Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:41, 14 September 2016

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPP
• WP:VPPOL

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Links to Google Translate

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.

This discussion concerns the use of links to machine translations such as Google Translate in two main situations: 1) as a cited source for information and 2) as a convenience for the reader, provided in addition to a link to the original language website.

Regarding the first situation, there is a a clear consensus that machine translations should not be cited as sources themselves on the basis that the translations are often substandard and cannot reliably convey the intended meanings of original sources. There was some discussion about having users indicate somewhere in the citation whether Google Translate (or other service) was relied upon to verify a claim (such as in the |via= field). The community tends to reject this proposal on the basis that verifiability is based on what the original source says, not the machine translation (additionally, the |via= field is for sites that republish/redistribute content, and machine translation does not fit that description).

The second situation is where it gets interesting. There is some support here for providing links to such machine translations as a convenience to readers as long as they are not the cited references themselves. I do not think there has been enough discussion for a rough consensus on the second situation, and I recommend a second RfC focusing specifically on this situation if this is something that we want. The supporters here tend to agree that if a convenience link should be provided, there should be links to multiple machine translation services, not just Google Translate, because different services may provide different results with a range of quality, and we should not promote one service over another. The template {{machine translate}} may be helpful to accommodate this. Opponents to the convenience link argue that machine translations are typically of poor quality and that the native language of users might not be English. Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As this search shows, we have around 4900 links to Google Translate's versions of non-English web pages, mostly in citations, in page sources. (This does not include links that are reasonably included in subtemplates of {{Expand language}}, like {{Expand Bulgarian}}).

I've recently removed one instance, in a citation, here. There was absolutely no need for that. We don't do it for the vast majority of our non-English sources. Likewise, here's a removal from an external links section. We should not, I'd argue, be pushing people to one online service, when they may prefer another; or prefer to use a local app, or indeed be able to read the language concerned.

How should we deal with this?

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Both in citations and external link sections, we should not be promoting a particular machine translation service, nor need we assume that our readers are unable to read other languages (provided that we indicate the non-English language with {{link language}}). Graham (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both Andy Mabbett and Graham11. However, if the link appears in a citation and the author of the Misplaced Pages page relied upon Google's translation to substantiate a claim in a Misplaced Pages article (or if the article quotes google's translation), then editors should indicate (in the citation) that they are relying upon google's translation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Surely, Google translate is not a reliable source and should not be "relied upon"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. A human editor can rely upon whatever tool they want to make a source readable to them, but WP's own article WP:Verifiability relies upon what the real source actually says (i.e., as parsed by a fluent reader). WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT should not be misinterpreted as requiring us to do something like misusing the |via= parameter of the cite templates to indicate that we used Systran or Google Translate on our end to read and understand the source, any more that we'd expect a vision impaired users to list the JAWS screen reader in a citation as a tool that helped them read and understand a source, or I would list Firefox as how I read the source. What we're supposed to do is identify the actual publisher of the source and, if there is one, an intermediary republisher/redistributor of it (like Project Gutenberg, Google Books, or a journal article aggregation gateway like PubMed). WP doesn't cite what software we piped an online source through for our own temporary use. It has nothing to do with what we're linking to (or otherwise identifying, e.g. with an ISBN or DOI) as the cited source.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should not be linking to Google Translate, for the reasons noted above. It's irrelevant how the original editor translated the source; all that matters is providing access to the original for others to evaluate. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as External links go, WP:NONENGEL says English content is preferred over non-English. I have to admit, I thought there was much more. This is definitely an accessibility problem for External links. I think it would be extremely helpful to include a working translation for any link to non-English content. This applies to references as well for verifiction. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an assumption to say that they are relying on machine translation, a fluent contributor could have just as likely added a translation link as a convenience for readers. The reason for the link is unknown without asking the contributor. Moreover, the lack of a translation link in an article does not exclude the possibility that machine translation was used and just not mentioned.

Separately, I think this kind of linking is not "promoting a particular machine translation service" anymore than a contributor choosing to add a Google Books link, instead of a HathiTrust link or an Internet Archive link to the same book, is promoting Google Books – it is, in my opinion, up to the contributor to decide what they contribute and for others to improve the contribution if they want to. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that a convenience link to Google books is the same as all linking to to (google) machine translation. The issue with linking to machine translations is not just that a particular translation engine might be promoted, but more importantly that currently machine translations are still shitty and unreliable as sources. The latter is the important difference to Google books which provides access to a reliable sources. Moreover the main reason for linking to Google books are the cases where no digital copies are available in non-commercial archives.

So personally I don't have issues with linking to a preview on Google books if no other online copy is available, but i do have an issue with linking to any translation engine (including google):--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye; a common reason to provide a GBooks link is that the work is available there but not on Project Gutenberg, etc. Another reason is that you found a particular items (e.g. a statement as a specific page) via a Google Books search, and do not have the actual book in-hand; in such a case WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT indicates we should provide a proper cite to the real book, but indicate one way or another (e.g. with a |url= to the GBooks search hit, and a |via=]) that we were working from a digitized copy via GBooks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you used the Google Books resource as the source for the information, then link to it; but if you used a paper copy of the book, use an ISBN or OCLC link, not a Google Books link. I remember seeing a couple of cases where the ISBN for a book in a citation was different from that on a linked Google Book instance because the two were different editions; that's a completely wrong way to write a citation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Google is just too convenient. I link to Google Books unless I consciously decide not to. The machine translations may be shitty but, again, Google Chrome, a browser with many users, is too convenient with a right click machine translation link – the translation happens whether or not the link is in Misplaced Pages or in the browser. The reader determines whether or not that translation is helpful. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's beside the point. The fact that you can have Chrome auto-translate for you has nothing to do with whether promote Google Translate in citation is legitimate, nor with reasons to use Google Books URLs. There's no connection between these things other than Google has something to do with them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is something currently up at meta's glbal blacklist. There are more sides to this coin - the links can and have been abused (blacklist evasion). These links should be blacklisted just for that reason, just like the google.com/url links. But that is besides the point.

