Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 5 July 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcuts WT:TITLE WT:AT

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

Archives of merged pages: Common names 1, 2, 3; Naming conflict 1, 2; Precision

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfC: Is "Criticism of foo" an article title to be avoided?

There has been a rather in-depth conversation regarding criticism articles on the village pump, which is linked here. In short, some users feel that these types of articles have inherent problems with WP:NPOV and other policies. Other editors feel that they are useful ways to comply with expectations of WP:Summary style. There is a long standing essay, WP:CRITICISM, which discusses some of the concerns of dedicated criticism sections.

Are these types of articles considered harmful and discouraged except in circumstances where they are obviously appropriate? Should WP:Article titles discourage the creation of articles with these titles? SDY (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the avoidance of the word "Criticism" and changing it to something like Critical analysis or the like because while "criticism" can mean opinions either way on a given topic, the word is nearly always taken in common terms to be negative facets and draw in undesirable OR, POV, and other issues that magnify the problem. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• I *support* the avoidance of the word "Criticism" and a change to the policy. Maybe expand the "foo and bar" section to explicitly state that WP:SYN/WP:NPOV are important factors to consider when choosing a title, and give "foo and bar" and "criticism of baz" as examples of how not to title articles? The NPOV policy isn't silent on this, so there's a question of coordination. I'm pretty sure that's a new bit in the NPOV policy, I don't remember seeing it there before. SDY (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Question misses the point. The solution to whether a particular "Criticism of" page should exist is (sound of drumroll): what do secondary sources say? Not whether pages with such titles, as some sort of abstract category, should exist. Do a Google Book search. Do a Google Scholar search. If there are secondary sources on (and even titled!) "Criticism of X", then they will provide a road map to what the page should say, and what it should omit. Absent those sources, the page is likely to be a coatrack. But editors who have POVs to push and dislike criticism of their pet subject will be quick to shout "coatrack" and claim the nonexistence of sources before they even bother to do such a search. However, I do like Masem's idea of "Critical analysis of X", where appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Spot-checking the major religions, Google scholar strikes a lot of hits for "criticism of X", so it's certainly what sources say. But these are academic sources where the word "criticism" is known to have both position and negative judgment; on WP, that doesn't happen and we hit systematic biases for that. It is a rare case where we should depart from the sources to avoid problems with the articles in the future. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because you can get ghits on a "Criticism of foo" doesn't mean we should have an article on it. It should be covered under "foo" not in a dedicated smear article (criticism is not a neutral term in modern English, don't bother disagreeing). SDY (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't mean one should count Google hits. I mean one should do a search for sources, and pay attention to those that pass WP:RS. Running the search is just the first step. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Tryptofish has it exactly right: Follow the best sources.
  On a side note, "Criticism of" is often more pointful than "Criticism and" as a title. "Criticism of X" tells you that X has been criticized (validly or not) in certain ways. "Criticism and X" is a much broader topic, including X criticizing other things. "Criticism and conservativism" could include long lists of complaints that politically conservative people make against liberals, libertarians, moderates, and foreign groups; it could, in fact, take in all of culture war and several other subjects. "Criticism of conservatism", however, is clearly focused on complaints lodged against conservatism, and the responses to these criticisms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• We already caution editors about the use of "and"... I think a similar caution is in order for "Criticism of". But we need to phrase it a caution, not a restriction (and certainly not an out right ban). If the sources support the title, then it is fine... otherwise it should be avoided (in favor of "critiques of" or "critical analysis of") Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is also a problem with "denial of the /" because denial frames the debate in implying that the thing that is being denied is true. It may be that the genocide or theory is broadly accepted and that denialism is a genuine phenomenon as it is in denial of the holocaust but too often articles are created as pov/content forks. Take for example the two articles denial of the Armenian Genocide and recognition of the Armenian Genocide it is very difficult to present a balanced view (as is done in the BBC article "Armenian genocide dispute" -- also note the use of lower case "g" in genocide) which is needed because the governments of countries such as Britain and America recognise that the killing of Armenians as a crime against humanity, but for legal and political reasons not as genocide. As the POV split tends to force a black and white/binary approach it makes presenting a NPOV difficult. Something similar happens with "critiques of" etc, better to have descriptive articles incorporating "dispute" or "debate" rather than titles which encourage polarisation and POV forks. -- PBS (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking further about this there is a general problem with a class of article titles on Misplaced Pages because they encourage the collection of random facts into a list that end up a one huge synthesis which unlike the old list of massacres may be sourced. Take for example terror bombing which is another name for a type of strategic bombing that attempts to sap the morale of the enemy (but with an emotive edge that implies illegality: we bomb to sap their morale they terror bomb us). There could be an article on what makes terror bombing distinct from other types of strategic bombing which would involve an analysis of the use of the term by different authors, and the same author for different events. But Misplaced Pages does not work that way, instead what happens is editors trawl the net looking for mention of the phrase "terror bombing" for an incident they think was terrible and then add the incident as a sourced terror bombing raid. What emerges is a list of strategic bombing raids that someone somewhere has called terror bombing, but the list is not a list of comparable incidents based on a single definition (and so is a synthesise). It seems to me the only way to keep such articles on Misplaced Pages neutral (and free from synthesis) is to have an over arching neutral title like "strategic bombing" and place the content of POV magnets like terror bombing into them, or face never ending talk page debates over the contents of a badly titled articles. -- PBS (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the views expressed that article titles should not be phrased in such a way as to appear to encompass only views on one side of a debate. So "Criticism of..." and similar is unlikely to be a good title for an article that complies with NPOV. If we have to split out such an article (and most times there's no need to) then it should be called something more balanced.--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article titles such as "Criticism of..." or "Critical analysis of..." are entirely made up, and simply asking "what do the sources say?" is the wrong question, since it is based on the misunderstanding that criticism of a particular topic is an article topic in its own right. Whether you refer to significant coverage that addresses a particular topic directly and in detail as "commentary", "discussion", "criticism", "interpretation" or "analysis", significant coverage is always about a particular topic, so treating it as a seperate standalone article can never be justified. The idea that "Criticism of...", "Critical analysis of..." or "Critical reception of.." is an article topic in its own right is based on a misunderstanding about the role of criticism within articles, where editors often give it its own section in order to provide an article with structure by creating separate sub-headings. However, editorial choices about how articles can be structured is a matter of editorial discretion, and such sub-division will in practise have no external source of validation, i.e. such sub-topic is made up, and such sub-divisions are the sections into which the coverage has been punctuated. Alternative treatment of critical analysis is not is not uncommon, such as leading or defining an article topic with critical analysis rather that treating it a separate sub-topic. For example, in the article Deforestation, critical analysis is fully integrated into the coverage of the topic. It is not standard procedure to put criticism in its own sub-division in every instance, nor to split into separate articles as Masem suggests. Rather, it is better to apply WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and to integrate criticism within the general coverage of article topic or sub-topic to which it is related, otherwise this will lead to coatrack articles, or as a dumping ground for those articles that have been purged of criticism altogether. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also support avoiding these sort of articles from what I have seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the most productive way to think about this is in the particular, though the problem runs through many articles. At Criticism of Judaism, for instance, no source even establishes the concept of "criticism of Judaism." Thus that article is in violation of several Misplaced Pages guidelines, some of which are fundamental. I have to quickly point out that the subtopics covered in that article are not in violation of any policy. Those subtopics actually have their own freestanding articles. But the concept of "criticism of Judaism" is not really sourced. The phrase may be used many times, but there is no agreed upon significance to it. It can be used by anyone in any way. The editors at the article are debating what should be included under the heading "criticism of Judaism," and I have been involved in that debate. But not one of us has made even the feeblest attempt to consult sources to see how that phrase is used. That is for the simple reason that there is no established usage for that phrase. One cannot rely on secondary reliable sources in order to determine what deserves inclusion because the phrase "criticism of Judaism" as used in countless sources is never intended to be definitive of a concept. The concept does not exist despite the usage of the words "criticism of Judaism." This leads to a basic sourcing problem. The article Criticism of Judaism can't be sourced in its general, overarching theme, because there is no such thing as "criticism of Judaism" other than as a phase that is used as any other loose language might be used. Thus, one cannot speak of "Criticism of Judaism" for encyclopedic purposes. A far better way to construct the encyclopedia is simply to link from the Judaism article to the many articles of the subtopics, without the Criticism of Judaism article as an intermediary. Language can be included in the Judaism article that something of a "critical" nature is associated with a given topic. The Judaism article certainly can mention, for instance, that there are allegations of "animal cruelty" associated with "Shechita," kosher slaughter. The reader, in that case, will have to click on the Shechita link. One advantage of this is that the reader will find the "criticism" in context. This problem probably runs across many articles, as well as paragraphs devoted to "criticism" within articles. General opinions can be formed in a discussion such as this, but I think the best way to proceed is to examine each article that seems to fall under this form in its particulars, to decide whether the problem is applicable or inapplicable. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That criticism of Judaism article certainly looks like a hotchpotch and is short enough to be integrated into the main article and any details put in the specific articles. Personally I'd support deleting it. I'm generally not in favour of 'Criticism of' articles as they tend to give an unsound bias whatever about the scholarly meaning. I've no problems with things like Global warming controversy though as there's no way it could fit into the Global warming article and in fact non-major items are rejected in either as they are over the limit for reasonable sized articles. 'Controversy' is a fairly neutral description which won't get people het up. Denial can sometimes also be okay as for instance in Climate change denial which covers the well documented campaign by various bodies to deny global warming for financial or other partisan reasons. Dmcq (talk)

I just had a look at a number of article entitled 'Criticism of ...' and I'm afraid I've changed my mind. There certainly are some that I think should be renamed or removed but in general they seem okay. There seems to be a valid subject of criticism of for various other religions for instance, that seems to be the major thing that has kept the Judaism one in existence despite it not being well sourced.I'd guess because Jews haven't really gone in for conversions they haven't felt the need, and others who might do a reasonable study just don't want to be branded as antisemitic. I'm surprised even so they haven't found some reasonable sources for the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is certainly valid to assert that criticism sections should be included in the main topic as a subsection of that article before breaking out in the first place (and only if that's needed by SIZE) and all that, but even then, when a section called "Criticism" is within a main topic, they will still draw inappropriate hodgepodge of OR/POV statements and other problems that presently make standalone criticism articles pointy and coatracks, depending on the visibility and "popularity" of the topic. We need to focus this discussion not on whether these articles are inappropriate, but a better way of titling the articles - which should also apply to article sections too, otherwise, a "Criticism" section in the "Judism" article is just going to degrade the same way. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason for a "criticism section" in, for instance, the Judaism article. Any "criticism" has its context. It takes fewer words to weave a negative facet into an overall exposition of a topic than it does to present that facet in an isolated fashion. And the reader is afforded a nuanced picture which is valuable to the overall quality of the article.

But more to the point of the article title, it is not established by substantial reliable secondary sources that "criticism" exists as a real topic of its own in relation to Judaism. I don't think it has been found that reliable sources really speak of "criticism of Judaism." I don't think the reason is, as suggested by one editor above, a potential vulnerability to charges of antisemitism. The reason, I think, is the vastly unrelated charges found in this collection of criticisms of Judaism. It would be hard to find a common theme running through the variety of "criticisms" found in the "Criticism of Judaism" article. Thus, it makes some sense that no source comes forth presenting an overall concept of "criticism of Judaism."

Our article, Criticism of Judaism, is going a long way to establish that topic as a coherent thought. The article is faulty because basic Misplaced Pages principles assert that topics given the status of article space do not make their first worldly appearance on Misplaced Pages, but rather first have as their origin substantial secondary sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When there exists a number of either positive or negative opinions of a topic that can be sourced to reliable, independent secondary sources, it is complete denial to say we should not have a "criticism" section/article on a topic. Weaving this into other parts of the article now starts making writing difficult and can lead to worse issues of maintaining a NPOV for large articles since these can be buried in large swathes of useful text; it also runs against nearly every other type of topic where we include a response or critical review section separate from other sections of the article. And it is very common to bring several disparate ideas to come together to form such a section addressing different parts of the overall topic; that's our job as an encyclopedia in summarizing information and choosing the best way to present it. So they may not have a single coherent thought if there are are several disparate facets of criticism to address. Just because a source doesn't specifically spell out what some want as a desired format of an article does not mean we cannot use our powers as WP editors to arrange information as we feel is best presented to users. That means finding the best title words for an article or section to avoid implicit biasing of such sections/articles.

Note that we do need to be very detached to information included and be aware of necessary distinction. Just because a section that includes negative criticism of Judism where appropriate exists, that does not mean we are engaging in antisemitism, nor does it give us allowance to write in the manner of antisemitism; that's why we have to be carefully in these types of sections or articles to be very detached from the work and present the critical analysis in an academic manner : that negative criticism exists by some people or groups and whatever responses there have been by others to counter it. But for example, the approach you're trying to advocate would render us pretty much impossible to cover the well-known criticism of Scientology in a cohesive manner, as an example of one case. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources would have to establish first the existence of a theme of criticism. This could apply in some cases and not apply in other cases. And this could apply to a variety of degrees. Any time you isolate a quality you are implying that secondary sources support that isolation. I think that a substantial degree of support is required before we set aside an article or even a section of an article just for criticism. That is because the implication is that we have found in reliable sources a decided support for criticism apart from simple exposition. A well-written paragraph or series of sequential paragraphs can explain, for instance, the biblical origin of a practice, the present-day views on that practice by its modern day adherents, plus the problems that its detractors — both present-day as well as historical — have found with that practice. This is all within the capability of normal, straightforward, expository writing. Yes, this is a style decision (not that you implied that this was simply a style decision). But I would contend that setting aside a special section for "criticism" represents a "style" that calls for explanation. And that explanation should be source-based, not merely rooted in the whim of editorial decision-making.

I take exception to the assertion that the un-relatedness of the topics is a non-issue. This once again gets back to sources. Do sources tend to link these "criticisms" together in any way? Or are they just found in isolation from one another? It is more a matter than just of writing style when you rearrange information in ways not consistent with the way you found that information. The setting aside of negative material carries with it the implication that sources have gathered together this negative material in this way. The implication in any paragraph is that a theme runs through it. Yet we don't find in any source an articulated theme for the variety of "criticisms" presented. I therefore feel that the least conspicuous way of presenting "criticisms" is within the context of each given topic. To do otherwise carries with it the implication that we are making a "point." That "point" does not have support in reliable sources. It is really the same problem, or a similar problem, that is found with article titles as with section titles, in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, well said... and what you discuss is the reason why we have the WP:Coatrack essay. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But again, this is starting from a stance that criticism is always a negative issue, and more importantly, criticism from the editor as opposed to a detached critical analysis. It is not; criticism sections/articles should always be able the larger, mass population response to a topic, which is a means to document these, not create them, and to distance the personable issues of both the critic and the editors from the topic. I do no question the fact that for some subjects, the distance between the undesirable "negative connotation and criticism" and an academic summary of criticism is paper thin, and coatracking and NPOV and all those other issues are a stone's throw away, and why there need to be huge caution flags on these articles or sections for heated topics as many of the "Criticism of X" articles appear to be like presently. The idea of trying to get rid of these sections (much less articles) is based on fear that we can never make that distinction, and abandoning otherwise good organization of content (from basic to evaluation within a single article). I contend that such sections/articles manned by the right editors can be kept clean of coatracking and maintain the proper academic, detached stance that is needed to prevent NPOV-ism. Heck, I'd suggest that for certain sections or articles, the community can set forth 1RR-type restrictions on editing to prevent problems (for lack of flagged revisions). We cannot let the fear that editors will make coatracks articles prevent us from improving the encyclopedia by having well-developed critical analysis sections based on strong reliable independent secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

True... if done by the right editors and supported by reliable sources... which is why I would not support an outright ban of these article titles... but would support a caution about them. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a stronger worded policy, and WP:IAR can be invoked and justified in those rare situations where it's appropriate. In almost all cases, the "nattering nabobs of negativity" do organize their views into distinct criticism. As I've stated before, it is fairly easy to incorporate all of the individual criticisms in the context of the specific elements rather than having a separate "all negative" article. I'd also like to reiterate that criticism means, in almost all cases, finding fault. In the extremely rare cases where it does not and does have a neutral meaning, the rule can be ignored. SDY (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have any "all negative" articles; those are called content forks, and they're already banned.

But there's no reason why we can't have a properly balanced, encyclopedic treatment of reactions/controversies/criticism/complaints — one that is not "all negative", but one that provides both negative criticism and responses to that criticism.

For example, there are whole books and dozens of scholarly sources that directly address criticism of American foreign policy (including what complaints the critics make; who, when, why, and how they criticize the USA; how the complaints made by (e.g.) Greeks differ from the complaints made by Mexicans, which in turn differ from complaints made by Chinese, which differ from the complaints made by Egyptians; and the rewards critics receive for this ). Criticism of American foreign policy currently reflects very little of that scholarly information, but the subject itself is perfectly encyclopedic—and there's no reason why American foreign policy should be unbalanced with pages and pages of criticism, "integrated" or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be many sources that include "Crticism of...foreign policy" in their title, but surely they are addressing various aspects of foreign policy, not "criticism of foreign policy" per se? It seems to me if you can split an article into notable subtopics, then surely that involves adding criticism to each article? It seems to me that the segregation of the significant coverage into "Crticism of..", "Analysis of..." or "Commentary about..." makes no sense. In order to write a well balanced article, surely you need to include all three (commentary, analysis and criticism) in the one article in order to provide context to the reader? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have my doubts that a "Criticism of.." or "Critical analysis of..." type article could ever be justified, and I favour an outright ban. I recognise that this very dogmatic, and I am not sure that I am right on this, but it is a useful starting point, as it can either be proven or disproven to be the right approach. If the article Criticism of Judaism is anything to go by, I would say that that, of its 26 sources, none provide evidence that it is a separate standalone topic in its own right. An analogy might be in order: if a database contains data, then information about the database itself is referred to as Metadata. If commentary, criticism and analysis is the stuff that "significant coverage" is made up of, then commentary, criticism and analysis of "significant coverage" itself could be referred to as Meta-coverage. However, I have never heard of such a term, which is why I am sceptical about the existence of coverage from reliable sources that could be classed as Meta-coverage, nor could be used to justify such article topics as "Criticism of.." or "Critical analysis of...". The only alternative to an outright ban is have wording similar to WP:REDFLAG: only high quality sources could be used to justify this type of article or this type of article title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, Criticism of Judaism is a bad example, considering it is in the process of being over-hauled. And i'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with Meta-coverage. Our criticism articles are just explaining criticism of the subjects that have already been made by others. If you mean, if we use sources that are reporting on other criticism, that would be meta-coverage, in the sense that it would be a tertiary source, instead of a secondary one, then I can agree there, but we already have rules regarding tertiary sources as it is and there is, generally, more than enough secondary sources of criticism to find as it is. The main argument on Criticism of Judaism right now is what sections should be included under the topic umbrella, which has nothing to do with sources. As has been stated and shown, there is more than enough material on criticism of religions to make an article, it's just organizing it and keeping the wording NPOV that's the problem. Silverseren 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• My personal experience so far on[REDACTED] is that "criticism of foo" articles (nearly) always tend to be essays on the line of "things I don't like about foo". As such the format invites to synthing and pov-pushing, even though secondary source references are sometimes borrowed in to give a facade of neutrality. I wouldn't necessarily support a total ban on such articles, but at least there should be a guideline (which could be invoked in AfD debates) that such articles be avoided. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — Can you show me a source that confirms the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" What source confirms for us the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" I am not referring to an assumption that "criticism of Judaism" must exist since we are finding negative comment number One about topic A, and negative comment number Two about topic B, and negative comment number Three about topic C. I am asking what source confirms the existence of "criticism of Judaism?" No source that I've seen confirms this.

I further disagree that the question bedeviling the editorial process right now is unrelated to sources. It is in fact directly related to sources. The question facing the article Criticism of Judaism involves just what constitutes a "criticism" of Judaism. That question can't be answered because no sources address "criticism of Judaism." At this point only Misplaced Pages is setting a precedent by establishing that "Criticism of Judaism" is a genuine topic. Outside of Misplaced Pages the articulation of such a topic is not to be found. And the article is at the moment stymied by the choosing of which "criticisms" to include and which "criticisms" to exclude. That is found here. Without sources to refer to in answering this question, any decisions in this regard are just editorial whim.

Soman — I also wouldn't support a total ban on "Criticism of…" articles. It is possible that one could be justified. Sources would have to unambiguously establish that particular realm of criticism. One can assume that that realm of criticism exists for Judaism. But that assumption is hardly a substitute for sources, and it is on sources that any Misplaced Pages content is supposed to rest. I think that holds also true for the topics that articles are written on.

