reasonable? The current wording is dangerously oversimplified, to lead to horrendous battles over negative-spinout articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK needs an additional statement

• Moved to WT:User pages#WP:UP#POLEMIC needs an additional statement to keep the discussion regarding the same issue at one place (please post at one page, and where warranted, add links on other pages). Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Other eyes on this?

I'm not sure if Nazeer Naji is an attack page, but think it may be. Others are welcome to take a look. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The correct place to report a biography of a living person is at WP:BLPN. I have proposed the article be deleted, and made a report here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, John. I knew there must be a correct pew somewhere around here, but hadn't been able to locate it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

I couldn't find above where the promotion of this page to policy was proposed. Could someone direct me to it? What reasons were given? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is some context I hope is helpful, from the "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" policy: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. Most commonly, editors use a Request for comments (RfC) to determine consensus for a newly proposed policy or guideline, via the {{rfc|policy}}" tag.128.196.85.194 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Some links need to be fixed to move this from list of policies to list of guidelines. Apteva (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Change to guideline or redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Downgraded to guideline. There appears to be rough consensus here and it does overlap largely with solid policies we have such as the deletion policy and BLP. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Due to concern over the proliferation of policies on the English Wikipedia, as discussed at WP:VPP#Policies: number and size, I'd like to suggest changing this policy to a guideline or redirecting it to WP:CSD#Criteria, since it mainly serves to explain Speedy Deletion criteria G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". G. C. Hood (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As you can see above no-one has produced a rationale for the original change. Personally I think we should be courageous and redirect this, but I don't think others will agree, so I'd be fine with guideline status. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Simplification is good, but CSD is far too confusing to be useful when wanting to quickly explain (with a link) why an article or user page needs to be removed. Apart from confusion, CSD looks like an indiscriminate list of stuff where each item may be open to argument (I know it's not, but no benefit would arise from giving wikilawyers another avenue to explore). I suspect a problem among the editors here is that it is perfectly obvious to us what an attack page is, and why they must be deleted. However, there are many editors, and will be many more, who need it spelled out. I would need to contemplate other opinions on whether making this a guideline would be a problem, but if this were a guideline, someone will just say that it does not provide much guidance, so why not replace it with a redirect? At an AfD, someone might say "this is an attack page so needs to be deleted" (that links to CSD#G10). That's not has helpful as linking to this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Guideline status looks appropriate. We have plenty of other guidelines which are referenced and not ignored. In reply to " someone will just say that it does not provide much guidance", well, I'd say that they'd only win that argument if this page provided no meaningful content over a redirect, in which case a redirect would actually be the most appropriate course. There would be plenty of space there to make a reasoned argument over why this should not be a redirect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of editors, and will be lots more, who do not understand that Wikipedia is not the place to host an attack page. That's why a policy is needed. A secondary reason why it is needed is that there has to be a way to link to a clear and definitive statement on the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both statements put forward. Typical attack pages - eg. "friends of gays" - are easily got rid of regardless of whether we have a policy here or not. The only definitive part of this policy is "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject."; something which if anything is less definitive than "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." which appears at WP:CSD. The rest of the policy:

• "Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the {{db-attack}} template, and warn the user who created it using the {{Attack}} user warning template. Attack pages may also be blanked as courtesy. Once a page is tagged with the {{db-attack}} template, it will be added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. " is guidance as to process and dealing with an attack page, rather than dissuading its creator.
• "This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person." is phrased equivocally, in contrast to " or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" (CSD) which is stronger.
• "Attack pages eligible for speedy deletion may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith)." is all about guidance for particular situations; again, it's difficult to see how this would affect people creating pages. This is likely only to be referenced if someone has deleted a RFC or similar under the criterion and someone wants to revert it. Such actions are outside the scope you had in mind, I think.
• "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." One particular example for guidance; neither definitive nor exhaustive. Useful guidance, though.
• Other two sections as above, really.

I think there is a tendency to see "policy" as something which helps people to take it seriously; this is not the case. People take WP:BRD very seriously, at that's not even a guideline; on the other hand, a lot of people are incivil and that's a policy. Also, we have all sorts of problems which are imagine are as frequent as attack pages (certainly ones where any direction is necessary): WP:SPAM (G11), WP:Vandalism (G3), and maybe a bit rarer WP:patent nonsense (G1). Therefore I do believe that guideline status would be the best place for this page. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

It is a policy until the community, as a whole discusses it.

I have returned this to policy and it should not be changed with a local consensus (which does not exist). A community wide discussion is required for all policy and guideline changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To those involved: Are there intentions to discuss this on a wider scale? NTox · talk 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Its promotion to policy was never centrally discussed, either. I will launch a central discussion if strictly necessary, however. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Attack against whom, or what?

/Archive_1#non-personal attacks? and [[/Archive_1#What subject? both speak to a problem that didn't really get addressed before archiving. We have articles that discuss wp:FRINGE ideas, frauds, products, practices, etc that have been thoroughly debunked in the most reliable sources on the topic. Is this policy (or guideline or whatever it is) really intended to say that we should not represent these subjects in the way that the best references indicate? We really need to sort this out. Should we restore wording about the subject being a "person" or even a "living person" as opposed to a corporate person? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack categories

From time to time, contextually derisive categorization has been used to attack WP:BLPs. This should probably be mentioned briefly.   — C M B J   04:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@CMBJ: These categories are described in detail at WP:Categorization of people.

