Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4 edit

Template:Catholic Media Network edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation. Sixth of March 23:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Driving licenses in Africa edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete, no transclusions and can be trivially recreated if the articles are written. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Driving licenses in Africa with Template:Driving licence in Africa.
Merge as duplicates (leaving a redirect if desired) or delete as premature due to so many red links unless something else would be better... —PC-XT+ 21:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Regional Science High School for Region I edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation. Sixth of March 09:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not enough non-redlinked articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Philippine school navboxes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation. Each of them navigates only three articles. Sixth of March 08:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Plymouth Albion squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is actually out of date; all the players with linked articles have since left the club. If this were to be correctly updated, all the remaining players will be redlinks (or not meet notability guidelines as per WP:NRU). The template isn't currently transcluded from any article. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Government misconduct accusations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. This is borderline eligible for speedy deletion as per WP:T2. While the creator of this template thinks that this should be policy, the reality is that it isn't right now. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am inexperienced with template policies and don't know what it takes (if anything) for a template to be considered "official" enough to be added to the Template messages pages, but this controversial one was snuck in so quietly that I am suspicious. It was created and added by User:About a new template who may or may not be a single-purpose account based on their name and contributions. The only other one who edited the template was an IP, who I (again, by their edits) assume is the same person. Regardless of any of this, the template is most certainly in violation of our policies. In its "In a nutshell" it states:

The alleged misconduct must have been acknowledged by the Government's State in question before an article can report it. An article cannot suggest the misconduct has, or is taking place even when supported by what may be considered reliable, published sources.

A result of this would be the implication that no accusation of a government's involvement with something—no matter how well-known or universally accepted—is allowed so long as they still deny it. This is not only a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, it's also impossible to implement for obvious reasons; articles like Prisons in North Korea would have to be deleted or trimmed into oblivion. I've notified the user to this discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a legit template because wikipedia still revolves around consensus. Thus for example, if consensus agrees on what is written on the Prisons in North Korea article, then it needs not to be deleted or trimmed. Templates are not policies nor guidelines. According to my knowledge, templates as well are meant to comply with consensus, thus it's not correct to criticize it on the bases you suggested. Am I wrong? About a new template (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if the consensus agrees on the fact the sources are plausible yet at the same time there's a government-aligned counter-POV, then it is fair to inform the reader about the unresolved dispute over neutrality by adding such a template. About a new template (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello About a new template, you are not wrong about it being based on consensus. The problem with the template is that it misinterprets Wikipedia's policy. Templates can be added to any article, and especially to new editors it can seem quite.. let's say, "official". Having a template such as this appear all over Wikipedia sends the wrong kind of message. We have no policies or guidelines that advise extra caution on government-related claims. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I did edit the terms "must" and "cannot" according to your reasonable observations. You are right in arguing that it's too much strict the way I put it before. Do you think it could be a reasonable template now? What "wrong kind of message" are you referring to exactly? It seems to me this template sends a rightful message about transparency. About a new template (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with the template's purpose, but propose we wait for a neutral, third party editor to help settle this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some more to lessen the strictness it originally mentioned. Hope this helps. About a new template (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the template is just to recognize wikipedia's objective limits, enhancing its transparency, when it comes to controversial conspiratorial topics. About a new template (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edited more, both the template and its documentation. About a new template (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deletion - I really don't see any way this template could be edited to actually represent wikipedia's policies; if it was trimmed down to its accurate assertions, it would just be a duplication of {{NPOV}} and/or {{refimprove}}. Wikipedia doesn't "accept the axiomatical given right to plausible deniability." This template asserts a higher degree of self-discretion than is even afforded by the BLP policy. Wikipedia doesn't give special discretion to governments (even if it may give special discretion to individual members of those governments under the BLP policy, but certainly not the degree of special discretion assumed by this template.) If there are substantiated accusations of misconduct in multiple verifiable secondary sources, and the misconduct is notable wrt/ the article in question, it belongs on wikipedia, end sentence. As does documentation of counterclaims if they similarly appear in verifiable secondary sources. The government's own position is a secondary source and nothing more; it carries no more weight than any other secondary source before its verifiability and reliability are evaluated, and is not even automatically considered