Outside of the templated use, these links should not be used. I ran recently into a reference that linked me to the google translation of an external site. For me it raised several questions: 1) did the editor use the Google translation as the source, if they link to the translation, it suggests that they did not have command original language, and, knowing machine translations tend to be bad, the attribution may be wrong; 2) this is the English wikipedia, but the writer is not to decide to tell me which languages to translate for me. I had, in the earlier example, sufficient command in the original language to see whether the attribution was right. I think that linking to the original source overrules the preference to link to English language content. I don't buy the convenience story either, machine translations tend to be bad, and seen that my mother tongue is not English, maybe I want another translation. --Dirk Beetstra 05:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• We should definitely never be linking directly to any machine translation as the source, since it is not the source, it's someone's temporary, munged copy of the source filtered for their personal needs as a reader. We should also not be adding "convenience links" to machine translations that overwhelmingly market for no one but Google. If consensus arises that providing convenience translation links, somehow, is something we should do, this should be handled the way we already handle ISBNs: by linking to and building on-the-fly a special page that provides many options (in this case, to all the free online translation services we know of, rather than to all the ISBN lookup services we know of). Those of us who use machine translation frequently know to use multiple such services, because (except for very, very simple and short things) they all produced radically different results, which must be contrasted to get a sense of what the original probably actually is saying. It's not just non-neutral and spammy to shunt everyone to Google Translate, it can be directly misleading, suggesting that WP endorses and holds to be correct the gibberish that that particular translation bot spews out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist evasion through a proxy, like Google translate, could be reduced or eliminated by improving URL scanning for the undesirable or blacklisted strings located not at the beginning of the URL. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree with you that "should be handled the way we already handle ISBNs". It seems the only reason for this discussion is because the target translator is Google – there is no mention of any other site in the discussion. A discussion about a convenience link to a translation of a properly cited source has nothing to do with the objective accuracy of the translation or the subjective benefit a user gets by reading it. {{Machinetranslate}} provides more than just a Google link without the weight of a separate page. Of course it should not be used as the source for the content added to article but contributors will do that and not indicate that they ever did. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"It seems the only reason for this discussion is because the target translator is Google" Not in the least. I'm in the process of reviewing all our external link templates, and had I found one for a different translation service I would have sent that for TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, we have just 152 links to www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from translations; and 330 using http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url - the latter site is defunct, so they don't work. I have just amended {{Machinetranslate}}, of which I was not previously aware, so that it points to Bing, not BabelFish; however that has only 42 trabnsclsuions.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: we assume WP:GOODFAITH and have no knowledge if an "editor use the Google translation as the source" unless we ask. A convenience link in an English wikipedia article to a translation of a foreign language reference is reasonable and logical – the foreign language reference is the source and it never affects "the preference to link to English language content" because the linked reference is in a foreign language, i.e. two links: one to the foreign language reference in the citation and another convenience link to a translation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: - I assume good faith in that they used the original, so that should be linked, not the translation. I still disagree with the 'convenience', a lot of English speaking people do not have English as their primary language - not any convenience .. --Dirk Beetstra 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This could be handled, for logged in users, with a class; i.e., the ability to hide the template if you don't want to see it. I'd like to see {{Machinetranslate}} offer more options than Google and Microsoft.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This should then be handled, for logged in users, with a script/gadget that adds a translate link of the user's choice (google, yahoo, microsofttranslate, babel, ..., or all) to all external links (set to autodetect source language) for editors who want such a convenience link. For the link to be a convenience, you'd have to offer multiple translation sites for every non-English link as different translation engines give different outputs of different quality, and on site A (language A) google may be 'good enough', it may be totally useless on site B (language B), and yahoo may be a better choice in the latter, or a 'language B based translation engine'. --Dirk Beetstra 04:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Exactly what I was thinking.! I did a bit of work on the template today to un-break it (to the extent possible - MS/Bing Translator cannot handle any "https" address, for example), and make it more sensible. I've installed the CSS classes in it and in {{Google translate}}: a general class manchinetrans, and coded language-specific classes based on the source an destination language parameters, in the form machinetrans_to_{{{foo}}} an machinetrans_from_{{{bar}}}, so you can address the entire thing, or only when a specific language is involved. I guess it could also have machinetrans_to_from_{{{foo}}}_{{{bar}}} and vice versa. Whatever people want; it's easy and painless to change at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a convenience link in an English wikipedia article to a translation of a foreign language reference - because we have no way to verify the quality of the translation. When we talk about external links to English-language content, we're talking about human-written content in English, not a machine-translation of some other language. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, to quote one of these translations: The great rejection that generated in the Colombian public opinion the shooting death Hippo Pepe has made ​​hunting and breeding female is temporarily suspended. (from this translation). Hunting and breeding females? Killing an animal like this can not like anyone Did you mean "No one can like killing an animal like this"? Probably, but I can't be sure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• As per WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  is an example of where I've included a quote from Google translate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• • There's a difference between quoting a small piece of a machine translation (where you take personal responsibility for its accuracy and readability) and linking to a machine translation (where, for all you know, they may change their algorithms the day after you linked there, resulting in sentences like the ones I quoted). A machine translation is never a reliable source, but if you are willing to state that a certain sentence is a good translation of an original reliable source, quote the sentence and link to the source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

How should we deal with this?

