Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 6

message: Radiant, at this diff  you removed the sentence "The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" with the explanation in Edit Summary, "incorrect statement (see AFD logs)".  I have to challenge this deletion, on the basis that not only does the fact of some usage of NN in AfD, or the fact that said usage has increased, not say anything at all about whether said usage is contentious or not, it is strongly arguable (and has been argued here and not that I've seen refuted — even unsuccessfully, simply not at all) that it is the very fact of the rise of use and alleged abuse of NN in AfD that makes "the use of notability in the deletion process one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" in the first place.  Your edit's rationale is totally tautological.  In the interest of cooling off I've not reverted it.  But please. This edit's rationale to date defies logic.  I'm not sure why your edits always appear to be in the direction of removing any hint from this page that WP:N is anything but the most consensus-agreed and respected guideline on the whole system, but it isn't.  That it isn't is so starkly clear it's almost painful; it's the very reason that I and various less patient editors have been engaging in these debates, not one of which is resolved yet.   Can't you see that WP:AGF credulity is being stretched to the breaking point here?  You appear to be (note: expression of perception of the results of actions, not an accusation of demonstrable intent or motives) defending your particular take on notabilty at all costs and without any yielding?  All I'm doing by contrast is raising issues, shared by many others, and expecting them to be addressed.  I'm just asking you to thoroughly discuss, not give up.  If you take an hour break and read my history on this page (and its archive) over the last week or two, you'll see that my position has very significantly moderated, in my places, based on compromise and consensus-building; why hasn't yours? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? You and TD claim that using notability in deletion discussions is controversial. However, analysis of those deletion discussions shows that claim to be incorrect. For instance, yesterday's debates show about 438 instances of the term "notability" or "notable" (not counting "nn" or the multitude of links to WP:BIO et al). Last time we did statistics on the topic, over two-thirds of the debates were about the topic. There is the occasional controversy about whether a particular article is or is not notable, but there is no controversy about deleting those articles lacking notability. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is, and has been for years.  Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposal, Wikipedia talk:Notability_proposal, Wikipedia talk:Non-notability, Wikipedia talk:Importance, Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, as well as Village Pump present and past Village Pump discussions, etc., etc., etc.  No one here that I've seen has said that use of "NN" causes much controversy in AfD commentary (though it is not without its detractors even in there), because AfD is not the place to debate policymatters in general, it's the place to debate the fate of the particular articles under discussion.  Please stop miscasting mine and others' arguments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Using "nn" in AFD commentary causes no controversy because deleting articles on grounds of notability is not controversial. That's all there is to it. Trying to get an article related to, say, Islam and Judaism deleted will cause a lot of controversy on AFD itself. "Policy matters" are generally created by precedent, and that is why we have a guideline that says we can delete non-notable articles, and not a guideline that says we can delete religion-related articles. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Deleting articles on grounds of notability is quite controversial, which is why there is so much discussion on this page. — Reinyday, 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While it seems to be true for every policy and guideline that a minority disputes it, I fail to see the point of writing that down on the policy and guideline pages themselves. Indeed, WP:CIV doesn't state that in spite of the policy, some people take pride in their incivility; WP:NPOV doesn't state that there have been several coordinated efforts to deprecate it; and neither does WP:BLOCK say that some blocked people have gone so far as to try to get the blocking admin arrested by police. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specious apples-and-oranges examples; WP:CIV and WP:BLOCK have not been the subject years of raging debate that hasn't substantively changed in three years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *On the contrary, blocking people is often controversial and subject to raging debate on e.g. WP:ANI. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "one of the more contentious issues" deletion 

message: On a hopefully less contentious side-topic, I would suggest that the language of the passage, while arguably "true" in the broad interpretation, isn't particularly useful to anyone.  I would say it should read, perhaps, "The use of Wikipedia:Notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia (and a minority still dispute the use of any notability criteria in AfD despite Wikipedia:Deletion policy to the contrary), as of this writing." Or something to that effect - i.e., separate people with concerns about WP:N's scope, etc., from super-extremists on the more general notability issue.  That is, the original sentence isn't "incorrect", but it can be misinterpreted in ways that are not favorable to WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it seems to be true for every policy and guideline that a minority disputes it, I fail to see the point of writing that down on the policy and guideline pages themselves. Indeed, WP:CIV doesn't state that in spite of the policy, some people take pride in their incivility; WP:NPOV doesn't state that there have been several coordinated efforts to deprecate it; and neither does WP:BLOCK say that some blocked people have gone so far as to try to get the blocking admin arrested by police. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specious apples-and-oranges examples; WP:CIV and WP:BLOCK have not been the subject years of raging debate that hasn't substantively changed in three years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *On the contrary, blocking people is often controversial and subject to raging debate on e.g. WP:ANI. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative language 

message: I'm not sure that we really want to require this - after all, we presumably don't mean secondary reporting of a primary source (or maybe we do, but that would be kind of strange). What about astronomical discoveries that have only one primary source, and then secondary discussion in papers that reference the first? Surely one credible source is enough if that source is above suspicion? Referencing things that reference the first one adds little, it's just a game of Chinese Whispers. Trollderella 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche!Kmarinas86 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche!Kmarinas86 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Trollderella 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I always thought the second source was to maintain some semblance of WP:NPOV.  ColourBurst 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the functions of "multiple" is multiple secondary sources, which which evaluate the authority of the primary source for us. This is more of an issue under "independent". Clearly, "independent" includes being independent of the subject, but for the highest reliability we would indeed want independent secondary sources looking at independent primary sources. However, for topics that are truly important historically or if the primary source is of the highest reliability, the independence that is for measuring reliablity becomes less important. (Also note that for an astronomical discovery, there will be future discoveries to corroborate it; so, while it might currently be of merely good reliability, there is a high level of certainty that it will soon be of very high reliability.) —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my understanding is that multiple goes to show that something has a lasting or wide-spread notability.  Thus, a subject that gets a single, though lengthy, treatment in ONE source may have only a fleeting notability.  The fact that a subject is seperately covered in different sources shows a bredth of interest, while the fact that something is covered multiple times by even the same source shows that it has a longer-term importance.  If an event if picked up by only one newspaper and covered only one-time, even if extensive coverage for that one event, it may not be notable enough.  Also, the multiple/independant criteria ensures that the facts can be verified better.  A fact that appears independantly in two or more sources, that did NOT use each other as sources is more likely to be "true". --Jayron32 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're wrong - see below. Trollderella 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true of both multiplicity and independence, and both add reliability. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the "multiple" element, while it perhaps should be applied with some flexibility, should be kept. To restate Esperanza32's argument, we do not want to be giving undue attention to minor 15-minute local celebrities on Wikipedia.  But if something is covered again and again and in multiple independent sources, then it is definitely something notable and worth drafting an article on (plus there will be lots of sources to cite to as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research).  --Coolcaesar 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think we should delete articles like Wow! signal (and many others like it)? Only one source, from one researcher (other papers comment on it) and little chance of ever adding more data. I'm a little hesitant even to bring articles like this to attention, in case things have got so bad that you do. Trollderella 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously more than one source has written about the discovery; there are six different references cited, plus inline mention of an X-files episode.  If he had written up a report on a signal and no one else cared, citing that report alone would be an example of only one source, and probably be best off merged into a larger SETI article.  The data that we add need not be direct observations on the event itself, since we strive to provide context with things like the popular response.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So it is the Chinese whispering that's important to you? Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't straw man me.  The other sources document other facts.  If there was just the one fact, we'd have "there was an astronomical observation.  He wrote a paper about it.  These were the specifics."  The other coverage allows for "There was an observation.  It was a BIG DEAL.  People are still trying to figure it out.  By the way, these are the specifics of the event."  Notice that not all the information is even things that would be included in the primary source.  You can't establish importance of a primary source with the source itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Multiple'' non-trivial sources?

