User:Herostratus/Understanding Wikipedia rules

Understanding the Wikipedia

Understanding

Understanding WP:N and it's teenage sidekick WP:GNG

WP:N does have

To s To s

Suppose you want to write an article Three Blind Mice (band)

If your only source is "In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice", that is not a useful source (for showing notability)

Even if you have another source giving that level of information ("Clinton's friends formed a jazz band, Three Blind Mice, in which he played saxophone"), which gives you two (=multiple) sources, that is still not enough to support an entire article Three Blind Mice (band). Because neither is good enough, according to WP:N. Piling on more single-sentence sources is not going to help, according to WP:N.

If your source is the 200-page non-vanity-press book by a distinguished author Three Blind Mice: The Story of an American Jazz Band, that is a usable source (for showing notability).

You would need another source (because multiple). Another book (Jazzmen's Journey: Three Blind Mice in the post-Rock American Jazz Scene) would certainly also be acceptable, and then you could have the article [[Three Blind Mice (band)].

What about if you only have one book, but also 10-page article in The Atlantic. It doesn't say. Ten pages is lot less than a whole book, so maybe it can't be used for determining notability.

What about if you have

""In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice, which played at school dances. Clinton played saxophone, and the drummer was Pinckney Pruddle, who often played standing up and sometimes used unusual objects for drumsticks, such as uncooked spaghetti and stuffed animals. The band was together for two years, during Clinton's junior and senior years. Pruddle went on to play with local bands for several years after graduation" and "Clinton's high school band, Three Blind Mice, played 'hot' jazz, and was popular at school events. The drummer was noted for amusing on-stage antics and wearing odd costumes. The guitarist, Feric Jagger, who dated Clinton's ex-girlfriend, played an instrument he had made himself from an egg basket, which he called the Jaggernator. Jagger was killed shortly after graduation by a pack of feral dogs."

You've got two sources. There's a lot lot lot more than the single sentence given as not usable. So... is thatn enough to make an article, Three Blind Mice (band)? I don't know, but I do know one thing: WP:N doesn't know either. You're on your own here.

Maybe WP:N means that the line should sort of be in the middle between the the examples. The first example is 14 words, and a 100-page book (which is short) is say 30,000 words. So, 15,000 words? Should that be the cutoff to be considered in=depth?

It doesn't say. It doesn't say. You're on your own here.

OK, 15,000 words is a bit much. What about a 3,000 word article in Harper's? what about a 300-word piece in Rolling Stone? What about 30-word blurb in People?

It doesn't say. You're on your own here.

But wait! We do have something that can help us! We have the sense that God gave sheep! (I hope and assume.) This allows us to use common sense and

Understanding NOTCENSORED

The important thing about NOTCENSORED is that anyone citing it is usually up to no good.

It is like the American 2nd Amendment -- an old rule, put in a long time ago by people long gone, destructive and xxx, but impossible to get rid of because of the greast difficulty

It is a very bad rule for a worldwide encyclopedia, considering that a prime audence of encyclopedias has always been secondary school students (minors).

It is insulting and polemical, intended to end thoughtful discussion rather tham xxx it ("Do you agree with me, or are you a Cossack?")

It is usually used to self-justify being a pornographer (Noun: One who is involved in the dissemination of pornography) or a smarmy middle-class white male douchbag who literally can't really understand that there are people who feel differently from him, or care if they do.

But the important thing about NOTCENSORED is that anyone citing it is usually up to no good.

Understanding RS

Understanding BLP

Understanding NOTNEWS

The important thing about NEWNEWS (actually NOTNEWSPAPER) is that what it is about is that we are not supposed to do our own original reporting ("The Merchandise Mart blew up on January 17, 2026 "

It tells us not to do other things that newspapers do: print sports scores or horoscopes or local police blotters or celebrity gossip, or wrap fish or line birdcages.

It doesn't have much to do with "news", as "notnews" is just short for "notnewspaper".

It doesn't have much to say about writing about recent events, essentially saying "use your wits to do what you think best".

Understanding Godwin's Law

The important thing about Godwin's Law is that it is a joke, never meant to be taken seriously.

Using Hitler is a really useful rhetorical device, since everybody knows him and everybody understands that he's a bad guy. Everybody knows Napoleon too, and a lot of people think he's a bad guy, but enough people don't that it's no good as a device. Everybody understands that Shiro Ishi was a bad guy, but a lot people don't know who he is so that's no good as device. "Well Hitler was kind to his secretaries" is useful for "Yeah this editor was really nice to you, but so?" "Well Hitler build great roads is useful for "Yeah this editor has a lot of good work, but he's still a problem". And so on. But of course you can't do that, because people will be like "How dare you compare me to Hitler" when of course we're not doing that, we're just using a rhetorical device.

So, the solution is to use Primo de Rivera. Nobody remember who he was (he was an asshole), so it's a blank slate. "Well Primo de Rivera was kind to his secretaries" and "Well Primo de Rivera did great port improvements" or "Listen to yourself, that's the sort of thing Primo de Rivera would say" or whatever. You make your point and the other guy has to go learn some Spanish history, so win-win.