RfC on a redirect used for hidden personal attacks

An RfC has been made regarding a redirect misused to attack editors without clear notice to them. Please feel free to participate. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are more than 1,000 criticism sections about individual people

Using this search query, I found more than 1,000 sections in Wikipedia that are devoted to criticism of living people. Do any of these sections violate the WP:Attack page or WP:BLP policies? Jarble (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed "Wikipedia:Attack pages"?

So I realize that this is probably a relatively inconsequential matter, since this page has had over 2,500 pageviews in the last thirty days and no one else has mentioned this, but... wouldn't it make slightly more sense for the policy's title to be "Wikipedia:Attack pages" as opposed to "Wikipedia:Attack page"? After all, this policy discusses measures related to all attack pages, not a singular attack page. (It's also worth mentioning that most other WP-space pages relating to attack pages use the plural form rather than the singular form, including the CSD requirement on which this page is based upon (WP:G10), the template used to warn attack page creators (Template:uw-attack), and the category in which the CSD G10 candidates are placed (Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages), so this proposal hopefully isn't too far-fetched.) —TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 05:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the lack of response over the past five days, I'm going to begin a formal move request. TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 16:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after an extended period of time for discussion. BD2412 T 04:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack page → Wikipedia:Attack pages – This policy relates to all attack pages, not an individual one. As such, pluralizing the name would be more accurate, and would reflect the pre-existing standard usage both in pages related to this article (such as the G10 CSD requirement ("examples of 'attack pages'") and the "Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages" category name) and in Wikipedia policies in general ("Wikipedia:No legal threats," "Wikipedia:No personal attacks," etc.) TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 16:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 05:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning toward oppose: This seems somewhat contrary to MOS:SINGULAR, and in fact, it is common for the issue to arise with only one Wikipedia page. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a policy that defines what an attack page is and how {{db-attack}} ("This [page] may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that...") may be used to have an attack page deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• There is WP:User pages but that appears to have been moved to avoid confusion with an individual's user page. NLT and NPA are different in that they include "No" in the title, if this did to then it would, namely WP:No attack pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Attack page" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Attack page. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Attack page until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

See also: Template talk:Db-meta § G10 contest deletion button

Right now WP:ATTACK highly focuses on biographies, particularly unsourced BLP. Apparently WP:CSD#G10 covers more than that, so this page should also discuss those other cases at length. Or is the solution to make WP:CSD#G10 more explicit? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The current working of the first sentence is as follows: An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. The following amendment might help:

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject , whatever that may be. ;or b Biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced is also considered to be an attack page."

However, my concern about my own proposal is that is seems tautological - the category of 'biographical material that is entirely negative' is surely contained within the category of 'a page that exists primarily to disparage its subject'? As an alternative, we could cut the entire second clause of the first sentence, and instead offer a short (explicitly non-exhaustive) list of examples potential attack pages. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

My concern here is that some subjects are characterized entirely negatively in reliable sources. Take for example, OMICS Publishing Group. No one has ever said a word of praise about OMICS. It's all reliably sourced, and an entirely neutral reflection of what the sources actually say. So despite it being all negative, it's also not an attack page. There's no reason why similar things couldn't also be the case for biographies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

But we deal with the problem of writing about bad things in a neutral manner all the time. Adolf Hitler isn't an attack page, nor is Thalidomide, nor Vaccine hesitancy. All of those subjects could be written as attack pages; our PAGS guide us on how to write about them neutrally, and experienced editors (who should be the ones adding and responding to CSD tags) should be able to tell the difference between a page written to describe a bad thing neutrally, and a page written to disparage/attack/criticise said bad thing. We are more cautious about BLPs - the bar is a bit lower there, because they're BLPs, but the same thing generally applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"should be able to tell the difference between a page written to describe a bad thing neutrally, and a page written to disparage/attack/criticise said bad thing"

Which is exactly why we're here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's why we're here at all - this wasn't about a disagreement of judgment, it was about you misinterpreting policy. Your argument was that G10s flat-out didn't apply to non-BLPs. Since you made that mistake, we're working with you to try to make the policy clearer - don't try to recast the initial issue as an editorial disagreement about whether or not the article was 'attacky' enough. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd have removed it regardless of whether or not it covered non-BLPs. The ATINER draft is terribly written, but it was sourced and not an attack page, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And had you removed the G10 tag on those grounds, we would not be here. We are here because you misunderstood the policy (and initially refused to accept that despite three experienced editors telling you that you had done so), so we are here trying to clarify it to avoid a recurrence of that misunderstanding. Again, don't try to recast the issue as an editorial disagreement over the qualities of that draft article. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I picked what I considered the most expedient objection to the G10. Don't tell my what my objections were. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What the hell? I don't need to tell you what your objections were - you wrote them down, on the internet. If you had better objections, you should have written them down, instead of going to another experienced editor's talk page to lecture her (from a position of ignorance) about the applicability or otherwise of the G10 speedy deletion criteria. I don't imagine that being wrong happens to you very often - you're experienced, knowledgeable and very talented - but bloody hell, you could do it with better grace when it does happen. The only reason we are here because you didn't understand the policy, and we are trying to craft a wording that will avoid future instances of misunderstanding. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote some objections. Then I wrote some more. You don't get to tell me only my first objections exists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not told you that only your first objections exist. I have told you that your first objections are the reason we are here. Had you in the first place raised policy-compliant objections, we would not be at the policy's talk page discussing a change to make it easier to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)