message: What would happen if I changed the "guideline" tag back to a proposal since this is so disputed? If it sticks, could this prove a lack of consensus? 70.101.146.27 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. This guideline exists and is used all the time, thus is not really under "proposal" as the concept of notability has anchieved consenus, and continues to enjoy consensus.  That the minute details of the guideline continue to be debated and updated does not make it a "proposal".  It makes it exactly like every other established wikipedia policy and guideline. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea - the 'guideline' status implies a legitimacy of process that this simply does not have. It's dressing this up in consensus, as if that makes it so. Trollderella 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur on "bad idea" (and only that phrase), for completely different reasons. If the status of this document changes, it should be changed to (not just augmented by, as it presently is) the "Disputed" template. If in a few months if it gets even more disputed, it should be marked "Rejected", or I don't see any particular reason that is proponents couldn't "demote" <HUMOR ALERT! I got castigated for using this word a few days ago> it back to Proposal or even Essay, to avoid a Rejected label. I don't see that happening. I personally feel that the "Disputed Guideline" status is sufficient enough to warn people from relying upon WP:N as consensus/authoritative until such time as the disputes are resolved, and to attract them, albeit slowly, into the consensus debate. I think we should all try to remember that we're here for a consensus, not engage in Usenet-style fighting for its' own sake. Heck, if the ueber-inclusionists actually won the debate in the long term, WP:N should still exist, as a page explaining why "Notability" isn't a valid deletion criterion. Not going to happen, but the point is, this isn't about "deleting" WP:N, as a post below seems to suggest, it's about coming to consensus about what it should say, and more importantly what it should mean (and why, in what contexts, to what extent, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying that this page should still exist, but just be different, contrary to some statements you made aerlier that you'd like to see this thing gone? (Did you make any such statements? I can't quite remember... this thing is getting so involved! I think I'm going to quit this discussion soon...) 74.38.34.192 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I reserve the right to change my mind. See the thread-mode disclaimer on my talk page. I've actually been saying WP:N should exist and serve somewhat different purposes for several weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There appear to be two people who simply have contrarian, unmoveable views about notability, and there is nothing that can be done about that. They are not able to change the deletion process, and without this guideline it is often difficult to explain to people why their articles are deleted—and they are deleted for notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are deleted because of systematic bias, dressed up as 'notability'. More rulecruft is not required. Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, that's unadulterated balderadash, Centrx. By my count, even the issues raised on this current talk page as of the date of my timestamp [make that -1 hour; someone did an archival refactoring before I could save this, resulting in an edit conflict] not counting material that was very shunted off into archive pages, sometimes while the debates were still in-progress — a move I may still revert — demonstrate a majority of editors on this page having issues with WP:N and its purpose, effect, meaning, scope and existence (i.e., not its niggling particulars, like this word or that). I started counting and got bored less than 1/3 through the page, and came up with 7 people with unaddressed concerns about WP:N, and the same 3 WP:N supporters (Centrx, Radiant and an IP). But, sure, WP:VOTE comes to bear; fine by me. Ignoring your specious headcount, let's turn to the substance of the arguments. Those with unresolved concerns about WP:N who have spoken up here don't just outnumber WP:N's proponents, they are out-debating them, by a long, long way.  WP:N proponents issues' get addressed logically (for the most part; I definitely concede there are some exceptions here and there, but which have already been dealt with) and often refuted completely without rebuttal, while WP:N opponents and questioners get their issues largely ignored, or at best replied to by the proponents with highly fallacious and only partial responses, which ignore most of the issues they raise. This pattern is getting very, very predictable. PS: I really hope you are not thinking of me when you write "unmoveable views"; if you even skim the last month's worth of debate about this proposal you'll see that my views have in fact shifted, quite a bit, and entirely in your favor; it's unwise to smite a potential ally just because they didn't start out as one. As for "contrarian", look in the mirror; by my anecdotal count, the overwhelming majority of commentors here lately have been con not pro. (Which lest I be tarred with the feathers of the guilt by association fallacy here yet again does not mean I agree with all of their points.) And contrarian can be interpreted more than one way; WP:N as it stands is contrary to both WP:V and WP:DEL, a contention I have not seen successfully controverted, only handwaved at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically, if Radiant and others were correct in marking WP:NNOT as "rejected by the community" it stands to reason that this article should be similarly marked - as it has the same symptom: not having a supporting consensus. Fresheneesz 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in line with current practice; WP:NNOT was an attempt to completely reverse practice. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Fresheneesz has shown by his comments that he fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice". (Radiant) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even *if* I "just don't understand wikipedia", its obvious that there is a large number of people who dispute notability critera (and has been for years). If I were talking to anyone else, i'd say this is simply an essay (and it was simply an essay a couple months back). But since i'm talking to Radiant and Centrx, I think they're holding a double standard - kill the proposal NNOT when it had no consensus, but make Notability a guideline when it's been disputed for years. Now, maybe I just can't comprehend the intricacies of wikipedia policy - but it looks to me that some people around here just won't own up to the fact that *this* page does not have community consensus. Fresheneesz 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said before, the current practice is (and has been for long before WP:N was outright edit-warred into being labelled a Guideline instead of a Proposal), that WP:DEL references as deletion-actionable those topical/typical notability Guidelines that have achieved actual consensus enough to be recognized by WP:DEL.  So, yes, Fresheneesz isn't on the mark here.  But my compromise of simply adding a "Disputed" template to this projectpage instead of replacing the Guideline one with it was really more generous than WP:N deserved.  I'm actually still OK with it being this way for now, but I'm very disappointed at the lack of progress in the last few weeks. Not ONE issue raised by anyone with concerns about this proposal has been addressed by its proponents such that consensus has been reached even on that issue alone, much less on the overarching issues with regard to WP:N.  If WP:N proponents would simply acknowledge that Wikipedia already has a consensus, Policy-backed, notability guidline creation process that works and has worked for quite some time, and write WP:N to support that process instead of supplant it (i.e. WP:N as currently written is not in line with current practice, but could be made so), I think that the entire debate would simply go away.  Consensus can be achieved, but only if both sides are willing to let it happen.  There are entrenched parties here, so entrenched that they seem unable to yield on a single point, no matter how insignificant.  On both sides.  I believe that the debate is not progressing, one inch, toward resolution because of their unwillingness to address the other side's concerns (and often unwillingness to even recognize that they exist), and come to a compromise that helps build consensus so we can all go do something else more productive.  A (not this) WP:N could be a really valuable tool in standardizing and spawning WP:DEL-recognized notability criteria, but instead it is presently just this "thing" out here causing a lot of strife and confusion because it conflicts with the WP:DEL process and with the language of WP:V.  Just fix it" and let's move on.  Heck, I'd just do it myself at this point, but every change I attempt to make to the page is almost instantly reverted with no or insufficient justification.  If I get some indication that I won't be edit-warred with, I might be willing to try it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's all very well to assume bad faith and jump to conclusions of ownership, but I note that since you outright edit-warred this page into being labelled "disputed", you have made precisely one edit to the text of the page that wasn't a revert. That edit was adding a bunch of links to outdated pages that hardly seem relevant, and was discussed somewhere else on this page. All the issues you have pointed out on this talk page have been addressed and responded to, and I should note that most of those issues amount to incorrect assumptions (e.g. that guidelines may not be subjective), spurious logic (e.g. appeal to authority) or mere handwaving (e.g. the unsourced assertion that this page has resulted in AFD becoming a cesspool). (Radiant) 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You ignore all those people that agree with that "spurious logic". You're still not a consensus of one Radiant. Fresheneesz 09:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA. (Radiant) 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the personal attack?  I just see him addressing you by name and making a point about consensus level.  <fzzt spark pop> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Please check that arbcom case and read the parts on "Fresheneesz edits policy disruptively"  and "Fresheneesz is uncivil", and the evidence for "Fresheneesz engaged in harassment". He appears to be going back to his old tactic of badmouthing people who disagree with him, e.g. here. (Radiant) 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Radiant views any good argument against him as a personal attack or assumption of bad faith. He's also using completely irrelevant attack against me - any arbitration is irrelevant to whether or not my above comment was a personal attack (which it isn't, obviously). Fresheneesz 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Radiant, I don't have time right now to address all of this, but I do have a few responses: Read WP:OWN more closely; not all cases of WP:OWNership are exercises in bad faith action, some of them are just mistakes or forest-for-the-trees issues, so referencing WP:OWN is not categorically a failure to assume good faith.  Whether I've edited the main text of the project page (and I've already explicitly stated why I didn't) is of no relevance as to whether this guideline is disputed.  For the record I've concentrated on trying to get all sides heard, including the locally unpopular ones that are finally coming back out of the woodwork now that they think they might actually be addressed, so that reaching consensus is actually feasible in the first place.  The fact that I'm talking more and more about consensus now instead of dispute is not a coincidence.  I have plenty of WP policy/guideline material to back that approach, instead of barging in and changing everthing to my own personal ideal WP:N (and I do have one, the general shape of which I've already described, several times), or marking it just an Essay, or whatever.  And I've lately been expressing quite a bit of willingness to moderate my stance.  As for the rest, the really short version is I don't believe that the bulk of the issues I've raised have been addressed, but because I'm behind on responding to the main multi-part topic about them, I can't really deal with that in this post.  I don't know what app. to auth. you refer to.  I remember asking whether proponents of WP:N thought it problematic that Jimbo's (last known?) sentiment on the topic was negative and that WP Policy says his word can be binding.  I seem to recall finding the answer to that question satisfactory, actually, though I may not have written so here yet.  And, I simply don't agree with you that the addition of the historical material to the "See also" section was irrelevant.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Heck, I even supported Centrx's reasoning for the deletion of one of those "See also" things.  See my last comment under the self-revert heading.  Not all of this is entirely fresh in my mind; I've been working on actual articles, especially Albinism, and on non-WP things, for a while. PS: I am I to take away from your message, in which you recycle most of the logic terminology I've used back at me, that you find the use of such terminology offensive or uncivil in some way?  If that's the case, it wasn't my intent. If it's just irony, good show. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this misnamed "guideline" being correctly called a proposal John Dalton 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change it back? 