verifiable. Jhugh95 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, templates to be placed at the top of articles need to be associated with actual wikipedia polic(ies). Can you point to an actual policy that addresses this specific concern? Otherwise, this template should never be used on an article. And if it should never be used, it should be deleted. Jhugh95 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a good template for the reasons mentioned in the template itself and in its documentation. WP:NPOV and WP:Verify are the policies the template addresses, when on grounds of uncertainty about a Government misconduct. The problem stands in the bias, in the sense that there may be reliable sources which according to present consensus, although reliable, yet fail at some degree to be convincing in acknowledging the Government misconduct they report. It's known that verifiability and neutrality can be tedious policies to respect (WP:TRUTH elaborates this concept fairly well), thus I feel that consensus should be allowed to proclaim uncertainty in specific cases where a Government State authority is accused of misconduct, which mostly cannot be overseen for obvious reasons (classified and secret procedures employed by secret services for example), and that's where it stands the plausible deniability: the axiomaticity arouses from the position of authority (and political interest) a Government has over its nationally most visited websites. In simple words, the template recognizes the specific Government is in the position to give special discretion to Wikipedia, rather than the contrary. I think this template really aids transparency above all, by complying with the mentioned policies. I understand your statement "Wikipedia doesn't give special discretion to governments", but this template is rather meant to convey, invite editors and assure wary and adroit readers, regarding the fact Wikipedia is aware (or at least tries to be) of the well-known psychological conscious and unconscious coping techniques which may naturally (we are all subject to those whether willingly or not) lead to wrong government-aligned views. In the end, WP's content discaimer explicitly states that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias. Also, WP:Civil POV pushing states that The arbitration committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like [..] As a result of the arbitration committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards. About a new template (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does ArbCom have to do with this? This is TfD, not ArbCom. What the passages you quoted is saying is that ArbCom leaves content disputes to be decided by community consensus - in the case of templates, that community consensus is established here, at TfD. That's what's going on right now. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your truly difficult to read argument, but you seem to be suggesting that we need this template so that Wikipedia doesn't become the focus of sanctions by covered governments? ("The template recognizes the specific Government is in the position to give special discretion to Wikipedia.") That's not how Wikipedia works - look at WP:NOTCENSORED. The idea of the project is that editors are free to help build the encyclopedia free of legal harassment, and any legal challenges will be handled by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has a goal of preventing censorship of the encyclopedia as much as possible. If there are legal challenges that force the Foundation to censor information over the objections of the community (and they're very good at what they do, so this doesn't often happen), there are office actions that take care of it.
Absent such actions, information on Wikipedia must follow applicable laws (largely copyright and libel laws, of which there are dedicated teams of editors focused on compliance to keep the encyclopedia in good standing) and after that, guidelines set by the community. What you seem to be doing is trying to create a new community guideline - the guidelines your template details really are not policy, they're stronger-than-reality statements of WP:NPOV and WP:Verify on a specific subject; so strong that they run amok of another policy, WP:NOTCENSORED.
There's nothing wrong with trying to create a new community guideline - that's how they all got made in the first place. However, you're going about it backwards. You created an article template, which implies that the guideline you want to exist does exist, and that it's being enforced - article templates are one part of enforcement. Rather, all you have is an idea for a guideline; if you want it to exist, you have to argue your case and get the community to agree on it. I'll go ahead and let you know that you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who agree with what you're advocating here; it very much reads as trying to encourage submission to attempts by states to suppress information, and many people involved the Wikipedia project take great pride in its ability to retain information about states without censorship, so that it can be a resource for anyone living under states that might want information suppressed. Nevertheless, you have the right to propose your idea if you want - the proper place is WP:RFC.
In the meantime, I strongly support deletion of this template before it starts getting used on articles. We can't have article warning templates with false statements of policy floating around. Jhugh95 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom basically states that when it comes to controversial topics such as the ones mentioned at WP:PUSH, two of the five core pillars stop existing along with the normal consensus building process. These topics may involve what looks like censorship by an interested Government regarding an alleged misconduct. I think this means Wikipedia should be given the chance to broadly recognize such position towards Government's authority with a template like this one. This template is not supposed, obviously, to protect WP from focus of sanctions by any Government as you suggested, it just recognizes with transparency that Government's authority is in the position to spark wrong government-aligned bias in controversial topics involving accusations of misconduct perpetrated by the Government. The template actually supports the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, but in a way that focuses on transparency and psychology, by admitting the consensus agrees on the fact the government-aligned bias published in the article is, according to the sources, verified, yet at the same time provisional. Rather than "stronger-than-reality" statements I would argue their perception only is.