WhatamIdoing — the subject isn't "perfectly encyclopedic" unless sources exist for the topic "criticism of American foreign policy." But that is an example of why this issue has to be addressed on a case by case basis. In the case of Judaism the "criticisms" span an inordinately wide range of topics: criticism of Jews considering themselves the "chosen people," criticism of Judaism for kosher slaughter causing unnecessary pain to animals, criticism of Judaism for not treating females with equality… what is the common thread running through these topics? The answer is that there is no common thread. Judaism unites these disparate topics seemingly without rhyme or reason.

Blueboar — there are no "right" editors. All that can be discussed are policies and the correct application of policies. But I agree that there should not be an outright ban. I have been almost exclusively involved with the "Criticism of Judaism" article. It is an example of what I think is a topic for an article that does not have any sources supporting the existence of that topic. Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a source that calls out "Criticism of Judism" as a topic. It is our job as an encyclopedia to determine how best to organize content. If it is the case that we have a huge amount of content on Judism and have to split it across numerous articles, and that we see that there are many critical analysis or opinion of facets of Judism, just not in one single source, it is appropriate to group those together under a common theme - this is one of the extents of OR that we have to engage in, for any topic, in how to organize and present information. Now, there's a right way to do that organization for a "Criticism of" article, and there are several, several wrong ways, which most all lead into coatracking. But there is at least one right way, and that's the important part: it can be done. Most of the opposition to this idea of criticism articles seem to be overly concerned that they are easily used as coatracks. Yes, they are, but that's not a reason to run away and prevent them from happening because if you block them in one area, they will appear again elsewhere. Instead, we should be discussing tighter controls on these, similar in nature to BLPs, but not for legal reasons but for professional ones: avoid having these as coatracks, avoid editwarring, and a whole bunch of other concerns, but let them develop where its appropriate. If they can't develop past the coatrack stage, then yes, merging useful info back needs to be done. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — No, it is not generally speaking "appropriate to group those together under a common theme." Doing so is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, given the fact that there exist alternative ways of presenting the information without implying the existence of a realm known as "criticism of Judaism." And it is not an example of "original research" that we "have to engage in," also for the same reason — that alternative ways of presenting the information are available to us. These alternative ways do not have the unfortunate drawback of implying that a body of reliable sources supports the overarching concept of "criticism of Judaism. And finally, the solution is not the "merging" of "useful info back." The solution is, in this case, the direct connecting of the Judaism article to the subtopics that are now being considered for inclusion in a "criticism of Judaism" article. The "Judaism" article may be full, but there is surely room for a few words indicating that an area of negative commentary is to be found in the expanded version at the full article on each given subtopic. This is easily accomplished. At the point that a link is provided to the article on the subtopic, a few words are included. For instance, for "Kosher slaughter," those few words might be, "including allegations that kosher slaughter involves cruelty to animals." Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not synthesis, when it is done right. "Criticism" , academically, is not a bad term, and in fact a completely fair and necessary part of most topics we present here. Grouping things that would fall into objective "criticism" of a topic into a single section or article is not synthesis. It can also be argued to be its own right as a topic, and spreading it among other topics is certainly not reducing the amount of synthesis if it is the same information being included. It can be the type of synthesis we do not allow if it is done highly subjectively, of course, and that's when coatracking happens. But I'm entirely sure it is possible to write a criticism of Judism section or article that is approached in a neutral and encyclopedic manner that is not against other polices. It's just a difficult prospect among an open encyclopedia where people see "criticism" and thing "I can add my own complaints here!". That's why going bakc to this core discussion, what name we should use for these, is the argument, not whether they can exist. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — We are not trying to "reduce" the amount of "synthesis." We are trying to eliminate it entirely. There are no violations of synthesis in the inclusion of the negative criticism in the article devoted to the subtopic. Furthermore there can probably be brief mention of the "criticism" in the Judaism article itself. The only violation of synthesis occurs in those articles that artificially create a topic that doesn't have a prior existence in reliable sources. That is the violation at this particular article, the "Criticism of Judaism" article," and the same violation can probably be found at other articles that follow a similar form. Policy requires us to create articles only on topics that already exist in reliable sources. This topic is a chimera. Sources have not been found for the topic the article is ostensibly written on.

Jimbo Wales has this to say:

"In many cases they are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

The subtopic articles are a perfectly acceptable place for any exploration of all of the aspects of any topic for which there are space constraints at the Judaism article. Some negative aspects can be touched upon in the main article, the rest can be expanded upon in the satellite articles. No breach of WP:SYNTHESIS is involved. And good writing remains a possibility. (Note Mr. Wales concern with bad writing.) Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are starting from the assumption that criticism is negative. It is possible to work both ways. Until you drop that presumption, it will be impossible to come to a fair means of handling article titles or sections. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism involves value judgements. Why should value judgements, whether positive or negative, be separated out from material that might not pertain to value judgement? Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Because sometimes it is a better organization to an article to group critiques that apply to the overall topic depending on the sources - maybe there's an academic study that hits on many points, or maybe the organization that the criticism is directed at hits all the disparate aspects in a single statement. If the criticism is only directly at a specific element and can be isolated in that fashion without sacrificing readability and organization, then yes, put the criticism right there. That doesn't happen for every topic and its sub-topics within it, however. A practical example of where we cannot separate on a per-element section with respect to criticism is Family Guy and the article Criticism of Family Guy, because the criticism is directed across all aspects of the show, and impossible to split without ruining the ability to make sense of the article. Thus, we still need to consider the need for criticism sections, and how to best title them (and if necessary, articles) and the like. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — I would counter that there are rarely needed "criticism" sections or articles. The exception is when there exists sources singling out "criticism" in relation to a topic. But most of what we see are editors scouring the Internet for negative comments. And then they gather them together and create a "criticism article" or a "criticism section" of an article. That is not being true to the sources. If the sources are widespread, and you are consolidating them on the basis of their negativity, you are misconstruing information in the article in which you are ostensibly shedding light on a subject. This represents a transgressing of WP:SYNTHESIS because you are conveying an impression which sources do not support.

It would be my contention that such "criticism" entities can only be justified if sources have already compiled the negative comments into one place and presented them as one entity. In such a situation we would be justified in passing on that consolidated view of multiple "criticisms." We are not finding that for instance in the "Criticism of Judaism" article. No source thus far presented is saying, for instance, "Here is what is wrong with Judaism: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G." (Or anything even approximating that.) Thus a separate article "Criticism of Judaism" is creating its own topic. The topic being written about does not have a prior existence outside of Misplaced Pages, thus is in violation of WP:NOTE:

"Misplaced Pages covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources."

In some instances the above problem is applicable; in other instances it is not. Each article fitting the form "Criticism of…" (and including a few other related forms) and each "criticism section" within an article, has to be evaluated on the basis of its own particulars. Such set-aside areas for criticism are not justified unless "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" establishes that the grouping together of the particular negative comments in question has a prior substantial existence outside of Misplaced Pages — in reliable secondary sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability only is to determine the appropriate of the inclusion of a topic; once that is shown, notability has zero say in what is included about that topic; we of course turn to content policies (namely NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV) to make sure that what is included is an encyclopedic summary of available information on that topic. Thus, if a topic has received a critical review or analysis by sources, a criticism section is completely appropriate - but again, NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV drive the content of this section. So criticism sections are not bad of themselves, and do not need to meet any special notability in-of themselves.

Secondly, WP is all about summarizing multiple sources into an encyclopedic article. We already engage in a level of acceptable OR to assemble sources in the necessary manner to make a useful topic as rarely one single source covers every aspect of a topic in the manner we would like to present it. The amount of OR we use here is driven by consensus, and thus has led to policy and guidelines like WP:SNYTH and WP:COATRACK as to what types of summary and assembly is inappropriate. But it is certainly not inappropriate to take what can be called various individual facets criticisms of multiple sources and work that together into a common narrative with a strong emphasis on treading away from SNYTH/COATRACK issues - if this makes it better to comprehend the criticism towards the topic. This is what is done on nearly every book and movie article in their "Reception" sections.

What you seem to be arguing for is that say we have statements A through F that are criticisms of a topic - you do not feel that we should have a singular section that has statements A-F all together, but instead spread throughout a topic's subsections where they best fit. Assuming we don't have to change the language at all to do this, I would call what you want to do as much "synthesis" as putting them together all in the same section. It's the same information, it's in the same tone, it's just organized differently. Now, of course one likely can put these statements in the same section, but with different wording, go from an entirely neutral tone to one that is biased, even with the same facts. eg: "90% of all medical operations are a success." and "One in ten medical operations end in failure" are saying the same thing, but one spins the stats one way (positively) and the other in a negative fashion.

We have to deal with how criticism is handled in articles, period, and while the choice of using spread-out comments, a separate section, or a separate article should be determined on a case-by-case basis, we can't bury our heads in the sand, disallow some formats, and hope the problem goes away. Criticism statements/sections for controversial subjects (religion, policitics, etc.) are very very touchy subjects and the type of thing no one wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. However, we would fail ourselves as an encyclopedia by not having these sections when it is clear the subject is controversial, and so we need a means to handling them to avoid them falling into coatrack articles and flat out false accusations. Fixing the naming of articles and sections to avoid the negatively-preloaded word "Criticism" would go along way, but that's the tip. We can write these in an academic, detached manner and in a way to avoid them a honeypot for anons and editors with chips on their shoulders from disrupting the work, and we just have to figure out the means to do that, instead of running away from the issue by taking the simple, but unprofessional approach of disallowing them. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, if you need more, let me know, (, , , , and ). Silverseren 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — The topic of "Criticism of Judaism" is made up. The existence of the phrase doesn't establish the topic. Obviously three words strung together occur in sources. That is all you searched for. You merely searched for examples of three words occurring in a certain sequence. But the topic "criticism of Judaism" does not exist. Nor would it exist. Why would any serious commentator attempt to put under one heading a group of unrelated topics? Only this article (Criticism of Judaism) is making that unlikely claim. It is doing so primarily by implication. That implication arises because Misplaced Pages is only supposed to have articles on subjects that are already covered in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The topic is not made up if multiple sources discuss criticisms of Judaism, which those sources I gave do. They discuss various kinds of criticisms about Judaism given by different, notable people. Thus, they are topic subjects that should be included in the article. You are saying it is made up when I am offering sources that discuss it, what else do you want here? Silverseren 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — An article devoted to "criticism of Judaism," on Misplaced Pages at least, creates the impression in the reader's mind that the topic has substance to it. It does not. The topic is given an existence by the assembling of the components that editors have been able to scour up for that overarching topic. But no source actually affirms the existence of that topic. Thus Misplaced Pages is giving life to what doesn't even exist in reliable sources. The key component missing is that source which says that: here is "criticism of Judaism." Here is what it is. Here is how we define it. Here are its parameters. Here is what is not included under the general rubric of "criticism of Judaism." Have you found a source for that or anything that could substitute for that? Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the stated purpose of this RfC, it should not be turned into another venue for forum shopping after the failed AfD of Criticism of Judaism. And as for the canard that there are no sources supporting that title, . --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish — you are linking to a long list of books. I don't think that is a source for anything. My question is, what source establishes for us the existence of the topic of "criticism of Judaism?" Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just "a long list of books"? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish — you are presenting entire books. Are you considering the titles of the books to be "sources?" Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE says, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." (Underlining added by me.) What you are referring to as "sources" are for all intents and purposes "unopened" books. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to books that "exist". Some editors will want to "open" them, and some editors would rather "burn" them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The main question to my mind with 'criticism of' type articles is with the state of the main article. They usually appear when somebody has deliberately broken the criticism article completely off to remove all mention of criticism from the main article to deliberately create unbalance. This is double plus ungood with knobs on when it happens.- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are saying that "criticism articles" are the result of editors at main articles refusing to allow any "criticism" in that article? Is that what you are saying? That would be remedied pretty easily, wouldn't it? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

More often Criticism of articles are created when they become too long for the main article, so they are split off. There may be some times when they are split off so that people looking at the subject will think there isn't any criticism for it, but that happens very rarely. Silverseren 01:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — material should be organized by topic, not by any negative or positive light shed on a topic. That should be the primary organizing principle. It is very common to find the good mixed in with the bad. It would be unusual to encounter unalloyed good or unalloyed bad. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the scope of the main article encompasses any criticism article. So logically it must be a subarticle of the main. So subarticle style should be used, or they should be merged. There can be no exceptions!!! ;-) - Wolfkeeper 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Public image of American politicians seems to be an offshoot, that hasn't been mentioned yet. Possibly Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt belongs in there? Possibly that category should be a subcat of Category:Criticisms? Possibly that's a good article title idea for these others? Not sure, just noting. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are former "Criticism" articles, and it's a good example of how retitling the article invites a more balanced viewpoint. It doesn't beg any questions. Criticism articles can be moved to less emotive and partisan titles. For example, the article that started this whole exchange could be retitled to Academic views on Judaism. The sources don't use that title, but it's an impartial summary of what we expect in the article content. SDY (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You would receive resistance to that suggested title. There is support (here) for the notion that "blood libels" should be included. Does it sound like an "academic view" that Judaism should be faulted for "blood libel," or "Jewish deicide"? There are editors arguing for the inclusion for those sorts of things.

But the real bottom line, and the real issue, is there exist no guidelines as to what should and should not be included. Reason? There are no sources for "Criticism of Judaism." As a topic, it is utterly made up. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There will be some degree of resistance to pretty much any change to any article treating a controversial topic, that's just part of wikilife. FWIW, I don't agree with your assertion that there are no sources for "Criticism of Judaism", but that's not material to this RFC. I would suggest that if you wish to debate whether the article should exist at all, a better venue would be the talk page of the article itself. But given the recent AFD, I would suggest that it might be better to wait until the horse is resurrected. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in at the relevant place, but I'll repeat the logic here: Criticism may be correct in an academic sense, but it does not have that meaning in common English usage. Titling articles as criticism, even if the intent is neutral, will be misunderstood, and that is anathema to good writing. SDY (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ive got an issue with the phrase "criticism of foo" as it just sounds like weak english. however, i believe its well established that certain subjects have been, well, subjected to criticism. major religions, inasmuch as they are made up of ideas, are all criticized, and all substantially from within the religion itself. Protestantism was founded on criticism of catholicism. Christianity was founded on criticism of judaism, to a certain degree. secularism is founded on criticism of religion, as was the United States founded on criticism of state religion. "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" is an example. some religions, definitely judaism, have a long history of their religion being rooted in criticism itself. the name Israel translates loosely as "god wrestler". so, while i bemoan the lack of a better phrased title, i think, when we have more than adequate sources for criticism of a subject, we need to have an article with that title. the issue of what is included is the key. Bus stop is right that we must not have propagandistic condemnations of a subject in the criticism articles, as that is really not criticism. pointing out the difference between anti semitism and criticism of judaism is appropriate, but must be clear and brief. By the way, i dont see any evidence that anyone wants "blood libel" to be among the critiques included in that article. I would simply say that each article that arises be looked at on its individual merits, and where substantial sources use phrases like this, or language that is unambigously critical, by any definition of the word aside from pure attack, then the article can probably stand. we have a lot of articles with this name, and a lot of afd's have happened, with a lot of keeps for the larger topics, and a fair number of deletes for more obscure or inappropriate topics. check out Special:prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of to see for yourself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"By the way, i dont see any evidence that anyone wants "blood libel" to be among the critiques included in that article." Did you do a word search for that term on the article Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that would be better discussed on the article's talk page?--Nuujinn (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Silverseren has started an information request for comments on Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism, I suggest folks interested in that particularly article weigh in (briefly) there. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Commnent In general, I would agree that "Criticism of ..." articles should be avoided. However, there are many "Crticism of ..." articles that are appropriate. The most notable example is in the area of religion, where we have:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Catholicism

These are all very valuable articles in the encyclopedia for several reasons:

• (1) Criticism of religion is an important area of human discourse that must be prominently documented in this encyclopedia;
• (2) They are WP:Summary Style articles that help readers navigate and find content;
• (3) Due to ownership issues, the content - as a practical matter - will never be found in the primary articles on the religion;
• (4) These articles have survived numerous delete and rename proposals for good reasons, documented in the Talk pages;
• (5) These topics are notable, well-documented subjects in their own right, with a large number of sources that document the content; and
• (6) The Criticism of religion article is very important and broad, and these can be viewed as sub-articles of that top-level article.

--Noleander (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do they exist as topics that are subject of study outside Misplaced Pages? Are they notable (in themselves)? It seems to me that opinions about these articles are all very well, but are there sources that address them directly and detail or which define them as seperate stand-alone topics? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave an example of several sources for Criticism of Judaism before. If you need me to find them for the other religions, I will,though I think,since those articles are much better formed, their sources will likely show that they do cover it as a study. Silverseren 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Silver seren, using WP:GHITS is a discredited arguement, and does not advance your position. It seems to me that those who have argued that these "Criticism of XYZ" have not been able to provide specific sources to demonstrate the existence of these topics outside Misplaced Pages. For example, a reliable secondary source that defines the topic would provide a knockout argument that these not made up topics.

Having had a look at the Criticism of Catholicism article which contains 76 citations, none of them are entitled or mention "Criticism of Catholicism" even once. It is just a coatrack article with a list of 76 citations which duplicate coverage of topics in other articles. The more I look at this whole area, the less convincing are the arguments that these are bona fide article topics in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used WP:GHITS as an argument, so I don't know what you're talking about. What I linked to was where I showed several books that discussed criticism of Judaism. Silverseren 09:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What ever you are doing, I am not making the connection between the links to books that come up in a word search of "criticism of Judaism" and providing evidence that this is a standalone topic in its own right. All these links provide only mentions in passing. Of the four books you list, none actually are about criticism of Judaism per se: one book is about Antisemitism, another is about Biblical hermeneutics, another is a foot note in a book about Hegelianism, another is about History of Judaism and the last about Paul of Tarsus. I don't see any connection. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but it is not working for me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A case could be made that 'Apologetics' is the correct word to use for the religious articles instead of 'Criticism of'. There seems to be Apologetics articles as well for some of them which are not so well developed. I guess people just don't know that's the word to use. As well as being less well known the word suffers from the same sort of problem for people who aren't conversant with the subject in that it it give the idea they're apologizing. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I think your last point, about sounding to most readers like apologizing, is probably an insurmountable problem. Masem's earlier suggestion of "Critical analysis" may work better in some cases. Gavin and Silver, it gets to be a problem if this talk becomes a discussion of a single page, as indeed this largely is. However, I don't think that Silver was arguing by counting Google hits at all. Rather, the question is whether reliable secondary sources, subject also to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, treat the given subject as a standalone subject. The existence of sources that are actually titled that way is certainly a significant case for notability. However the absence of evidence of titles is not really evidence of the absence of notability. Gavin is quite correct that brief, passing mentions in footnotes are not sufficient to justify a page (although they can reliably source a sentence within a page), but if, for example, criticism of Judaism is treated as a topic for a chapter or part of a chapter in a book about history of Judaism, that can be very strong documentation of notability. In other words, doing a Google search is just the first step in a process. The next, very important, step is to actually look at what the sources returned by the search say. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue to decide content issues, which seems to be the basis for this proposal. Assuming we have "Criticism of ..." articles, then all we can decide here is how to title them. Whether or not such articles are appropriate should be discussed in a content-related talk pages, like WT:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the correct venue. Article titles and content are closely related: generally speaking, if the content of an article does not match the title, there is a problem, and its going to be even more obvious if the title is made up, because the content becomes irrelvant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "Criticism of foo" problematic?

