Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ (จิปาถะ) 

One article about two different people?
Can someone else please take a glance at Bill Cook and Ron Herzman? It seems really odd to have one article about these two different people. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * How about Glen and Les Charles or The Carpenters (Karen Carpenter and Richard Carpenter)? Same principles of WP:NBIO still apply, but I'm still looking for specific rules about two persons in the same article.
 * Of course, same rules don't apply to fictional characters, like Luke and Laura, but there's WP:AT at least. Also, Luke Spencer and Laura Spencer (General Hospital) have their own articles. George Ho (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It quite often happens that people dont have much notability outside the duo, i.e., if you write separate articles, there will be a heavy overlap beyond "born and raised" and "died and rests" So it makes perfect sense to have a single page. - Altenmann >talk 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, we have category:Duos, and, comparable is a subcategory Category:Business duos. Why would not that be academic duos as well? Heck, we have John and Paul after all :-). - Altenmann >talk 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Two academics who co-author are not the same as a singing duo. The article should be split so they each have a separate page. Pam  D  05:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If they are permanent coauthors then they are the same as Category:Business duos. - Altenmann >talk 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because they have separate lives, and teaching careers, and in one case political aspirations. Not all their publications are joint: see https://bill-cook.com/resume/ and https://www.geneseo.edu/english/ronald-herzman.  Pam  D  07:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * they have separate lives, and teaching careers, and in one case political aspirations. Those elements aren't indicators of notability, honestly. Per WP:N, WP:NBIO, WP:NACADEMICS, and WP:BLP if still living, everything about each of them comes down to what they are notable only for and how notable their own careers are outside the collaboration. Furthermore, the sources you provided are primary, so what about secondary and tertiary ones? George Ho (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the books they have written:
 * The Medieval World FView, jointly, which has run into 3 editions
 * La Vision Medieval Del Mundo, tr. Milagros Rivera Garreta. Barcelona: Editorial Vincens‑Vives, 1985 (with William R. Cook). (From Herzman's CV, not mentioned by Cook)
 * 7 more books by Cook listed at https://bill-cook.com/resume/
 * 2 more books by Herzman listed at https://www.geneseo.edu/english/ronald-herzman
 * Not exactly "permanent coauthors". Pam  D  20:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * … Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller … —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Some examples I have encountered are: Charles and Ray Eames, Mary Dann and Carrie Dann, Peter and Rosemary Grant. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, every page in Category:Married couples. jp×g🗯️ 00:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * and some of List of twins. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sacco and Vanzetti. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is football player contract expires means still registered in a football club?
Most of the UK football contract ends in 30 June. I am trying to remove any club information of the player who is out of contract. But I was informed that out-of-contract player doesn't mean he leaves the club (similar to a man is alive if there is no proof that he is dead), and he is still within the club. I would like to know if it is true? Are there any example? Thanks a lot. Winston (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about that topic but superficially it would seem that mass removal of players from clubs at 30 June each year would be disruptive. Articles should not need that kind of accuracy. If necessary, add a sentence to the effect that contracts expire at a certain time and there is a period of uncertainty. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But do I need to provide a reliable source to update the free agent status (removing the club) (e.g. Cody Drameh)? But my edit got reverted because the admin think my edit is unsourced. I personally think that free agent after contract expiration is automatic (just like age, it could automatically count). And reverting my edit (i.e. saying the player is still in the club) need a source to say that there is a new contract between two parties. Winston (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like original research to me. Do not describe any player as a free agent without a reliable source saying they are. I guess you can say that a player's contract expired on such-and-such a date, if you cite a reliable source for that. Whether or not a player's contract is renewed is also subject to being supported by a reliable source. Slow down, this is an encyclopedia, and we do not get ahead of the published news. Donald Albury 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donald Albury I think I understand your point of view. May I explain why I couldn't agree with you
 * According to free agent in wiki: In professional association football, a free agent is either a player that has been released by a professional association football club and now is no longer affiliated with any league, or a player whose contract with their current club has expired and is thus free to join any other club under the terms of the Bosman ruling. As two sentences is linked with or, so the player is a free agent if any one of the two condition is met. And thus the player is a free agent when there is no evidence of a contract.
 * Therefore
 * 1. The player is automatically a free agent when the current contract expire
 * 2. The player with the club doesn't infer that the player is associated with the club in any employer-employee means. The player can sign with other clubs even he is with one club. To me the player is a free agent rather than belong to a club.
 * 3. To keep the player in the club officially (not just training in the training ground), a contract is needed. And thus I think without a reliable source (evidence of the a new contract), it would sounds like original research to me that the player is associate with a football club professionally. Winston (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman Please feel free to add your comment here Winston (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, given your dispute was with me, I am appalled that it has taken you 3 days to notify me about this discussion.
 * Secondly, in the absence of a reliable source, we do not edit, especially about living people. In the Cody Drameh example, he was not on the club's official list of released players. There was no source presented by you saying he left the club (until I found one). GiantSnowman 17:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman First of all I don't think this is a dispute with you. I think this is more than how player under a club is defined. Because if the definition is not clarified there will be more edit fight and I think it would be beneficial for more wikipedian to discussed together:
 * 1. Is player out of contract equals to free agent? I found the part that is related to free agent in wiki states that a player whose contract with their current club has expired and is thus free to join any other club under the terms of the Bosman ruling is defined as free agent. So latter statement states a player, even there is evidence of training with the club, without the evidence of contract with the club is considered free agent.
 * 2. What is the Current team under Infobox football biography template means? The document said The club for which the player currently plays, or is employed by. If the player now works in a non-playing role at the club, add this after the club in brackets. For retired players and free agents not currently employed by any club or federation, leave blank. So if a player is a free agent, the Current team section should be blank. And it seems to me that player without evidence of employment should leave black. In my own personal view, it should leave blank until there are evidence that the player is not a free agent.
 * 3. When you say in the absence of a reliable source, we do not edit. I would say we should edit based on the known reliable source. What is the known reliable source is the expired contract. Based on (1) the player is a free agent and (2) leave the Current team blank.
 * 4. When you say no source presented by you saying he left the club. By referring (2) if current team means the club for which the player currently plays, or is employed by, then I think no evidence of left the club could not satisfy the definition of current club because no evidence of leaving the club would not imply the player currently play (or eligible to play) or employed.
 * Please feel free to comment Winston (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, all content in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so nothing that is stated in Free agent is sufficient by itself to support a claim elsewhere in Wikipedia. Anything that is entered in a infobox must also be verifiable from reliable sources. Any attempt to say that a player is a free agent without a reliable source saying so is original research. A consequence of the verifiability policy is that we sometimes have to leave things unsaid because we have not yet found a reliable source that supports it. Donald Albury 12:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I don't understand keeping the player within the club without a reliable source is not considered as original research? Is the player retaining in the club can be testified under verifiability policy?
 * I understand your view on the policy but I am not sure if I understand that how keeping the player within a club without a reliable source can take precedence? Could you elaborate more on that? Also could you add more comment on the free agent definition?
 * Also when we say a player is under a club, normally we would refer to the player signing a contract with the club. But it seems to me that the contract end date within the reliable source is being ignored. Winston (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When you talk about the reliable source, Michael Cooper never say that he is 24 years old, also offical page his age is never mentioned. Thus there is no reliable source of the player is 24 year old. Assuming the age of 24 based on his date of birth is not reliable, is unsourced (the club info never mention Michael Cooper is 24 year old).
 * I think it is worth discussing why there is no source needed while inferring age but not player is officially unattached after contract expiry? Winston (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Winstonhyypia Michael Cooper's date of birth is reliably sourced (see the ref linked in the infobox). An algorithm calculates his current age (as anyone numerate could do, each day). That is reliable. Pam  D  15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @PamD Only the date of birth is reliably source but not the age (he never mention his age, the club info also didn't show his age). I would like to understand why calculating age based on DOB is allowed while a free agent after contract expiry require source. To me both are inferred from reliable source (age is from date of birth and free agent status is from the last known contract expiry). Winston (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone knowing the date of a person's birth (which in this case we know from a reliable source), can calculate that person's age on the current date. Such calculations do not need a source, per No original research. Please stop this. What you are doing appears to be wikilawyering. Donald Albury 00:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donald Albury Then I don't understand why the player is considered out of contract when there is no reliable source of having a new contract is considered as original research? I really believe it is a consensus player is out of contract is a free agent also defined in free agent). Winston (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donald Albury Could you elaborate more on how my analogy appears to be wikilawyering? When I edit based on evidence (expired contract) and then people ask for evidence (which the expired contract is the evidence of the end of the employer-employee relationship). The expired contract is already an evidence of the player had a employer-employee relationship. Could you help me understand how employer-employee relationship ended at contract expire is considered original research? How would that considered as assumption? How would keeping the player in the club is correct? Winston (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donald Albury Also there is Fixed-Term Contract saying a fixed-term contract can also be used for the completion of a specific task and the contract will be terminated automatically upon completion of the task. And I think it is the player contract works in this way.
 * I stated everything based on the free agent, fixed-term contract. I think the argument would be more constructive it is based on wiki policy. When you asked for evidence of player not including in the squad, I already mentioned that the nature of the fixed term contract and definition of free agent would be suffice to say that the player need a contract to keep the employer-employee relationship. This is not assumption this is automatic (unless there is a reliable source saying the player sign a new contract). Winston (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donald Albury I think the analogy of asking evidence of age based on reliable source of DOB is very similar to the asking evidence of player is free agent based on reliable source of last known contract. In my view both are automatic. Winston (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a sports lawyer, but I know that having a contract and registration are different, although thay may overlap enormously in the case of professional players, especially since Bosman. I don't know what effects Brexit has had on British clubs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger In the english FA website there is FA NFAR Standard Tripartite Representation Agreement under representation agreements. Please feel free to check the SERVICES section. Winston (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger I checked the FA website and there is FA Handbook, under Rules of The Association that provide more information. Winston (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise against any mass removal based on an assumption. I think in a high proportion of cases contracts are renewed, usually without much publicity, except for a few "stars". There is a tremendous amount of work involved in changing and then changing back - are you sure you are up to it? Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And does it matter? The English professional leagues finish in May and start again in August, at which time there are usually plenty of sources saying who plays where. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news site, so includes some content that may be outdated for a couple of months. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this is not a breaking news site but should the article reflect the condition based on the reliable source (which in my own perspective the most reliable source is the previous contract)? Winston (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It matter because I was warned by the admin saying that there is lack of evidence of player leaving the club. He would block me from editing. But I think the edit I made is based on the evidence of a contract (I quoted the free agent which said the player is automatically a free agent while contract expire. I also quoted fixed time contract which said the employer-employee relationship terminate automatically after contract expire). In my point of view evidence is needed to conclude that the player is having an employer-employee relationship instead. Winston (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football in the hope that this discussion may benefit from the participation of informed editors and because it has the potential to affect many articles of interest to that project. I'm a little surprised this discussion was opened here and not there. NebY (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example of Wikipedia not needing to be updated quite so quickly. It should be expected that team rosters will be in flux between seasons, and that our articles can not be updated until new contracts/rosters are announced. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the nature of Wikipedia. Should the article keep updated to represent the moving status? Is other editor allowed to update the wiki article based on the updated information based on reliable source? Winston (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from reading the above you do not have "updated information". You have old information concerning the end date in an old contract, not updated information about whether anything has replaced it or any termination clause has been acted upon, plus your deductions. You've focused on contracts rather than registration, but employment law regarding contracts is not simple - for example, a contract can exist even without a written statement of terms. Football's registration systems include professional and amateur players, so they won't depend on employment contracts or persistence of paid work between seasons. More generally, absence of information is not evidence of absence; much happens without being reported in the press. Happily, Wikipedia policy protects us from presenting as fact deductions based on diverse scraps of information such as those you mention above. If you have a reliable source saying that a footballer's affiliation has changed, you can change the article, but if all you have is information that their contract was due to end by now, it's a breach of WP:No original research to remove their sourced affiliation or insert a claim that they're now a free agent. NebY (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @NebY I think this is the result of lack of information in either side of the argument that both side agrees.
 * 1. When you say I don't have the "updated information". I want to state the fact that everyone agree here that there is no reliable source of player signing a new contract with the club. So in both ways (free agent vs still in the club) is not known. That's why I bring up this discussion. By the definition of free agent the player out of contract is a free agent.
 * 2. I couldn't agree that the term old contract because it is the last known reliable source. I would rather name it as the latest contract with reliable source (there is no newer reliable source saying there is a new contract with the player).
 * 3. I didn't say I agree contract could be more complicated than that. But if you say "the player could sign a contract with the club" without evidence that wouldn't be convincing.
 * 4. May I use England Football as an example, based on REGISTRATION OF PLAYERS section of Standardized Rules of FA Handbook 2023-24, there is section 6.1.2 states that a Player’s registration with a Club as a Contract Player shall continue until the earlier of the date upon which: (a) the contract between the Contract Player and the Club expires. This should be the linkage between registration and contract. Once the the registration end with the contract. This is written in the rulebook and it is not deduction.