About the template being actually an attempt to create a guideline I feel like disagreeing although I recognize what you mean. I think it is a legit template about situations where the consensus agrees there's too much uncertainty regarding Government misconduct accusations to just have a government-aligned bias without disclaiming the issue.
Lastly, i believe what the template enforces, are at the very least the WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOTCENSORED policies. And of course I'm not trying to encourage submission to attempts by states to suppress information.. I'm actually trying to accomplish the contrary, by bringing the issue in broad light with a template that reports it. What false statements do you refer to? I think I'm going to edit the template a bit to convey the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. About a new template (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any of that, this is still not the proper forum for proposing your template because it's a controversial statement of policy. Even if the result of this TfD is a keep, there is still no consensus to use your template on articles; which means that, as a template with no uses, it's a candidate for deletion. If you submit an RfC, this TfC will probably be held (or closed and later reopened) until that RfC runs its course. But you need to do that if you want this template to exist. Controversial statements of policy have to go through highly visible channels like RfC so the community can weigh in. I still support deletion unless an RfC or other discussion on the merits of the policy statement is opened somewhere. Jhugh95 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just did as you suggested. I avoided publicizing it because I feel inexperienced. I hope the template, the documentation, and our convo will speak for themselves about its legitimacy and usefulness, otherwise no problem.. I understand it is a controversial template. About a new template (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The premise of this template seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and of the laws under which Wikipedia operates. First, legally speaking (although I am not a lawyer, etc.), Wikipedia has a right to publish anything it wants about any government, as long as it is not libellous. This right is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies in California, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. Second, and more importantly, the Wikipedia policies about what can and cannot go into an article have nothing to do with whether a government has acknowledged any misconduct, or whether contributors are in a position to oversee governments. Rather, we base our content on expert opinion - what experts on the subject have published in reliable, fact-checked sources. To get a better understanding of what I mean, you need to read the three main content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't see any way that this template could be reworded in order to bring it in line with those policies. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not about protecting Governments from accusations of misconduct. As I already tried to make Jhugh95 aware of just in one of the latest comments, it's actually about the contrary: it's about bringing the issue in broad light. I understand your point "the Wikipedia policies about what can and cannot go into an article have nothing to do with whether a government has acknowledged any misconduct", and I feel at a certain degree we should re-worded in that spot, maybe mentioning that better sources are needed to shift the present bias of the article. My intention with that phrasing was to set clear that although plausible sources support a government-UNaligned bias, they are not enough to suggest the misconduct has or is taking place, and most importantly that an Official Government Statement of accountability may be needed to fully subvert the bias. At least that was the intention.
Editors have the chance to consensually disclaim uncertainty about a misconduct perpetrated by a mighty interested, obscure specific Government authority (or subgroup), which could be undoubtedly in the position to oversee and control Wikipedia's content by either manipulating the article related sources (which is the only material used to write articles), and/or by sparking conscious and unconscious coping techniques in editors. To use the term undoubtedly is not just to refer to conduct that is overtly against the law, but also to conduct that although it is interpreted as a misconduct according to wary adroit regular people (someone calls them leftists), it is "broadly tolerated" in regards to the concept of plausible deniability which, non-fully-transparent Government authorities (or subgroups) may call upon and benefit from with fair integrity: think about classified programs for example, which give to scientists, agents, spies and who knows, in the name of National security and/or supremacy, that hollywoodian, yet authentic, "James Bond's license to kill", torture, and break the law at will so to speak.
It's no secret that Government authorities often break the law even with a certain candor: it's no secret that Governments of all the world have been and still are constantly accused of misconducts. Take as an example Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or, since we're on the english version of Wikipedia let's check on USA's Government misconduct accusations: this report by the Human Rights Watch is just an example. Another one is this one. Let's fly outside the USA and check on the abuses on Soviet dissidents of few decades ago. And since we're in the argument of psychiatric abuse why not mention MKULTRA, a gigantic clandestine program which lasted for 20 years. And what about the 1990s Clinton public admission of illegal experimentation? Then you have the 2009 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues reporting stuff like unconscionable basic violations of ethics. Let's even mention the unpopular latest "enhanced interrogation techniques" and its related report. What about pre-second world war Soviet Gulags and Nazi concentration camps? All these violations are established facts, yet it's reasonable to argue they represent only a percentage of Government misconducts: fortunately, after a long time, they happened to emerge and the facts were acknowledged.