Will makes a good point... let's refocus on the general question. I think there is consensus that "Criticism of foo" is problematic, but that sometimes it is legitimate. The question is... should we include some sort of cautionary language in this policy? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a very good point, too. As for cautionary language, I really do not see anything to add beyond what is already covered by existing policies and guidelines (sources good, coatracks bad, etc.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that (for here at Titles) that the first thing is to try to change "Criticism" to a term that is less .. inviting? to newer editors to add their own comments instead of an academic critical analysis or whatever term is best for that field. I know we have lots of "Criticism of X" articles but there's got to be a better term. After that, the next thing is definitely a guideline, perhaps policy page, on what these article should contain and to place them on a higher level edit war prevention for the more problematic ones (eg anything to do with religion for one). --MASEM (t) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — "policy pages" should not override "policy pages." We have fundamental policy, and it should not be overridden by minor concerns. This is a minor concern, in the scheme of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages major policy still holds, despite the drive to consolidate all negative commentary on Judaism in one article. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, what policy page would be this overriding? --MASEM (t) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem — it seems you are advocating a degree of disregard for WP:NOTE. It is a fundamental policy. Misplaced Pages is supposed to follow sources. There is no entity called "criticism of Judaism." It is just a sequence of words. I don't find any of the hallmarks of notability for "criticism of Judaism," though in all honesty I don't think I or anyone else can say exactly and exhaustively what would constitute notability for the term "criticism of Judaism." The possibilities are too large, in my opinion. But I don't think we've seen any semblance of the establishment of notability for that term. Nor, I don't think, would any other tossed-together words be likely to entail notability. What we have here is a desire to do something and an attitude of Misplaced Pages-policy-be-damned,-I'm-going-to-do-what-I-want-to-do. Sources set the precedent for the creation of our articles. Our articles only exist as a counterpart of what already exists in sources. There can be some debate about how closely Misplaced Pages needs to adhere to sources. But a factor that I find important in this case is the factor of context. I don't think it is in abidance with Misplaced Pages principles to create a new context that has no counterpart in the world outside of Misplaced Pages simply because of the desire of editors to compile on one page all the so-called "criticism" they can gather together ostensibly relating to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's two ways to consider this: First, obviously Judaism is a notable topic, and because it is a huge topic that no way can be fit into a single article, summary style gives us the ability to split off appropriate detailed sections into their own articles; Summary style does caution about notability concerns, but neither restricts a non-notable split.

But that arguments more troublesome than the best argument: there is a notable area of "criticism of Judaism" out there. It is not a singular topic of itself, but can be inferred without the bad type of WP:SYNTH from multiple sources; just because the entire area of "Criticism of Judaism" is not covered by at least one source does not mean it is not a notable topic. But it is clear there is a large body of sources than can be grouped together under the term "criticism of Judaism" or its synonyms. Now, again, I am fully aware, and in fact can point to some of our Criticims of X articles where this collection is biased-pulled to create synthetic POV and coatracks - not all of them, but a fair number. But as I've said above, just because this can happen should not mean we should avoid the issue and bury the ability to write a good article on this type of topic. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Blueboar, you make a sweeping statement, but don't back it up with a working example. Masem is the same, he thinks there OK so long as they have a different title, but we have no working examples. I have trawled through two articles (Criticism of Judaism/Catholicism, and found no sources that address the topic directly and in detail. Neither article contains a definition from a reliable secondary source. If you are suggesting there is an article topic that does, then wheel it out and lets see if there is an example of a "Criticism of XYZ" that is bona fide. Show me the money. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And, as has been explained to you before, this talk page is not the right venue to be discussing whether such types of articles are notable. If you wish to have that sort of discussion, please take it to the correct venue. Silverseren 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The question still stands: can you show me an instance of "Criticism of XYZ" that actually a recognised topic outside of Misplaced Pages? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Silverseren 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For Christianity. Silverseren 23:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of religion from psychology. Silverseren 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Paine's Criticism of Christianity and the Old Testament. Silverseren 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful information here. Silverseren 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's Nietzsche book, for good measure. Silverseren 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because a source uses the phrase doesn't make it appropriate as an article title. Verifiability does not overwrite the basic demand that we are writing an encyclopedia, and to be useful an encyclopedia must be understandable, and the term "Criticism" is vague and potentially inappropriate. If the sources use technical and confusing language, it is more important to make it understandable than to mindlessly parrot selected sources. 66.224.147.58 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussing whether the titles should be changed, I was just responding to the assertion that the topics are made up. Silverseren 01:16, 27 May 2010(UTC)

I think what is missing from Silverseren's argument is whether these books are relevant to any of the "Criticism of XYZ" type articles. In the first instance, are any of these sources actually cited within any article in Misplaced Pages? If so, which article are they relevant to?

For example, the first book cited is about the work Theologico-Political Treatise by Baruch Spinoza. It mentions "Criticism of Religion" throughout the book, but I don't think that establishes its credentials as a stand-alone topic. Another example would be Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, which does not establish "Criticism of Reason" or "Criticism of Pure Reason" as a seperate standalone topic. Despite the many search results, I am still not seeing how "Criticism of XYZ" could be a valid topic, and I would like to see a detailed example of where the topic is actually well defined within the context of a Misplaced Pages article, not just a series of links vaguely related to "Criticism". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that a book called "Critique of Pure Reason" leads no credence to a topic "criticism of pure reason" is a fallacy. It is the same thing - not as spelled out, but in terms of what it actually means. I understand the need to be accurate - using the right book title in a reference or in prose - but when it comes to what constitutes a topic, we use meaning and context, because it is near impossible that a single source exists to build out every facet of a topic, and thus need to consider the grouping and summary of multitude of sources that may address the topic by different names even if they are the same concept. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles are subtle and require meaning and context, but I think what is missing from most if not all "Criticism of XYZ" type article is a clear defintion of the subject matter, and here again I must challenge you to provide an example of an article has one. As far as I can see, most of these articles should really be titled "Criticisms of XYZ", because they are just coatracks for criticism - they are not about one particular topic. Is there an example article which you can point to that provides a good example of what you mean? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A "Criticism of X" article that works where the structure is built from a multitude of sources without becoming a coatrack is Criticism of Family Guy (albeit a much less controversial topic than religion). --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I can see, this article should be titled "Criticisms of Family Guy", because it is just a lot of themeatically related coverage stitched together, and this does not justify the creation of a seperate article. The definition of the topic provided in the lead paragraph is unsourced, and is most likely to be original research, because, of the 91 sources in the article, none actually say what defines the subject matter of this article. I will stick my neck out here by saying that this article is a content fork because undue weight has been given to op-ed from one source, namely the Parents Television Council (43 citations). It may not be particularly controversial, but it appears to me to be a synthetic topic that conflicts with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" verses "Criticisms" is "TOmato vs toMAto"-type bickering and is not an issue. And to argue this is an improper split is inappropriate, since the main article is already beyond SIZE requirements; this is exactly the situation where SS steps in. I will agree on one thing, and that there should be some additional information on the favorable criticism that is included on the main article page, and other things like awards or the like, because again, criticism is both positive and negative judgements; as it stands, its got a few problems towards that but its quite fixible. But it far from the cries of being a coatrack article that claimed for the various Criticism of Religion articles. This still goes towards the point of this discussion: there is likely a better term that "Criticism" to use as this article's title, as "Reception", "Critical Opinion", or the like would be better statements without the implied bias of "Criticism" --MASEM (t) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it's very revealing that this sub-thread started yesterday with some editors, quite correctly, trying to re-focus the discussion back to page title policy, but it quickly degenerated back into a discussion of why some editors want to delete Criticism of Judaism. Were it not for that actual agenda, we would either be having a much simpler discussion here, or none at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is, what, the fourth time this has happened in about two weeks? And always involving the same users? It's getting a bit ridiculous to me. Believe me, i'm trying to keep the subject away from that one article, but I don't want to just leave accusations on its non-notability lying around without a response. Silverseren 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then lets get back to the topic at hand. Why then is an article like Criticism of Family Guy not the subject of any book, magazine article or even blog post? Is there an example article which you can point to that provides a good example of this genre that is actually written about outside Misplaced Pages? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Likely the sources that are referenced in that article, for one. Ideas, including topics, can exist without being documented in literature. As long as the sources contribute towards that topic, there's no need for the topic to be explicitly defined in sources. (And note, this is NOT the topic at hand. This is about whether we should use "Criticism" or some other word for such articles) --MASEM (t) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Criticism of Family Guy could easily be summarized down to about three paragraphs and returned to the main Family Guy article. I also note that there is an over reliance on one particular critical group as a source. In other words... I don't think it is a good example of a "criticism of foo" article. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it can be summarized that much, as I think it can be expanded in the inclusion of positive responses as well (hence the naming issue). There are a lot of sources from the Parents Council likely because someone required a source for each episode of the show panned by the group; that doesn't invalidate the article. But this is offtopic for the naming question. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So Masem, your view is that the article could be renamed Reception of Family Guy and include neutral, positive and negative critiques? Alatari (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Masem, his views reflect many of the problems associated with having to make difficult editing decisions when an article topic is the subject of a lot of coverage, and that coverage has to be paired down. Neither the article title Criticism of Family Guy nor "Reception of Family Guy" are supported directly or in detail by a specific source, nor is there any coverage to suggest these topics are or ever could be notable in their own right. This is a classic example of a Derivative article whereby article topics are split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details, trivial coverage or questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is common usage of many editors to adapt WP:reception essay's view that a notable topic is not covered in NPOV unless a reception section is included. If you read through South Park episodes and other popular TV shows' individual episode articles you'll find they all have Reception sections. Family Guy is a blockbuster in popular culture and I can see a terrible fight if you AfD'd Criticism of Family Guy. Alatari (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we would have a "Reception" or "Response" or something neutrally-titled section in Family Guy to describe outside, secondary opinion of the show, despite the fact there would never be any source that calls out "Reception" or "Reaction" exactly as that, we're simply synthesizing - as part of our job as WP editors and allowable - the collection of such element into a readable summary. However, because all the other aspects of the FG article together make an article that approach our size limitations, and because FG has attracted a larger share of reception compared to other TV shows, this makes for a section that pushes the article over SIZE limites due to WP being an electronic medium. (If WP was paper, all this spinouts would simply be sections of the larger article). Thus, as the detailed reception of the show is the type of detail that is not significant to readers that are learning up on FG but likely will never watch it at all, it would be an appropriate type of section to split off (given all the other splits already tehre like characters and episode lists) to a separate article. Only in light of the aspect that that article focuses on the negative criticism while there is positive criticism for the show as well , would I consider that the standalone article, well established in concept by the agglomeration of sources, should include both types of criticism and changed to a different name to remove the implied negative bias that the word "Criticism" applies. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem is placing too much weight on these headings which were never intended to mark the begining of a new article topic. As I said in my post of 23 May, these headings are common, but they are just a method employed by editors of providing structure to an article, as opposed to being externally defined sub-topics in their own right. Many articles dispense with such headings altogher, for example the article Deforestation is defined in terms of criticism, so a "Criticism of Deforestation" section is not warranted. In short, it is a mistake to view article headings as the starting point for seperate article topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of art is standard fare. Reviews of cultural entities are the norm. Even reviews and receptions of new technology are commonplace. But religions don't receive criticism, reviews, or receptions, except rarely. What the "Criticism of Judaism" article attempts to do is bring unrelated topics together in one article. The only thing the topics have in common is some degree of relation to Judaism. I doubt that there is a title that can be found for such an article because there is no coherent area being explored in such an article. This problem is one that is not likely to lend itself to being corrected by coming up with a new title, I don't think. But I am open to suggestions as to some title that can encompass the unrelated topics that editors are attempting to bring together into one article. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am following proper guidance of WP:SS to split out section X of an article Y, I think the best and most logical place to start for a new title of that article is "X of Y" (or however it would work out to make sense in English). That's the most logical way to go. Thus, it is important that in this discussion about article titles and the appropriateness of "Criticism" that the use of "Criticism" as a section title needs to be addressed too; it has the same problems as a standalone article that it implies in an non-academic sense negativity. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are following the guidance at WP:SS because you seem to have missed half of the guideline that falls under WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Criticism is usually about a particular topic, so "Criticism of XYZ" is not a topic per se, just an heading within an article. Headings are a bit like coathangers; they exist to provide shape. Try to create an article out of coathangers, and you have a coatrack article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sections or articles that group outside judgement - positive and negative - in an academnic, detached manner are all not coatracks. They certainly can be coatracks if not maintained and watched, and finding a good example of a section or article that's gone that is probably as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. But they don't have to be, and running away from the issue as some are suggesting by removing them altogether is not a useful solution. Of course, naming them "Criticism" or "Criticism of" is going to help, unintentionally, encourage editors to make them coatracks. We are here to decide if we can change "Criticism" to something different. We're not here to discuss the merits of these sections or articles; that's a different disucssion. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is of no consequence if creating a new article based on article headings conflicts with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This is a key point you are ignoring; if articles are split by heading, we simply end up with lots of new articles that fail this guideline if the topic is not recognised by the world at large. Not every article heading represents an article topic that is supported by reliable third party sources. Surely it is now apparent to you that headings with terms such as "Reception of..." and "Criticism of..." are the equivalent of article "chapters", and do not mark where one topic starts and another begins? I think what may be confusing you is that some topics are the subject of a lot of coverage, but that does mean that splitting these articles into headings marks the beginning of new article topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. As long as we have size restrictions, a topic may need to be covered across multiple articles to cover it fully, which is clearly the case for many of this criticism articles on religion. "Criticism of X"'s topic is "X", not a new topic of "Criticism of X", so we don't have to argue a new case for notability. This would be true if it was a subsection in the main topic, or its own article. Thus, naming is the key factor, whether in a section or its own article, to make sure that we're not creating a possible POV/coatrack sections or articles. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Masem — these articles already exist. There is already a Schechita article, a Jews as a chosen people article, a Jewish feminism article, an LGBT topics and Judaism article, an Agunah article, and so on and so forth. These articles, in distinction from the Criticism of Judaism article, pass WP:NOTABILITY requirements. You say "we don't have to argue a new case for notability." But that is hardly the case. Clearly the bringing together of unrelated topics requires sourcing. No source thus far brought forward relates any of these topics to one another. This article squeaks past notability on the assumption that a thread of "Judaism" connects them all. But in point of fact there has not been brought forward any source asserting the connectedness of any of the component topics of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just got here and learning what everyone has said will take awhile. I would like to observe that "Criticism of Foo" tends to be negative; the foo-ers "watch" the page and try to reply to attacks/"criticism". Whereas "Anti-Fooism" tends to be, well, supportive of Foo-ism, by reporting all the (apparently and obviously) unfair attacks on Foo. People who don't admire "Foo", watch those articles, to try to respond to perhaps over-reporting of Anti-Fooism. Amusing in perspective. Not quite if you are involved! So naming defines the tone of the article and which side "owns" it. (I know, nobody does. Please!) Student7 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Each article that may be presented as being a part of a class of articles is actually an individual article, and should be evaluated individually. The article around which much of this discussion swirls is the "Criticism of Judaism" article. In my perception that article primarily fails WP:NOTABLE, with WP:SYNTHESIS as a failure trailing close behind. Other "problems" exist as well. I think the failure that you are suggesting concerns WP:NPOV.

But in my estimation the primary problem is one of notability: The many topics covered by the article ("Criticism of Judaism") are unrelated. While it is logical to assume that the thread of "Judaism" connects them all, this has not been established by sources. Furthermore, the topics in and of themselves are unrelated. That is, no source makes any attempt to say that one of the topics bears any relation to any of the other topics. No source can be found saying for instance that "kashrus" has anything to do with "chosenness." No source, for instance, connects "chosenness" to "deicide." And so on and so forth. These are unrelated topics not brought together by sources in any way. The article's existence, as concerns WP:NOTABILITY rests only on an assumed to exist thread of "Judaism" running through otherwise unrelated topics. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and this is why we need to table a proposed amendment to this guideline that introduces a new section "Segmented article titles", which requires high quality third party sources to provide validation along the lines of WP:REDFLAG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These are wrong assumptions. As editors of Misplaced Pages, we have a certain amount of freedom (allowed by consensus) in how to collect related information on a topic - whether it is going to be an article, or a subsection - and determine how to present and name that to 1) make a clear, readable, and perhaps engaging text to present to the readers and 2) avoid bias, imbalance, personalization, and inappropriate synthesis that leads to a point. So first, we cannot assert that there's an unfixable problem with grouping sources that don't clearly state they fall within a given topic together. Sometimes a title for these will fall naturally from sources. Sometimes we will adapt certain expected titles or subtitles for topics that fall within common fields. But sometimes, it is common sense that the sourced information is all connected and best presented as one section of an article, but there is no clear or obvious section/article title that can derived directly from the sources but yet can be made up by the editors in a non-POV-ish way. We also need to think of what is going to be the most obvious title to a reader that may be searching for that topic (per WP:CN) As long as we're not engaging in NPOV to decide that article or section title or other problematic terms, then WP editors have the freedom to group and title such sections and articles that way that seems most natural, even if it is something synthesized - this is a practical application of IAR even though we try otherwise to have objective means of article naming to prevent page move wars. The reason it is important to consider section titles here is because the logic used prior to my point would have to apply to sections by that same logic, but I see no one looking to enforce "NOR in section titles", nor any chance of getting consensus to apply to that.

On a different not, Bus Stop's point about "if subtopic Y of topic X has criticism, it should placed there instead of in 'Criticism of X'" is a completely valid point, and if that were true, I would think that highly specific criticism of a notable sub-topic should be located there. But sometimes, depending on how topic X is organized or the types of public opinion that result, there may be no practical means of talking about subtopic Y, or that the opinion is so broad that it covers - at the same time - many subtopics without any depth. Take, for instance Scientology controversies (which is not Criticism of X but the title is immediately implied to be negative and that it has the same "problems" in that many many sources are used to build it up; nor am I implying this is a "good" criticism-of article). Ok, there's a few sections, like "Starting a religion for money" which are tied to more detailed articles, but the main parts of the article - basically the first four main sections, are general to the whole of the religion and no specific facet of it. There is no way to break this up in the manner that might be possible for other criticism-of articles, given that it is already spun out from the main Scientology article. Splitting apartment criticism to avoid the need for a singular section for it is great if it can be done, but sometimes it just can't. And even if you were able to split it all out, it would be expected to at least have a 1-2 para summary in the main topic with links or notes to the others.

I think most of this issue all depends on a better application and spelling out of of WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism. Words to Watch, which that section is based on, used to have more explicit lists of words that would have been useful to have. But basically, I would argue that if you are making a descriptive title, you either completely have to avoid the use of W2W words, or have a good number of sources to completely assert the use of those words. That is, "Criticism of X" is naturally a contentious label, so unless a large number of sources explicitly described the phrase "Criticism of X", then it needs to be changed to something like "Critical opinion of X" or "Reception of X" or whatever is best appropriate. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rephrasing the question

This is ultimately boiling down to one simple question: is an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic (criticism) consistent with WP:NPOV? SDY (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Should an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic exist?" is not equivalent to "Should an article dedicated to Criticism of X exist?", since criticism is not inherently negative. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A complete canard. Criticism of Foo is negative. Foo Criticism (e.g. Literary Criticism) is a more neutral academic term that just means analysis. Look at the content of the "Criticism of..." articles that we have and identify something that is constructive or positive. SDY (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree... but this is a question that is better asked at WT:NPOV. What we need to focus on here is... should we title the article "Criticism of foo" or something more neutral (such as "Critical analysis of foo", or perhaps "Critiques of foo") Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Asking NPOV questions is not appropriate for this page. If NPOV is wished to be discussed on the subject of Criticism articles, it needs to be taken to a related NPOV discussion page. Silverseren 01:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that article naming (specifically sub-articles created from content forks) have NPOV concerns. Discussions may end up here, at Wikipedia_talk:Content forking or Wikipedia_talk:NPOV. You are wise to suggest they be confined at NPOV. Alatari (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) This has already been settled at NPOV. Let me quote the relevant section: A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. Trying to "dismiss the case" for "lack of jurisdiction" is a pretty lame argument anyway. The disagreement is whether a "Criticism of..." title limits the content in a non-neutral fashion. I hold that it does. The only arguments against it that I've heard are "Criticism is neutral" (which is clearly inaccurate in modern English usage) and that we have a lot of articles that use the phrasing. SDY (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, above I said "Should an article dedicated to negative coverage of a topic exist?" is not equivalent to "Should an article dedicated to Criticism of X exist?" I did not mention "Foo Criticism", although I freely admit thinking of it. Possible telepathic powers, I ask that you please not twist my words while trying to make your points. I agree that by common usage criticism is problematic, but criticism has an academic usage which should not be ignored in these discussions. The 'simple' fact of the matter is that this is not a simple question. And I believe you have been presented with a wide range of arguments. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it, state what they are, don't just state that they exist. I admit that there are nuances to the situation, but they are rare and our rules are not absolute. The titles I am objecting to are solely those that use the formulation "Criticism of..." so the "Foo Criticism" formulation is not a point of discussion. SDY (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter would be a valid retort to me had I made the claim that "Criticism of..." was equivalent to "Foo Criticism". I made no such claim. As for the arguments presented, there pages of them just above here, on the signpost, and article talk pages. I would ask you to ask yourself how effective your arguments are. What I personally believe is that this is one of those areas where the fifth pillar applies--slavish devotion to the rules is not a requirement of[REDACTED] policy, and I think trying to delete all of the criticism of X articles would prove fruitless. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think forcing people to cover criticism in context would make for better articles. That's the only reason I'm doing this, the rules are just a tool to that end. SDY (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you'll be successful in trying to force people to do that. Trying to force people to do anything around here is seldom productive, from what I've seen thus far. I think you would be better off trying to persuade people--and if people will not be persuaded in an AFD on a particular article, they surely are not going to be persuaded to support a general rule that would result in that same article being deleted. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily in favor of deleting any articles, much less content. I just don't think that article titles that limit the content to the negative are appropriate under NPOV, and negative content should be reported in context according to weight, not isolated. Given that the NPOV policy explicitly addresses this exact concept it's not like I'm some fringe wacko on a deletion spree. For what it's worth, I'd also like to see "Awards won by foo" as a "strongly not suggested" article name, but we have a lot less of those types of articles. SDY (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh "Awards won by X" is less a problem, as long as we're not seeking too far and wide for less notable accolades to fill up the table. Notable organizations give out awards for positive response, and rarely the opposite for negative (eg something like the ig nobels or razzies). But if one starts using *any* award and not just those that are notable, you definitely are POVing. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally would rather see articles titled "Critical Analysis of X" rather than "Criticism of X" to emphasize that an article should not contain all negative data, but it seems there is substantial resistance to using the former in lieu of the latter. So as a practical matter, while it is certainly possible to draft recommendations against such titles, I'm not sure the articles can be successfully renamed. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like that suggestion. It will be contended just because it isn't ferocious enough (i.e. pov). How can I "slam" (say) Mormonism with a "Critical Analysis of Mormonism," when "Criticism of Mormonism" is so much more self-satisfying!  :) I can say almost "anything" in the latter article. Which is your point, of course! The former seems to require a somewhat more thoughtful approach.