message: *I say no.  Many things are verifiable but not enough for a minimally encyclopedic article to be created. --Jayron32 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully there are already several other policies. Those are enough. No more rulecruft is needed. Trollderella 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is verifiability enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

message: * Comment: I've argued "yes", and remain unconvinced that the answer isn't "no", but I have my own ideas about how WP:N could be genuinely useful, that echo some of the things others have said here, with regard to defining and guidance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are existing policies and guidelines, apart from WP:N, enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

message: [These are a few topics recovered from the archives that weren't done with.  Others should feel free to pull back more of them if necessary; these were just the ones that struck me personally as needing recovery. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it has changed, pretty much as you describe, though I think it has changed in additional ways that are detrimental, and directly related to WP:N being labelled as a Guideline.  I do agree with your point that eventualism is pretty much a moot stance.  I recognize that you disagree with my stance that WP:N is in conflict with WP:V and WP:DP (and hope to resolve that disagreement in some way), and am happy to hear that you're open to re-wording.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that you think that (it has changed in addional ways etcetera, but I would like to see evidence of that. Other than that we seem to mostly agree. (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I'm too sleep deprived to get into it now, but this sounds good! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. You explained the subjectivity thing and I understood your argument, but this contradicting thing you've never seem to have put to rigor. 74.38.34.192 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look for where Radiant said he thought I was being too legalistic.  It's in the material just above that (as well as about 15 places in the archives, but I think I explained it better at the "legalistic" spot than elsewhere.) Oh, actually it's just about a screenful below this, beginning with "I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this"... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with using a quote to make a point about the past - however, as I stated in my above comment, the present is significantly different from that past. Thanks for clearing up the 'contradiction' part of WP:V, but it is clear that being verifiable has never been the only criterion for inclusion. For instance, content must also be NPOV, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. (Radiant) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That [What GTBaccush said] is a large part, but not all, of it.  My review of the once nearly impossible-to-find "ancient" materials on this topic (now restored to WP:INT and WP:FAME) have lead me to the conclusion that the really substantive issues at the core of this debate have not changed or been dealt with since 2003 or so, maybe even earlier.  The thing is, I don't think that makes the issues unresolvable, only indicatory that they've not been yet addressed.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this from a legal-based, "rules of order", perspective (which appears to be what Wikiepedia Policy is based on, as well as other processes WP has, especially the ArbCom which uses a structure and procedure and nomenclature borrowed wholesale from the US legal system).  If Rule A says "the criteria for X is 'snorkel'", and a subordinate (i.e. Guideline, not Policy) rule B says "No, actually the criteria for X is 'snorkel + weasel'" — i.e., a more stringent requirement — then the lesser rule (the Guideline) is definitively and categorically wrong (i.e. inactivated and countermanded) because it conflicts with a higher-level mandate (i.e. the Policy), in the same way that a conflict between US (or Canadian or Botswanan or whatever) Supreme Court caselaw trumps more-provincial court decisions.  Where two WP Policies (which appear definitionally to be of equal weight) come into conflict (e.g. the broad and permissinve WP:V versus the narrowing and limiting WP:DEL), then there seems to  be no problem with the narrower and more limiting competitor (e.g. WP:DEL with its roster of Policy-recognized notability criteria) superceding, within its narrow field, the more broad "law" (in this case, WP:V); the narrowing was clearly the intent.   My "beef" with WP:N is that it assumes the power to trump both and set a new system-wide standard that seeks to supersede power and precedence of not just WP:V but WP:DEL as well. WP:N simply is not Policy.  Guideline or not, it is just "too big for its britches" as my grandma says. I think this is reparable, which is a point I've been trying to make for some time but not successfuly doing so.  Maybe I just suck at getting points across or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: To clarify further: "goes beyond" and "extends" are (limitedly) synonymous with "contraverts" or "violates" in this particular context, because of the hierachical relationship between Polcies and Guidelines.  It's not some kind of accusation of impropriety, just a description of hierarchical validity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what if Rule A says nothing about weasels. It only mentions snorkels. The absense of Rule A even mentioning weasels does not mean that it forbids them. It takes no stance on weasels. Likewise, Rule B confirms Rule A by itself saying that snorkels are required. However, since Rule A is inadequate in that it was not designed to handle weasels. To restate it: The scope of Rule A does not include weasels... it was only designed to handle snorkels. Weseals, however, are not being dealt with in any way. So Rule B is subordinate to Rule A in that it confirms everything that Rule A says about snorkels, but it ALSO adds additional restrictions on weasels. There is no problem with this addition, because Rule A only deals with weasels, and also makes no mention that other rules could not add to it. It only says "Snorkel". If Rule A said "Weasel and not snorkel" you would have a case. Since Rule A only says "Weasel" and Snorkel is left undealt with, Rule B is necessary and justified. --Jayron32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to think on this for a while, after I back-convert your conversion of my metasyntactic variables for mass nouns relating to concepts into widget-referent count nouns.  <fzzzt spark pop>.  I think I see your point, but I also think it doesn't entirely address mine, but I'm not totally positive of that without some further gedankenin' for a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. I believe you look at things too legalistically. Nevertheless, would it help if we added a statement that the topic-specific guidelines trump this one? (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds very good actually.  PS: I'm not aiming for "legalistic" but strucuralist; if we're given a Western-law-based structure (which it seems we clearly are), then working within that structure can seem legalistic (and necessarily is, at a procedural and logical level), but isn't necessarily so in every respect. The consensus nature of Wikipedia breaks from the legalist paradigm, which is mostly majoritarian-based, the one exception being the jury room; but even there, the concept of "consensus" is far more strict and unfruitful. It really is a new territory here.  Rockin'.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: "but isn't necessarily so in every respect", Cf. WP:WL — obviously some aspects of the legal system are eschewed. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To bring this elementary discussion back to the realm of Wikipedia, we need WP:N because WP:V is inadequate. Verifiability is a neccesary but insufficient criteria for encyclopedic content. The level of coverage that a topic garners in reliable sources must be considered. WP:N is an attempt to achieve consensus on how much verifiable content is needed before an article can be written Calling it a policy or a guideline or calling it "Steve" redirects the discussion in a way as to obfuscate the issue. We need a clear written "code" that we achieve via consensus as to which articles are "worthy" and which are "not worthy" and that code needs to be adequate AND objective. Verifiability is inadequate and leaving it to personal opinion is subjective. Have a clear external standard we can apply an article to, where that standard is only based on measurable objective qualities like number of sources and depth of coverage, is what is needed. THIS DOCUMENT IS TRYING TO MEET THAT NEED. To debate the validity of the document by pushing the discussion into a semantic tangent is disingenuous. This document exists to meet a shortcoming. If you can improve the document to better meet the shortcoming THAN DO SO. If you feel that the shortcoming is NOT being fixed by this document, THEN PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE. Meta-arguements like "the nature of this arguement is invalid because the arguement argues abotu something it shouldn't argue about" is obfuscatory. Fix this document or propose an alternative. All other discussions are only taking us away from fixing the problem. --Jayron32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Jayron. Criteria are meant to be additive. For instance, WP:V says we want our pages to be verifiable - it doesn't mention other criteria. If a page is verifiable and also a copyvio, we don't want it, and one can't claim that we should keep a copyvio because it's verifiable (or indeed, an unverifiable article because it's not a copyvio). (Radiant) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two very good points. I want to address them (and not even in a particularly debative, but more like clarifyingatative, way), but only after some sleep. My eyelids are literally sticking together. <yawn style="gape: huge;" /> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: AWESOME POINT!!!!!! You really hit the nail on the head with that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And drove it all the way into the wood too.) 74.38.34.192 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need to scream at us, BTW.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know. I was just so impressed. 74.38.34.192 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We ALREADY HAVE all the rules we need on this. Please, please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of this policy. There is too much rulecruft already, and no towering mountain of articles that shouldn't be here, waiting for this policy. Trollderella 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR may be helpful for you. And note that this page is not policy in the first place. (Radiant) 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is not policy, I meant 'waiting for this page to become policy. Please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of sufficent rules. Trollderella 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isn't becoming policy either. I've heard rumors of groups of people that love deleting articles, but I am not part of such an alleged group, and I don't recall having spoken to anyone that is. (Radiant) 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theories aside, if WP:N goes forward I would frankly be surprised if it did not become Policy at some point. That's one of the reasons I've considered the debate so important. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic resurrections for closure 

message: The WashPost article that was added then removed then reverted: I'm with Centrx on removing it; it's a very one-sided article, and while I can even sympathize with some of what it says, I don't think it adds to the debate much less improves the proposal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Washington Post'' article

message: Hi.
I wanted to say that I'm done here with this debate, at least for now. I think I've had enough discussion, and this thing has gotten so long and convoluted it's turning into a chore for me. I think I've provided enough points, arguments, and questions for you all to consider & dispute, and hope that eventually a consensus will be achieved on this issue, although I'm not going to hold my breath on it (this has been going for what, 3 years? 4?). I guess one reason I kept going was because I found this to be very addictive, but it's starting to get in the way of a lot of other things I want to do, and thus I'm letting it go for now. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, heck, at this point it is much larger that 10-15%; I think WP:N is actually salvageable in some form; I would have laughed at that proposition two weeks ago.  No one person's post changed my mind; it's been a very synchretic process, with a lot more to do with others' willingness to play ball than to do with any particular point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to know if any of my posts contributed to it, even though I was far from the only one involved. Did my posts play a part in you coming to this new conclusion? Ie. did you think I raised any valid points? It's just that I've argued with some people about other things who are absolute shut boxes that don't want to see _any_ points I make. Especially consdering that "two weeks ago" was about the time I started to really involve myself in this thing. 74.38.34.192 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine they must have, but I can't think of any that have tremendously stood out for me from the rest of the debate. I'm not really sure why you're a) trying to get some kind of yea or nay out of me, and repeatedly mentioning how closed minded some people are.  I think I've demonstrated that I'm not closed minded, since I've, well, changed my mind, on quite a number of things here. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess because that I had a lot of experience with closed-minded people that weren't quite so fun to argue with (they were particularly "rabid" in their opinions), and after all that I wanted to see if I had found a person/group that was better than that. That's why I asked. 74.38.34.192 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I get it.  Well, yeah, because WP has built-in safety valves like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc., and a process for blocking problem user, and most importantly a community willing to enforce, it largely prevents Usenet-style endless flamewarring.  I took a look at Usenet a few months ago and it's just a wasteland of noise.  I'm surprised anyone even still runs NNTP services on their machines any more (I would hazard a guess that the binaries traffic is the only reason Usenet isn't as forgotten as FidoNet.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. But anyway, I'm done here. Thanks a lot for the response, though. It answered my questions. 74.38.34.192 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 74, I've appreciated your contributions here.  Thanks for maintaining civility and a solution-oriented approach.  You've definitely been helpful.  I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think I'm going to or want to be a true Wikipedian, ie. someone that devotes himself to this thing. I don't really edit the actual WP itself that much (any edits I do make are very, very small indeed), and aside from the stuff I said here on this discussion page, I don't really have much else to say or do with Wikipedia right now except to read it. I have way more things I want to do than Wikipedia, but I thought I'd just give this obviously highly-contested thing a little more debate to help it out. I'm sorry if I don't have any more to do, but I guess some people just "come and go", and I'm one of them. Glad to hear though that I at least did something positive, after all the negative crap I've gotten in other forums on other websites. But I doubt you'll "see me around the Wiki", at least for a while, as I'm signing off on Wikipedia and moving on. I will say that I found at least some of your community much more open-minded and willing to change than other groups out there. So, goodbye, and good luck with the project! 74.38.34.192 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done. 