 * 5. I think it would be hard to prove that there is termination clause in the contract. I think if when you say the player could still in the club because there could be a termination clause without any reliable source. Would that be fact based? Winston (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't know there are talk page for football. Winston (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem in this discussion is that to my understanding is assuming that all the info they have is correct and not changing, and that any change is properly communicated. The issue is that a fair amount of players extend quietly or automatically via different triggers and clubs/media update about it late if at all (for e.g. David Williams played all of last season with Perth Glory but there was never an announcement of a contract extension, and there was something similar with Jake Brimmer a couple of seasons ago). It's usually dependent on the "star power" of the player as well as the club's level (in women's football it's really hard to track). --SuperJew (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SuperJew It would depends if we should update based on the last known reliable source (I would say contract). My approach is didn't assume any contract extension without reliable source, the admins are saying the the player is still in the club without any reliable source saying the player left the club. I think in both ways you can bring counter example to say it is wrong. Both way would be affected by lack of information. Sometime the club didn't announce the contract extension of the player. Sometime the club didn't announce the leave of the player.
 * But without any known reliable source, I think the best option is to say that the player is a free agent (based on the definition of free agent and also the definition of fixed term contract) and rather not saying the player is still attached to the club. Winston (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Winstonhyypia, do you actually have a source that says "His contract definitely expired yesterday, and we confirm that it was not extended or renewed"?
 * Or do you just have a source that says "It will expire on this date in the future (unless it is extended or amended, of course)", and now that 'this date' has arrived, you're guessing that the original terms of the contract were still in force?
 * Are you even looking at a source with a specific date (e.g., 30 June 2024), or are you just looking at one that says "the 2023–2024 season" and guessing that the contract will expire at exactly 23:59 on 30 June?
 * A mere assumption is not sufficient for any of this. What if you're wrong?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Cody Drameh example which kickstarted all this, there was a source saying 'we have offered the player a new contact', and then nothing further. Winston then assumed that, as the contract offer had not been accepted, the player had automatically left the club. I found a source confirming leaving the club a few days later. GiantSnowman 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman I think the key argument is "What is the status of the player if the latest contract is expired and there is no reliable source regarding of signing a new contract? Should the player automatically be a free agent?"
 * I already quoted Standardized Rules of FA Handbook (please check the link in the conversation above) that a player will no longer be registered to the club when there is no contract. In the same handbook it also mentioned that non-contract player applies to National League or below. Also inside the article free agent, a player is a defined as a free agent when the current contract expire.
 * I am writing here because the player would be automatically de-registered from the club when contract expire. Thus if the last expired contract is the latest reliable source then based on the definition of free agent, fixed-term contract and the FA rule, the player is a free agent. And it requires the evidence of a non-expiring contract to say that the player is registered under a club. I think it would be a good discussion to explain under the definitions above, saying a out-of-contract player a free agent is considered as original research. Winston (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Most of the free agent could be found in transfermarkt. I would double check with the information online and make my edit.
 * I would like to clarify that my discussion is based on the fact that there is no reliable source about player signing new contract. Most all of the free agents listed in transfermarkt have no source say "His contract definitely expired yesterday, and we confirm that it was not extended or renewed" or "His contract definitely expired yesterday, and we confirm that it was extended or renewed". In both ways there is no reliable source. So things could go wrong in both ways. Also making an edit or not is making an assumption. The same question could be asked "do you actually have a source that says "His contract definitely expired yesterday, and we confirm that it was extended or renewed? What if you're wrong?". With the lack of information saying the player is staying and the player is leaving is a guess. But if we based on reliable source, the latest reliable source would be the expired contract. So what I am asking is, given the latest reliable source is the expired contract, should we say the player is a free agent when the contract is over? Winston (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Short answer: no, too soon to say anything. Blueboar (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborate more on your reasoning? I think other people would like to understand why it is too soon to say he leave the club but it is not too soon to say that he is a free agent, by definition? Winston (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that he has signed a contract, but no sources have reported it yet? IF that is the case, then he isn’t a free agent.
 * The fact is we don’t actually know his current status with the team. What we DO know is he was with the team last season. That is good enough for now… it is OK to leave the article as being “out of date” for a few months… until we DO actually know the player’s status for the next season.
 * Then there is the issue of simple practicality. The uncertainty of contract renewal likely affects dozens (if not hundreds) of players every year. It makes no sense to “update” all these articles to “Free Agent”… only to have to re-update them yet again a few weeks/months later when all these players either re-sign with their old team, sign with a new team, or are not picked up by any team. Allowing the article to remain “outdated” until we have more information is simply more practical. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there are possibility that he signed a contract or not. In both ways people can ask the same question. People can be asked to consider the possibility that he didn't sign a contract and is a free agent. Since both ways is possible I think the conclusion can't be made based on this approach. Also if Wikipedia article should base on reliable source then I think people would also ask your approach as no reliable source of a new contract is available. Thus I think it would be best to say the player is a free agent if there is no reliable source of a new contract (also satisfy the definition of free agent). I think it make more sense as this is the definition of free agent and fixed term contract. And I don't see what's wrong if the player is updated as a free agent, and then updated with the existing club a few days later (based on the reliable source of a new contract). If Wikipedia based on reliable source then I don't see why this approach doesn't align with Wikipedia rule. Winston (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were just one player, fine… but I strongly suspect it is far more than just one. Having to update, and then immediately re-update, on potentially hundreds of articles… and do so every year… is just disruptive. ‘Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar If the wikipedia policy (reliable source) didn't apply to the article (also if the policy is not the discussion and the article should be based on reliable source.
 * 1. When there are some editor comes in to make an edit, saying a player with expired contract as a free agent and remove his latest club info. By my understand on contract law, FA rule this edit should be allowed. Any revert of the club info (saying the player is still register under the club) requires evidence of contract extension because player registration above League 2 requires contract.
 * 2. I started this discussion is because I am going to write down the points to discuss that the player is a free agent after contract expiry by definition not by original research. Winston (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point. It may arguably be verifiable that players are free agents the second their contracts expire. But “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”. Sometimes it is better to wait for evolving situations to play out before we include it in our article. I think this is one of those situations. Be patient. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Until you have a specific, clearly reliable source in hand that WP:Directly supports the claim that the individual athlete has not signed a contract, then you cannot do this. Your understanding of contract law is not a reliable source.  WP:You are not a reliable source.
 * Perhaps it will make more sense as a story:
 * The previously announced contract expired on Monday.
 * Unknown to you, also on Monday, the player signed a new contract.
 * On Tuesday, you change the article to say the player is a free agent and not part of the team because the old contract expired on Monday (and you still don't know about the new contract).
 * On Wednesday, the team announces that the player signed a contract and is still with the team.
 * Do you know what that means? It means that on Tuesday you were putting lies about a living person into the Wikipedia article.
 * Don't do that. Wait until we have real information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing I didn't say the expiry is based on my understanding. I already wrote in the above that
 * 1. Based on definition of free agent, a player without a contract is a free agent by definition.
 * 2. Based on the definition of fixed-term contract. The employer-employee relationship is will be terminated upon completion.
 * 3. Based on FA Handbook (please check the link above), a player would no longer be registered from the club when contract expire.
 * In your example there are 2 things I would argue
 * 1. "Unknown to you" - I think it should be unknown to public. Based on the reliable source definition then it is best to say the player is a free agent on Tuesday. Everyone should making wiki edit based on reliable source, right?
 * 2. I couldn't agree that the editor is making a lie too if there is no public information regarding to the new contract. This is the conclusion based on reliable source. Winston (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Based on these definitions" is not the same as "based on a reliable source that WP:Directly supports the claim".
 * "Based on these definitions" is indirect support. If you want to make a positive statement ("As of Monday, he is a free agent"), then you must have a source that actually says this.  You cannot have only a source that says "If nothing else changes, he will become a free agent on Monday two years in the future".  That source does not directly support a claim that he really is a free agent.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In your example this is my understanding:
 * 1. The player established employer-employee relationship for two years (it didn't have a support of player status after Monday). So the player is under the club until Monday (in normal terms). The source only Directly Support until Monday.
 * 2. After Monday if there is no evidence of a new contract then by definition the player is a free agent. The source didn't have a Direct Support after Monday. Winston (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. After Monday, if there is no evidence of a new contract, then the player might be a free agent.  However, the player could be already employed by a team.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * May I rewrite point number 2:
 * In order to use WP:Directly support to say that the player is still associated with the club, you need to provide a reliable source that a player sign a new contract with any club. Otherwise the player's status should be concluded as out of contract. Thus the player is a free agent (based on free agent definition).
 * If the problem is approaching using Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then no conclusion could be made. And it could create an edit war (because other editor can say "the player could be a free agent" and make the edit). I think Wikipedia article should rely on the reliable source, and in this case when we make our discussion should we not guess (e.g. could/might) the status but instead conclude the player status following the rules provided by football association. Winston (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the policy at Verifiability states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The burden to provide reliable sourcing is on you if you want to change what the article says. Donald Albury 14:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I think I view this in a different perspective. At the very beginning a player is a free agent, then one editor comes in and wrote that player belongs to a club based on contract. Then another editor comes in reverting the previous editors edit based on the expiry of contract (the content in the reliable source no longer valid).
 * I would see the source (contract) of the first editor expires. And due to this reason the second editor comes in and revert the edit of the first editor because the edit couldn't pass Verifiability because the evidence expire. And it requires new contract to keep the player in the club. Winston (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read what you have said umpteen times and understand it. I'm sure the same goes for others. It's just that nobody agrees with you. Stop bludgeoning. Now. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Outdent) Something that hasn’t been established: WHY does our article need to note that a player is (technically and probably temporarily) a free agent? Why NOT just wait until the situation stabilizes and we know whether he has a new contract (and with which team)? Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I start this discussion based on the principle of wiki. For example if an edit war is established, then how should the conflict be resolved. And my claim is if there is no evidence of a new contract the player is a free agent. So if some editor change the status to free agent (removing the player from the team) then it should take evidence for other editor to revert the edit by showing that a new contract is signed. I think that would be the best if an edit war is established.
 * Lastly I didn't mean to agree or disagree your approach but I am viewing this from conflict resolution perspective. Winston (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather than try to disentangle the errors in reasoning from the grammatical errors and factual errors in your response to me, far above, there's something more fundamentally worrying about it and all your responses here. It seems that you haven't actually read through No original research, grasped the principles and how they apply to all of us including yourself, or seen the blunt statement in it,
 * Your desire to say things about football players that are not explicitly stated by sources is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia policy.
 * Does this mean Wikipedia may be out of date? Yes, but that's fine. It's the most up-to-date encyclopedia ever, but not everything in it is up-to-the-minute and that is not our purpose. Our absolute reliance on reliable sources means that we're not at the cutting edge of scientific research or reporting the current status of every company either. We don't promise that, we don't assume our readers expect or demand that, and we don't compromise our fundamental principles to attempt or pretend that.
 * Lastly, an extraordinary number of editors have explained to you in many different ways that you should not, must not, edit our articles in the way you propose. It's time for you to listen, heed that and accept it. NebY (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all multiple sources I use (in point form) point to the same conclusion, based on their definition. Also the source of FA I use is to say that player is deregistered from the club when the contract expire (the process saying that the player would no longer be registered). I am not combining the sources to state or imply a conclusion. Maybe my english is bad but multiple sources is not going to be used to make a conclusion. They are multiple references to say that the employer-employee relationship is broken when the contract expire.
 * There are lots of editor making Wiki edits every day. If there are people making the edit and if I need to revert his edit based on your suggestion, what is the grounds/where is the supporting policy that wikipedia empower me to revert the edit? Could you make an explanation more clearly so that I could follow? Throughout the discussion I am seeing concerns but I couldn't find there are policy that can strongly support the reverting the edit. Winston (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual conflict needing resolution, or are you just curious about how we might handle a hypothetical conflict? Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For example my edit on Cody Drameh. I would like to understand why saying the player is a free agent violate wiki rule of no reliable source when the last known reliable source expire? And why saying the player is still with the club better follows wikipedia's reliable source policy? The mass edit (not by me) could be a result but this is already beyond the question itself. Winston (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, editing without a reliable source violates Wikipedia policies, as you have been repeatedly told. The fact you cannot understand that is growing increasingly concerning, as is your conduct here as highlighted by Phil Bridger. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflicts) Winston, rather than continually repeating the same point, it would be helpful if you stopped writing and tried to understand why people are disagreeing with you. See WP:Bludgeon. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Phil, I saw reply mostly on the concern (what if there are newer information in the future, then the edit you made would be wrong). I am explaining why the edit is showing the beauty of reliable source. I agree that some edit (e.g. removing the player from the club and then revert the edit later on) seems like a meaningless job but this is the best representation of the player at the moment people making edit (without any new reliable source of contract).
 * I didn't mean to make a mass edit but a reliable source of player is not attached to the club is needed when a player's contract expire doesn't seems right to me. Winston (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * About And my claim is if there is no evidence of a new contract the player is a free agent:
 * No. No evidence does not mean "the player is a free agent".  No evidence means no evidence.  Do not change an article until you have evidence.
 * Changing the article based on your own ideas about what has probably happened is a policy violation.
 * @Winstonhyypia, I want to be clear about this: The answer is no.  The answer is always going to be no.  If you think it would actually help you understand the rule better, then we can keep talking about it, but talking about the rule will not change the answer.  The answer is no today, and the answer will be no tomorrow, and the answer will be no next year, and there is nothing you can say, no argument you can advance, no recommendation that you can make, that will actually change that answer.  The answer is no.
 * Given that changing the rule is absolutely and totally hopeless, and understanding that you will never be able to convince us to change the rule, do you still need anything explained to you about the rule? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for rules changing but I rather think there is a difference in the conclusion made based on the reliable source. I think I might mislead you but my question on the title already said Is football player contract expires means still registered in a football club. After further checking multiple wiki article and english FA website it seems that football player is deregistered with the club when contract expire.
 * I would like to understand the rational on the player is still associate with the club after contract expiry because it seems to me that the decision couldn't stand the WP:Reliable Source and WP:Verifiability principle. Winston (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