On the other hand, maybe this is too kid-glovish. It takes a kindly attitude towards the subject of the article, which may "demand" severe criticism, as it were. Like Nazism, for example.

We should discuss this IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of X titles/Reception of X titles

I asked for opinions on the WP:Reception essay which has been around since 2006 and suggests that major topics can not be covered in NPOV without the Reception section. Since it is relevant to why these Criticism of foo titles exist it seems you all would like to way in on this essay. Alatari (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional article titles

I propose a new section to this policy guideline, perhaps as an addition to or as part of a wider consolidation of the section Neutrality and article titles.

The idea is that double or segmented article names, such as "Flat Earth/Round Earth", or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)", "Criticism of Flat Earth", "Scientific objections to Flat Earth", "Flat Earth/Round Earth controversy" or even "Flat Earth/Round Earth conspiracy" should be supported by high quality sources, not just mentions in passing, in order to justify their use along the lines of WP:REDFLAG ("Exceptional claims require high quality sources").

I will refer this section as "Exceptional article titles", as the use of segmented article titles can lead to conflict with WP:NPOV:

Exceptional article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles if they not commonly used as such, and so unlikely to be recognized as being topics in their own right.

The use of segmented or unusual titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if:

• it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
• it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
• it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
• it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of exceptional article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. If such sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Misplaced Pages as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Perhaps example of "exceptional article titles" would need to be added to this section. I am sticking my neck out here, but is there any support for this proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a shotgun approach that includes likely many non-offensive article titles that are created by WP editors but are the most nature means to name a topic. I think the key here is to remember the Descriptive Titles section, which points to WP:Words to watch, and that if the title is descriptive and includes a word on this watch list, then sourcing is an absolute requirement to show that as the best name for the topic. Otherwise, the descriptive title needs to strip out such words to avoid introducing bias. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. For the purpose of the policy, we should be able to condense what Gavin is proposing, though I'd prefer a little more clarity on what we mean by "one-sided." Again, my main issue is the criticism articles, and that's as much a forking question as a title question. Ultimately, though, this policy has to spell out what Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article_naming's second paragraph talks about: what is a "non-neutral article title" that encourages "multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." SDY (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To that end, would it be feasible to define the use of the word Criticism for[REDACTED] purposes? I honestly don't know, but since verifiable, reliable source, even good article have specific meanings here, perhaps the same can be done with Criticism. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of the term "Criticism" as a section heading within an article is perfectly fine, and requires no defintion or explaination. However, once "Criticism" is used as an article title, then a defintion needs to be obtained from a reliable third party source which would justify its use. That way, if the article title is challenged (as has been the case for many such articles such as Criticism of Judaism), then if there is external validation for the use of this term, then the article title has credibility. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, we can use the definition of Criticism to make sure that the academic usage has a presence in these articles, if nothing else. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

German sharp S

Where are we with ß in article titles? My reading of the language on the policy page is that it should be used when the phrase doesn't appear or appears rarely in English sources, and when the phrase contains the ß in German sources. I'm aware of several arguments both ways but if there's some simple, snappy way to answer the question, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, some people may say this page prohibits it as a non-Latin character ... actually, it's considered a ligature of the Latin alphabet (change "Insert" to "Latin" at the bottom of your edit window and you'll find it). - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If it "doesn't appear" in English sources, odds are that it fails WP:N, but if it doesn't I'd use the spelling used in German sources. If it "appears rarely" in English sources, and more than (say) 80% of those few sources use consistently the same spelling, I'd use that spelling, whichever it is. If those few sources are more equally divided than that, I would not move the article from one spelling to another unless consensus emerged that there's a specific reason to do that. (If I had to create such an article in the first place, I'd use the German spelling if it's a proper name and the English alphabet equivalent otherwise, but YMMV.) A. di M. (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to disagree, that's exactly the answer I needed, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with any non-English characters is that is can't be searched using my keyboard. More importantly to the editor, I think, is that it cannot be found in a search. True of all "accented" French and German letters as well. We aren't giving grammar/language lessons here. A compendium of information. The article can assert that the word is spelled in a certain way in German/French as the case may be. I'd rather see (and be able to search for) "-strasse" any day. What English speaker cares about the spelling? Student7 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The "not on my keyboard" issue is irrelevant, as we have redirects. --Golbez (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'd prefer to use the normal spelling on any article and cater for searches by using redirects. Google is pretty good at figuring out what people mean. I've had this problem before with people complaining about ω-consistency for instance which is how anybody spells it but they wanted Omega used instead which was wrong as a capital and wrong because it isn't what people write. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree... with the comment that "normal spelling" means: the spelling that is used in most English language sources. In some topic areas, this may actually be the "foreign" spelling that includes a funky character. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about pure numbers, of course. Let's say, using made-up numbers, that 60% of sources say "Espanola" instead of "Española" for the town in New Mexico. We should go with Española, because that's the correct name. If 90% of sources used n instead of eñe, then you could start to say that common usage trumps fact. Usage must be both common and overwhelming to go against the factual name. For example, let's say that, again, purely hypothetically, 90% of the sources used the n instead of the eñe. But, let's say there's only 10 sources, because it's a tiny village in the middle of nowhere that few people have written about. This is an indicator that there is no common exonym at all, and in the absence of a common usage we cannot create one ourselves, which means we have to go with the actual name, regardless of if it's only used in 10% of English-language sources. My whole point to this paragraph: It's not finding a mere majority of sources to determine the common name, nor is it percentage. It has to be a combination: Both volume and percentage. Lack an overwhelming amount of either, and there simply is no common name to use. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite... Yes, determining commonality isn't a pure numbers game, but Misplaced Pages does not recognize any name as being "correct" (we must stay completely neutral on that issue)... we simply follow the sources and use what is most common. We base our decision on English-language sources because this is the English-language version of Misplaced Pages (just as the Spanish-language Misplaced Pages would base its titles on Spanish-language sources and the Russian-language Misplaced Pages would base it's titles on Russian-language sources). If the bulk of English-language sources call it "Espanola" (without the tilde above the n) then so should we. If the bulk of the sources use the tilde, then so should we. If the sources are close to evenly split, then the consensus of editors determines the outcome. it really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was, it's not simple "50%+1". There has to be an overwhelming common usage to trump the actual name, rather than simply 50%+1. or, if the bulk is of so few sources as to be statistically irrelevant. My only concern was how you defined "bulk". As for NPOV, I don't think there's anything more neutral than using a city's own name for itself, except, again, in the face of overwhelming common usage. (Of course, by definition, 'common' is the overwheling usage) --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not generally consider the city's own name for itself (a somewhat vague concept) any more than we expect the Spanish Misplaced Pages to give up using es:Nueva York; nor is there any "correctness" in English other than usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a "city's own name for itself" is often the subject of controversy and political debate. This is why we don't care what anyone says the "official" name should be (including the government of the city itself). We neutrally follow the sources. If the sources are essentially evenly split, then it is up to consensus at the article talk page to determine what to use. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I very much hope that the names 'Stab City' and 'Slash City' don't become too common so that's how they're known on Misplaced Pages. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate and feel grateful for redirects that take care of article titles in the English Misplaced Pages with non-English characters, but it sets a bad example for the remainder of the article which may also include non-title words with non-English characters in them that search engines file which I cannot reach. I don't want to worry about non-English characters in English Misplaced Pages. Similarly, Japanese, Russian, Arabic Wikipedians should not be forced to deal with Roman/English characters which their search engines cannot reach. (Yes. That is their problem since they make their own rules). Student7 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I really cannot see what your problem is here Student7. Firstly, it's a matter of learning how to use your keyboard (the Character Map on your computer will show you what to type to get the character you think you are unable to type). Secondly, these days most search engines, as they are for international use, can cope with these characters anyway (try a Google search for "straße"). The problem appears to be your refusal to learn how to use your keyboard, rather than the "strange" characters. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've probably been on computers longer than you have been alive. I do not know how to use the keyboard to enter a non-Roman character. Nor do I care to learn. Nor do most English Misplaced Pages users, which is more important. Entries should be aimed at normal users, not "continentally educated" ones. Student7 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency June 2010

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/Archive 17#Consistent, Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#What is "consistency"?, Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/Archive 19#Consistency wording, Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 20#Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 21#Consistency December 20

See Talk:Zürich Airport#Requested move. We have people who do not want to move "Zürich Airport" to "Zurich Airport" even when it is shown that the official name of the Airport in English "Zurich Airport" and common English language usage in reliable sources runs at 8 to one in favour of "Zurich Airport" when a Google book search is used, because the name is "consistent" with "Zürich" yet anyone who knows the history behind the Misplaced Pages name of the city knows that it ended up at that name through a none consensus move and then there was no consensus to move it back (and no consensus for the current name). Also that survey was done years before the addition of reliable sources was added to the policy.

I suspect that if a move is proposed for Zurich some people will oppose a move whatever the evidence is to usage in reliable English language sources because it is "consistent" with articles like "Zürich Airport" (chicken and egg).

Therefore I propose (yet again) that we change the wording from

• Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

to

• Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

-- PBS (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me... I approve of consistency where appropriate... but I do not approve of consistency for its own sake, and definitely not when other criteria and factors indicate some other title would be best. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is just the same as it always is when this is proposed - we on this page might agree, but the community doesn't (see Victoria of the United Kingdom et al. ad nauseam). Consistency in article titles is something that editors value highly (and unfortunately, they value consistency of form between related articles more highly than consistency of approach throughout the encyclopedia). It's out of order to try to tweak a policy page in order to try and win an argument elsewhere - if practice is to be changed (and this page should reflect practice), then there should be a well-publicized RfC to show what the community really thinks.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency was introduced into this page from a draft proposal which at the time supported the wording on flora. It was never part of this policy until last year and IMHO it should never have been introduced in the form it was. The wording I am proposing is much closer to how it has usually been used in the past. Promoting consistency to a level where it means people can ignore other criteria such as reliable sources is not in the interested of the project as it tends to be used to justify historically bad decisions by saying we don't care if the name is not the best it is content with other named articles -- As is being done with the Zurich example. The reason for Victoria is not that it is consistent with other articles but that it is covered by the nobility guideline. If we were to take this to its logical conclusion and a change in the nobility guideline was made after an RfC on the issue agreed that country would be placed in parenthesis, this could never be implemented even though editors agreed it should be because all the articles on European monarchs were already in a certain format of "monarch numeral country" and to change any would be inconsistent. Clearly what is meant is "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth repeating the same arguments every time you bring this up, since you'll just bring it up again next month and pretend you've never heard the arguments before, but anyway, here goes: consistency may have been "introduced into this page", but it certainly wasn't introduced then as something new in Misplaced Pages practice - consistency has been taken into consideration in naming issues apparently right from the very early days, which is why we have these (IMO ridiculous) names for some monarch and ship articles, and why bands of editors once fought (and still do, to some extent) to keep the ",State" in as many US city titles as possible, and why the botanists use Latin names, and... oh but we've been through all this before, many many examples have been given of how consistency is used alongside the other criteria, usually perfectly acceptably; if we change the statement on this page we merely make this page worse (by making it describe our practices less accurately); it won't suddenly make people want to drop the umlaut from Zurich or give Queen Victoria her usual name.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency has never been used for consistencies sake, it has always been subservient to other criteria. Please show me where in the archives of this page before the middle of last year where consistency was discussed as criteria. The rules on in both Nobles and Flora were devised originally to work around problems with non reliable sources, where in the development of either of those guidelines was consistency advanced in the guidelines as an explanation for the rules that were being used? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if the word "consistency" didn't appear (which I find unlikely, but I can't really be bothered to look), the very fact that they were formulating rules (and then going on to enforce them with more or less disregard for common name or other principles) shows that the ideal of consistency was a goal they were pursuing. And as we can see from naming discussions today, it remains a goal that editors want to pursue.--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I was one of "they", no it was always for reasons closer to the way I am describing it above. Take two examples. Richard the Lionheart and Alfred the Great, The word overwhelmingly in the sentence "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen," in Misplaced Pages:NC (names and titles) was to the best of my recollection introduced because of conversations on the talk page to work around the problem that clearly in reliable sources Alfred the Great is the common name, but in cases like Richard the Lionheart the reliable sources are split but tend to Richard I, but if one includes unreliable sources it would defiantly be Richard the Lionheart. If the policy then had included reliable sources, the whole thing could have been simplified (and should be now) but we did not have that concept in naming articles. Having consistency in this policy with its current wording actually undermines the intent of "names and titles" because it encourages some editors to want Harold II and other such names because of "consistency". Consistency as worded would probably have Alfred the Great moved to "Alfred I of England". It was never the intention of "names and titles" to promote consistency to the same level as sources when considering a name and I think my proposed wording is much closer to how most people understand constancy to be used in practice. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, so start an honest RfC and prove it (you have my vote for a start; but it's not up to us two to determine what people think on a major issue - whatever your intention might have been with your input to the royalty convention, the end result is that we have titles that have nothing to do with sources or conciseness or precision or anything else except stubborn "consistency", and they seem to be well supported).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no RfC to add the current wording to this policy. It was added without any prior discussion, so I don't see the need for an RfC to modify it. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There were acres of discussion about this (surely you remember?) A multitude of examples were presented to show how consistency motivates naming decisions alongside (and sometimes in the face of) the other criteria. Modifying the wording of the page to reflect actual practice (which we should do in good faith regardless of whether we agree with that practice) is a whole different matter than modifying it in the hope of changing practice, which is what you seem to be proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"added without any prior discussion". I know I got frustrated a few times because I felt like PBS wasn't listening to any voice except his own, but I never expected this. This beggars belief. Hesperian 11:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit on 7 September 2009 Where was the prior discussion? -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what we used to have: Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

That (from an edit by PBS) permits any subpage to impose any consistency it likes, overruling Recognizability altogether. The present text is much weaker, presenting consistency as only one of five desiderata. There may be a valid procedural objection to the weakening; but what PBS wants to do is weaken further, and much further than the text he approved of. There is no consensus whatever for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PMA I am not sure what the edit for which you provided a link is supposed to show. However I made it clear at the time I was debating the flora guidelines, that in my opinion the wording you are quoting ("Except where ...") referred to this page the "naming conventions" not to the guidelines to the naming conventions. I was in favour of renaming this page 2 yeas ago preliminarily to clear up that issue. However that is not really the point of this conversation. What is more interesting is the Zürich circle -- where people justify naming pages and ignoring reliable sources for an internal consistency within Misplaced Pages, even if the first article used to justify the circle was named without consideration for the article titles policy, or was named using a old consensus of what the policy was. The alteration to the wording that I am suggesting does not remove the use of consistency from this policy but a change of wording to reflect best practice. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

• 05:24, 24 June 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Deciding an article title: The edit before this makes no sense if internal consistency is pitched at the same level as verifiability) (undo)
• 15:05, 24 June 2010 Pmanderson (Verifiability is WP:V. No consensus for this revision.)

PMA neither is there ever been consensus for the current wording. So perhaps you should engage here on the talk page about how we can fix the wording. Can you show me one case were a person has suggested that a name be used because it is consistent with another article name, where that has not been challenged if it is not the name used in reliable sources? Generally consistency is only a factor for which there is a broad consensus if "other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice". -- PBS (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the royals and nobles. Victoria of the United Kingdom, whatever we call Lord Byron and Lord Palmerston and so on - these names satisfy absolutely none of the criteria except an alleged "consistency". The other criteria do indicate an obvious choice; the clique in charge rejects that choice on the grounds of consistency. If we're going to tell them that what they're doing is against policy, we'll have to be able to show them that the policy really represents the consensus of the community, and hasn't just been snuck in.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But the point is are there any cases were there is a consensus that consistency trumps reliable sources? Yes some people argue that it does in some cases, but that does not mean that there is a consensus that it should, in cases like Lord Palmerston there are always people that argue that consistency (with other titles) should not trump reliable sources. Indeed until it was introduced here last year the general argument was that one decision on naming was not binding on the name of other articles. So my argument is that the current wording does not represent a consensus, and that my alternative is much closer to how consistency is used in debates. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your inconsistency on these two matters is breathtaking. Lord Palmerston clearly wins hands down on all the other criteria except consistency - so it is exactly the situation we're discussing, where the other criteria indicate an obvious choice, and therefore according to your view, consistency should not play a role, and that title should be chosen. And yet you go over to the nobility guideline and oppose the use of such titles as Lord Palmerston. I just don't understand what's going on in your mind.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you posted this before my reply on that page @ 07:03, 30 June 2010 clearing up this misunderstanding. -- PBS (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Following on from the discussion in the section "Exceptional article titles" (above), I have rewritten the proposal to broaden its scope and cover several related issues.

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Article titles can sometimes be controversial because of negative connotations, often related to social, political or historical disputes. However, Misplaced Pages does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to use the reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title.

Descriptive or segmented article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles to resolve editorial disputes, because if an article title is not commonly used or is likely to be challenged, it is unlikely to be recognized or accepted as being a topic in in its own right.

The use of descriptive or segmented titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if the title is likely to be challenged because:

• it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
• it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
• it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
• it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. If high-quality sources sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Misplaced Pages as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Where descriptive or segmented article titles are used, choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to watch for further advice on potentially judgmental terminology.

The objective of the proposal is to address the ongoing issue of descriptive titles. Not all titles are controversial in nature, but what they have in common is that they are titles that attempt to describe their subject matter, whereas most articles are described and defined by article content, rather than their article title. Some examples of descriptive article titles that may illustrate this issue are as follows:

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
• Introduction to evolution
• Creation and evolution in public education
• Outline of the United States
• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Beginning of pregnancy controversy

Generally speaking, these article titles are being used to describe "meta-topics", i.e. topics about topics, rather than specific sub-topics described in WP:SUMMARY. In theory, there should not be a problem with creating such articles based on these titles, provided that suitable sources can be found to justify their inclusion in Misplaced Pages as distinct and identifiable topics in their own right. In practice, the creation of such articles and the use of these titles is frought with difficulty: since coverage of most topics is about the topic itself, coverage about a "meta-topic" is likely to be rare, if it exists at all.

Hence this proposal. Following the precedent set by WP:REDFLAG, Misplaced Pages's policy on descriptive titles should be based on high quality sources that provide reasonable evidence that the article title can be externally validated, not just by mentions in passing, but in terms of soruces which address the article topic directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a problem that this proposal would help solve?--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is intended to address three issues:

1. Should topics defined or described by descriptive titles have their own article?
2. If so, should the title pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on its subject matter?
3. Which descriptive title should be used if there are plausible variants?