message: Idea: This could be a section for reactions people have to real AfDs in which notability-type arguments play a role.  If we're trying to have this guideline reflect current practice, let's put some examples of current practice on the table and look at 'em. -GTB
:I changed the header of this section and added some italic text at the top, partly to make it less pointed at one person, and partly so we can easily include other reactions to AfDs here. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further idea: At next archival, archive these 3 comments and a copy of the subheading, xref back to the "live" version, and refactor the above 2 comments into a new anon, section-descriptive intro here, and just keep this section, archiving moribund posts to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And according to WP:BIO not just WP:N, that is an acceptable criterion. 70.101.145.209 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles...This is not intended to be an exclusionary list...Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."  This is a criterion for inclusion, stating that winners of the elections are likely to be notable by definition.  This has nothing to do with whether or not losers of major elections are not notable (and even if the Candidates notability guideline draft eventually says that they are not notable, categorically, this still would not speak to Hilton's notability particularly, since he could be still be notable on other grounds.  Anyway, WP:BIO definitely does not say that losers of elections are categorically non-notable; it does not speak to this issue at all, one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do anything inappropriate.  I thought it could be helpful to discuss a couple of example cases while hammering out just what we need this guideline to say.  Please feel free to refactor this section into any venue or format that you find congenial, anyone. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I can see that.  I think the material has value, but Jayron's got a good point. I even like his filename. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability in AfD 

message: Radiant, I'd like to request explanation of your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hilton.  You said "not elected = not notable".  I'm asking here, because you're involved in this discussion, and... why would you say that?  I feel like we've been working hard here to establish that "not notable" means "not covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources".  Why would you, while this discussion is happening, imply that it's something else?  Clearly many failed candidates are notable for various reasons.  What about multiple independent sources?  Aren't those the acid test for notability? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And according to WP:BIO not just WP:N, that is an acceptable criterion. 70.101.145.209 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles...This is not intended to be an exclusionary list...Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."  This is a criterion for inclusion, stating that winners of the elections are likely to be notable by definition.  This has nothing to do with whether or not losers of major elections are not notable (and even if the Candidates notability guideline draft eventually says that they are not notable, categorically, this still would not speak to Hilton's notability particularly, since he could be still be notable on other grounds.  Anyway, WP:BIO definitely does not say that losers of elections are categorically non-notable; it does not speak to this issue at all, one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hilton|Alexander Hilton]]

message: The admin's close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AboutUs.org was heartening, I thought.  We have got a link to WP:ILIKEIT in this guideline, buried under a bunch of historical counter-proposals in the "See also" section.  A benefit of SMcCandlish's /historical subpage suggestion below would be to focus readers' attention on value-adding links like that. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AboutUs.org|AboutUs.org]]

message: This seems to belong as a Namespace file (like Wikipedia:Notability/AfDs.  To include it in the main talk page seems counter to the purpose of the talk page.  The whole point of this talk page is ways to improve the guideline, not to call out editors for their perceived faulty arguements, or any of the like.  I don't deny that this information MAY belong, but having it as part of the talk page seems wrong to me.  It is certauinly useful evidence as to what consensus notability is, but this seems like it opens itself up to abuse too easily.  If you have a comment on an AfD, make the comment AT THE AfD discussion.  If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their User Talk page.  This current discussion doesn't really seem germain to what this talk page is supposed to be for... --Jayron32 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do anything inappropriate.  I thought it could be helpful to discuss a couple of example cases while hammering out just what we need this guideline to say.  Please feel free to refactor this section into any venue or format that you find congenial, anyone. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I can see that.  I think the material has value, but Jayron's got a good point. I even like his filename. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to this section

message: What makes notablity exactly? We've tried to bring up reasons for 'notability' of this article, such as it was published as both a comic book and as a 75 page book. That seems pretty 'notable' but their seems to be a disagreement on what is notable or not. For example; a comic book called Four-footed Furries was published by Shanda Fantasy arts, a small company. However, one of the users performs a Amazon.com search for it, and declares it an invaild notable reason, because there was few 'hits' for it. I guess what I'm asking is, why does the an article have to have sources, who, in turn, are also well-known. It's like a web; Harry Potter is a famous book, so (whatever publishing company) is also notable, and vice visa; the Publish company is well known, so that means books they publish are also notable. I've already pointed out that articles like Noonean Soong exist as 'notable' articles, despite the fact that he is, a very minor character in the TNG. In any case, it would be interesting to see what you say.  --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on AfD, [[Chakat]]

message: The first thing I'd like to do, moving forward and working on the projectpage, is move all of the historical materials relating to the topic and consolidate them into Wikipedia:Notabilty/Historical (already have a draft index page for it; it would refer in kind to Wikipedia:Notability/History/* where * = various dead proposals), and that all the historical links be removed from the article and replaced with one link to this Historical page.  I think this would simultaneously satisfy me and other "disputatious types"  :-)  by preserving the very difficult-to-fully-find history of this wikitopic, with the compromise that the extent of the history (and the contentiousness of that history) will be a lot less promiment; and satisfy Radiant by cleaning up the article and making it less disputatiously worded, with the concession that the history would be findable clearly (e.g. in "See also" or some other obvious place) from the WP:N page, just in a lot less detail.  Oh, and I chose "/Historical" to avoid confusion with the WP:N "history" page.  I could just Be Bold and go do it, but I'd rather make sure there's at least some level of buy-in first.  As for why I want to bother, I strongly suspect that even a few years from now debate will continue to flare up and that the archive will be of value in demonstrating (eventual; I don't think we're there yet) consensus, and both preserving various viewpoints that may have value not yet recognized, but also preventing reintroduction of rejected ideas.  I also just kind of want to tie off this "insufficiently understood history" debate point, fix it in time as a museum piece, and get on with more substantial work on this.  Any thoughts? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go for it.  "Those who cannot remember the past...," right? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. (Radiant) 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward: History 

message: See John Mark Karr. Arguably, he will be a footnote to the larger story of Ramsey, but still is clearly beyond meeting any qualification for notability. How many news articles or books will cover him in 2-4 years? This is a prime example of the need for the new passage I added. Remember again; we have no limits on the number of "at one point" notable topics we can cover. VigoDeutschendorf 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to handle cases like that is to just focus on sources.  If he's documented non-trivially in multiple independent published sources, then he's "notable" by definition.  As long as that documentation exists, it can be used to verifiy the information in the article, and we're good.  There's no need for talking about when something is or was notable - that just distracts from the real question: does there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is observing comments that "concensus" can change. Notability, once established, cannot change or decrease. The idea is absurd. And again, importance is irrelevant. VigoDeutschendorf 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little to indicate that Wikipedia is going to suddenly decide that articles with copious references in reliable sources will suddenly become unworthy.  Yes, consensus can change, but I doubt that "We just don't think this belongs because we think it isn't important" will ever reach consensus as a valid arguement.  once something has valid references, those references do not disappear, once-notable always-notable.  Remember, wikipedia is not paper, so we have no compelling reason to delete a well researched and referenced article.  --Jayron32 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real world example