This is why this template finds usefulness, disclaiming the chance of a government-aligned bias being considered verified, yet provisional.
It's an attempt to enhance transparency with all the good it conveys. There are many "touchy" subjects that can benefit from this template. About a new template (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prinsgezinde, Jhugh95, Mr. Stradivarius - I just rewrote both the template and the documentation to meet your concerns. I'm doubtful you will accept neither this new version, yet I still think it's worth making you aware it's much better now (I think), also thanks to your insight, and that it deserves to be used, of course. About a new template (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:About a new template, on your user page you state: "I started this account to propose a new template." Do you have or have you had another account on Wikipedia? Despite this ongoing issue, you seem at least somewhat familiar with the rules and have clearly thought the template through (I disagree with the template's concept, but respect your dedication to it). However, if you do have another account, you would be advised to use only that one since Wikipedia does not allow WP:SOCKPUPPETs. Don't worry though; if you do have another account you have not abused them so far and have therefore not violated any rules. I'm explaining it just in case. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinsgezinde: Thanks for the insight about sockpuppetry (which I'm aware of). Yes I have another account but if I had used it I am sure some malicious users would have been in the position to use my contributions to efficiently disrupt the debate that I was sure was going to arise on this template. I'm sorry you disagree with the template. I really believed in it. I would like to have it sorted out. About a new template (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your new version still says that being in the position to oversee a government is relevant, and that a statement of accountability from a government is necessary. Neither of these things appear anywhere in Wikipedia policy as far as I'm aware. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: I believe being in the imaginary position to oversee the government would obviously be relevant since, as explained above, the government IS in the position to manipulate the sources (is there any authority above Government?... none), specifically in the case we're talking about, which is an alleged misconduct perpertrated by itself. Nonetheless, the Government being the top of the authority in any society, may spark psychological coping techniques in specific editors and admins who may end up successfully pushing a wrong government-aligned bias for the article: in simple words, a natural form of intimidation can arouse via both conscious and unconscious mental processes.
Above, and in the documentation of the template, I explained the edgy set of reasons that I believe support the existence of this template as follows:

Editors have the chance to consensually disclaim uncertainty about a misconduct perpetrated by a mighty interested, obscure specific Government authority (or subgroup), which could be undoubtedly in the position to oversee and control Wikipedia's content by either manipulating the article related sources (which is the only material used to write articles), and/or by sparking conscious and unconscious coping techniques in editors. To use the term undoubtedly is not just to refer to conduct that is overtly against the law, but also to conduct that although it is interpreted as a misconduct according to wary adroit regular people (someone calls them leftists), it is "broadly tolerated" in regards to the concept of plausible deniability which, non-fully-transparent Government authorities (or subgroups) may call upon and benefit from with fair integrity: think about classified programs for example, which give to scientists, agents, spies and who knows, in the name of National security and/or supremacy, that hollywoodian, yet authentic, "James Bond's license to kill", torture, and break the law at will so to speak.

It's no secret that Government authorities often break the law even with a certain candor: it's no secret that Governments of all the world have been and still are constantly accused of misconducts. Take as an example Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or, since we're on the english version of Wikipedia let's check on USA's Government misconduct accusations: this report by the Human Rights Watch is just an example. Another one is this one. Let's fly outside the USA and check on the abuses on Soviet dissidents of few decades ago. And since we're in the argument of psychiatric abuse why not mention MKULTRA, a gigantic clandestine program which lasted for 20 years. And what about the 1990s Clinton public admission of illegal experimentation? Then you have the 2009 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues reporting stuff like unconscionable basic violations of ethics. Let's even mention the unpopular latest "enhanced interrogation techniques" and its related report. What about pre-second world war Soviet Gulags and Nazi concentration camps? All these violations are established facts, yet it's reasonable to argue they represent only a percentage of Government misconducts: fortunately, after a long time, they happened to emerge and the facts were acknowledged.

This is why this template finds usefulness, disclaiming the chance of a government-aligned bias being considered verified, yet provisional. It's an attempt to enhance transparency with all the good it conveys. There are many "touchy" subjects that can benefit from this template. About a new template (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_4&oldid=955554746"