I think these three questions can be appled to all descriptive titles, of which the existence of "Criticism of XYZ" is one variant which is currently the subject of an RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can you give a specific example, to make it clearer what you're trying to get at? An actual article title which might be affected by this? --Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed the article Criticism of Judaism at length in the discussion about "Criticism of foo" type articles. Perhaps you could use this as your starting point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not have Criticism articles; but the solution is to merge or delete them, not to rename them. So I doubt this page can do much other than link to wherever we say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, what do you mean by "segmented" names? They're not discussed on this page; they're not defined in this proposal. Let's have examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The criticism article is a redirect. The 'outline' ones are an attempt to put a structure onto wikipedia. The main one in that list I would have problems with is 'Introduction to evolution' because that is not a topic. Every article should be an introduction at the appropriate level and if there is a complicated bit to evolution thats the bit that could have a qualifier describing its area. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This proposal seems aimed at preventing such articles from being made because one cannot write a valid title for the article. This is not an appropriate policy page for this. I do agree that article titles of subjects which are common sense groupings of several smaller topics or which are spinouts of sections of larger topics need to be carefully chosen for avoiding biases, but just because it's difficult to title them right is not a reason to not have them. If the article is something like "X of Y" or "Y X" where "Y" is a notable topic, and "X" would be a logical section within that topic, then there is zero problems with articles named in this style. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Topic and title are related. Both require sourcing. If there is a dispute, and one side of that dispute points out an absence of sourcing for the title or the topic of the article, that should be the end of that article. Example: there is an article called Criticism of Judaism. The title is obviously unsourced. That sequence of three words is mentioned in passing. But no attempt is made (in any source) to define it in any way. Thus it is not established in any way. Its parameters are unknown. Yet, the topic can be guessed at. Thus, the editors divide up into groups supporting a different notion of what should be considered as included under that title. No guidance in this dispute is provided by sources, because not one source exists suggesting that the topic has any particular meaning. My suggestion is that the article is disqualified on the basis of one group of editors objecting to there being an article under that title, because no source supports that title. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles don't always need sourcing. They need to be clear, common language that is an accurate title for the content within, but doesn't have to be sourced, because we as WPians have the ability to use common sense to group highly-connected, related topics into a larger overarching topic that is obvious in intent, particularly in the case if it would have been derived from a spinout article of a larger topic. That said, I am all for the requirement that if a title contains a peacock/weasel word, then there needs to be sources to affirm that topic is titled that way (eg Lewinsky scandal, any "-gate" articles post Watergate). If you can't source the connection of a peacock/weasel word to a topic, then you need to remove that word. I've suggested this in connection with the "Criticism of X" articles, as "criticism" is a weasel-like word, and instead suggested "Critical opinion" or the like, which removes the bias of the weasel word. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And what is included under "Critical opinion…"? Do editors decide what to include and what to exclude? Bus stop (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Criticism of Judaism is that the topic isn't sourced. The topic of Criticism of Christianity is sourced but I'd prefer a different title. How about using that instead of mixing up problems? Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — I don't think Misplaced Pages should rely on "common sense." When there are disagreements the important thing is to have recourse to sources. You make reference to "highly-connected, related topics." There is considerable difference of opinion on what is included in that. You said, "particularly in the case if it would have been derived from a spinout article of a larger topic." I think that would be the Judaism article. But that article does not shed light on what would be included under the rubric of "criticism of Judaism." How could it? No source suggests a meaning for such a phrase. That phrase is common English. It is used in many settings in many ways. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people disagree with you regarding common sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — I think common sense works fine when there is a degree of agreement. But ultimately sources are what matters. The link you provided to common sense is a subset of Ignore all rules. I don't think most Wikipedians rely heavily on that policy. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We are developing a work that is driven by consensus and subjective opinion, not objective measures. The latter would be great and cut 99% of the nonsense that happens in the course of editing, but that's not going to happen as long as WP is a volunteer project that any can edit. Common sense needs to be applied , in this case, the grouping topics that are very near to a central point. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — That is a compromise of Misplaced Pages principles and standards. In the event that a miracle occurred and consensus was arrived at, what would the reader have — the original research that represented the views of the editors of Misplaced Pages? What happened to the principle of verifiability, and reliance on reliable sources? Even NPOV is not trumped by consensus. I find at WP:NPOV: "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." And what is this all for? So that we can have an article on "Criticism of Judaism"? There already exists a Judaism article. And there already exists articles (freestanding articles) on every suggested subtopic for the "criticism of Judaism" article. Are we trying to spoon feed "criticism of Judaism" to the reader? Any reader can scan the topics at the Judaism article. They can click on a topic and read it. If there is negative information to report, it will be found within a proper context. Are we trying to take negative information out of a proper context? Additionally, at WP:Reliable Sources, I find: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." These are fundamental policies. Why would we opt to WP:Ignore all rules? Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, we're trying to make a comprehensive encyclopedia to help the reader understand a topic, and organizing that material in the best way to fit our WP:SIZE concerns.

It is clear that Judaism is a huge subject, unable to be confined to 100k per WP:SIZE. So we use WP:Summary style to determine best how to group and combine information about Judaism into logical, comprehensive sections, while making sure page 1, Judaism is an overview of the topic. But from that point on, there is minimal advice from policy and guidelines on how to organize that information in the subsequent pages. Since "criticism" (or an equivalent phrase) would be a logical section of the larger topic's article should it be there, editors have decided that "Criticism of Judaism" would be the best way to group all the critical opinions of the religion into a single area instead of spreading them around several smaller articles. There is nothing in policy that prevents that type of organization, save for the concern elsewhere about the page being used as a coatrack, which I've outlined previously as a serious concern but one we can't shy away from. Is there a different way to organize the information? Sure, as you've suggested on each subtopic of Judaism that is called out in the larger article. But perhaps the editors felt this not to be the best way to present the whole of the Judaism topic.

We have to think what makes common sense at the larger level when looking at a whole topic that spans many pages. If WP was paper or allowed for an infinite amount of content on a single page, Judaism would be quite long, and would likely contain within the paper or infinite page a section on criticism that resembles our current CoJ page; I am pretty sure no one would have any problems if this were the case if the Criticism section were contained completely within the Judaism page based on the input I've seen. Thus, by common sense, it seems fairly obvious when we're forced to acknowledge SIZE that splitting of the CoJ article would be one of the first steps to be done. Of course, again, there's other ways that the infinitely-long page could be ordered, but how that is done is up to the consensus of the editors working on the page and the topic.

The same concept goes for nearly every topic listed above; they would be sections in an infinitely long article but are broken out by SIZE and summary style. Their titles reflect that nature. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — There are no reliable sources for "criticism of Judaism." Should we just concoct whatever we think such an article should look like? Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We have numerous reliable sources that say there is critical opinion of elements of Judaism, possible as a whole too, thus a logical grouping of all those sources is "Criticism of Judaism" because it is not a novel term. (Of course, I'm still standing by my objection to using "Criticism" over something like "Critical opinion" to avoid implicit bias, and the issues of coatracking) Article titles can be defined by WPians as long they accurately describe the contents of the article. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And I agree, FWIW, that something like Critical Analysis or Critical reception would be better, but we did not achieve consensus on that point. I think it will be very hard to achieve much consensus, as tempers flared significantly during the AFD. Admittedly, care will have to be taken to avoid POV issues and to find appropriate sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — "Tempers flared"? I wasn't aware of this. But please tell me about this from your perspective. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obvious, although editors remained civil. Of course, maintaining civility on a non-contentious issue is a five pound test. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to self, throw Criticism of Judaism in the air if I want to disappear from view ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please... let's not make this about any particular article (we can mention them as examples... but we should not focus on specific articles). The issue here is using terms like "Criticism of..." in an article title. I agree we need to caution editors about using such terms in an article title. I agree that such titles should be discouraged, as they are inherently POV and limit the article to only negative information about the topic. I also agree that such titles should be allowed in limited circumstances (if the negative terminology can be substantiated through use in reliable sources). Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree in principle?

As Blueboar has said, I think caution is needed when a descriptive title is used, because, lets face it, they are a form of title that are most likely to be challenged. Having said that, lets say (for the time being) that such titles could or can be justified. The proposal above suggest that descriptive titles will work where there are high quality sources to support them. Is this a principle that we can agree on? If not why? And lastly, is there an alternative in terms of obtaining some form of external validation that a particular descriptive article title is the right/best/least judgemental title? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If a title falls natural out from sources, that makes sense. And I support a requirement that for a title that includes peacock/weasel words that sources must refer to the topic in that way (eg, WPians should not be the ones apply that label). But, starting from the presumption that the article context is appropriate as a single article but that there is no source that simply falls out from courses, a descriptive, unbiased titling is completely acceptable (eg of the 6 example titles presented above, only two: "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" and "Beginning of pregnancy controversy", should really be sourcable or otherwise de-biased, the other 4 are all legit descriptive titles). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To a certain extent, the "non-neutral but common names" section of the policy already addresses this, but I guess the question is: what do we mean by common? Some have taken it as a simple issue of whether it has ever been used before anywhere or whether it's so common that it's "not likely to be challenged" as WP:V puts it. For titles, as far as I'm concerned, neutrality is far more important than verifiability, and we should only be using non-neutral titles as an absolute last resort when there is no reasonable alternative and multiple neutral options have been evaluated and discarded. SDY (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a last resort for a descriptive title.... the only hesitation I have is when and if it can be established that the word "Criticism" (or other biased term) is used as part of the common "Proper Name" for the topic (highly unlikely in this case).

In other words... if a significant majority of reliable sources talk about the topic using the phrases "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" or the "Beginning of pregnancy controversy", then these biased titles are justifiable because they are accepted proper names. If not, they should be either renamed or re-subsumed into the main article. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but for different reasons: "X controversy" is only biased if the "controversy" is a invention of a few theorists who want their crank idea to be treated as an equal alternative to accepted usage; if so (for example, writing hollow earth controversy about John Cleves Symmes, Jr.), the article should not exist, under any title. If there is a real controversy (which can be shown, for example, by reliable sources using the phrase), then there is no NPOV problem with the title.

Such an article and title may be undesirable on other grounds (for example, being an unfixable attractor of unsourced or fringe opinions); but is that best covered here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Best not covered here (but perhaps mentioned in passing). Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is right: descriptive titles can attract partisan or biased coverage, that is why high quality sources are needed that either define the topic or provide focus on its subject matter. For instance, "History of XYZ" is often a bona fide topic, provided it can be shown that there are sources that, say, discuss the topic directly and in detail, perhaps in terms of its origins, development and scope, such as the History of economic thought. There are mainstream topics which have descriptive titles, for sure, but what marks them out are high quality sources that demonstrate they are is studied and written about in the real world (whereas Criticism of economics/Criticism of economic thought is not). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question: I think we do have agreement in principal. "Criticism of X" is generally a flawed title (unless substantiated). Such a title is a red flag that the article may be a POV fork and in most case should be renamed to something more neutral such as "Critical analysis of X" or "Views about X" (which would cover both positive and negative commentary on the subject). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So... let's work on how to word this in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we just need to be clear we are talking about "descriptive titles that include words to watch", as I'm not yet seeing agreement on "descriptive titles" in general. The specific example of "Criticism of X" clearly falls into one that I think we agree is an issue if no sources back up that term. Taking that into account, language such as "Descriptive article titles should not include words to watch, and neutral, unbiased language should be used instead. Descriptive titles may include these words only if the topic is exclusively referred to by that name in numerous reliable sources, such as Watergate scandal." --MASEM (t) 13:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles relate to topics. Descriptive titles should not be permitted when there is a significant question over for instance the notability of a topic. Descriptive titles should only be allowable in instances in which the topic of the article is clearly not in violation of the several fundamental principles that would rule out the creating of an article on that topic. Language to that effect should be included in any policy we are trying to draw up on this. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about notability of topics. We need to language to start from the presumption the topic the title describes meets WP's inclusion guidelines of which notability is one factor. This is the wrong venue to discuss if we should have these articles at all. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to regard titles and topics in isolation. We see from experience that "descriptive titles" invariably find application in synthesized topics. Topics that do not find readily available sources also need titles. These are in all cases going to be "descriptive titles." I am accepting of the notion that "descriptive titles" are sometimes permissible. But any language describing their use has to distinguish between their proper and improper application. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesized topics are not always bad as some are clearly accepted. They can go bad, but that's no reason to prevent them; to do otherwise is burying one's head in the sand for fear of the problems dealing with these articles. And thus, yes, titles can be talked about in isolation of the topic and its appropriateness to WP. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Reliable Sources Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In concept I agree with Masem... but I really think we should avoid linking to WP:Words to watch. That page can easily be abused in naming conflicts... It is far too easy for editors who are involved in a naming dispute to improperly slip a word that they dislike to the list, and (on the other side) for people to Wikilawyer that, because a word doesn't appear on the list, it must be allowed. I think we want to express general disapproval of biased descriptive titles than a narrow ban on specific words. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

True, people will argue left-right about a specific word not being listed or the like. I think we should give advice on some of the more common words that are ultimately poor, like "scandal", "controversy", "criticism", and how they can be replaced when necessary. But the same idea applies - if those words are actually used exclusively to describe the topic by publications, then its appropriate, but otherwise needs defanging. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The reliance on sources is fundamental to Misplaced Pages. You can't have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" unless there is a strict requirement that material adhere closely to sources. This has applicability in the topics that Misplaced Pages can have articles on. We can't have articles created willy nilly because an editor gets it in his head that a personal idea constitutes a topic for an article. Sources must confirm that topic as a real topic that has received recognition in the world external to Misplaced Pages. Those sources, if they exist, would probably provide guidance in the selecting of a title for that article. If those sources existed, and they were found lacking in any way, then "descriptive titles" could make up for any such shortcomings. But "descriptive titles" must first receive clearance in the form of reliable sources supporting the existence of that topic. If we are formulating language about this we should include the caution that "descriptive titles" are not a substitute for a topic that fails basic article creation requirements, especially sources confirming the existence of the topic being written about as a real topic and that sources support it as such. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I guess I have a strong preference for neutral descriptive titles over names used by sources, especially for clear content forks that "belong" in a main article but can't fit there due to length concerns. Non-neutral and other questionable names should only be used when it is an obvious common name, not because it can be verified in a source. SDY (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have three issues here: 1) negative Proper Name titles that are supported directly by reliable sources. 2) negative descriptive titles that are supported indirectly by reliable sources. 3) negative descriptive titles that are not supported by reliable sources. My take on these three issues is as follows:

1) Proper Names should be preferred if and when substantiated, even if they are negative. We should not invent our own alternative title when the sources have agreed that the subject/topic should be called by a particular name. Boston massacre is the example.

2) Negative descriptive titles that can be substantiated indirectly through reference to reliable sources should be renamed with neutral wording. (an example would be an incident that is described as being "a massacre" ... but is not routinely named "The X Massacre". Instead of creating the negative descriptive titles "X massacre" or "massacre of X", we should use something more neutral... such as "X incident")

3) Negative descriptive titles that can not be substantiated either directly or indirectly by the sources should be subsumed into other articles (such as the article on the history of the region), or deleted outright. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these are precisely the issues that this proposal addresses. In the case that SDY highlights, it is clear that editors are choosing titles that are neutral, as titles such as Attorneygate and Climategate appear to have been dropped, perhaps on the grounds that the quality of sources are not high enough to justify them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Only by fiat of editorial consensus do "descriptive titles" create topics for articles. The success of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" rests on the primary importance of sources. The scope of a topic should already have an existence external to Wiki before an article is created on it. "Descriptive titles" legitimize topics that do not have sources supporting specifically that topic. They are often abused because they are often presenting a viewpoint that is favored by some and objected to by others. That viewpoint is often not correctable within the article. I think that an article given a "descriptive title" has an unacceptably high likelihood of being an article that is in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A major problem is with names used by advocacy groups for one side or another of a political debate. See Terrorism#Pejorative use, and in denialism#Prescriptive and polemic for example of adjectives where this is a problem. If a title is created using these words (and many other similar words), they frame the debate in the article because they capture the first sentence of the introduction to the article.

In the case of the Holocaust, the term Holocaust denial has become a valid topic because people have done research how and why some people despite overwhelming historical evidence deny that the Holocaust took place.

The problem is that this is taken over to other subjects where although it may be true that a majority of scholars have agreed a genocide has occurred, there is nowhere near the same level of academic and political agreement that the events that occurred were a genocide. If an article is created with names like "ABC Genocide denial" or "ABC Genocide reparations" then it automatically frames the debate making the assumption that there was a genocide to be denied or compensated and at a practical level these articles tend to survive AfDs because those with an interest in the events, who think it was a genocide, tend show up and express an opinion in favour of the article that even if there is no consensus to keep the article, there is not a consensus to delete it.

In the case of genocide denial, because of the rhetoric trick that the word denial allows advocacy sources to use, it is always possible to find sources containing the claim that Ayz is denying the Abc Genocide, but it tells us little other than the person making the statement thinks that there is a genocide to be denied. It also makes writing a balanced NPOV article very difficult when there are two article one called "ABC Genocide denial" and another called "ABC Genocide recognition" as we have in the case of the Armenian Genocide because into which article does one put the view held by the British government that the massacres occurred but were crimes against humanity and not technically a genocide (see this debate).

Another example is the term "terror bombing" as an alternative for "strategic bombing". We and our allies bomb legitimate strategic targets they and their allies terror bomb our populations. "Terror bombing" usage in sources is usually not about the term, but about the raids for which the term is a description. If one does a Google Book search on "Terror bombing" over 9,000 results are returned, but does that make it a legitimate article fork from an article on "strategic bombing"? The problem is that even if these articles such as this start out as an academic survey on how the term came into existence, developed and is used, very quickly well meaning editors add information to the articles that turn them into little more than list of the usage of the term. In themselves these lists may be sourced, but in the case of terror bombing they become a subset of all strategic bombing raids that someone at some time in a book or an article has called a terror bombing raid.

The naming of articles for both descriptive and proper names is going to be a problem for many political and national issues and I have yet to see any easy solution that can be implemented given the structure of current Misplaced Pages policy and procedural methods available to editors. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Example: Climategate

I participated in the discussion regarding Climategate and was one of several editors who proposed and supported the accepted compromise. But it should not be used as an example of how to follow policy. The climate change articles are beset by POV-pushers from both sides of the climate change divide and is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. The compromise was the only way to get both sides to agree. I did not participate in the Attorneygate discussion but my research regarding the term did not indicate that its usage was as wide-spread as Climategate's so I don't think you can compare the two as equal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the talk archives, it seems to me that this consensus was reached via a discussion of the sources for the article title. I suspect this is a good example to discuss because the discussions are well documented. Its clear that one party would wish to highlight the sensationalist title, while the other would want to downplay this. Only a close examination of the sources could determine the best title in terms of high quality sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a good example. Yes, one party would wish to highlight the sensationalist title, while the other faction would want to downplay this title. Either way, it is in no way indicative of what we should have done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are right, how was disagreement about the title settled (if only temporarily) without reference to the sources? How else could some sort of choice be made? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing was disregarded by both sides. Compromise was only achieved after Jimbo personally intervened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at RFC and it seems to me that sourcing was the deciding factor, by looking at what the sources where actually discussing. The article was moved to Climatic Research Unit email controversy because it was the emails that became the center of commentators' attention, as it was their content that was notable, rather than the name Climategate or the fact that computer hacking was involved. Now this decision may be overturned, but I would suggest it would require high quality sources to make this happen. My conclusions are that we have to make a distinction between an article title that directly identifies an article topic in its totality, and an article label that can be applied to only a selection of aspects or characteristics about an article topic.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you're curious about sourcing in that case, you might want to look at this A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Climategate/Climatic Research Unit email controversy is a poor choice for an example. As the endless (and on going) debates over what to title that article demonstrate, it is a boarder-line case... too boarder-line to be a good example. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you make such a sweeping generalisation? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that I think it is a poor example. The title was a matter of extended debate, with advocates on both sides arguing endlessly and pushing their preferred title to support their view on the underlying topic. I think examples on policy pages should be clear cut and somewhat obvious, so there is no doubt in the reader's mind as to what we are trying to say. If we used the Climategate/Climatic Research Unit email controversy article as an example, the reader would need to sift through multiple pages of debate to understand why the debate ended the way it did (and that assumes the debate did end... which is far from certain with this particular article). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If a topic is the subject of extended debate, then surely that makes it the perfect example? I think Blueboar is right to be looking for clear cut answers, but they are not going to handed to him on a plate. Of course there are advocates on both sides; one of the key reasons we are having this discussion is that descriptive titles are most likely to be the subject partisan disputes in which editorial opinions will be challenged. I have done a bit of sifting for him: the turning point in the discussion seems to have been Jimbo's comments about "The problem with the current title". A compromise was found a few threads after. I think it still possible to draw conclusions that are useful to us from just a few threads. In my own case, I conclude that there is an important difference between article titles (dealt with by this guideline) and article labels (dealt with at WP:LABEL). The proposal I have tabled above helps to distinguish between the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be a good example unless you expect Jimbo Wales to get personally involved in every article title dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At least he went with a compromise even though he seemed to be wrongly prejudging the researchers. I think that shows he supports a neutral title if the 'right' one would stop development of the article. A case of IAR or a general principle? Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a good or bad example of a descriptive article title, it is certainly an interesting case because Jimbo expressed an opinion in the debate, but his views were not followed slavishly. I am not saying that the choice of article title is necessarily the best one, but the arguments put up by both sides seem to me to be based on the quality of the coverage and the reliability sources. In the light of what I have read of the debate, I would like to table an amendment to the proposal at the very start of this thread: The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. There is clearly more to choosing an article title based on whether a particular term is used or by one or more sources; clearly the participants of the discussion looked at what the coverage from those sources was actually addressing in order to identify an article title that was not a partisan label.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Descriptive & segmented article titles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The following amendement to Misplaced Pages:Article titles which would result in the replacement of the section "Descriptive titles". The proposal is intended to address such article titles such as Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova which give rise three questions:

1. Should topics defined or described by descriptive titles have their own article?
2. If so, should the title pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on its subject matter?
3. Which descriptive title should be used if there are plausible variants?