The question in my OP was "How should we deal with this?". Does anyone have any practical suggestions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Deprecate every instance of a Google Translate link when used as a reference. Since Google change their algorithm literally every few minutes, there's no way of verifying that what any given reader will see when they click on a link is what the person inserting the link saw, so I can't see how it would ever be appropriate for use as a reference. ‑ Iridescent 12:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly they should not be used as references.

However the case in question used Google Translate as a convenience link, something like this:

• "Азис и Китаеца се разделиха без скандали" . vsekiden.com. 29 April 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2014. (Translation on Google Translate.)

It seems to me that we cannot simply say that "people know where to find Google translate" and at the same time "people do not know that Google translate may be inaccurate".

We can perhasp label these items clearly as "Machine translations".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

Distinguishing between terrorism and non-terrorism

Ever since I first came here, I have seen a number of debates and controversies over whether certain mass killings should qualify as terrorism and be categorized under it because of the perpetrators' motivations, and what the inclusion criteria is. For example, in regards to the killing of Jo Cox, some users believe that it should be categorized as terrorism now because the perpetrator espoused right-wing motivations and killed a major political leader, and others believe that it should wait at the moment because legal proceedings are still ongoing and the perpetrator's mental health should also be considered. In another example, the Charleston church shooting: some users think it should be terrorism, others believe it should not be because WP:RS seems to vary on the issue.

There have also been content disputes and concerns over lists of terrorist attacks (i.e. Lone wolf (terrorism), List of terrorist incidents, 2016, Terrorism in the United States, etc.), some of which I was involved in. In the disputes, users debate about whether certain attacks should be included because they look like terrorism even though officials in the investigation, and RS, have not mentioned or confirmed a terrorist motivation. For example, I was in a discussion with a couple of users at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 over whether the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers articles should be included in that list, even though they weren't officially categorized and no terrorist angle was mentioned in the investigation or RS.

In addition, I had seen some odd examples listed in Lone wolf (terrorism), which I had since removed. For example, the 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers (), the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting (), and the 2014 Isla Vista killings () were listed but removed by me because of terrorism was unconfirmed or even not mentioned at all. But given the motives of these events (anti-government, racism, sexism), I would understand why people would feel a need to list them as examples.

With the consideration that most of my examples are content disputes, I understand that VPP is not where content disputes are resolved. However, I saw a commonality with all of these examples and more: a widely varying opinion between users over what should qualify as a terrorist attack, and a lack of common understanding over inclusion criteria. For example, if the Dallas shooting is considered racially-motivated violence, should that be classified as a terrorist attack with that kind of thinking? Or would it be a WP:OR violation to say it now when terrorism has not actually been confirmed by officials and RS?

My apologies for the long post, or if anything doesn't seem to be clear, or if this is even relevant here. This is my first rodeo here. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that "terrorism" is a WP:LABEL, it should only be applied in a factual manner if the authorities responsible for investigating the case have decided to call it as such. I have seen many cases of editors using either public commentary (but not from people involved in the investigates) as well as their own personal theories (that is, OR) to declare something factually as "terrorism" which we absolutely should not be doing per LABEL. It's reasonable to cite attributed opinion that something may be terrorism, but that's different from treating it as a fact (as for example, listing something on that List of terrorist incidents article). --MASEM (t) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely wrong to call something terrorism that hasn't been so designated by responsible authorities. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion on Talk:Terrorism in Europe#Distinction goes in a similar direction. Theoretically spoken, there may be cases where the reputable sources call it "terrorism" and a clear statement by the authorities is missing (maybe because they want to hide something, think of states without free media). These cases should be included, too, based on good sources in the respective article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a careful line to draw here. I can see a case where there is an incident of international impact where the nation that it happened in and leading the investigation have opted to not call it terrorism, but high-level officials in other nations (who are likely going to have information on the investigation in detail) call it terrorism. That's a time to be reasonably careful on using the term. On the other hand, if in the same situation, it's not high-level officials of other nations, but the press at large that want to call it terrorism (without having any other information), that's a problem. A key thing I've seen it basically using the word of the press or people that are not in any position of authority to assert something is terrorism, which we should be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Largely d'accord with this, the other way round we have to keep in mind, that not everything which is called "terrorism" by authoritarian states is in fact "terrorism". For Turkey, most of the Kurds are terrorists, for Russia the Ukrainians and vice versa, but in fact this can be doubted with very good reasons. So we also have to be careful with such labels by authorities, especially of more or less authoritarian states. And this is the point, where the free media are "back in the match", which quote e.g. experts on terrorism.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, but there is also a special case when Islamic terrorism is involved. For example, a great number of terrorist attacks in lists are Islamic terrorist attacks, most of them very recent. In cases like Nice, Orlando, and the like, where the investigation is still ongoing, would it be a WP:OR violation to label them as terrorism (even if sources and officials say it is) when the investigation may ultimately not come to that conclusion. Hypothetically speaking, of course, but from my position, the distinction between terrorism and not terrorism seems to be clearer for non-Islamic attacks.