you have returned to editing navigation boxes about football club squads, including removing players from them, and articles about players, including removing squad navigation boxes, without accompanying edit summaries explaining your actions. Please can you (a) state clearly now on what basis you made those changes, and (b) assure us that your future editing about football (including articles and templates) will be in accordance with the consensus of editors expressed above and not according to the rationale you have expressed above or your determination of a player's contract status? It is now in question whether the community can trust you to edit about football appropriately. NebY (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The navigation boxes are updated are based on the first team page and it has nothing to do with the contract itself. May I use my edit on Villarreal CF as an example. You can check it easily as Official First Team page shows all the first team player they have. The source is already placed on the navigation box itself. And it has nothing to do with the rational that I expressed. I think this is the result you saw me edit without understanding how those football navigation box is referenced. That's why you didn't know how to verify my edit and ask this question.
 * Of those that is removed, some of them are due to contract expiry (e.g. Pepe Reina, Étienne Capoue, José Luis Morales, Alberto Moreno), I checked the article edit those people didn't have reliable source. I remove them from the navigation box because it is not listed as their first team player. Of coz you can argue that not listing those player as first team player doesn't mean the player is left. Please go and revert their edit one by one, go to their page and said they don't have a reliable source, and tell them how the community can trust you to edit about football appropriately. Please! Winston (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to explain your edits in the edit summary at the time you make them; I've left a formal message on your talk page.
 * Once again, can you assure us that your future editing about football will be in accordance with the consensus of editors expressed above and not according to the rationale you have expressed? NebY (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask this question because I have trouble making edits (and I personally seldom make article edit). I asked this question because the understanding because reliable source is not being applied the way I think it should be when it comes to something that could lead of the end of the term (contract expiry in this case). Til now I didn't get a convincing answer (by stating wikipedia policy) on treating reliable source has an end date and the day is over, why the reliable source is still "reliable" after the contract term is over?
 * Thanks for the reminder. I would add the edit notes in the future. As the update link is already provided in the football navigation boxes I think I would write "update" as the note, if other editor would find this meaningful.
 * Also, I didn't see any reverting edits on player that didn't provide reliable source of player leaving the club after contract expired (e.g. Pepe Reina, Étienne Capoue, José Luis Morales, Alberto Moreno), after you were informed. Although based on my understand the edit should not be reverted but I think it already violated your definition of editor consensus. Would those edit be reverted and editor be questioned soon? Winston (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I am saying not because I would edit the article. It is because other wiki editor would do the edit. I think it would be more beneficial for you to comment the edit if you understand how the the football navigation box is sourced? What Reliable Source mean? How should we treat the source that has an expiry date? Winston (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually this also applies to @GiantSnowman too because my edit on removing the first team template on Cody Drameh is also based on the First Team page. I remove him because he is not longer listed as first team player. His is with the club or not is not related at all. Thus asking for evidence of player leaving the team mean you need to understand how that football navigation box works, where is the source and why the edit make sense. Winston (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Winston, I suggest you stop editing so recklessly, lest you end up being blocked for editing disruptively and against consensus. GiantSnowman 17:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up. I have twice referred Winston to WP:bludgeon above but see that he is carrying on. If he does not stop my next edit to this discussion will be to call for some sort of ban or block. I am not calling for it now only because I don't have time to decide whether it should apply to this discussion, English football, football in general or to everything. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources controversy
Wikipedians might be interested in knowing about a popular article released yesterday about admin @David Gerard, the alleged systematic misuse of Reliable sources and numerous instances of editing under clear COIs across several years. The article has received substantial attention on Twitter (600k views in less than a day). I'm skeptical of some specific claims made in the article, but overall, I think that it makes important well-sourced accusations of misbehavior, and that the community (and admins) might want to have a broader discussion about it.