Simply put, the use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. Comments and suggestions in relation to the proposal would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Article titles can sometimes be controversial because of negative connotations, often related to social, political or historical disputes. However, Misplaced Pages does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to use the reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title.

Descriptive or segmented article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles to resolve editorial disputes, because if an article title is not commonly used or is likely to be challenged, it is unlikely to be recognized or accepted as being a topic in in its own right.

The use of descriptive or segmented titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if the title is likely to be challenged because:

• it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
• it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
• it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
• it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. If high-quality sources sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Misplaced Pages as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Where descriptive or segmented article titles are used, choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to watch for further advice on potentially judgmental terminology.

• Comment An RFC should in my opinion be a H2 Not an H3 section heading. I have no idea what "Descriptive & segmented article titles" is meant to mean, for example how does it relate to the naming of the articles "military use of children" and Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435) -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not segment this comment off. Instead fix the headings! -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC Discussion

As proposer, I can see some useful guidance coming out of this proposal. Periodically, article such as Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova appear that use titles that are controversial for two reasons:

1. The use Contentious labels in the article titles, which may not be the title which would used by all sources that deal with the topic;
2. They make it difficult to write about the subject matter of the article in a balance way;
3. The subject matter is ill defined, so that it is difficult to determine which coverage is relevant to the subject matter.

It seems to me the only way to resolve these issues is to take a step back, and see if there is any high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. If there is, then the article title can be validated by external sources, not editorial opinion. If not, then perhaps a merger, redirect or deletion would be better than continuing to edit an article which fails many of Misplaced Pages's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The big problem is that this is a policy not a guideline. One can stick some guidance into a policy but it tends to get removed again as the policy is pared to its essentials of what everyone should normally do rather than worries that one should be careful about. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq - talking about article titles is appropriate at the policy level, but not about the inclusion of articles that can only be named via descriptive titles (that's a notability aspect and clearly guideline material). If we strictly focused on what type of language should be avoided in descriptive titles, and/or the requirement that titles containing biasing words be either appropriately sourced to show that that is how the topic is considered, or changed to unbiased terms otherwise, then we have something that works at the policy level. Everything else beyond that is a guideline and has strong consensus-based considerations of inclusion. I would suggest based on a lot of other things that we made need a notability guideline on what best can be called "synthesized topics" - topics not explicitly spelled out in sources but clearly can be assembled in a non-biased, non-original research manner - to determine when such topics are appropriate. (I don't like the word "synthesis" for that, because it implies negative synthesis we don't allow, but it is the best I can think of presently) --MASEM (t) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That thinking is fine, but the concept of whether we should have articles requiring descriptive titles should not be buried on a policy page about titles. It is, effectively, an inclusion guideline that doesn't yet exist anywhere else and probably an area that's been begging for this (Between lists, summary-style spinouts, and such descriptive topics) that needs the careful balance between synthesis and completeness. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it would be better to have an article called Linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova? I agree... but that title is also descriptive. Is the real issue that articles called "Controversy over X" or "Criticism of X" should usually be merged into articles called simply "X"? Yaris678 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If so, then this problem should be addressed over at WP:N, not here at the page whose sole purpose is "What goes in the URL for this page?" (i.e., specifically not "What kinds of subjects shall Misplaced Pages have separate pages about?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the creators of the article Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova would claim that there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The issue is article title: does the coverage support this choice of title? I have not looked at the sources myself, but I would have thought finding a defintion for a topic with such a highly descriptive article title would be a remote possibility. The issue is not finding coverage that would ordinarily provide evidence of notability for a particular topic (in this case Moldovan language), but whether that coverage supports the descriptive article title to describe that topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles facilitate articles that transgress basic wiki policy. Every article that does not have sources to support a specific premise for an article requires a descriptive title. You can't have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" if you have people creating articles willy-nilly. Descriptive titles are in violation of basic wiki policy. The condoning of them represents the acceptance of lower quality from a Misplaced Pages point of view. Information is presented in a certain way on Misplaced Pages. Eschewing descriptive titles has nothing to do with keeping information out of Misplaced Pages. It has everything to do with the organizing principle of this particular encyclopedia. It has to be understood that every information source has its strengths and its weaknesses and its peculiarities. The endorsement of descriptive titles grows out of trying to make wiki do what it is not supposed to do. The strength of Misplaced Pages is its reliance on sources coupled with its broad base of support. But a multitude of Wikipedians must be held accountable to a close adherence to sources. Fundamentally, descriptive titles are a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. It is not hard, for instance, to see descriptive titles as in violation of original research. The article that flows from such a descriptive title is also undefined. Its parameters are nonexistent, at least not as concerns a definition that can be looked to in sources. Lacking a definition, editors endlessly bicker about the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no access to a 'basic policy' or something fundamental which overrides the policy agreed by consensus and which describes what people do. Anyway all titles are descriptive - they describe the topic. The title is not the topic, it is a description of the topic. The topic is what needs notability. Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever there are instances of disagreement as to what titles should be there is inevitably, and there should be, discussion of sources. There is no escaping it — Misplaced Pages is fundamentally about sources. When editors present an argument to support a preferred title they inevitably do so with reference to sources. That is the Misplaced Pages way. Recourse to sources is inevitable, even when defending one's personal preference in title. Misplaced Pages's strength is close adherence to sources and Misplaced Pages's weakness is lax enforcement of the fundamental policies that require close adherence to sources. Whenever a topic is "concocted," a descriptive title is used. A concocted topic is one which does not have sources specifically referring to it. A lax orientation to "descriptive titles" only makes it more likely that poorly-sourced material will find its way into the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying many made up topics have descriptive titles does not mean that the descriptive titles are all of made up topics. It is a warning flag, that's all. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since existing policies deal with poorly-sourced material and non-neutral points of view already, what problem will making a policy or guideline regarding descriptive titles solve? And what guideline, policy or reliable source defines which titles are descriptive and which are not? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although content policies already deal with poorly-sourced material and non-neutral points of view already, they they are directed towards the content of articles, not titles, and are based on the implicit assumption that the article title matches the subject matter in everyway. For Descriptive article titles, the opposite is true: the scope of the article is restricted such that the content must match the title. The best definition I can offer is that a descriptive article titles are given to "meta-topics", i.e. topics that are about topics, as opposed to being a "sub-topics" i.e. topics within topics.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It means anything which is described rather than named. To make up a few title, I don't know if these exists, Manufacture of pulley blocks, Steps to sainthhood, Jungs early life, Representations of the fourth dimension, Clock mechanisms, anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is silly to say that titles are distinctly different from articles. I believe it is correct that article titles should not require sources. But descriptive titles are like a band-aid on an article that shouldn't be written in the first place. Descriptive titles go hand-in-hand with articles on topics that do not have sources delineating the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding articles that shouldn't exist, if the problem is that the article should not exist in the first place, why not deal with that problem directly, instead of putting up a band-aid of a policy or guideline? And it seems to me that unless there's a strict definition of what descriptive title is, the policy will just lead to endless discussions about which titles fall under the policy guidelines, and which do not, followed by lots of creative renaming of article titles. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any descriptive titles. Descriptive titles are a loophole in[REDACTED] law. Titles should relate to what articles are about. If it is not known what an article is about, that is a good indication that an article shouldn't exist. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages law"? You do realize that everything is guided by consensus, and policy and guidelines are only there to establish what the norms are?

To Nuujinn's point, I strong agree that numerous discussions over the last year(s) have pointed to a need to determine when it is appropriate OR/synthesis to create an article on a topic that may not be explicitly be covered by sources but clearly falls out when putting all the sources together. I'm drafting up something on this right now. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At WP:NPOV I find, "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." I also find, "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." I think that basic Misplaced Pages policy is "non-negotiable." Perhaps I spoke too quickly when I made a reference to "wikipedia law." I would retract that. But what I was trying to reference is fundamental Misplaced Pages policy. Fundamental Misplaced Pages policy should not be modified, not even if consensus believes that it should. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is still recognizing there are no rules, WP is not a bureaucracy. That's why WP:IAR exists, and why consensus drives policy, not the other way around. As to applying to descriptive articles titles, I can see how some titles fail NPOV ("Criticism of X" ones push that) but that doesn't mean all descriptive titles are bad. There is nothing that immediately fails the basic core policies from descriptive topics in general. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is a consensus view of how best to produce the encyclopaedia just like practically everything else. See . Your interpretation of the policy as it applies to titles is not a consensus view. The consensus view is given by the policy on titles, i.e. this policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Masem's approach, which is very subjective. Masem's view is that it is alright for editors to makeup or create descriptive titles in the same way as sub-headings within articles. He forgets that sub-headings are merely a convenience for sub-dividing articles into discrete sections, but he forgets they are not article topics in their own right. I don't agree with his approach, because the use of descriptive titles based on some vague relationship between the title and its content is based on editorial opinion, not what the coverage is about. In short, Masem is prepared to ignore WP:NOT#OR if the article content can be sourced and the title is not controversial. In my view, there needs to be more that just a vague relationship between a descriptive titles and their content: only high quality sources can justify their use, and demontrate that the title title has not been "concocted". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — Ignore all rules can be restated as "ignore all unimportant rules." We only ignore the basic rules at the peril of the project. You point out that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, at which I find cautionary instruction against instruction creep. But there is no "instruction creep" inherent in cleaving to basic Wikipdeia policies — WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:NPOV.

Dmcq — I'm only citing WP:NPOV as an example. WP:NPOV is an example of fundamental policy that should not be tampered with. The same sacrosanct quality applies to for instance WP:VER and WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, IAR is not meant to ignore the unimportant rules, it is to ignore all rules if it betters the encyclopedia. That means, for example, if including some information that fails to meet the WP:V though improves the work, we do that. Now, I would be really really hard-pressed to think of a situation where adding something that fails WP:V is "improving the encyclopedia", but I'm sure if we wait long enough there will be such a case; we just cannot rule it out. There are only two major limitations that we have in "rules" where IAR cannot apply because they come from higher than consensus, that being the Foundation, and that is how we treat BLPs and how we treat non-free content.

The point is that the policy and guidelines are not objective despite how people read them. They are apply as consensus applies them, which means common sense and group agreement outweighs the written text when conflicts arise.

Getting back to descriptive article titles (and not the issue of whether articles with these should exist or not, that's the wrong question to ask here), there is no conflict with any policy for having them. Of course, it depends on your interpretation, as there's also nothing in policy that states that "article titles should be based on sourced title names". But given the use of numerous descriptive title names across WP, I would argue the consensus is that titles don't need to be sourced, but do need to be neutral. But if you want to argue the content of such articles is a problem, that's an agrument to make on a different page. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — it is an arbitrary distinction between title and article. They are different but they are related. Such compartmentalization is preventing us from addressing this issue. The question that we are confronting involves both article content and article titles. It is the concoction that is problematic, whether it be laid at the doorstep of the title or the content of the article. At issue is whether or not we should have articles on arbitrarily construed topics. Do editors have the leeway to construct areas for investigation if those areas for investigation cannot be found in sources. We differ in our response to that question. But we shouldn't be erecting compartmentalizing barriers to addressing that question. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages very much needs those "arbitrary distinctions", so that editors can find the most relevant advice and cut down on forum-shopping. Without the distinctions you deride, Misplaced Pages would have people asking at WT:External links about formatting citations, and at WT:V about uploading images.

This particular advice page is for editors seeking advice about what to put in the URL (and usually the first sentence) of a given article. We have another page for whether that article should exist at all. If you want to propose banning all subjects that aren't called by proper nouns, or split-off "child" articles, or whatever else falls into your notion of 'subjects that have to be described', then please go to WT:N and suggest it. No discussion here will change either the deletion policy or the inclusion guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(@Busstop) I disagree: there are two issues. One is the allowance for creation of what I'm presently calling "synthesized topics" (Which should not be taken to necessarily mean bad, just that, as you and Gavin are stating, are not the type where the topic is explicitly called out by sources, but can be built from numerous sources). The second issue, based on the presumption that such synthesized topics are appropriate for WP (and my believe, given the shear numbers of them, is that they are), is how to deal with titles that introduce biased terms. The first issue is not appropriate for here, but the second issue is. That's the separation that's needed. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding on: taking an example from below, we argue left and right about the validity of having a synthesized topic like "History of condoms" or "List of Dilbert characters" (the first issue), but I doubt anyone would ever question the descriptive titles of those articles as controversial or needed refinement. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem has missed the point: a descriptive article title does not have to be controversial to be problematical; for example, content forks arise all the time through minor or trivial varitions in titles. The effect of using descriptive article titles is that the scope of the topic is drastically restricted, and the risk of content forking is increased. Implicit in the general notability guideline is an assumption that the article title is the right one, but that is not always the case. Before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title, controversial or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be inconsistencies in article naming across synthesized topics (eg, "List of characters from X" vs "List of X characters") but that is a vastly different issue compared to "X controversy" or "Criticism of X" which imply a bias and what we need to focus on. Inconsistencies are a much easier matter to resolve. Also, there is never a "right" title, just like there is never a "right" version of an article. We aim for what consensus believes is the most apt title for an article. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these are sweeping generalisations. This proposal is designed to address those instances of descriptive titles where there is a dispute. Maybe we can't agree on what is the "right" article title in every case (if it was that simple, agreement would be easy), but if there identify what is the "wrong" sort of article title, then we can move towards creating some guidance that address the cause. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we're still conflating two issues, the validity of articles on synthesized topics, and the avoidance or source-backing of contentious names. When you get to non contentious names, it's very difficult to see "disputes" coming that aren't already covered by suggests on WP:AT and by simple consistency approaches that are likely too varied to be handled in WP:AT. It is a concern, but highly unrelated to this main discussion. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Gavin's assertion that "Before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title". I do not have to know whether the article will be called "Heart attack" or "Myocardial infarction" to determine that one of the biggest causes of death worldwide is a notable subject. Notability (explicitly) deals with topics, not URLs or the contents of the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Example articles

Bus stop, you asserted above that "There shouldn't be any descriptive titles."

What would you do with an article like History of condoms, which was split off the lengthy main article to comply with WP:DUE? Give it a non-descriptive title?

What about Development of the inner German border? This title communicates the pages contents in a straightforward and unbiased fashion, but it's still 'descriptive', as no scholarly sources use exactly that phrase.

Have you considered Creation of legal relations in English law? This, too, is a descriptive title.

What about List of Dilbert characters? I doubt that you'll find any reliable sources to support that specific title over other options (e.g., "List of characters in the Dilbert comic strip").

While we might want to apply a good deal of common sense and a bit of WP:Words to watch to article titles, the fact that the title describes the contents of the page in plain English is not necessarily inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the History of condoms is a topic which a reliable source has written about, then it is a bona fide topic, but if not, then it has been made up. Lets say that the article title is undecided, then consider this question: what should the article title be? "History of condoms" or "History of prophylactics or "History of rubbers"? It seems to me, that depends on what the sources say, and in this case they point to "History of the condom" . If this article was the subject of a dispute about the article title, this is probably the choice supported by the sources. Since "History of condoms" is close, I personally would accept this choice, but I would defer to sources if push came to shove. This is a good example of a descriptive title that is the subject of high quality sources, even though the sourced title has not been used. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the title was 'The history of your little friends overcoat' would you insist on that instead of History of the condom? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What ever title is proposed, it would have to backed up by high quality sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting we should have to use 'The story of steam' instead of History of the steam engine because 'the story of steam' is the most popular title for such histories? Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask, backed up by sources exactly how? Do you mean that the phrase occurs in scholarly sources? Or do you mean that there is a book, a corpus of work, a field of study, or a discipline denoted by the phrase? Or something else? --Nuujinn (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As in names of books on the subject. Since when did scholarly names take precedence over common names in this policy? Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly none of the references on that article are very close to either name though there are two external links which are close - "A descriptive history of the steam engine" and "A History of steam". Does this make History of the steam engine a concocted title for a meta-topic or whatever it is that people who disagree with descriptive names say. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was completely unclear, and my question was really more for Gavin. Some editors are asserting, I believe, that titles would have to be sourced. I'm not at all sure I agree in the first place, since a title is ultimately just a label, but for the sake of argument, I'm asking what criteria would be applied. In your example, I would suggest History of the steam engine is a fine title without any direct sourcing. But if sources for a title were required, would it be sufficient that the string "a descriptive history of the steam engine" occur in a paper or other scholarly work? Would a reliable newspaper or magazine suffice? Or would we require a chapter heading in a book, or the title of a book? Or must there needs be a corpus of work including many references? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is why high quality sources should always be sought to substantiate the use of descriptive artitle titles. The reason is relates to the point made by Dmcq: the sources suggest lots of alternative titles, so which one to choose? In this case, I would look through all the potential sources and rank them in terms of the reliability of the soources and the quality/depth of coverage which they offer. In answer Nuujinn, this means going through the sources, and ranking the sources in terms of quality of source and coverage, and a choice of title should become obvious.

Going back to the example of steam power which is a topic that is covered by a huge body of sources, article titles are very important, because there is the potential for lots of content forks. For example Steam power during the Industrial Revolution probably covers an identical subject matter as the History of the steam engine. Going back to what Bus stop said earlier, whenever a topic is "concocted," a descriptive title is used. A concocted topic is one which does not have sources specifically referring to it. And their use has the potential to create countless content forks, which is why the guidance in this proposal is needed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And there again is that implied invalid logic. A concocted topic does not have sources specifically referring to it, therefore if the title is not specific referred to it is a concocted topic. Steam power during the Industrial Revolution and History of the Steam Engine are neither referred to specifically and certainly are not the most common names. "The Story of Steam" is a fairly common name and there have been books DVDs articles and exhibitions named that and it might be suitable for a couple of coloured pages in a children's encyclopaedia but it really isn't suitable as a title in Misplaced Pages that I can see. As far as I'm concerned all titles on Misplaced Pages should be descriptive titles and named titles are best because they straightforwardly convey what the topic is about. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gavin, you didn't really answer my question, which is, what would constitute an acceptable threshold for references for a given title? In prior discussions I think there has been disagreement about what would count as an acceptable level of sourcing. And in regard to content forking, we already have a policy on that issue--if the problem we are trying to solve is the content of a given article, I think we have already sufficient policies in place, and other venues would be more apropropriate for those discussions. I would suggest if we lack sufficient will/time/interest/consensus to fix bad content under current policies, a policy on article titles will likely do nothing to address the problem. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Nuujinn, the proposal makes this clear: The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail.

The problem of descriptive or segmented article titles is related to content forks, but they are seperate and distinct issues. Which comes first, the descriptive article title or the content fork? Since this is a Chicken or the egg dilemma, the best way is to attack from both ends at once, so that is why we need this proposal.

However, this is not the only problem that the inappropriate use of descriptive article titles gives rise to: the main one is the use of article titles as contentious labels.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's clear--I do not know what you or others mean by it, and "high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail" is pretty vague, esp. with the use of the phrase "high-quality", which is a subjective measure. By "address the article topic directly and in detail", do you mean extended discussion of the phrase itself, or use of the phrase in connection with discussion of that which is denoted by the phrase? IOW, using the example History of the steam engine, is it sufficient that a similar phrase, eg. "we'll examine the history of the steam pressure engines" occurs in a single article that traces the history of the steam engine, or is it required that there be some work that discusses various histories of steam engines, thus treating the phrase as content? Also, I would suggest there is no "chicken and egg problem" here since we're not concerned with which came first (and that is the essence of the chicken and egg problem), but rather with improving wikipedia. Do you really believe that the content policies are currently insufficient to deal with POV forks? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Content forks are a seperate issue, and it is not our job here to deal with them directly. However, descriptive titles can be a symptom of a content fork, and it is this proposal that seeks to treat this seperate problem.