message: I think all of this may highlight another problem - some of the subject-specific NN criteria aren't so limited in scope as "multiple independent sources", and make a lot of "this is categorically and this is categorically not notable" type of judgements, which do in fact appear to be guages of "fame and importance"; indeed, this seems to be at least the main purpose of most of those topical NN guidelines (cf. WP:MUSIC as a good example).  So what do we do about that?  The difference between the WP:DEL-style NN guidelines (some of which have the power of Policy due to their enumeration in WP:DEL as deletion-actionable) and WP:N is likely to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and hinder the spread of, or just plain contradict, the more objective interpretation at WP:N.  WRT putting in to WP:N's text a "once notable always notable" clause, I'm going to abstain for now.  It doesn't strike me as necessary, as part of the definition, since the definition (needing work though it may be) already subsumes the issue by virtue of the fact that it doesnt's say there is a time limit, but I don't see that it would do any harm - lots of guidelines have explanatory passages that deal with misinterpretations/misconceptions about their meaning.  I suggest that it could be helpful to WP:N's full acceptance if WP:N enumerated common (i.e. derived from AfD) fallacies about it, such as the "was notable last month, isn't notable any more" kind of reasoning pointed out here, "I don't like it", and nother nonsense, and might help prevent future edits to WP:N that harm its objectivity (that is, if WP:N does not address these subtopics at all, it may look ripe for "clarification" by people who do not understand it, by way of addition of new sentences that reflect their pet misconceptions about notability - misconceptions that may be quite common (i.e. popular on AfD) at the time and thus might seem like "consensus" to the editor.  Whereas, if WP:N already had a short clarifying passage on the subtopic in question, reversing it without consensus being arrived at on this talk page would be discouraged.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of the material from WP:ILIKEIT could be merged in here, in some form? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the "misconceptions" section is a good bet, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm. What to do about this? 

message: There is now a new wikiproject aimed to clear the huge backlog (nearing 5000 articles) of all the CAT:NN articles. However, it is in its early stages and very low on members. If you would like to join, please add your name to the list. I will take any suggestions on how to improve this page. The backlog needs to be cleared somehow, and I suggest that a WikiProject would be the best thing to do. Diez2 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:WP:WPNN|Wikiproject Notability]] 

message: One of my edit histories read "Heading fix; as "Avoid misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)".  This was meant to read "Heading fix; as "Misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)".  The "Avoid misconceptions about notability" is what I changed it to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb and confusing typo of mine in Edit History 

message: ...so, what language can be put in to prevent people from misusing this, in simplest terms? Perhaps, simply, "Once a subject is covered by multiple non-trivial sources, and achieves notability, this qualification does not change in the future, and is not dependent on the subject's relevance and importance." VigoDeutschendorf 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the current language is perfect on this version & section. Simply, clear, immutably true. VigoDeutschendorf 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current (noon-ish, US Mountain Time) language (the merge between my and GTBacchus's restatements of your initial take on it, unless someone has edited it to be something else) struck me as entirely adequate (and then some, as it addressed issues such as time flow and new vs. extant articles that the VigoD. version did not address, in a shorter length to boot.)  Vigo, don't bite your conceptual allies here without good cause ...  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I'm glad for all the edits people are making to the page.  These little flurries of rewrites, whether or not they have much net effect, are a perfectly natural reaction when policy and guideline pages are edited.  It's like the community thinking aloud, processing new ideas.  Some thoughts don't lead to much; others do.  It's all part of the healthy functioning of the Wiki.  It gives us a chance to repeat the main ideas about notability, and promoting a new improved definition involves lots of repetition.  It's a Good Thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbiage

message: 'Concensus can change' need not be mentioned there--if something is covered in multiple independent non-trivial sources, "concensus" irregardless of how large, has no bearing on that. Simply put, if Dan Jones is covered extensively one year, but never again, he was notable for a time. Ten or one hundred WP users cannot undo, change, edit, or modify that fact, ever. Therefore, while POLICY can change, notability once established can never be communally changed. 
Can we get a line or two of simple wording to reflect this? VigoDeutschendorf 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if "consensus" is spelled correctly.  That aside, I agree that notability has nothing to do with consensus; it has to do with the existence of sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [netiquette grumble goes here] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, me?  I only mentioned the spelling because I was correcting the header text in this topic, and it's a pet peeve of mind, and... you're right.  That was impolite.  Vigo, I'm sorry about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, ur right, i spelt well. :) VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone thinks that consensus can change facts. Consensus could change the meaning of notability, however. —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, this policy can always be changed; but policy is harder to change than anything else. My goal was to ensure policy protected content, moreso... VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Vigo, I am dead certain that the current (as of half an hour ago from the sig below) version already cements this.  I think the issue you are raising here is long since addressed, and then some. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus cannot change notability

message: A number of the flurry of "add an entire paragraph or three" edits today have been basically circling around the issue of "what if the source isn't available any longer?"  I think this is more a question for Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, but to the extent it affects notability (and to the extent that edits relating to this issue are being made, rapidfire, and in radically different language, on the projectpage...), it ought to be at least briefly addressed here in Talk, too.  Personally, I think a) this question belongs in WP:V (as noted); b) if the source was cited and verified (or at least not challenged) by anyone before its disappearance, then WP:AGF applies for the nonce (i.e., don't AfD the article on that basis); and 3) there really isn't truly any such thing as disappearing sources (unless we are speaking of original research), just hard-to-find ones, and regardless, there are almost certainly other sources (which may or may not be easier to find; the issue is categorically indeterminate.)
NB: I'm not certain that I can "legally" deal with any more of the these edits in the next 24 hours.  WP:3RR and all - the influx of "add in this whole block of newly thought up text" edits have overlapped so much, I find myself skeptical that I could revert anything at all without, at least on the technicality of "or in part", violating 3RR: I leave it to others to deal with, while I go to sleep and then go futz with WP:CUE.  Laters.  PS: If any of the string of 20 or so edits-in-a-row (I made them one at a time so they could each be examined in the context of their edit summaries) rankles anyone go ahead and revert them WITH A REASONED EXPLANATION.  If I disagree with the explanation, I'll bring it up here.  I've had enough of competitive editing for one day.   PS: I suspect that the "what if the source isn't available any more" question can be dealt with in an edit of 1-3 words.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so the "misconceptions" section should basically enumerate misconceptions and explain that they're incorrect, with a minimum of fuss, right?  One misconception is that notability is a function of current relevance, or something.  The quickest way to say that's wrong involves noting that notability is just about sources.  We can then refer the reader to WP:V and/or WP:RS for discussion of source loss.  How's that? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loss of source" issue 

message: Hi.
Since it seems that WP:N is, or at least should be, a clarification and elaboration of official policy, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue Weight, etc., should this be stated on the page, that this is what it is? From what I've seen, it clarifies them as follows:
* Verifiability: Notability is designed to clarify that sufficient verifiable information must exist to make an encyclopedic article. By requiring non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, we can ensure that not only are articles verifiable, but that enough information is included.
* Wikipedia is not a directory: Notability sets out guidelines to avoid including what may be directory-like information in the encyclopedia.
* Neutral point of view -- undue weight: Undue weight, a part of the official NPOV policy, says that only fairly significant views should be on Wikipedia, and extremely tiny-minority views should not. Notability clarifies this by defining what we mean by "significance".
::No, it doesn't. It says that they should not be given prominence in articles not about them. Eg flat earth should not get a lot of press on Earth, not that it should not be covered on flat earth. Trollderella 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK, then. 74.38.33.15 08:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of purpose? 