Also, if an attack barely gets any coverage and only has passing mentions in list articles (see the articles in List of terrorist incidents, 2016 for examples), should we include that even though the investigation may still be ongoing? Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It can always happen that later investigations prove officials and the media wrong, Islamistic or not. Misplaced Pages should be based on the best sources available and therefore show their actual state of knowledge (e.g. as in the respective article), but it can never grant that the state of knowledge of the officials doesn't change. In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported. But terrorism in some regions (near ISIL territory for example) is happening on a daily base. Maybe in some cases there will never be an investigation sufficing Western standards, but there are also sources that are usually reliable for such regions which cover also the official statements. And I view it as very important that Misplaced Pages collects such incidents because they show the whole tragic dimension of that phenomenon.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported." I can definitely name the 2016 Munich shooting as an example. Everyone, including the media, got really riled up when the eyewitness account mentioning "Allahu akbar" got involved in the scoop. Then more details about the perpetrator came in, we realized he is either a right-wing extremist or someone out to copycat a school shooting, and the Islamic terrorism angle got mostly thrown out the window (save for those conspiracy theorists who would believe the German media is covering it all up). Parsley Man (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and how many of the terrorist cases is that? 0,01%? Besides of that, it was clear relatively fast that this case was a little special. In the overwhelming majority of the other cases the things are not completely different than we are initially told in the media, especially not in the Islamistic sector. There are even cases which seem to be "normal" stabbings like the case of Safia S. in Hanover main station, that later turned out to be a terrorist act. Or the Islamistic teenagers in Essen who blew up the Sikh temple. Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts? I would say no, that is the normal error margin of media/officials/Wikipedia.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts?" Yes, when WP:NOR is concerned. I don't know if sources or officials have classified that Sikh temple bombing was classified as a terrorist attack, but if not, then there's definitely a problem if we go with category guns blazing and then the investigation proves us wrong. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the List of terrorist incidents, 2016, it was decided that we would included suspected terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are included when the perpetrator appears to have a political motivation, or if the attack occurs in an area where terrorist activities are common and in the fashion of what a terrorist organization would do. Why is this? I would say the overwhelming majority of attacks in these lists are suspected terror attacks. This is because the attacks often take a long time to investigate, with sometimes the results never being released in the media if the attack is minor. The list likely would not really have anything on it if we did not include these attacks. A politically motivated attack is the same thing as a terrorist attack. If sources state that the perp appears to be politically motivated, but it does not state terrorism, the attack should be added. Beejsterb (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question here is whether it should be considered a WP:NOR violation or not, if sources say the attack in question was politically motivated but do not mention terrorism. I guess it does seem obvious in some cases but other times it does not, Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for instance. Racial motivation, from what I'm seeing, falls into the spectrum of political motives but the shooting did not look like terrorism, judging by the media coverage, at least. Parsley Man (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, a terrorist attack and a politically motivated attack are technically the same thing. Beejsterb (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of such a thing until now. Then why do sources not mention terrorism in some cases when they do with others? Parsley Man (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another question, what would you consider a "politically motivated attack"? What exactly would fall under that category? Because I feel concerned about someone thinking the 2014 Isla Vista killings could count as a lone-wolf terrorist attack when it's been treated by officials and media as a tragic yet typical spree shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of political attacks don't use the terror of death to bring change or order, just death to opposition. Assassinations, wars, coups, oppressions and executions are all their own sorts of violence. If you count gang politics as real politics, that's even more. None need to happen in busy public spaces with loud noises, panic and cameras, like terrorism does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible approach, as it presumes (on WP's part) guilt before innocence. In some countries, (including the US, as I understand the laws), the criminal court proceedings and punishment for a crime determined to be terrorism by authorities are much much harsher than that if it was a politically-motivated incident. Hence the need to avoid presumptive labeling. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, as someone who occasionally comes across these issues. Specifically I have opposed the inclusion of terrorism categories (as well as the murder and assassination labels) at Killing of Jo Cox. Without getting into a content dispute, I'd like to explain why. Firstly the suspected perpetrator is the subject of legal action and there are BLP issues, so we must be cautious. The case is not being charged as terrorism, but is being treated under terrorism court procedures, and has been investigated by anti-terrorism police. I don't view this as sufficient to describe the act as terrorism. I would normally be content to go with the usual description of terrorism (and assassination) as an act of violence for political (etc) purposes, with those motivations supported by reliable sources. However in this case the motive is far from clear. Several editors have stated that the perpetrator is obviously a right-wing nut job - to quote, "the perpetrator pretty much stated his motivations". Again this is something I disagree with. The perpetrator has uttered only a few words that we know of, and all of them were rather confusing. There are alleged links to right-wing extremism, some of which are dated to some 20 years ago. There are no recent examples the act can be said to follow, and no groups claiming responsibility. The perpetrator has a history of mental illness and frankly, as one judge alluded, doesn't appear sane even for a terrorist. The combination of these factors - sub judice and BLP, lack of terrorism charges, unclear motivations, no claims of responsibility, the mental illness factor - means we are not in a position to apply labels which assume the motivation.

On the wider issue I don't think it's sufficient to find sources which use the terrorism label. It's possible to find sources which describe the killing of Jo Cox terrorism, murder,, and assassination. It's also possible to find people who claim to know the motivations of the killer. This rather reminds me of people recently saying that Jimmy Wales' first name is James because one archived website once said so. I think we need to look beyond the headlines and single instances.

I confess however that in some cases I have no answer about what should be done. I can't foresee what will happen on the outcome of the Jo Cox trial. I have no solution for the categorisation of Dylann Roof. In some senses I find some of Misplaced Pages's categorisation systems inherently deficient, and can only suggest we use a combination of third-party labeling, reporting of motivations, and common sense. -- zzuuzz 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also been invited to comment and endorse others' comments about there sometimes being an over-readiness to label, especially when the issue is 'hot'. A related issue is the use of 'near-synonyms' by authorities and editors. A particular example is the use of 'terror attack', by authorities, (sometimes authorities come under pressure to use such a term, as Obama has come under pressure recently to use the term 'Islamic terrorism') and by editors here who are ready to treat 'terror' (ie anything which causes mass/widespread public fear) as a synonym of 'terrorist', which IMO has and should have a narrower definition.

