Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines/Archive 2

The confusion of truth and fiction ?

One of the biggest(If not 'the' biggest)controversies in regard to wiki is the age old question of what IS true as to what a certain part of society WANT to be true, I take Rangers FC for example, a club who where clearly liquidated, and when the assets where sold to a new organisation who started up a brand new football club but using the same name,it was still not recognised by wikipedia because the fan power of the defunct club was such that they have enough editors,etc working through wikipedia that they are now saying the club survived, now I grant that club exists through there fans and that they where the same colours and play at the same stadium but still they are clearly not the liquidated club, there fans fill up there page with excuses but regardless of that(whatever team you may or may not like) Its not fact, Its something theyre fans want,but its a lie and goes against the honesty and integrity for what I thought wikipedia was supposed to be based on,I find it disturbing because if this is allowed to happen to a football team whats happening in big world politics ? what other lies are wikipedia saying that it gets away with because of a large amount of moderators ? Its disturbing,and I think it needs to be addressed. Wikipedia has potential but aslong as the Rangers FC fans are moderating pages,its not going to really be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.136.151 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no SEARCH feature covering pages listed here?

I just spent about 15 minutes looking for the page that says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. That's a pretty standard and core sub-statement of policy, as I recall. But no dice; not even a custom Google search of WP.org reveals it. This shouldn't be difficult. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase you're looking for is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". It's part of WP:V and has a specific link using WP:REDFLAG.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about no original research

I've never edited or commented on Wikipedia before. But I just saw this (re: "original research"): "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." Does this really mean to say that articles may not contain unpublished statements? Either the use of "statement" is unconventional (e.g., it is taken to mean "utterance") or I'm confused. Is this really a core policy? 76.118.21.58 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a core policy, part of WP:OR. "Statement" in this context means "major statement" or "claim". David Spector (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

New RfC about Categorization of persons

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons: "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity?" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Code of Character

For me,and,for only open eyes to see,remains to be seen.From me to you,does not include another.No bussiness of yours,not anybody's business, but,my own.No if, and's, or, but's,means just that.First,and foremost,no means no,so,now that we understand each other,last,but not least,an insistant nature will not cut it,with me.Patience,and,the uttmost respect,holds a rule with me.Without a doubt or any sympathy.Please,be yourself,because you, cannot, be me.Thanks,but no thanks,means,no, we do not agree.MistyAnn10 14:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistyAnn10 (talk • contribs)

This would not be a good policy for Wikipedia. It has poor grammar, poor spelling, poor punctuation, and makes very little sense. I can see the good intent, though, and encourage you to work on this more. David Spector (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Being More Specific About the Word "Inappropriate" Within a Certain Context

Under the heading of "Protecting Children", there is one line that reads "Editors who advocate or attempt to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult-child relationships or who identify themselves as paedophiles are to be blocked indefinitely."

While I understand that the intent of this line and policy is to protect children, as the heading states, I am highly concerned about the usage of the subjective term "inappropriate" as I think it is reasonably safe to say that with so many people in the world, there isn't solely one view as to what would constitute "appropriate" in this context. In order to remain objective and therefore fair, it needs to, I believe, be made more clear in which context this word is being used. Legally inappropriate? Socially inappropriate? Inappropriate according to the standards of Wikipedia?

Subjectivity always strongly concerns me as it can only be enforced in a biased way and not a fair one. Therefore, I'm speaking up about this.

Just to let everyone know, this is my first edit ever, so I am hoping that I have everything correct; that's certainly my intention.

CarnivalGuardian (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@CarnivalGuardian: This issue is currently being discussed here. Jarble (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Karla Turner

I am very disappointed to discover that Wiki deleted the entry in regard to Dr. Karla Turner, a leading scholar on alien abduction. Can you please discontinue the block you have put up on the entry for Dr. Karla Turner. There is a compendium of information about her that should be in Wikipedia, regardless of whether you or anyone believes in what she has asserted. I assume that the government ordered you to delete any reference to her on Wikipedia, but why can't you, Wikipedia, reveal if that communication occurred. If her presentations and books are now considered to be too fallacious to be on Wikipedia, there is no evidence of any event that acted as a marker to discredit her indefinitely. She was never found to be an unreliable scholar. As a result, the deletion of her entry in Wiki is highly suspicious, and even seems illegal: censorship. Please take my comments into account, and know that you could report that info about her is "restricted/unallowed by authorities," etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.148.60 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the exact same text that was posted in the Help Desk 10 minutes earlier. Spamming the same question in different places won't get you different or quicker answers. - X201 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Sexual harassment

This page was recently added to Category:Wikipedia conduct policies. Should this policy be added to this list? Jarble (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, since it's not a policy; it's a page saying we don't have one. Harej (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: WP:Crowdfunding has also been added to Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Is this guideline considered official yet? Jarble (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: Seems very unlikely. Harej (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

This edit, which admittedly was almost three and a half years ago, causes an accessibility problem: screen readers will not read out anything between the TOC and the first section heading. For sighted people, it also gives a certain undue prominence to WP:IAR by according it a "section" of its own, before all the actual sections. Despite what some people claim, WP:IAR is not a catch-all "Get Out of Jail Free card": some policies are stronger than IAR, such as WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO (there are others, including most if not all of those under Legal), and IAR does not permit violation of these under any circumstances. I therefore suggest that it be put back where it came from, in a "miscellaneous" (or similar) section near the bottom. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you should just {{sofixit}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)