message: I'm a bit apprehensive about the spitfire of the changes by SMcCandlish but for the most part they look sensible. I nevertheless made two changes: Notability is objective → Notability is tangible and no or one sources → insufficient sources. One, "not subjective" does not imply "objective". And two, "multiple sources" does not imply "two sources". It is true that subjective criteria like "heard of it" and "obscure" should be rejected in debates, but that does not take away the leeway editors have to evaluate the tangible matter: the sources provided to back the assertions of notability. Notability is subservient to our core policies but is used as the gatekeeper to enforce them and it should always be read that way. So a notable subject is one that is covered by sufficient independent sources that provide comprehensive (WP:V/WP:OR) backing for a neutrally worded (WP:NPOV) article. Whether the provided sources meet this standard is still left to the individual editors to decide, so WP:N should not imply that there is a central mechanism or standard for evaluating the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if any of my changes are problematic they can be reverted or altered. &#lt;shrug&#gt;  Most of them weren't particularly major edits, and I made them separarately (to Centrx's chagrin) and with rationales for each, so that they can each be looked at separately.  Anyway, I have not heard of "tangibility" as an antonym of "subjectivity". Ever.  I remain skeptical that the current "tangible" language will be meaningfully parseable to most readers.  As for "two", the definition of "multiple" is "more than one", so I'm not sure what you are getting at.  The cut-off needs to be arbitrary (in the legal sense) and specific, or the guideline will not help resolve disputes, but simply lead to more of them, as people argue and argue over what "multiple" and "sufficient" mean.  If we remove the specific, standard-English definition of "multiple" and use a made up Wikipedia-only one that is wishy-washy, I think that will just be a huge can of worms.  Compromise language: because there are insufficient reliable published sources independent of the subject. ⇒ because multiple reliable published sources independent of the subject cannot be cited.  How about that?  Simply reiterate the language of the guideline and don't open the question of whether it can be interpreted in unintuitive ways.  Not sure what to do about "tangible" vs. "objective". A large portion of the debate to date on this talk page has been about objectivity and subjectivity, and "tangibility" never came up before Dec. 14 that I recall.  Ergo, I'd suggest a reversion to "objective". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: "arbitrary" is a possible substitute for both "objective" and "tangible".  But the Wikipedia on Arbitrary, even the "Law and politics" section of it, are inadequate and were clearly not written by a legal scholar, but a pundit <sigh> with a pretty negative view on the word and its possible interpretations.  Also, no objection to term "tangib[le|ility]" being used in there somewhere, e.g. in a sentence explaining better what is meant by it.  Not objecting to the concept; I just don't think it works well in that heading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent a consensus to accept your changes, the reversion would be to the original phrasing, i.e. "not subjective", and "no or few". ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NB: "no or few" was my wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like "not subjective", because the oft-repeated misconception being addressed is that notability is subjective, and we're saying "no, it's not subjective".  If replacing "not subjective" with "objective" drags some kind of baggage into the discussion, then let's say "not subjective", to directly reply to those who cry "subjective". -GTBacchus(talk) 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in. ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me; I only changed it to "objective" on the general writing proposition that postive phrasing is preferable to negative (compare "I'm a great and honest candidate" to "I am not a terrible nor a crooked candidate"); but given actual reasons for the negative phrasing in this case, it doesn't bother me or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjectivity, objectivity and tangibility