The problem is confounded by recent 'lone wolf/self-radicalised' perps, (Orlando gay bar?) where the authorities are unclear/ambiguous about how much private psychology and how much political motivation played a part. I don't know the whole answer, but endorse that authorities must EXPLICITLY characterise thus (not simply marginal news sources and especially not the perp themselves nor organisations like ISIS, which appear to be ready to claim credit for the weather if it suits their agenda!). Without some clear definition on WP, the term is in danger of becoming meaningless through loose use.Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To try a fully different approach: Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. With that in mind, this discussion is quite academic. Anyone can identify terror, when it happens. It's violence to terrify people for a political, religious, or ideological aim. The common sense knows when something is terror. To be honest, I don't think much of discussions like these. What should be the outcome? We erase articles from a list only because no people sitting in an office classified slaughtered people as slaughtered by a "licensed" terrorist? Are you sure that this bears any sense? I am not convinced.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "terrorism" under the above definition is highly subjective, and as a contentious label, this immediately requires us to consider sources rather than editors' opinion to avoid the OR. But even then, we have to consider that even in the RSes, journalists and other experts without the legal authority on the situation will make such claims, and so many many events could be classified as "terrorism" depending on which subset of sources one decides to use. "Terrorism" is a hot word, which for most readers will immediately set a certain tone, and its clear that sources love to through the word around to try to sway audiences (per fear, uncertainty and doubt). Add in that there are very real ramifications in the criminal prosecution of cases being called "terrorism", and we absolutely should avoid calling something a act of terrorism if that can only be sourced to non-authoritative sources. (That said, in articles about these acts, it is reasonably fine to include a wide opinion that something might be considered a terrorism act with proper attribution even if the authorities have not come to their conclusion as of yet). --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that someone can easily apply this logic to events like the Umpqua Community College shooting, for example. The shooter singled out some of his victims because they told him they were Christian (even though at least two of them weren't being honest with their statements), and the shooter was said to have a history of antireligious and white supremacist beliefs. Both beliefs can definitely fall under the "ideological aim" category of the terrorist definition you just used. But based on this, would it be appropriate for the shooting to be categorized as a terrorist attack? As I said before, investigative officials and media outlets have treated this as a mass shooting, and nothing about terrorism was ever mentioned. You may not agree that this would be a terrorist attack, but I'm sure someone else might, and as I mentioned in the first post of this discussion, I had seen (and removed) some very odd examples in the Lone wolf (terrorism) article. Now, some cases are obvious and clear-cut (whether they're terrorist attacks or not terrorist attacks), but others (such as the Charleston shooting) are clearly more up for debate. Where exactly do we draw a line, if we even can? Parsley Man (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A similar disconnect can be seen on Weather Underground, where the FBI (and many others) having labeled the group as terrorists is seen as "not enough". Arkon (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think when it comes to describing an incident as terrorism the motive of the perpetrator has to be clear. Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. So in cases when the perpetrator links himself with terrorist organisations (like ISIL) you can speak of terrorism. I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting. But for example, the shooting of poice officers in Dallas was perpetrated by a Black Person. His motivations do clearly fit the Black Supremacist Ideology that started in the 1960s. He even posted a picture of himself on the internet in which he makes the black supremacist sign with his fist. Black Supremacist groups like Black Panther also commited terrorist attacks in the early 70s.Joanne Deborah Chesimard was a member of the group and also killed two police officers and she´s still on the most wanted terrorist list. She had the same motives as the gunman who killed five police officers in Dallas, but yet he´s not labeled a terrorist by the media. I think academically speaking (so not what the media says about these events), if you look at the motives and the way the shooting of Dallas was executed you can label the perpetrator as a terrorist. The perpetrator´s action do fit the definition of terrorism but yet that hasn´t been done yet by the FBI or the media. I think it´s just strange that muslims are judged as terrorists very fast by the media in comparison with people of other backgrounds. JBergsma1 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. ... I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting." I highly recommend you to read this section of the main article, then, because clearly not every top official thinks this is terrorism. Also, judging by your reasoning, could you call the Umpqua Community College shooting or the 2014 Isla Vista killings terrorist attacks and categorize them in the appropriate lists because of the perpetrators' motives, even if terrorism wasn't mentioned at all by officials or media outlets? I for one would call that a severe WP:NOR violation. Parsley Man (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The motives of the perpetrators who committed the Umpqua Community College shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings where likely due to psychological reasons. I know that both killers made judgements towards 'christians' and 'women', which could explain the attacks as religiously motivated or motivated by sexism and therefore be terrorism. But in both of these cases the main motives for the gunmen to commit the attacks remains either unknown or were likely due to personal reasons. If you look up information about the Isla Vista killer you'll find that he was frustraded about rejection by women. He even talks constantly about rejection in his 'motivational videos'. While he did target women, you can tell that it wasn't terrorism because there wasn't a political motive involved. In comparison, Marc Lepine, the perpetrator of an attack on a university in Canada in 1989 in which 14 women were killed, was an outspoken anti-feminist and spoke about his hatred for the 'feminisation of society'. This is more close to terrorism in an anti-feminist context. You can't tell that of the Isla Vista killer. Dylann Roff meanwhile, made constantly clear that he had racial views by making pictures. He never talked about being bullied by 'black people' for example (in comparison to the Isla Vista killer that felt rejected by women). He also had no history of psychological problems while the Isla Vista killer was diagnosed. JBergsma1 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But the thing is, the Charleston shooting is considered controversial because some top officials think it is terrorism while others (including the FBI Director) do not believe it is. Not only would classifying the shooting as an act of terrorism be a severe WP:NOR violation, it would also be undue because such a categorization would practically be catering to the side who thinks the shooting should be terrorism. That can also certainly apply to those attacks were the terrorism angle is sketchy and/or unmentioned, i.e. the Dallas and Baton Rouge police shootings. I think in all cases we should wait until an official classification is made by someone with an intimate connection with the investigation, such as someone with the FBI. Parsley Man (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that when it comes to naming an event as 'terrorism' a classification is important. But people can still be sceptical about a classification made by a major organisation that investigated the incident, such as the FBI. The FBI has a monopoly on all sorts of investigations and even though most of their conclusions are accepted by most people or countries, there is always a party that remains sceptical. Sometimes things are not 100 % certain because there are always people who interpretate things differently. So when a description of a violent event remains vague when for example no classifcation was given, you could still describe an event as a 'terrorist attack' if it fits the definition of it. So I agree with waiting for a classifcation made by the authorities as it's of course the most accurate thing to do. But when it comes to smaller attacks (like some attacks in Iraq) in which a classification is not made clear by the media, you could still describe the event as a terrorist attack by rational thinking and sticking to the definition.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That is so, so, SO wrong. Misplaced Pages does not exist to cater to those who would be skeptical about any conclusion from any investigation into any sort of attack. It was be WP:UNDUE. Parsley Man (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You could describe them as Satanic rituals or cocaine-fueled, by the same logic. Being wrong about hundreds of smaller attacks or definitions isn't much better or worse than being wrong about the big one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Images of Area 51