I'm not sure what would be appropriate venues for discussion on this. agucova (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Appropriate venues would not include someone's blog or Twitter. I don't know whether David Gerard is right or wrong on the subject of reliable sources, but I do know that tracingwoodgrains.com and Twitter are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They're words, written in the English language, which you can read and decide whether they're true or not.
 * I mean, if there's a "wet paint" sign on the bench, would you just ignore it and plop straight down because it doesn't have a green entry at RSP? jp×g🗯️ 19:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're English words, but they will only all be read be Wikipedia-obsessives (or, even worse, people who are obsessed with one Wikipedia editor) with too much time on their hands. "Wet paint" can be read in a split second. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On a first read through, this is clearly a thoroughly researched piece by a writer who is familiar with how Wikipedia operates and diligently provides his diffs. It's not a random Twitter complaint to dismiss out of hand. It deserves careful consideration. – Teratix ₵ 15:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no one is a villain in their own mind is very much my feeling from reading it. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sophocles worded it so much more eloquently. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did a spot check of several of the sources and conversations and did not particularly think it was fair in its analysis. It felt very deliberately set up to make the standard "Wikipedia hates conservatives" critique, especially in how it framed the result of the PinkNews discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's angry logorrhea from a Quillette fan. Nothing of consequence. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate when people think they can decide "what is of consequence" for other people. 2603:7000:92F0:1100:51CB:6D03:8226:ABA1 (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it could have been worse -- it could have been an angry driveby troll comment at the Village Pump. jp×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Nothing of consequence" including BLP CoI violations? I don't intend to relitigate anything but that did seem pretty consequential to me. iczero (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the article did not focus on this at all, but rather on Gerard's behavior. This does not seem like a crucial consideration to the discussion. agucova (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We're so blessed to have DG. I stopped reading when they damningly referenced his views on the Huffington Post, which apparently changed between 2010 and 2020. Shocking stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To add a summary for onlookers not looking to spend 2 hours diving into the article.
 * The article is a pretty in-depth investigation from someone familiar with Wikipedia policies, where they allege that David Gerard has, over the span of almost a decade, engaged in systematic and strategic editing in a personal crusade against several people, violating not only a number of enwiki policies, but also largely going unnoticed, despite a number of disparate ArbCom cases and reported incidents, all which failed to see a bigger pattern in his edits.
 * The author explains that a key way he managed to do this was by feeding negative information about some of these people to journalists, which would then publish articles with the information, which he would then use as references in their articles to portray them in a negative light. He would also use the Reliable sources system differentially, in numerous instances using it to justify his edits under COI.
 * The article contains many serious allegations, and my impression after digging into them is that at least some of them have substantial and straightforward merit, directly verifiable from the provided evidence.
 * I urge editors to not get bogged down on specific claims made in the introduction about the Reliable sources system, since this is not actually the main focus of the article. The accusations made are far more serious and far-reaching. agucova (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is how I feel about it. The big claims are BlPs Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah other editors are capable of reading, and having read it all I can't say I'm very jnoressed. "largely going unnoticed, despite a number of disparate ArbCom cases" I've yet to hear of an ArbCom case that goes 'largely unnoticed'. feeding negative information about some of these people to journalists I'm absolutely sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the journalist and editors of the Guardian didn't take one single persons word for granted without making certain of what they published. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the policy violation is not the feeding information to the journalists, but then using that reference to edit under a clear COI (not only being in a crusade against the person, but also having been a source). Also, with "largely going unnoticed" I meant that the crusades/COIs were what went mostly unnoticed. agucova (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If they've been taken to ANI or ArbCom they haven't gone unnoticed, the results just weren't to some editors liking. And if a reliable source substantiates the claims then it's a very weak COI. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I meant that the ANI and ArbCom cases just didn't cover the accusations in the article, but instead focus on specific things that on their own don't look like flagrant violations. The Scott Alexander ANI did establish the COI, but didn't notice the other articles where Gerard had also done the same thing. The article threads them together to make a broader case. agucova (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if there is really anything there, and I still don't believe there is, then someone will need to make a case at ANI or ArbCom with diffs to show the behaviour. But I would note that anything on rationalwiki has nothing to do with Wikipedia, same with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I agreed elsewhere recently that editors making nasty remarks on external sites should be covered by Wikipedia policies (it isn't currently), but that would also apply to linking to tweats that do the same. Also anyone wanting to discuss the reliability of Pinknews should take it to WP:RSN, same with Quillette or Unz, Gerard did not decide anything about this sources, and any personal biases they may have (which I'm sure they do, as all people have biases) were only one voice in a community decision. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agreed elsewhere recently that editors making nasty remarks on external sites should be covered by Wikipedia policies - though it's worth pointing out that what people post here is still covered; linking to an offsite screed doesn't protect people from WP:ASPERSIONs. Agucova has posted repeated aspersions about DG in this thread, outright alleging a cloud of vague sinister activities with no specific policy-based accusations or evidence attached to them at all. If that keeps happening I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG; it is not acceptable for editors to try and drag off-wiki harassment like this here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was noting the linking to a tweet, now linked by multiple editors, that describes DG as 'the Forest Gump of the internet' and that doing so is probably against policy. I was just trying to not point it out directly. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC
 * That's something I actually called myself, 'cos I keep being on the sidelines of interesting things. (Though I never played college football and don't run, like, at all.) The blog post now attributes it - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've struck my comment. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note my careful use of the word 'alleged'. I haven't made any accusations. I'm in the course of preparing a proper ANI case, but it's not simple or fast when there's two decades of context to go through. agucova (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" does not free someone from the constraints of WP:ASPERSIONs; the entire point of the policy is to prevent people from making vague handwavy aspersions of the sort that you are introducing here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Diffs or no allegations' is the normal standard, and those allegations should be at the appropriate venue. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * > journalist and editors of the Guardian didn't take one single persons word for granted without making certain of what they published
 * A Guardian article about LessWrong contained a number of inaccuracies (some were corrected after the LessWrong team pointed them out): https://x.com/ohabryka/status/1802563541633024280?s=46. I wouldn’t think they make certain of what they publish. Saminmihail (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relaible sources sometimes make mistakes. What is important is whether they aknowledge and correct those mistakes. Donald Albury 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article was also linked here. It seems to be today's Twitterstorm. If the people posting this want to get something done, rather than just whinge about how awful Wikipedia is, they need to make their point succinctly on Wikipedia, rather than expect people to read a very long blog post whose provenance we do not know. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've provided a summary above, but the article covers so many accusations that it's not easy to compress it all. It's just an inherently very complex case. agucova (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After reading it myself, it mostly looks like nonsense written by an angry culture-warrior type who detests David and who is upset that WP:RSes don't cover their pet topics the way they like, but who doesn't have any actual arguments or diffs to back up policy-based complaints. It also looks like most of the other people who have read it seem to agree, so I'd suggest you either WP:DROPTHESTICK or make any actual arguments for specific policies you feel were violated and things you believe should happen on WP:ANI or WP:AE, with actual diffs that relate to policy-based arguments and not just links to random blogs. If you insist on doing so, I'd strongly suggest doing it without linking the screed in question - it's clearly not helpful and fails to make a coherent policy-based argument itself. Either way I'd expect a WP:BOOMERANG if you keep pushing it too hard; we have no control over what people post off-wiki, but on-wiki, editors are protected from WP:HOUNDing and WP:ASPERSIONS, which you're already pretty deep into. Pointing at a largely nonsensical blogpost from an axe-grindy culture-warrior and asking people to not get bogged down on specific claims while making vague handwavy aspersions against a well-established editor in good standing with stuff like the accusations made are far more serious and far-reaching is not acceptable. If you want to continue without becoming the focus yourself, then every single thing you say about DG needs to be extremely specific about what policies you feel have been violated, with specific diffs for each accusation; if you're unwilling to do that, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, accept that you got hoodwinked by a blog post, and move on, preferably with an apology to DG for bringing this nonsense here in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From a quick read, this seems to just be someone who has multi-decade beef with David writing a rambling and often nonsensical screed. Best course of action is to just ignore it, it'll blow over. Curbon7 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the article, and it doesn't make a bit of sense. What does the price of Bitcoin have to do with Gerard's influence over the definition of reliable sources? It piles up detail on detail with no clear explanation of what the actual bannable behavior is. Agucova's insistence that we "not get bogged down on specific claims" basically means "Gerard is bad, don't worry about understanding why". Toughpigs (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I said to, "not get bogged down on specific claims made in the introduction about the Reliable sources system". I'm saying that the relevant claims are the ones after the introduction. agucova (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * STOP - or at least pause. If we are going to talk about a specific editor, at least have the courtesy to notify them of the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not giving a notice to DG; I seem to have forgotten some of my Wikipedia etiquette with time.
 * Because I worry about further hurting the case for what, I believe, are serious accusations, I'll follow Aquillion's suggestion and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm ceasing discussion on this thread until I can write down a proper ANI case with a good restatement of the evidence in the article. Admins should feel free to lock down this discussion.
 * I don't feel like I'm the best person to write down an ANI case, so if anyone wants to take this over from me, feel free to let me know through my talk page. agucova (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for covering this important controversy. There is a balance to be found between protecting whistleblowers and safeguarding the accused from potential defamation. But the mentality in this thread is too much about discarding the accusation without having taken the time to read them.
 * I don't know how representative the article is of David Gerard's edits in general, since it focuses on the problems. But the article is an in-depth investigation, well-written and well-sourced. The fact that it's self-published should not be a reason to simply ignore any piece of information from it, especially in the context of a discussion, and considering that it links to many Wikipedia diffs. As suggested here, there should be some nuance: "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'.".
 * I do not know David Gerard personally, but regrettably, the article resonates with my experiences over the past few months. You can occasionally see high-profile editors that show a recurring pattern of strawman arguments, edit wars, sarcasms, and pedantry about Wikipedia's rules that justifies opinionated edits. I have much respect for the people who spend significant time trying to improve the encyclopedia. But it's tragic how aggressive activism and bad epistemics sometimes bring out the worst in very smart and morally dedicated people. Alenoach (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