If idea that descriptive article titles need high quality sources to justify their use is not clear to you, then have a look at WP:REDFLAG on which this propsal is based. Descriptive articles titles are analogous to extraordinary claims: they can be problem if they can't be substantiated, because that opens the door to editorial disputes about their validity.

To substatiate a descriptive article title, there should be coverage from reliable sources that "address the article topic directly and in detail", a principle borrowed from WP:OR, which I would quote as follows:

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

This is a principle taken up further in WP:OR#Using sources, which I think is highly relevant here, because if there is a mismatch between the article content and the article title, then I think we can agree there is something wrong with the title.

I think we are all agreed that descriptive titles can be problematical, in the sense that they title defines or restrict the scope of coverage. That may be the right approach for some well soruced topics, but where it is not, this guidance addresses the issue of content/title mismatch. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with much of what you are saying, and I endorse your intent. "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I'm asking how that would apply to an article title, which is substantially different that the content of an article. A title, by its natural, lacks material. It's a label, nothing more. What constitutes sourcing of that label?

• Is use of the phrase in a reliable source sufficient, if that source treats the content of the article?
• Is use of similar phrase in a reliable source sufficient, if that source treats the content of the article?
• Is something more required, and if so, what?

If those questions cannot be answered, the policy is certainly not clearly defined. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It was rejected at WP:Notability, and I think that this is little more than asking the other parent to interfere with the community consensus -- a bit of "Fine, the community approved (some of) these kinds of articles, but they can't give them titles!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter enormously if a title is descriptive or not until someone objects to it. If someone objects to it, a discussion ensues. If the result of the discussion is that the title is indeed descriptive, then that title should be disallowed. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And replaced by what? "History of the condom"? Isn't that an equally descriptive titles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the point of this proposal: its a descriptive title that is supported by high quality coverage that can withstand challenge. In answer to Nuujinn, I am not sure that the procedure or the mechanics of identifying the the article title that is supported by high quality coverage, because that is a matter for editorial discussion and agreement, and the process followed will be unique to a particular topic. For instance, if you go back to the section on Example: Climategate, you will see that the debate was lengthy and took lots of twists and turns. The only way this debate can be described is by saying "The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires high-quality coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail". Resolution of these disputes will not be simple or straight forward, but we do know that when push comes to shove, the quality of the coverage given to a particular title is the key. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Much too restrictive. The subject of an article must be notable, not the title. What the title should be is a matter of style only. Given an appropriate subject, we find the most appropriate title, using judgment based on the available sources. The title need not necessarily be externally validated, though it usually would be. The title of an article need not be even mentioned, let alone addressed directly, by sources--this is confusing the title with the subject. We're not extracting an article from existing sources, we're writing an article based on existing sources, using our own words, including our own title according to our own conventions. articles. Gavin's argument is the one he has been using to object to articles such as list of XYZ because nobody has specifically written a source discussing the concept of making a list of XYZs. i.e., we could not make an article on list of congressmen, because nobody has written a publication discussing extensively and directly in detail what way we should make a list of congressmen, it would not be enough though there be extensive works both on the concept of "congressman" and on each of therm. It's the article not the title which must withstand challenge. The subject is what is covered, not the title. The effect, and perhaps the purpose, of this requirement is an excuse to object to otherwise valid and well-accepted types of articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Example: History of the steam engine

What is the name of the topic the history of steam engines or why is it is an unacceptable topic for an encyclopaedia like wikipedia? With your policy a deletionist would nominate it for AfD and following to such a policy it would be deleted. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are agreed it is an encyclopedic topic in its own right, so outright deletion is unlikely, even if the title is disputed. But going back to my earlier post, I noted that Steam power during the Industrial Revolution probably covers an identical subject matter as the History of the steam engine. Using this as a starting point, if I was to propose a merger betweeen the two topics, say, what title would the new article have? The title of the merged article could easily be disputed if it is unsourced, and it is at this point that the editors involved would come to this guideline and decide that the choice of title does require high quality sources to support it against a future challenge.

After a review of the sources, a title could be agreed on that is supported by high quality coverage from reliable sources. For example, there are several viable alternatives, such as "Development of steam power" which lend themselves to this particular topic, and may be this might be chosen as a suitable article topic if the the best of sources address this particular topic directly and in detail. Note that this title is just based purely on my own view (I have not reviewed all the articles concerned), but I think this illustrates the process. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And that begs the question as to how one would define "high quality coverage from reliable sources" in reference to the phrase "Development of steam power" versus "History of the steam engine". I suggest that we try to actually do that with these two terms to see how it would work. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can describe what are high quality sources would look like, and neither does WP:REDFLAG, as this is all relative and specific to a particular topic. But I think that statement is clear that editors should assume, that just because a title may be suggested by one source, they should not presume that is the right title; rather they should examine all the sources, and from their review decide what coverage from reliable sources is of higher quality than others, and come to an agreement as to which title reflects them. Note I am not dismissing the points raised Nuujinn points, I am trying to demonstrate how they are accomodated by the proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a better title; History of steam power. Development of steam power might be misinterpreted as a physical descripton of a steam engine powering up. However, I have no clear idea how to fix classes of article titles or if such a fix is even needed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess you'd have a similar strange interpretation of 'The Age of Steam' then which I believe is probably the most common name for the topic ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have equally strange interpretation of the "History of steam power". If history is the study of the human past, then it is probably a descriptive article title best left to topics which describe human, rather than mechanical development over the ages. I think this example illustrates the pitfalls of descriptive article titles quite well: there are a wide range of editorial views as to how this topic should be named. There is already evidence that there are divergent views is the existence of two article addressing the same topic: History of the steam engine and Steam power during the Industrial Revolution all come under the Age of Steam. This proposal addresses these issues in a sensible way, and in my view could be used to assist editors to form a consensus as to what the best supported article title could be. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting addition

Gavin attempted to add his language despite the RFC having only run about a week and seeing no SNOW-like consensus to presume it can be closed early in agreement. Please wait until there is resolution to add this. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My eyes have glazed over at the reams of text above and I can't tell how many are in favour of Gavin's proposal or not. I must say that I am, that a cautionary note is a very good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But please explain what your specific objections are, if any, and lets come to a common understanding of the issues. I am sticking my neck out here by making my ideas explicit; a little support or some constructive criticism would be gratefully received. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Several problems by myself and others have been shown above already, the first that this conflates the issues of appropriate of articles that need descriptive titles, and descriptive titles themselves. And secondly, that the requirement that descriptive titles have the backing of sources is in question. Given those are the underpinnings of your entire proposal, it is difficult to otherwise pinpoint specific problems with it otherwise until those points are addressed. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say it "conflates" the issues, do you mean it combines the two? It seems to me you can't have a descriptive article title without an article, so I am not sure what alternative you have in mind. If you have a proposal for change do make it clear. Criticism is welcome, but if its not focused, or specific, then we could be here all day trying to guess what you have in mind. I have made several changes already to bring in the ideas that have surfaced during the discussions. I am asking you now, what specific changes would you like to make, if any? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason we are at this discussion falls all the way back to "Criticism of Judaism" and other similarly titled articles, the point there being that the poor choice of the word "Criticism" leads to people adding poor information to the article because of their impression of that. Thus, focusing only on that single issue, what probably likely has consensus is something like The use of biased words like "criticism" or "scandal" in article titles should only be used if that is how the topic is most often referred to in reliable sources; in all other cases, the article title should be rewritten to remain neutral and avoid the use of such language. Everything else in your proposal, while related, goes far beyond this basic idea and introduces concepts that are either not appropriate here (the fact that we should be determined what are appropriate articles that use descriptive titles, which is an inclusion metric, not style/content) or bring in issues that seem like non-issues to most (like the whole non-contentious "History of the steam engine" discussion above). Note that I'm not saying some of these other elements aren't worthy of being considered overall within p/g on WP, just that they don't belong at WP:AT. It is completely possible to separate these issues of titling and article appropriateness for this discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to these proposed wording changes which essentially (albeit done in good faith) are an underhanded way of attacking a lot of articles that some editors just don't like. WP:Article Titles is a policy that specifies a naming convention necessary to create an encyclopedia with a consistent, reliable navigational structure. WP:Article Titles is not about notability. The Subject of articles must be notable and the content must not be OR, not the explicit title. The proposed changes will cause chaos at AfD as this backdoor attempt at policy change will become a silver bullet for deletionists.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• In answer to Masem, if you recognise that the descriptive title "Criticism of Judaism" is a "bad choice", on what basis do you make that judgement? Don't get me wrong, I share that view as well, but they are just our gut feelings. The source of our disquiet is simple: a review of the article suggests that there is no coverage, from any source, that addresses the topic directly or in detail: at no point in the article is the topic of Judaism itself actually being criticised, its actually the tenets of belief that are actually being addressed directly and in detail. The fact that the title is biased is merely a by product of a lack of coverage for this topic. Whilst you and Mike say that this proposal goes far beyond the basic idea of "bad choice", I think you have to admit there has to be some form of metric which can be used to determine whether a descriptive article title is a good or a bad choice beyond editorial opinion. To this end, we would have to look at the quality of the coverage: if there is no significant coverage about the topic described in the title, then its just not appropriate, is it?
• Mike is right that this policy is not about notability. However, implicit within WP:N is that the a "good choice" of article has already been made. If a descriptive article title describes its subject matter (which is what such titles are designed to do), then you can see that there is a link between the choice or article title and the notability of the topic it describes. Article title and notability are indeed seperate issues, but they are closely linked (two sides of the same bridge, so to speak): if there is no coverage to demonstrate notability of a defined topic, then there is not going to be any coverage to support the article title either (and vice versa). Up to now, all the discussions about article titles have floundered on this issue, because, if we don't recognise what is on the other side of bridge, we cannot resolve disputes over article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• But see, you are still forcing this connection between notability and article titles. First, and most importantly, notability only applies to topics, not articles; there is a major different between a topic and article, and it is not a 1-to-1 relationship that every topic only has one article or that an article needs a wholly separate topic to be encyclopedic (particularly when coupled with SIZE). Notability has to be removed from the equation, and WP:AT only start on the presumption that the article content is appropriate for inclusion on WP. At which point we only concern ourselves if the title is the most common name or the most unbiased name or one otherwise backed by sources.
• I don't disagree that content of articles with descriptive titles needs to be subject to careful examination to make sure unwanted OR, baised viewpoints, and otherwise inappropriate inclusion of poorly sourced materials. But that is a different ball of wax that doesn't involve article titles directly, and one that I'm working on a starting language for future discussion. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The notability of subjects is the only thing discussed in WP:N, and we have enough problems over that. If there is anything basic to our ever being able to resolve issues over content, is that the notability of a subject is not a discussion of the particular contents within an article. We settle disputes over titles by discussing them. In a few cases, the disputes have required further dispute resolution, but I can think of no occasion where we have literally been unable to agree on a title for an otherwise acceptable subject. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of articles with perfectly good verifiable titles that have been rejected because the subject is not notable: showing the name of a person exists is not proof of suitability for an article. Once we have sources to write an article, and agree the subject is suitable, we find the best title. We do not have to excerpt the title from a particular source, or prove the title by itself is notable. This argument has been raised before, primarily at list articles, and uniformly rejected because it would lead to the absurd result we could not make a list of , say, senators, unless other people have written an article about the concept of there being a list of senators. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue that this proposal seeks to address is descriptive article titles that are not verifiable, or if they are, there are verifiable titles that are better alternatives because they are supported by the significant coverage. This proposal is not primarily a way of rejecting titles; rather it is mechanism that ensures that a particular descriptive title can withstand challenge from other editors who may have different opinions about its validity. We don't have to prove that a title is notable; rather, that the title fits the topic or subject. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to drop "significant coverage" from your proposal as that's a facet of notability, which is not part of this. I agree that we should give weight to a title that is oft-used in relevant literature over one that is completely original if that original title is contentious, but that only required that the title is used repeatedly in many different sources - even in passing - not "supported by the significant coverage". Again, any proposal here should immediately start from the assumption the article contents are allowed by consensus on WP, and focus only on the naming issue to make the article title the best we can do for that content. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is still very unclear as to what would constitute verifiability of the title. Why would detailed coverage in reliable sources be a requirement for an article title if the contents of same pass muster for notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question Nuujinn! I await with anticipation on the answer.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly, the addition kept talking about significant coverage and verifiability and led up to "The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Misplaced Pages requires significant coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail." This does not describe accepted practice or anything that happens at AfD. It is simply false. This seems to me to be another attempt to to change the policy and delete articles like Scientific consensus on climate change because of minor differences in the terms used or because the actual title used wasn't the main title of a book etc. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have flushed out an issue that important to this proposal, and that is about whether descriptive article titles can be supported by editorial opinion alone. I don't want to judge Dmcq viewpoint, but if there are differences of opinion about an article title, how do you resolve those differences? I agree with him that a particular title does not have to be used verbatim, because it should be possible to determine what the subject matter of an article is through the coverage in the article. The problem with descriptive article titles is that the coverage of in the article is restricted by the title, and what this proposal is trying to do is to arrive at a formula whereby it is possible to determine whether that restriction is supported by high quality coverage, or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am in favor of the change that Gavin Collins has been trying to bring about. My own feeling is that descriptive titles cut against basic policy. My own feeling is that the term "descriptive title" should not be used as a defense against opposition to an article that involves a sort of synthetic area of investigation. That is the key to all matters concerning this issue — opposition. I feel that any title is potentially acceptable. But it is not infrequently found that points of view are pushed by the very selection of an area for investigation. Contrived areas of investigation can hopelessly frustrate the implementation of NPOV. When editors object to articles that address artificially cobbled together topics, there should be no defense in calling the title a "descriptive title." Sources have to identify the overarching theme of an article or a descriptive title should be deemed invalid. Obviously what I am saying identifies a link between article titles and article topics. There is a natural relationship between the two. We should be thinking of "descriptive titles" as tentatively acceptable. If no one objects — then they are fine. But the concept of a descriptive title should no longer be considered acceptable in the face of editorial objection to synthetically created topics. Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop - Although I suspect you don't realize it, your statement: If no one objects — then they are fine. But the concept of a descriptive title should no longer be considered acceptable in the face of editorial objection to synthetically created topics. argues to make the boresome behavior of I don't like it OK and to put the burden of keeping an article on those who do like it by imposing almost impossible criteria (that any title, unless the explicit wording of the title was covered by sources is synthetically created, and therefore bad). WP:Article titles is pure and simple, a naming convention policy. The section on Descritive title is a sub-section of Neutrality and article titles. The aim of the policy is to create title that are not judgemental. This policy is not about WP:V, WP:GNG or WP:OR and any attempt to make it so must fail for the sake of the future of WP. This policy is about a naming convention that is consistent with and promotes WP:NPOV. Please don't try an rationalize it into a tool for the I don't like it crowd.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Cline. These discussions keep drifting back to content issues, as is a policy on guideline on titles will prevent bad articles. I don't see much problem with an article title that is descriptive sitting atop of a well written neutral article, and I don't think a pretty title will fix a badly written, non-neutral article. I also think defining what counts as detailed coverage in reliable sources is impossible, since a title is a label and thus has no content per se--and that means someone has to make a jump from the string used in the title to strings used in sources, and so far, no one has been able to say how that would occur. Honestly, I can't see how that process would not fall afoul of OR anyway, but maybe that's just me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the academic tone of these arguments. They are impressive.

My pet peeve as to title (content "sort of" okay but winds up lumping two events together that probably shouldn't be is Red Scare, implying that people overreacted to a threat. While the overreaction should be documented, it is not done under an academic title, which bothers me. Ironically, the article is highly subject to persistent vandalism because of the title which is a bit frivolous.

If "Criticism of Judaism" is pov, what would be an acceptable title? "A critical analysis of Judaism"? That seems to promise a bit much on our part. More than we can deliver perhaps. Almost invites WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Red Scare, it is an academically used term (). It's also the common name that describes the two periods. Per what Gavin is saying, we'd only be able to use Red Scare if it was documented that way -- which it is, in addition to being a common name term for those periods. It does have negative connotations, but it is the most "correct" title that coincides with the sources. Any other title is going to be descriptive.

For the Criticism of Judaism, it has been suggests that "Critical opinion of" or "Critical analysis of" are neutral replacements, since neither now suggest only negative criticism. (And again, "Criticism" itself is technically neither positive or negative as defined, but in practical use it is primarily negative critiques of the topic, and thus the need to change it). --MASEM (t) 15:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if "Critical opinion of" is more neutral, the effect of the descriptive title is the same: it restricts the scope of the article, and for that reason, a descriptive title should be supported by high quality coverage. This is more than just a matter of liking or disliking a particular title, or making more or less judgmental. Rather it is the restriction that the title puts on the scope of coverage. If the sources support the use of a descriptive article, then the restriction is justified. But as Bus Stop says, if the title is contrived, the restriction works against WP:NPOV, because where there are no sources to justify the restriction, then editorial opinion determines content, and editors become gatekeepers rather than facilitators.

Going back to the title example of "Criticism of Judaism", its hard to say what sources define the topic or provide details of it origin, if any; all that we know is that the title restricts the scope of coverage to criticism. After that, its downhill all the way: there lots of scope for POV pushing and editorial claims to ownership over the article. Maybe a source will be found that defines the topic, but until then, its hard to say that this is anything other than coatrack article. We need this proposal to help resolve disputes over such article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do. More importantly, if the problem is the content of the article, we have policies to deal with that problem. We may fail to deal with those problems, or choose to ignore them, but it I do not think it is a lack of policies that constrains us. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — "Criticism of Judaism" is just a sequence of three words. It has obvious applicability in all sorts of contexts. But it is merely being used. No source can be found suggesting that it has any particular meaning. It is used as needed. No source using that sequence of words is suggesting that a particular scope of material is being referred to. Editors have argued on that article's Talk page as to what should be included under "criticism of Judaism" but no editor has pointed to a source to support their opinion. That is because no source of that sort exists. WP:RS says "If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Descriptive titles are a necessary component of all articles lacking sources for their overall theme. There may be sources for what might be called the sub-components of such an article. But the article in its scope is lacks a source. And also the parameter chosen may be difficult to reconcile with NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still arguing about the notability and worthiness of the topics. That's an issue to discuss, but not one for this page. To get anywhere on this page, we need to presume that the topic is appropriate to include, but the whole discussion if that's worthwhile to include is elsewhere. And because it is a highly consensus-based issue like notability, that's a guideline page not policy. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability and article titles are two ends of the same bridge, in the sense that if the sources cited in the article don't support the title, then it is unlikely that the topic is notable. The problem with descriptive article titles is that they can be used to mask a lack of notability by creating artificial restrictions on the scope of the subject matter. In the case of the article Criticism of Judaism, the article topic is actually about Judaism, but by differentiating it from that article by putting "Criticism of..." in front of it, a topic with narrower scope has been created. In the case of "Criticism of Judaism", the article was originally created as coatrack article.