message: "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that it will not be monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors." Trollderella 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems meaningful to me.  This is a key problem with much of Wikipedia's coverage of areas like video games and fictional worlds.  -- Visviva 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it fails to provide any criteria for what it would mean to be 'notable enough', and what 'monopolization', 'partisan', and 'fanatic' mean. One man's enthusiast is another mans' fanatic. Many articles are plagued by what I think are partisan fanatics, such that most others are driven off, I don't see what 'notability', whatever that means (I presume here you want it to mean 'verifiability'? Trollderella 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a criteria itself, it is just one of the problems with non-notable articles and a reason for not having them or having them be separate articles. While there must be partisan fanatics at George W. Bush, there are also a host of neutral or relatively neutral editors interested in ensuring a neutral article on an important topic. In addition, as time progresses, there will be fewer partisan editors there and more encyclopedic ones. Compare a vanity article: the only person interested in editing it is himself. A non-notable band: the band's fans and perhaps some haters. Similarly for articles about companies. Another good example is articles about schools. In addition, with regard to merging, such as merging schools into school districts, you combine the efforts of editors who were working separately (on possibly mediocre articles, too) and subsume the articles that had 0 articles and were just a constant target of unfixed nonsense, jibes at the football rival, unverifiable original research, and libel. When combined, you get a single, higher quality article. —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it is indirectly helpful for deciding an article's notability with limited information. Every single article on the wiki that does not currently have multiple, non-trivial, etc. sources should not be put up for AfD, but if an article has been unsourced POV for a year and was created by one person and forgotten, it is unlikely to be have reliable sources and unlikely to ever be improved. For modern-day subjects, if no one has fixed blatant problems with an article for a long time, it's probably not notable. For obscure but important historical subjects, few people care about POV pushing and there will be continuing, though sporadic, interest by relatively civil people. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that it's clearer to say that 'if there are few verifiable sources, the article is vulnerable to monopolization by ...' - you're using 'notability' as a proxy for verifiability. It's confusing. Trollderella 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole point of this page, I think, is to redefine notability as something objective, namely "non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources."  Which is not exactly te same thing as verifiability...  But it might be better, given the widespread misuse of this term, if the meaning was spelled out. -- Visviva 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Trollderella's phrasing; I think it's clearer, and it's certainly accurate.  "If there are few verifiable sources, the article is more vulnerable to being monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors, which can lead to compromised neutrality."  Something like that? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'd preffer that! Trollderella 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trollderella, I hope you don't mind that I indented your comment.  I find these threads quite a bit more difficult to follow when replies aren't indented with respect to their antecedents.  I guess I would tweak the wording slightly from what I posted... technically, it's not sources that are "verifiable".  It's facts that are verifiable, by means of sources.  Rather than "few verifiable sources," I would say, "few reliable sources", or "few sources for verification". -GTBacchus(talk) 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it is related directly to verifiability. Verifiability may be the basis for objective criteria, but tying this to verifiability covers the principle. Some 15th century mediocrity may not be very verifiable, but there is no danger of partisans monopolizing the page. Some modern popular subject, however, may have its page monopolized by partisans despite there being many highly verifiable sources. The kind of people interested in an article and there existing reliable sources about it are related, but it's not the same thing, and the neutrality is not "the primary notability criterion." —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Notability does not equal verifiability, notice the definition on the page. Notability, at least as it should be, does not simply equal "verifiable", but rather something more like "verifiable enough" (ie. sufficient verifiable material to write an encyclopedia article). 74.38.33.15 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your phrase "Some 15th century mediocrity" describes exactly what I am afraid of. It boils down to "what I like". You call the 15th century thing 'mediocre' because you are not interested in it. Mediocrity has no objective meaning. Somewhat like notability... Trollderella 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply an example, and is only meant to convey that there are weak but existent sources and no one but deep historians who know about the person. —Centrx→talk • 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm disturbed that you think that someone who 'only deep historians... know about' should be deleted from an encyclopedia. It's the kind of behavior that really bothers me on AFD. Trollderella 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Centrx, I think some of your concern here is addressed if we use the phrase "more vulnerable to being monopolized".  The idea would be that, all other things being equal, a topic with few sources is more vulnerable to bias than one with many.  That's not really controversial, is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply in the edit summary that I had a problem with "monopolized". I made a change, though it is more conducive to the clear grounding policy to have the reference to neutrality in front, if the sentence structure can be modified. —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Those three just look silly to me. "In order to be verifiable, it must be verifiable enough, in order to be neutral, it must be verifiable enough, + we'll restate part of WP:NOT" - it's all just redundant and unnecessary. Trollderella 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I can, say, verify that a company exists by referencing the yellow pages. However, a notable company (meaning one that has multiple, extensive, and independant sources to draw from) allows me to provide additional information to flesh out the article. The MORE sources, the better chance that a) those sources will be themselves in a neutral tone, and thus more suitable for referencing or b) those sources will be of differing viewpoints, allow me to neutralize the article by providing opposing viewpoints in their relative due. If a company is not notable, and thus by definition of notable there are few extensive and independant sources to draw from, the only article I can write will either be insufficient (in that it will contain only directory information) or will be POV in that only sources that are overly critical (or overly praiseworthy) of the company will exist. Thus notability is an indication that sufficient source material exists to write an extensive and neutral article. Thus, again, verifiability is by itself insufficient. Again, I can coble together parts of 3 existing policies/guidelines to indicate problems with this article (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, but it is cumbersome and unweildy to do so. This guideline is helpful in that it is a quick gatekeeper that ensures that all articles that meet WP:N also meet ALL of the above guidelines, AND more... --Jayron32 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment -- of course one could try and "neutralize" an article by adding unsourced counter-opinions, but that would violate WP:V and WP:NOR, so it really comes down to those issues, etc. (whether or not this could be considered truly neutral is disputable, though, of course, but it's the closest one can get with sparse sources, but then we run into V problems, etc.) So it is to write an extensive and verifiable, neutral article. 70.101.147.224 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The rationale uses the more general meaning of notability. It could be changed to "significant" or "well-known" to avoid ambiguity, but the face of Wikipedia:Notability is different from its foundation of notability. —Centrx→talk • 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To the extend that 'noteworthy' is defined, it means 'worthy of being noted', which is a value judgement. 