I've noticed that on many images of Area 51, signs can be seen saying that photography is prohibited. In the light of this, surely all such images should be deleted? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unclear see Freedom of panorama and that it applies to buildings in the US. If taken from outside the boundaries of the site, then it becomes an issue of public place. RegistryKey 07:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Almost certainly not. For one thing, in a lot of cases such buildings may fall under {{PD-USGov}} unless they were built by contractors, or commons:COM:De minimis would apply. And if memory serves, Area 51 is old enough that limitations of commons:COM:FOP#United States would not apply because of missing copyright notices and the "public space" rule not existing yet. Finally, I am not sure if such "No photos" rules affect the FoP status at all. Probably a better question for commons:COM:VPC though, more copyright experts work there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  By statute (as Freedom of panorama#United States explains and cites), any copyright in a building in the United States does not apply to a photograph of that building, regardless of the building's age or architect. So there are no copyright restrictions at all in the U.S. on such photographs of architecture. The only exception would be nonfunctional art on buildings such as murals or sculpture, where the normal restrictions on derivatives or copies apply. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Though this only applies for images of the building taken from a public space. Most defense installations are not public spaces. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@RegistryKey and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Why does everyone always assume that copyright law is the only law we have to abide by and if images are illegal for any other reason, it's all hunky-dory? As I mentioned on the talk, it is explicitly illegal to photograph defense installations. I also don't edit Commons anymore, for legal and moral reasons. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to assume anything. Commons policy spells out that Commons is not concerned with non-copyright restrictions of this sort. If there is a problem, it's between the photographer and the institution forbidding photography. c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am not morally able to participate in a site that freely admits to violating US law and makes no attempt to rectify it. Good-bye. Commons had this problem, Misplaced Pages does, I'm sure all the Wikimedia projects also do, so you won't be seeing me around. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to mechanically apply Commons policies on non-copyright restrictions here as well. I am not familiar enough with this aspect of US law to make a guess on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Area 51#Illegal photos is a pertinent discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That statute just says it's illegal to "make" such images. It says nothing about what anyone else might do with it. At any rate, an editor who is convinced by their own armchair legal opinion that this site is breaking the law probably would be more comfortable elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Postdlf:, 18 U.S.C. 797 explicitly bars the distribution of any photos that would be illegal to produce under 18 U.S.C. 795 and EO 10104 . I don't have an opinion on whether the rule actually applies to photos made on public property. The plain reading of the law's text would tend to suggest that the law does apply even to photos taken from public property, but I could just as easily believe that either constitutional case law or interpretive regulations say that photos are allowed from public property. Dragons flight (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below, there is actually not much case law, and it does seem the gov't has been successful in defending this position in the few one can document at times. It has a potential for chilling speech if this is tested constitutionally (which it hasn't yet). --MASEM (t) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a valid reason for removing a photograph of a sign saying "photography is prohibited" immediately after the words "beyond this point". Such images have been broadcast on television programs and exist all over the internet. Although it is illegal to photograph some US military facilities ("certain vital military and naval installations") without permission, Misplaced Pages didn't take this photograph, so our concern should be limited to copyright status, as others have said. - MrX 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:Category:Area 51, every single photo there appears to either be taken outside the perimeter, or publicly released by the US government. (Without wishing to state the obvious, I would assume any hostile intelligence agency is going to have a better source of images than Commons.) Also bear in mind that this is a global project; if we were to start deleting images just because they're considered illegal somewhere, it would mean deleting about 75% of Commons including files as apparently innocuous as File:Move icon.svg. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is from outside the perimeter (a public space), then they should be fine under FOP. The "no photography" signage would apply to those inside the perimeter. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