is an editor here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tag. I have edited only very rarely, and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to step in for the first time as a participant in an ongoing controversy spurred by one of my articles. This is obviously a subject I have strong feelings about, but I do not believe I should bring those feelings onto Wikipedia given the conflict of interest created by my article. I believe my writing speaks for itself on this matter. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you are admittedly not here to build the encyclopedia. Since you haven't broken any rules, I don't see any reason to block you for you to be blocked on that basis. Maybe you'll decide to become active. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess you could put it that way? I don't believe that policy fits; it's not that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, it's that I'm not here at all. I've never been an active Wikipedia user and am only responding to people now because they're tagging me in. I researched details about your site as a journalistic exercise from the standpoint of a curious outsider. Were I to edit in the future, I suspect having my first serious activity in the site be engaging in a detailed dispute over an article I wrote would be a poor way to begin. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean: It's good that you "don't see any reason to block you [TracingWoodgrains] on that basis", because you can't block anyone on this website for any reason. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL! As well I know. I'm not an admin, but my comment was intended to prevent such a thing from happening. I had just witnessed an account related to this debacle blocked for that reason (NOTHERE), and it was justified. In this case, I don't see any justifiable reason for a block. My comment was purely preventive. After I wrote it, I realized that my comment might trigger such a reaction, so I finished off with that comment in order to prevent it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now stricken that wording, since it led to this misunderstanding. I hope the works. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When somebody writes an article on an external website critical of Wikipedia, I am not aware of any standard practice to ping their account with vaguely-worded threats(?) of administrative action, and I would be opposed to starting such a practice, as it does not seem smart or useful. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you read what I have written before commenting. There was no threat to this editor. I hoped they would begin editing more. I just wanted to prevent what happened to another editor from happening here. It was just written clumsily, so AGF. BTW, that other editor has been unblocked. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What the post actually says
It is very strange to me how many people are in this section giving confident opinions about the merits of the claims in the post, while admitting to not having read it, or saying something about how its "provenance" is unknown -- it's not a cuneiform tablet, it's a blog post on the Internet, you can just go read it, and then use your brain to tell whether or not the things it says are true. If you aren't going to read it, then your opinion on whether it's true is almost by definition incapable of being useful. At any rate, it is fairly long, so I will reproduce here the summary I posted elsewhere.