'Well documented' is a (relatively) objective term, not a point of view. Trollderella 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the point of view of the people who noted it. That is, the people who wrote the books or, separately, the people who edited the article thought it was worthy of note. Things which are much less noteworthy have, for example, only the vanity author taking note of them. Things which are more noteworthy have everyone taking note of them. It is not subjective to say, for example, that World War II was a noteworthy event in Europe; no one there could not have noticed it. Now, this is not a criterion for evaluating articles; there's no threshhold defined in the rationale of how many people are necessary for something to be sufficiently noteworthy it to be a satisfactorily neutral article, but the thing itself is fairly objective, though the measurement of it--which we are not doing here--may not be. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're talking about what is 'noted', ie 'documented'. Not whether it is 'worthy' of being noted. Trollderella 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of people editing the article, I don't think documented is accurate; their editing of the article is not them engaging in documentation; nothing whatsoever about their band may be written down anywhere except Wikipedia. I am thinking this should be changed back to "notable". The rationale is the theoretical reasoning for this guideline and its basis in policy. Basing the notability criterion on high verifiability is a decision after that reasoning, both in terms of that policy nexus leading to logical entailments, and in terms of the practical history in that people were talking about general notability long before the push in the last year to improve sourcing throughout the encyclopedia, and long before the PNC was well-defined. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you are talking about - which people are you reffering to? How do you know what they are doing? What does "Basing the notability criterion on high verifiability is a decision after that reasoning, both in terms of that policy nexus leading to logical entailments, and in terms of the practical history in that people were talking about general notability long before the push in the last year to improve sourcing throughout the encyclopedia, and long before the PNC was well-defined" mean? Trollderella 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, the specific notability guidelines may be derived from the combination of fundamental Wikipedia principles, which are our premises linked in the Rationale, in the way described in the Rationale. Notability is not based solely on any single one of these policies. In historical practice, too, the general concept of notability, based on these general principles, existed before reliable sourcing came to the fore on Wikipedia, and before the primary notability criterion. —Centrx→talk • 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That still doesn't seem to mean anything. It just sounds like circular propoganda. Trollderella 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is straight logic. The set of axioms is the fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, which entail the sentences in the Rationale, which entail specific notability guidelines, though some of the sentences in the Rationale could be made fuller or the Rationale could be otherwise expanded. The axioms WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT are by no means based on notability themselves. Where is it circular? —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could WP:NOR be included in there too, since it's another fundamental policy? But then again, some have argued that it is simply a speical case of WP:V... 70.101.147.224 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the trouble is, if I'm understanding your somewhat constipated explanation, that there is no simple relationship between Wikipedia policy and the various conflicting 'definitions' of notability. I think you are trying to say that your definition of notability is entirely contained within Wikipedia policy, but that is simply not true. Trollderella 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that the Rationale describes the relationship, which precedes the specific notability guidelines, that the practical definition of what qualifies as notable follows from the general definition. The logical connection between fundamental policy and notability guidelines should be made complete and taut. —Centrx→talk • 07:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the 'Rationale' refers to 'noteworthyness' (not that that means anything). It does not make the relationship 'clear and taut', it is confusing and circular. The rationale simply says that in order to be verifiable, it should have enough material to be verifiable in multiple independent sources, and that less verifiable topics are etc. There is not logical structure there. Trollderella 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps maybe it should be changed to, say, "a subject must be notable enough that sufficient published coverage exists in order to present a full spectrum of known viewpoints in compliance with our neutral point of view policy." Remember, articles that are simply "monopolized" on are not always unsalvageable, since if reliable sources documenting other views exist, it can still be neutralized and thus included -- but if there is too little of that verifiable material to provide an accurate, trustworthy coverage of all views, it would be by necessity (ie. trying not to violate other equally-important policies like WP:V) biased and thus could not be included. 70.101.147.224 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not clear to me that this means anything at all

message: Makes more sense when you remove the contrived wordiness, and reduce it to what it really means:
* In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources.
* Topics without multiple independent reliable sources are more vulnerable to being monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors, which compromises the neutrality of the article.
* Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.
Trollderella 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it means. You could even have a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing, without any reference to sources. The multiplicity or independence or reliability of sources does not cause editors to be partisan or not. Why are topics without these sources vulnerable to monopolization? This rationale is not a consequence of the primary notability guideline, it is a justification for it. —Centrx→talk • 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now the rationale is a result of the thing it is supposed to be rationalizing? Hmm... Trollderella 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Read again. —Centrx→talk • 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow that either, Centrx.  I'm pretty confident it makes sense to you, and you're probably right about it, but that's a confusing paragraph. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately reading it more doesn't make it make any more sense. I don't understand what you mean by "a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing" - you seem to be suggesting that if a topic is only of interest to some people right now, then you would delete it? Trollderella 08:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Read again without making wild assumptions. —Centrx→talk • 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, reading it more does not make it make more sense. What do you mean by "a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing"? Trollderella 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole crux of this seems to be that you want articles to be well sourced. So do we all - thankfully we already have policies about that. This linguisting wandering around trying to make it sound as though there is another, altogether more obfuscated meaning is terribly traumatic. Please, let's just say what we mean. Trollderella 08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this has nothing to do with sourcing. —Centrx→talk • 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Trollderella, how does the current draft look to you?  Is this topic still an active debate, or has it been resolved?  I ask because I think that the relevant material's been edited more than once since this topic started. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to separate whether the thing makes any sense at all (at present it makes more sense than it did) from whether it is unnecessary and harmfull (it is still both of those things as far as I am concerned. So, while we can fiddle with it, it is basically flawed. It introduces unnecessary and harmful approaches to polcies which already exist to solve a problem that is not there, and in doing so, harms Wikipedia's mission. So yes, I think it's still an active debate. Trollderella 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rationale