^Agree 100% with this one. The US Government knows that they can't stop people from taking images with a telephoto lens or just outside the perimeter. And they don't try. However, photos from inside the perimeter would be considered classified information and uploading them on here would cause an enormous amount of trouble for Wikimedia as they are based in the US. Seeing as the photo is question was taking outside the perimeter (and therefore outside the classified zone) it shouldn't be a problem. --Majora (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at as well with my original reply. Inside the wire is definitely enforceable, but outside the perimeter in public space it becomes murky. RegistryKey 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jakec, I urge you to reconsider. Few issues in law are cut-and-dry – that's why we have a court system – and this case doesn't seem to be cut-and-dry either. This project is definitely not "freely admitting to violating US law"; rather, we disagree on what the law is and how it applies here. Why don't we solicit the opinion of WMF Legal? I appreciate that you're standing up for what you believe, but we haven't exhausted our dispute resolution options yet. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have sent a message to User:Mdennis (WMF) at User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Legal status of photos of US defense installations. I hope that this will help clear things up. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is a security problem with the content here, you can expect that the US government will take steps to notify WMP of the problem and request removal. A problem image or text should be removed so that it cannot be viewed. Oversighting or some technical removal from the database would be the way to go. From what I remember of images in Wikimedia they can be totally removed. If it happened, probably no one would tell us either. So my conclusion from this, is that the photos we have of the military installations here are not actually a problem. Neither a security problem, nor so illegal that anyone (FBI) is going to the effort to do anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mz7: Perhaps I moved too hastily; I will definitely remain here long enough to see what the WMF has to say. But it does gravely concern me when people claim that "Commons policy spells out that Commons is not concerned with non-copyright restrictions". @All others: the text of the law specifically says: "it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission". It makes no mention of where the photo must be taken from to be unlawful, which would imply that it would be illegal whether it is taken from inside the base, on a public road, or even from space. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's 18 U.S. Code § 795 , and apparently there are some case laws that weigh on the government's favor from 2014, but in this specific case the government appears to settle with the paper. As noted by the CJR article, if they held the law which doesn't account for how much satellite and StreetView imagery there is , it can have chilling effects. But all that said, there's no resolution on this. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm reminded of New York Times Co. v. United States. That it is illegal to take a photograph doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal to publish the photograph. This is a messy legal area, and one best left to the lawyers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Unless copyright issues are involved, I think we should allow the Foundation to handle this as they see fit. Until such time that they tell us we should prevent photographs of military installations, and once we've informed them about such photographs, it's their concern, not ours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Noting here that a response from the WMF was posted at User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Legal status of photos of US defense installations. Mz7 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifying the page creator in deletion discussion

There are some users who have made 100+ AFD nominations but they never notified the article creator about the ongoing WP:AFD intentionally.

I have been indirectly told that right now there is no firm policy that article creator must be notified about deletion discussion.That whenever an article, draft, user page, template, file, sandbox, userspace draft, is nominated for deletion at WP:MFD, WP:AFD, WP:FFD, WP:TFD, then it's not compulsory for the nominator to notify the page creator about deletion discussion.

I find this inappropriate that in WP:AFD, the article creator won't be notified about the deletion discussion.

It is considered a courtesy to notify the article creator on their talk page about AFD or MFD, but I want that it should be a policy not plain courtesy. --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the correct scripts are used when tagging urticles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and XfD, he creator is automaticaly informed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If a user wants to notify with twinkle, then he can do it. But if a user doesn't notify, then no one can warn him. As this user Jakejr (who makes manual nomination) has nominated 162 articles for deletion, but he never notified the page creator about the AFD. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm guilty of this too, I'll admit, although I have recently started notifying users for afd. Would it be possible to just have an automatic notification sent to anyone who has a nominated article on the watchlist?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin watchlists are private - so this would have to be done server-side as part of echo to not give away who was watching a page - but would require some work, one primary reason - "nominating a page for deletion" is just "editing" the page from the server side, a catch would have to be put in for every edit that would be of this class. — xaosflux 03:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you think it should be policy to notify page creators about an AfD? (I've personally always notified the page creator). FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene: I have updated my reason above. --Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I see your update but still am not convinced. Does notifying the article creator help create a better encyclopedia? The page creator doesn't really WP:OWN the page or they may have only added a sentence or two years ago. It's not entirely clear to me why he or she should be notified. FuriouslySerene (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Occasionally, the page creator isn't the primary contributor to the article. This often happens when a user converts a redirect into an article: the redirect creator gets notified, not the editor who turned it into an article. For this reason, I don't think it should be policy that the page creator must be notified, but I would consider it discourteous not to notify any primary contributors. We could easily add this as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO (or even merge it with step 3), but if we do that, we should be clear about what constitutes appropriate notification. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mz7 I am not arguing about who should get notification, page creator or primary contributor, but lack of good faith in part of AFD nominator.

I know most users notify the article creator. I didn't start this discussion about these nominators.