If you read the article, it's not really a screed, nor is it "nonsensical", nor is it any of the other weird stuff people are saying who have not read it. For those without a lot of time on their hands, it's about an even split between: The main bombshell accusation being made in this piece against Gerard is something that basically everyone here knows: there is a big gaggle of libs who are always trying to use WP:RSP as a septic tank into which to flush newspapers they don't like. Now, before some bumberchute at Wikipediocracy gets their hemorrhoids up reading me type this dangerous harmful right-wing propaganda: it is not just libs who do this. Wikipedia, in its majestic equality, also lets Republicans act like chimpanzees about whether the Wetumpka Argus-Picayune or whatever is destroying our country and must be removed from all citations. But broadly, I think we are all pretty well aware of this. By volume, about 10% of RSN is discussion attempting to find consensus on what sources are reliable for use on Wikipedia, and 90% is rancid political mudflinging. Does anybody seriously disagree with this? It's a zoo! Clearly, we are ashamed enough about it being a zoo to insta-gib n00bs who show up and tell us so. But are we proud enough of our encyclopedia to actually fix it? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Statements of fact that every drama-sniffer around here is already quite familiar with (people fling shit about politics all the time at RSN, Gerard was topic-banned a few years ago for aggressively pursuing COI edits in re Dr. Scotty Codex, etc)
 * 2) Opinions that well-respected Wikipedians express all the time (it is a gigantic pain in the arse when people queue up AWB jobs to indiscriminately mass-remove deprecated sources; RSN is often a sewer).
 * 3) Catalog of various based deeds David has done over time (represent WMUK for years, be the first CheckUser of all time, lead the charge against the crystal-woo morons, be the sysadmin of a really funny shock site, be right about the Chelsea Manning fiasco), various cringe deeds (get topic-banned after an aggressive COI campaign to defame aforementioned Dr. Scotty Codex, ongoing sloppy mass-removals of deprecated sources), and various neutral deeds (he hates cryptocurrency, and I guess he was a big LessWrong guy back in the day, which in retrospect makes the thing with Dr. Codex even more silly).


