Wikipedia:Splitting resolution

This is a proposal for resolving disputes on WP:BLP’s regarding WP:SPINOUT where a subsection of the article has 1. become too long,

2. would become too long if relevant information were to be added,

3. or otherwise deserves its own article.

The case which brought about this proposal was the “Julian Assange sex charges.” However, allow me to use a more clear-cut example.

The case for the splitting of the section "Jullian Assange sex charges" from the Julian Assange article
A search on Google for "Julian Assange sex" reports 10 million results, whereas a search for "Julian Assange" has 40 million. These numbers are of course entirely meaningless and have no guarantee of being accurate even within an order of magnitude, because of how Google works, and argument based upon them is wholly ill-founded. While a search on Google may not be the most reliable source. It IS an indicator of significance. It indicates that there are AT LEAST 10 million pages containing the words "Assange" and "sex". A significant proportion of the information available on Assange relates to his sex charges. But these charges may indeed not even be a significant part of his life.

We already have links to split articles on WikiLeaks, thus the Assange page has remained relatively short. The sex charges amount to a majority of the REMAINING information on Assange. A person does not go to the Julian Assange page expecting to find a majority of the text devoted to his sex charges. Yet, one may wish to read more about those charges if so desired.


 * - That section is not a majority of the article by any means, it is still a bit bloated and experienced contributors are commenting it needs more trimming, not having its own article. Please take your time, read some of our policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - This point is actually irrelevant to the Splitting Resolution suggestion. The suggestion is aimed at avoiding the need to solve this conflict first.  Create a separate, abeit noindex article.  And see what people add to it.  I cannot disagree with you that the current section is not much longer than the others on Assange.  But the current section is TOO SHORT!  It is not NPOV, as it doesn't state the "whole story."  The section is currently the "official view" on a subject that is very close to "anarchy vs establishment".  I don't know if the accusations are politically motivated, but the current article doesn not even bring information to that regard to light.  Even if all the stuff in the news is simply slander, the slander war itself is particularly notable.  I think it's unusual for so many MAJOR news papers, to themselves, be christal balling as much as they are... Tim.thelion (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Just ignore it if you think its irrelevant, delete it if you want. I think you need a blog to be free of guidelines to write all of that anarchy establishment twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - I believe the guidelines may indeed suggest you do not call my opinions twaddle :D I don't want the "conspiracy theories" about the accusers to be included because I believe them.  But because their nature(discussion in usually reliable news sources) is notable.  I wanted to make it clear to you the purpose of my proposal.  I was trying to discuse with you, and explain to you my idea, which you don't seem to understand.   I'm sorry you don't understand it, because it is a terribly good idea.  Tim.thelion (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's rubbish? You have yet to state your oppinion on this sollution.  The only oppinion you have stated was about Assange.  You have not stated an oppinion on my proposed process for resolving this conflict. Tim.thelion (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the merits or otherwise of this approach, basic Wikipedia policy, notably WP:BLP needs to be maintained. I can see no way to do this while discussing speculations about the hypothecical activities and motivations of those involved. On this basis, I oppose this proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the volume (of RS information) already justifies a split and its likely to increase. To do it now may seem too pro-active but I think it makes a lot of common sense for today's situation. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal (at the bottom) seems like a classic example of a WP:CREEP problem (edit for 30 days, then do.., then do.. etc.) which we try our best to avoid. The specific case you cite had a number of issues anyway; not least that the material you wanted to add was rejected for numerous concerns. Splitting the article to try and get that content is adequately covered under WP:POVFORK. --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The case against
1. The split article would be an editorial nightmare involving the duplication of information across the Julian Assange page, the sex charges page, and the WikiLeaks page.

2. The split article would not be able to maintain NPOV.

3. There is not sufficient notable information on the sex charges.

The resolution process
This case was unresolved. So I decided to start brainstorming on how we can best resolve it. I came up with this 3 step process for controversial content splitting.

1. During the process, leave the BPL intact.

2. Create a subsection split with mirrored content and give it immediate WP:INCUBATE status thus having the page on Wikipedia for improvement and editing but with "noindexed".

3. Edit this draft rigorously for 30 days.

4. Instate a voting period with the following outcomes for the draft: 1. Draft is deleted.

2. Relevant and notable information from the draft is merged into the main BLP.

3. The week is given for the draft to be "cleaned and edited" before losing noindexed and becoming an "official" article.

5. Implement a, b, or c.