I started this discussion about those nominators (who don't notify the page creator for years ) and never got any warning for that. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm inclined to support with adjustments. I also agree with Xaosflux's concerns below. I think the best way of implementing this is adding "notify primary contributors" as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO and removing language that implies that notification is merely an optional courtesy. We could also add a statement at Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Deletion discussions, something like "Where appropriate, nominators should make an effort to notify the page's creator or primary contributors of the discussion." There are other rare exceptions, such as when a nominator engages in canvassing, or when the only primary contributor has been topic-banned. Ultimately, we want to emphasize the spirit, which is to gain an adequate level of input at the discussion, hearing from both sides of the dispute. Notifying just the page creator is sometimes not enough. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's absolutely necessary that in the case of any deletion tags the creator be notified. That's why it gets done automatically when the proper script is used such as Page Curation and Twinkle. Compared to the hundreds of articles that get tagged every day by New Page Patrollers alone, It's extremely rare that the person who turned it into an article is not the creator and that, IMHO is a perfectly tolerable exception. The reasons why the creator should be notified are self-evident. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  Twinkle lets you withhold notification if you so desire. Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc#XfD (deletion discussions) advises us that notification is usually a good idea, but not always necessary, particularly in the case of malfeasant editors. I think the issue Marvellous Spider-Man is seeing is users deliberately unchecking the notify page creator box when nominating any page. Doing so is procedurally acceptable under current guidelines, and that's something that needs to change. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Depends - I think we've had this discussion before - I think if the page is newer (especially if it is NPP material such as an unpatrolled page) then this is a good idea, but this requires more of a spirit of who to discuss with then just looking at the history. If I were to recently go and turn a redirect in to an article - I'd like to be notified if it was going to be nominated for deletion - notifying the "page creator" may be useless. — xaosflux 03:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Depends on the circumstances. There's little point in notifying an editor who has been inactive for a year or more. Or what if the page creator just wrote a sentence or two, and most of the article was written by other people? Or the article was created by an IP (which used to be possible)? I suppose one could argue that it doesn't really matter if you notify those page creators. But what if the article's basically self-promoting spam and it realistically has no chance of survival at AFD? In that case, does notifying the page creator actually benefit Misplaced Pages, or does it just encourage the page creator to have a stressful, drama-filled week? I've occasionally un-checked the Twinkle box for notifications, and I doubt that there has been any harm to the project as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is basically about new page patrol and pages created within two months. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's introduce a whole new layer of wikiawyering by having some criteria for whether notification was required or not and then another layer about if notification wasn't made then does that invalidate the entire AFD nomination. I strongly agree that in the vast majority of cases the creator of the page should be notified but don't open up whole new avenues and hours of pointless discussion by making it a mandatory step which can be argued about. If there are users who are routinely not informing creators of AFD discussions then address that user's behaviour not the process when in 999/1000 cases there isn't an issue. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point, and one that I'm wary of as well. My suggestion above was not to impose bureaucratic restrictions like "you must notify except in scenarios 1a, 1b, 2, and 3, or else the entire process needs to start over", but to add notification as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO since, as you say, in the vast majority of cases "notify page creator" is standard AfD procedure. Ultimately, I would still like to see room for discretion and good judgment, but not to the point where never notifying anyone is acceptable (which is what it is right now: acceptable). Mz7 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends - A deletion nomination involving a single page, or a group of pages by the same user, when the author is still around, we should notify the user about it. When nominating a group of pages by different users, or when the author is no longer around, there is frequently no need to notify. An other issue is when a page was changed from a redirect to an article, the author who needs to be notified is the second author, not the redirecting user. And the scripts, for obvious reasons, can't deal properly with deletion nominations of renamed categories from before we could move categories (although I'm history-merging them, it will take a while for me to finish the task). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

policy on translation

Does the English Misplaced Pages have a policy how to act with references when an article is translated from another language Misplaced Pages? Should the translater include all references listed in the original article? (This is the default using the translation tool). Should (s)he check all the references herself? Should (s)he omit references that (s)he has not or could not check? On Dutch Misplaced Pages we have a discusion about this (not for the first time). The discussion was started after I translated the long article Women in science, with more then 100 references. Surely I did not check them all... that would be a lifetime job. I personally think that removing the references in the translation would severely reduce verifiability. Ellywa (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

English Misplaced Pages's policy on other-language references is that while English is preferred, there is nothing prohibiting other-language refs (WP:NOENG). If an article is translated from another language wikipedia using the tool etc, there is no policy reason against using the refs included just because they are not in English, and in fact policy requires the article to be referenced. The real problem is that other language wikipedia's may have different rules/policies on reliability and useability of sources as references - eg a primary reference might be ok on say Dutch Misplaced Pages for use in a biography of a living person, but is heavily frowned upon here except in certain defined circumstances. Which is why the verifiability policy has this bit in it: "When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people." Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

To avoid what is sometimes called "citation plagiarism", I would, personally, recommend including comments to indicate which references were not actually checked by the translator. These comments can be removed by anyone who actually checks the sources to verify that they support the text. It may or may not be appropriate to make these comments visible to the reader. "Citation plagiarism" was, I believe an issue in the dispute between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. I would tend to apply the principle for citation taken from secondary sources, where Chicago (16th ed. 14.273) says "To cite a source from a secondary source is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite . If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and secondary source must be listed." --Boson (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Indeed rules are different, but that point is not made in NL Misplaced Pages. It seems some of the loudest commenters think you should check all references yourself (impossible if you want to translate large articles) I will try to avoid citation plagiarism, as suggested by Boson. Thanks again. It is pleasant to talk with you; so unlike NL Misplaced Pages... sigh.... Ellywa (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Create a clear definition of 'firm consensus'

At any highly visible article about post–laissez-faire US politics, an editor has to "obtain firm consensus" before reinstating a challenged edit.

Yet nowhere does Misplaced Pages say what "firm consensus" means. It could mean a large consensus (how large?); a stable consensus (stable for how long?); a consensus that's not easily challenged or undone; or something else.

Proposal: Give the term "firm consensus" a clear definition.

For background, see Talk:Donald Trump § "RfC: Clarification", especially the comment about not finding clarification in any arbcom remedy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages village pump