 * I think you have you numbers back to front, the vast majority of RSN is banal questions about uncontroversial sources. The contentious discussions get lots of attention, but editors then miss all the minor discussions that go past unnoticed.
 * If anyone has any disagreement with consensus on Pinknews, Unz, or Quillette can open a discussion. If editors don't agree with them they might look to the quality of their arguments rather than posts that claim one individual is some master influencer. Yes the culture war generates lots of crap, but RSN isn't the cause of that.
 * Also again yes I read the whole post before even my first reply. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I mean: there really are discussions assessing the reliability of random unfamiliar sources in the boring straightforward way the noticeboard is well-suited for. The problem is that there's been a separate system grafted onto that, in which people write thousands of words of barely-readable walltext trying to give incredibly detailed assessments of decades' worth of output by major national newspapers... and then the only possible outcomes are "green", "yellow", "red" and "gray". The noticeboard/source list format does not work very well for doing this. This separate system is operated almost entirely by political animus, and unlike most onwiki politics arguments, it has wide-ranging destructive effects on the entire project.
 * For example, if there is some big nasty 600-comment-long RfC about gun control at Talk:Gun control, the worst-case scenario is that the article gun control says something dumb, temporarily (there can be another RfC later, and it's pretty simple to go back to an old revision). But if there is some big nasty RfC about gun control at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the worst-case scenario -- it doesn't actually matter which side wins, because both sides call it "victory" when one of the the other guys' sources is shitlisted -- is that some hapless website/newspaper gets painted red or gray, and somebody will go on a cackling AWB spree and completely hose up ten thousand articles by ripping out half the references, including articles about other political stuff that had nothing to do with the original argument.
 * This will also tear up articles about random stuff that isn't even remotely political. Many of them will then run the risk of being deleted because there "have no sources" (read: they have perfectly usable sources that happened to employ a guy who wrote something really stupid about politics ten years later). The loss of this content and these articles is, in practice, typically permanent. Source deprecation/GUNREL is basically a cluster munition that causes collateral damage all over the project every time it's fired, and I think we would probably be better off if we tried to be cognizant about this and resist the urge to give everything a reductive color-coded label. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the flip side is that political bias can also lead people to place excessive weight on trivial things or the opinions of non-experts who don't really belong in the article; or, worst of all, to take things that have actually dubious sourcing and state it as fact. If we don't draw a line as to the quality of required sources, what happens in political articles is that angry partisans on all sides of a dispute cram in everything they can dredge up, either to push the article in one direction or in a genuine good-faith effort to "balance out" what they see as bias by others. This results in articles that are bloated, unreadable, full of dubiously-sourced points or counterpoints, and which generally fail to reflect the tone, focus, and accuracy we would find from higher-quality sources. I think that if you look over how high-traffic articles have progressed over the last decade (as RSN and RSP achieved their current state), they have mostly improved in every respect - more accurate, better sourcing, more neutral, and so on. See eg. this paper discussing it. Saying "we're losing content" isn't meaningful because high-traffic, well-established articles aren't supposed to grow endlessly; they constantly both gain and lose content. The question is whether we're maintaining a balance that reflects the best sources - ie. removing poorly-supported, marginal or undue things and adding high-quality well-sourced things in a more balanced manner - and overall I think we've been getting better at that over time. For the most part, the only egregiously unbalanced articles are ones that have few editors, and that's not something that can be solved with policy or practice, since those things still require editors to implement them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps the biggest issue is the "cackling AWB spree". Sure, we shouldn't rely on unreliable news articles, but winning an "argument" on RSP shouldn't be a good reason to rip sources out of a huge pile of wiki articles. It's a gross overreaction if anything and a huge pain to fix if/when yet another argument breaks out on RSP and reverses that "decision". iczero (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's an extremely hostile way to characterize it. The fact is that when there's a clear-cut RSP decision, it needs to be implemented eventually; when a source comes up at RSP, that usually means there are constant disputes over it, which in turn means that people are using (or trying to use it) all over Wikipedia. And usually, people only implement it on scale for extremely clear-cut results (generally just deprecation; mere unreliable and other-concerns-exists results get implemented much more slowly and with more focus on controversial, exceptional, or BLP-sensitive things.) Before people stepped up to start implementing them, sources like the Daily Mail remained used all over the wiki, despite a clear consensus that they were unreliable and should generally be avoided; cleaning that up is a necessary service. And, as I've said, I feel that on the whole this work has improved our articles - most of the complaints seem to essentially amount to people disagreeing with the RFC's outcomes, which is certainly not a reason to obstruct implementation. We don't have to WP:SATISFY everyone before implementing an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a pretty big difference between "we ought to recheck articles using this source" and "indiscriminately remove absolutely every reference citing the source". The former is (generally) done by humans; the latter is done by pure automation with little to no regard to actual article content, whether it be good or bad.
 * I would argue the best way to implement RSP verdicts involves generating a list of all affected articles and attempting to replace the source (or, if not possible, removing the content). Otherwise, even simply tagging the source as unreliable (i.e. by ) is a better idea than an AWB spree.
 * Yes, perhaps some cases (like The Daily Mail) are clear-cut. Others may not be. In either case, automated removal is usually not a good idea. iczero (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world where all Wikipedia editors were paid full-time employees (or well-off retirees, or universal basic income recipients, or whatever) things would be different. But the world we live in is one where everybody is a volunteer, and there are far more tasks to be done than editor-hours to do them in. It's true that articles should not have stuff in them cited to bad sources, and that they should not have uncited material -- but I hope everyone can agree that simply going through Category:Articles with unsourced statements (currently 521,561) with a blindfold and a chainsaw removing thousands of kilobytes of text from each page would be so unhelpful as to arguably constitute vandalism.
 * Regardless of what we may claim for rhetorical or political reasons, it seems like elementary logic and common sense that something cited to a shite rag like the Daily Mail would still have a higher probability of being accurate than something cited to nothing at all -- so I don't think the situation is all that different, and I'm similarly opposed to chainsawing them. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Statements tagged cn fall into a few broad categories: • previously adequate source deleted (usurped by globally blacklisted host, unarchived deadlink, removed erroneously during rewrite, etc.)

• unreliable, deprecated, or verification failing source deleted

• source already present in article but not cited for tagged statement

• source exists in parent, related, or sister language article but never imported during split or translation

• source never provided.Where no source was ever provided for a tagged statement, in the target article or any related article, some of these will have been confected, misremembered, or learnt in error from an unreliable source. I'm not sure what percentage of the time that's the case rather than someone just not bothering to write down where they read something where if they had recorded their source we'd accept it no problem.I also have no strong insight into what percentage of claims tagged cn have never had a source versus have had a source that the tagging editor did not look for hard enough. But I would say that the probability of being accurate is actually pretty good. Folly Mox (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in my experience the likelihood of an unsourced claim being true is somewhere above 90%, and the likelihood of something (e.g. celeb gossip) being sourced to the Daily Mail is like 99% -- it just really doesn't seem like a thing which needs to be aggressively fixed by removing the reference. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Honestly my main take-away from the article is that anyone who edits a lot and has opinions is going to inevitably end up pushing those opinions one way or another. This is probably a bad thing but cannot really be fixed: the most we can do is take care of the more egregious episodes. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Usual disclaimer that David Gerard is a huge asset to the site and is usually right... but... without relitigating old disputes, let's not say that "[DG] was right about the Chelsea Manning fiasco".  That was undoubtedly his lowest moment.  What could have been a boring, standard WP:Requested Move turned into months of drama because DG insisted on doing the move out of process.  If he had just dropped off a !vote like any other editor, or hell, done nothing, the article was going to move anyway, as indeed it eventually did after the dust settled.  Just rather than having it be a community decision, just like 99.9% of other potentially controversial moves, he just tried to cowboy the move through on grounds of personal authority?  It was a mistake.  It made the result weaker, not stronger, as it opens up tales like this about admin abuse as the reason why, rather than "no this is what the community decided."  The lesson is to just wait for the discussion to close.  SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Recommitting to Wikipedian greatness
I was inspired by the article to form and write up some convictions about what makes Wikipedia great, and how we can recommit to its sustained improvement. Thanks for taking a look if you do. Pizpa (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC that could use uninvolved input
Please see Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do merger recommendations get monitored somehow?
I have just recommended that our article on the human epigenome be merged into the one on epigenomes in general. Does my having used  and   put that recommendation onto some list of outstanding merger proposals or otherwise alert anybody to its existence? Or does the recommendation’s fate depend on people’s watching those pages, or (worse) on their simply happening to notice the recommendation upon visiting either of the pages? PaulTanenbaum (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If the articles have a WikiProject banner, and that WikiProject is subscribed to Article alerts, it will show up in the article alert report for the project that is updated once a day. WikiProject Molecular Biology/Article alerts should include the epigenome merge proposal in about 12 hours.
 * And there is also Category:All articles to be merged, which is used to generate WikiProject_Merge/Article_alerts. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice on a merger misstep
Re the merger I asked about here yesterday, when I created the  and , I had not seen Merging. Because of that and a lack of forethought on my part, I created the discussion in the talk page of the source article rather than that of the destination.

I now see that the destination article is a more sensible location, if only because, should the merger take place, then the now-stump (okay, redirect) source article would be a too-out-of-the-way (if not impossible) place for the historical record of the merger discussion. Darn!

A complicating factor is that the discussion has since been joined by another editor.

How—if at all—should I proceed to remedy my misstep? PaulTanenbaum (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @PaulTanenbaum, the first thing to do is not worry, because Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? If you make a misstep, it's okay.
 * The two usual things to do (yes, this happens often enough that there are usual things to do!) are:
 * Put a note on the 'other' talk page that links to the existing discussion, and proceed as if everything is 100% normal, or
 * Cut/paste the entire existing discussion to the 'correct' talk page, and set things up as if you had done everything perfectly from the first moment.
 * If you choose the first approach, please make sure that the "(discuss)" links in the mergeto/from templates are working (on both 'to' and 'from' pages).
 * If you choose the second approach, I suggest that you tell the first commenter (e.g., on their User_talk: page) why you moved the discussion and give them a link to its new location. Also leave a note on the 'incorrect' talk page that points to the discussion's new location.
 * Finally, if you'd like to avoid this problem in the future, go to Special:Preferences and enable Twinkle. Then, in the future, you can use the TW menu > Tag > merge dialog box to make sure that everything automatically goes in the ordinary place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Have a technical problem or improvement in mind? Community Wishlist is now open!
The new Community Wishlist is accepting submissions 🎉 Visit our new and simple wish form to submit your ideas.

Timeline Alert: The first set of Focus Areas will be announced in August 2024.

Some great submissions are already in, submit your wish now, join and let's prioritize which products and technical improvements we should focus on next!

If you have some feedback or questions, please leave them on the project talk page. ––STei (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yizhi Jane Tao
There's someone who have been vandalising this entry for more than a year, ranging from unjustifiably deleting important information to sharing irrelevant rumours about the biographee. Rewed (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rewed, please see Requests for page protection.
 * The easiest way to submit a report is to go to Special:Preferences and enable Twinkle. Then, go back to the page and find the new 'TW' menu (near the watchlist ☆ button).  Choose "RPP" from the Twinkle menu.  Fill the in the form with a brief explanation of the problem and your request (e.g., for WP:SEMI to stop editing by the unregistered editor) . WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have protected the page. Please keep an eye on the talk page, to see if someone requests changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing<section end="announcement-content" />

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

PAGE</b>]]) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the Board of Trustees had veto power, maybe they should've voted first before wasting the time of the 2,500 other people who voted. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * I understand that "the 2,500 other people who voted" had an opportunity to provide anonymous comments along with their votes, so I can't see that as a complete waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

About article Harbin
Hi! If you translate this website this website with Google Translation, You will find a sentence that says: "Harbin" comes from the Jurchen language "Harwen", which means "swan". Because that website is the city government website, it should be a reliable source. This is different from the "Place of Drying Fishing Nets" statement introduced by English Wikipedia. I wonder if I can add it to the article? Suspected source, but not sure if it counts as original research. See also: Google Books (in Chinese). In addition,  I found that some websites said that the literal meaning of "Harbin" comes from "Alejin", which means "honor". BUT THEY AREN'T ENGLISH SOURCES, ALSO I WAS NOT FIND ENGLISH SOURCES. And the harbin article Japanese Wikipedia have aparted these theories.-邻家的王子 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If the source is reliable it doesn't matter that it's not in English. You can add that information if it would be considered reliable. ... disco spinster   talk  19:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @邻家的王子, it is our policy that you can use NONENGLISH sources. Editors should only use good sources, but there are many good sources that are written in other languages.
 * Finding a source that says "swan" does not prove that "place of drying fishing nets" is wrong. Sometimes it is best to say something like "Different meanings have been ascribed to the name.  For example, the city government says the name means swan in the Jurchen language, and the Hong Kong Trade Development Council says that it means 'place of the drying fishing nets'."
 * When something needs a longer explanation, it should not usually be included in the Infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)