It is entirely proper and natural to discuss article titles and the notability of their subject matter in tandem, and the argument that they should be be is not a valid criticism of this proposal as I see it. The editorial decision to restrict the scope of an article can be a good one where there are lots of sources to support a standalone article, e.g. History of Judaism, but where there are no sources available, the descriptive article titles such as "Criticism of..." have no meaning in the real world, and the origin and definition of the article topic are only known to the editor who created the article. The issue of descriptive article titles and notability are both separate but connected, so we can't discuss the two in isolation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They are completely separate issues. Once the consensus has determined that we should have an article about a topic not explicitly outlined in sources but can be inferred, how to name it is a complete separate issue. How we name such is policy (this page), but whether we include them or not is highly subjective and always will be, at beast, guideline material. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Masem — all synthetic articles require descriptive titles, without exception — if an article's topic is not supported in its overall scope then the editor has no alternative but to use a descriptive title. Only a descriptive title will do. Descriptive titles facilitate the creation and ongoing defense of articles that perhaps do not deserve to exist. WP:RS says "If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Any discussion of descriptive titles should be including a discussion of their important use in supporting articles on topics that are not supported in their entire scope by sources. What you are citing is a technical reason not to address an important aspect of the use of descriptive titles. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And you're saying exactly what I'm saying: "Descriptive titles facilitate the creation and ongoing defense of articles that perhaps do not deserve to exist." while I don't agree with that exact sentiment, says that whether we include articles with descriptive titles is an inclusion/notability issues, and not a function on WP:AT. Once it is presumed the content should be kept (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination)) , only does then this page come into play. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the crux of the issue, from my point of view. If an article violates WP:OR, there's already a policy in place to deal with it, so this policy isn't needed. And if an article has a descriptive title, but does not violate WP:OR, there's no need for this policy, since there's no problem in the first place. And if we cannot come to consensus that an article should be deleted, that suggests that the community finds some value in the content. Many articles need work, and we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I also think it is telling that discussions on this policy on titles invariably come back to content issues, and that we apparently cannot come to any consensus about what would constitute detailed coverage in reliable sources for a title. Although I applaud the intent, I personally see nothing gained by the policy worded the way it is now. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — a few posts up you say, "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do." And above you say, "…we apparently cannot come to any consensus about what would constitute detailed coverage in reliable sources for a title." Consider the article: "Qualia". We find this sentence in the Qualia article: "Clarence Irving Lewis, in his book Mind and the World Order (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense." Notice the implication that there is a "…generally agreed modern sense." I am not claiming to know much about the subject of that article. But the point that I am trying to make is that there is the suggestion that there is a generally agreed upon understanding of what we are referring to when we use the term "qualia." That is the sort of support that we expect to see in sources. If supporting sources are not present it is debatable that such an article should exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that qualia is a descriptive title? It does not seem so to me, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — you are say that, "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do." That is not even a "descriptive title." That should be called a "suggestive title." Notice that the "Qualia" article has a first paragraph devoted to "Definitions of qualia." It is an article that does its best to define its subject. You are saying "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism," but this is largely incorrect. There is no definition of the topic and by-and-large there are not to be found any sources that establish that topic. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In regard to definitions, WP should not define terms, but rather defer to sources or rely on common knowledge. In regard to Criticism of Judaism, what the string denotes is not really in question, I think--if there were a definition found in academic sources, it would likely be an narrow one used for the particular critical work. In parallel, where is to be found a definition of "development of the steam engine" or "the age of steam". Any descriptive title will likely lack a concrete definition, in that regard we are in agreement.

In regard to Criticism of Judaism, there is substantial disagreement as to what kinds of criticism belong in that article versus other articles. Those disagreements are fundamentally content disputes, and, given the number and breadth of articles related to various aspects of all religions, I'm not particularly concerned with those distinctions, but rather with the quality of the individual articles--these articles form a mesh covering the topic. However, this is an issue of content, irrelevant, I think, to this discussion.

That leaves the question of whether or not there are adequate sources under the proposed policy for the title "Criticism of Judaism". I think that in the particular case there are, if only given the long and substantial traditions of religious apologetics and polemics. That there are more than one such thread of historical discussion means that the content of such an article will necessarily be less homogeneous than most other articles, but personally, I'm not concerned by that, since I see a continuum from disambiguation pages through lists, summary style, "regular" articles, to stubs. But again, that particular problem relates to content, and is not relevant here. But that is all rather beside my main points, which are:

• Absent some clear and concise guideline as to what constitutes detailed coverage in reliable sources, the proposed policy is not very helpful.
• The reasoning for the policy seems to circulate around content--please forgive the oversimplification, but it seems to me that the purpose of the proposed policy is to prevent such articles as violate existing policies--and I'm unsure as to what advantage the policy would provide over current policies.

Sorry to be so long winded, --Nuujinn (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — you say, "In regard to Criticism of Judaism, there is substantial disagreement as to what kinds of criticism belong in that article versus other articles." Actually, there is no connection between that article and other articles. You convey the same notion again, "…these articles form a mesh covering the topic." In point of fact there is neither a topic nor a mesh. All articles are separate, even if several of them begin with the wording "criticism of" followed by the name of a religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the "general drift" of things here but I would be willing to support a change to "Critical analysis of Judaism" or other more objective title. This would also need to be done to all the other articles that have this name, Catholics, etc. Not trivial but not global to this discussion either. Just a possible step in the right direction towards improved objectivity. Student7 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Student7 — you say, "This would also need to be done to all the other articles that have this name, Catholics, etc." No, it would not. They are separate, independent articles. It could be done if one chose, but there is no necessity that that be done. Each article could conceivably have the title editors at that article felt most befitting of the content in that article. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that we're back at what started this whole discussion: "Criticism of X", while from a technical english standpoint, is a neutral title, it is implied to be negatively baised. "Criticism of X" and "Critical analysis of X" are essentially the same topic, but one version removes the implicit analysis. This type of discretion in article titles is what this entire discussion is about, not whether the article should exist or not. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant coverage

There seems to be agreement that descriptive article titles should be supported by coverage from reliable sources, which makes sense if a title is challenged, say, because it is in any way controversial. What I am finding puzzling at the this juncture is that there is resistance to the idea that a controversial article title should be supported by significant coverage, because the only alternatives are mentions in passing or trivial coverage. To date, we have worked through several examples where the article title is subject to challenge, and the only way to resolve the deadlock between rival camps with editorial opinions that are opposed to each other is to look to external sources to see what they say. It seems to me that unless those external sources contain significant coverage about the topic that is the subject of the dispute, it is not possible to resolve a dispute, because only significant coverage contains the depth of coverage sufficient to support the use of a particular topic. If significant coverage is the sticking point in this discussion, how can we get around this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All those elements are elements of concern for notability, and do not belong at this discussion or on this policy page. Also, we need to consider the gap between truly contentious descriptive titles (ones that use peocock/weasel/neogolims/etc to assert a bias) and simple title disputes like "History of the steam engine" above, which certainly are a far cry from a sourcing issue and more a matter of consistency.

Mind you, there is an element in notability in what we expect: If the only logical name for a topic is a contentious descriptive title, then that needs to be backed by sources, and very likely by the logic you have, it would need to be a notable topic of it's own (see Lewinsky scandal). If one finds that the only logical title is a contentious descriptive one but cannot back that by sources, it is probably a bad separate article that was created specifically on a certain bias, and can be integrated/merged elsewhere. But this specifically when we're talking titles that encourage a biased POV just by how they read due to the presence of certain words. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, here’s how we get around this. We stick to the very narrow scope of what the Descriptive Titles section is saying: We don’t create titles that are or appear judgmental. Our titling policy in a naming convention and has no relationship to notability, OR or RS. If the subject/content of an article is otherwise notable, supported with reliable sources, NPOV and not OR, but the title runs afoul of our titling policy, the task is to fix the title, not delete the article. That is done through discussion. Now, if we are trying to strengthen the section Descriptive Titles to aid in those discussions, your idea of sufficient coverage has some merit as a weighting mechanism between opposing views as to the exact wording of the title. If there are five ways to say Criticism of foo, we should use the least judgmental wording or use the wording that is most widely supported by sourcing if consensus can be reach along those lines. The only goal is to create at title that does not appear judgmental, but as well conveys what the article is about. This section cannot be written in a way that allows it to now to applied to any article title. The policy in this section can only be written in a way that clearly makes it applicable only to situations where editors have a legitimate concern over the judgmental nature of a title. Even then, it should only suggest the sufficient coverage mechanism as a useful way to make the title less judgmental. If the policy is written in a way that it can now be applied to any title because an editor doesn’t like the article or content, it has gone beyond the scope of the intent of the Descriptive Titles section.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right.--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several misunderstandings have arisen here. Masem says that only controversial or judgmental article titles should be discussed here, yet it is obvious to me that whether a title is controversial or not is just a subset of what we are trying to deal with. Rather it is any descriptive article title that is challenged or is disputed that this proposal addresses, and whether of not there is significant coverage to support or rebuke that challenge. Since descriptive article titles define the topic by restricting the scope of an article, there has to high quality coverage to support this implicit editorial decision. What may be viewed as controversial or judgmental to one editor may be less so to another, but effect of restricting the scope on what and cannot be included in an article is the same as having a large big sticker in the lede saying "Only add stuff about XYZ" or "Do not add stuff about XYZ" to an article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles and lists

There is a larger issue here, again what I'm calling "synthesized topics" which include lists, spinouts, and other collections that may not be a notable topic but have consensus to be on WP. Descriptive titles are a clear result of synthesized topics, yes, but as been pointed out, this policy is strictly about titles and not article content or anything else about articles. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of notability is a separate issue, and in any case there is no consensus for non-notable topics to have their own articles or lists.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus, but that doesn't mean we allow or disallow them. Which is why any language hear has to sidestep the question of coverage in sources. Any why in a completely separate effort develop a path for achievement when these articles have consensus. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus on this issue, embodied in several Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and Masem knows this and can cite those policies and guidelines if he wants to. We know that lists are just another type of article, just that their format differs. Their content (and therefore their titles) are governed by policies and guidelines just as much as any other mainspace page. To cut a long story short, list topics that are not notable in themselves have no rationale for inclusion, and fail WP:NOT. They also fail WP:UNDUE, because what is the point of listing lots of stuff if the content of the list exceed the content of the articles to which they relate? Again there is no rationale.

Going back to descriptive article titles, if a list does not contain some sort of source that verifies the authorship, origin or definition of the list topic, then that article title can be challenged. This is what happens at WP:AFD: lists that have been completely made up, that cannot be defined, or have coatrack titles get deleted all the time. A descriptive article title may not be the primary focus of a deletion discussion, but a title that is not supported by any source or worse still, is unverifiable, is certainly at risk of deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is not a content issue, and not driven by policy. For every AFD you can point to where such articles and lists were deleted, I'm sure there's other AFD where such was kept. There are concerns on NPOV and NOR within such articles, which do have high priority if these articles are kept, but otherwise it is a consensus-determined result. As long as we have SIZE, we are going to have these types of articles. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Article titles is pure and simple a naming convention, nothing else

Comment this sub-section and the following two are the result of many hours in the clouds at 36,000ft plus thinking about this. Something I hope I don't have to do much longer.

Article titles and article topics (subjects) are distinct elements but often confused. The article topic is essentially: What is this article about?. The article title is a necessary navigational element (articles are indexed and categorized by their titles not their topics) and should convey to the reader: This article is about this topic. Some article titles by necessity are Descriptiv. A third element of articles is the lead-in paragraph, the first few sentences of which acts as sort of a sub-title creating an expanded definition of the article’s topic and sets the plate for the content that follows. It is an understanding of these three elements in combination that is necessary to understand what the policy on article titles WP:Article titles should and should not be.

• Article Topic: Must be notable, supported by WP:V and not OR
• Article Title: Must convey article subject in a NPOV manner and must conform to WP naming conventions to support indexing, navigation and categorizing (this includes descriptive titles)
• Article Lead: Must explain article subject, convey notability, supported by WP:V and not OR or POV. Article leads further clarify concise descriptive titles.

What follows is a discussion of these elements and why any attempt to establish rigid notability WP:V policies for an article title is fraught with problems. In a great many articles the title is exactly the same as the article’s topic. When this occurs, if the subject is notable, then the title presents us with no issues. For example:

• Article topic: Yellowstone National Park, Article title: Yellowstone National Park

There are articles however, where explicit titles differ somewhat from the actual topic because there are many alternative titles that would convey to the reader an otherwise notable but complex article topic in a perfectly acceptable fashion.

• Complex Article topic: The study of wolves in Yellowstone, predator control and extirpation of wolves from Yellowstone, the social, political and environmental battle to re-establish a viable wolf population in Yellowstone, their physical re-introduction into the park and the economic and environmental consequences of that re-introduction. This is a very complex topic with a great many elements, vectors and a wide range of sources (from many conflicting points of view). Article titles (actual): History of wolves in Yellowstone, Wolf reintroduction. Both articles cover the above topic in slightly different ways.
  • In the above case, both of the articles could conceivably have alternative descriptive names, especially if you analyzed the article content. Here are some examples:
    • History of predator control in Yellowstone, History of predator control in Yellowstone National Park, Wolf management in Yellowstone, Consequences of wolf management in Yellowstone, Endangered Species Act impacts on Yellowstone, Endangered wolves of Yellowstone, etc.

Each of the above titles could reasonably be used for the article topic mentioned. Each would be reasonable given that the lead-in would be written in a way to further explain the article topic. Some of these titles are better than others. All are NPOV. Although the title Endangered wolves of Yellowstone is probably neutral, it is a poor title because it implies a context that no longer exists although it technically did exist at one time. However, if the article’s content was restricted to the right context (1995-2008) then the title would be OK although much improved if it was Endangered wolves of Yellowstone (1995-2008). The actual article titles and the alternatives above are descriptive titles, none of which for the most part the explicit wording of which is supported a reliable source. No one in this discussion could, (or would I hope) argue that the topics of the above two articles are not notable. Yet they have descriptive titles whose explicit wording is not supported by reliable sources. The exact phrase: Wolf reintroduction although found in a lot of the literature on the subject, so in reestablishment of wolves, wolf recovery, et al. What is found consistently are the concepts of re-introduction, re-establishment, introduction into, recovery of, wolves, Yellowstone and wolf management in Yellowstone. Each concept might be suitable for an article title. The actual act of re-introduction in Yellowstone was a very short term event (1995-96). Prior to that there was research and political battles to create a legal means to accomplish the re-introduction. After that period, it is about wolf management and the consequences of a re-established wolf population in the park. In the case of History of wolves in Yellowstone, the title describes an article that covers all aspects of wolves in Yellowstone from 1872 to present. Again, the explicit wording of the title is not found in reliable sources. In fact, the most definitive work on the history of Yellowstone wolves up to 1996 is entitled: The Yellowstone Wolf—A Guide and Sourcebook, Schullery (1996), not the History of wolves in Yellowstone. Descriptive titles are necessary in an encyclopedia. Complex and comprehensive subjects require descriptive titles. The only caveat is that a Descriptive title be as NPOV as possible. The burden of notability is on the article’s topic and content, not its title. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Strike the concept of Synthesized topic

Because the term Synthesis has an explicit, and unwelcome meaning in WP WP:SYN, its use in these discussions is misleading and inappropriate. The current Article title policy does not use the term Synthesis, Synthesized or any variation of it in its attempt to establish a WP naming convention policy. It does however use the term Descriptive title, which in my humble attempts to understand and conform to WP policy means a title that describes the article’s subject and content in a somewhat accurate way. As the policy says: Descriptive titles are by necessity created by WP editors to convey the subject (topic) of an article in a concise manner. The more complex the article’s topic, creating a Descriptive Title consistent with our naming convention becomes more challenging. What the phase Synthesized topics implies is that a descriptive title that does not have reliable sources supporting the explicit wording of the title is made up, synthesized, and therefore BAD. Do WP editors create Synthesized Titles and Topics? In other words have articles been created where the topic and title are clearly OR and obviously drawing a conclusion completely unsupported by sources. Indeed they do, but they rarely last long. On the other hand, do editors need to create Descriptive titles that may not be explicitly supported by sources in an effort to concisely convey the topic of a notable and complex article subject? Of course they do. The policy on Descriptive titles is pure and simple a section of policy about a naming convention. It should have only two criteria:

• Descriptive titles should conform to our general naming conventions
• Descriptive titles should be crafted to convey article topics in an NPOV manner

Attempts to juxtaposition the concept of WP:SYN into this discussion is misguided and should be avoided.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What’s the upside to this proposed policy change?

Gavin and his supporters want to change the Descriptive titles policy to essentially require that the explicit wording of an article title be supported by reliable sources. How would this play out?

Article Management of Foo in the 20th century might go something like this. The complete content of the article on Management of Foo in the 20th century shows it is a notable subject, clearly supported with reliable sources. It meets WP:GNG in all respects. But Foo is complex and the study of its management in the 20th century is fragmented into coverage of Foobah, Fooboo, Foobut, and the controversial subject of FooBS. No one source uses the phase Management of Foo in the 20th century and some editors just don’t like the subject of FooBS being in an article in WP. They send it to AfD and cite the new Descriptive titles policy. WP:GNG doesn’t matter—this one has to go because the explicit wording of the title cannot be found in reliable sources.

Now for the upside. There is a reliable source that uses the phase: The folly of FooBS in the 20th century. An article is created that includes this source but covers FooBS in a very unflattering way and to the disparagement of Foo in general. Opponents claim The folly of FooB does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Supporters claim otherwise as there is this other policy (policies supersede guidelines I presume): WP:Article titles that say a descriptive title supported by reliable sources is OK. This little silly scenario demonstrates the folly of any attempt to change the Descriptive titles policy (a naming convention) into something that just cannot be reconciled with WP:GNG. We don’t need multiple, conflicting notability policies and guidelines. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

When a subject or topic has a common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Misplaced Pages should follow the sources

This is ambiguous; a subject can easily have two common names, and many do. For those subjects which do, the rest of the paragraph from which it comes is meaningless. It should say either single common name - as I think was intended - or most common name, which will in general come to the same thing. I don't really care which; I've tried one, and will be inserting the other (clumsy though it will be), since I seem to have attracted a stalker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, using an example. This should allow Yucca brevifolia to be moved to Joshua tree which is clearly evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources? It is moves like this that the wording needs to make clear that the policy is to use the common English-language name. Having multiple English language names like, Yucca palm, Tree yucca, and Palm tree yucca is not a reason to use a Latin name for the article. Which ever version does that should be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend any change in policy. The full paragraph read:

When a subject or topic has a common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Misplaced Pages should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Misplaced Pages normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Misplaced Pages editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

• This is not about Yucca brevifolia.
• Nevertheless, as phrased, it can be quoted by both sides on that issue, because both of them are wielding a common English-language name.
• The purpose of either alteration is to avoid that nonsense, and to refer the argument to WP:COMMONNAME, which should be the governing paragraph. Changes in that section are a different question altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but where does WP:COMMONNAME redirect? To Misplaced Pages:Article titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not anymore; it's a section redirect to Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Common names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that any form of the sentence is valid. We don't (unfortunately) have an overriding rule that when there's a common name we use it.--Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because our articles are not titled by sophisters and calculators imposing a preconceived scheme whether it fits a particular class of articles or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this problem exists. This paragraph is taken from the "Neutrality and article titles" section. Neither "Joshua tree" nor "Yucca brevifolia" are non-neutral/judgmental/offensive names, and therefore this section simply doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that can be quoted out of context, will be; especially in the turbulent waters of title policy. Come and deal with WP:RM if you need more evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that (I spend far too much time at WP:External links not to be aware of that), but I think that the correct response is to tell people that they're quoting out of context, not to eliminate good and consensus-supported advice from the guideline. Would it be helpful to you to have a WP:OUTOFCONTEXT (perhaps to a new paragraph in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Adherence for that purpose? (Perhaps Fallacy of quoting out of context would be good enough?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really; anyone self-aware enough to be persuaded by such things is either going to be moved by reading "out-of-context" or is consciously lying; and the majority aren't. Better to be aware of the problem when writing policy and look at what each sentence says quoted in isolation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I don't mind writing a policy defensively, in practice I don't think that we can always defend against people who quote single phrases. For one thing, they may not be reading them on this page: They may be quoting an editor they respect who (mis)quoted (an old version of) a policy.

For example: WP:ATH #1 is actually subject to the caveats named at the top of Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, but I believe that most ATH-citing editors at AFD are unaware that those sentences even exist.

If you want to pound on the context, then this sentence could be expanded to say something like, "When considering whether an article title is neutral..." -- but I wouldn't change the actual advice, and even this context-reiterating clause can be (and will be) ignored by those who find the introductory clause inconvenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Common names vs. peerage titles

For those interested in whether or not we should use common names as article titles, there's an RfC at WT:NCROY#British peers on whether we should use people's peerage titles when they are better (to various degrees) known by their ordinary names. Comments welcome there.--Kotniski (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Telugu and other South Asian names

We already have conventions that, with various East Asian cultures which put somebody's family name first, e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, we maintain this order. However, with Hungarian names, which also put the family name first, we change this to Western name order. There has been persistent low-level edit warring with Koneru Humpy, a leading Telugu chess player. It seems that in her native Telugu culture the family name comes first, my inclination is to respect this. However there are many other Telugu people with biographies, I don't know what convention they are normally following, and I also don't know if this could be an issue with other South Asian cultures. PatGallacher (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if the article (whatever it is called) mentioned the issue, and said which is the family name. Beyond that, which order do reliable sources like FIDE and its rivals use? (And how do the sources deal with, say, Japanese names?)

Hungarian is, I think, a special case. English writes Bela Bartok; Bartok Bela is incomplete translation - and I believe so also for chess players.

If sources are dead evenly divided, I might choose the Western order, for comprehensibility, but I doubt they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment