Wikipedia talk:Notability (bilateral relations)

(Untitled)
Notability (bilateral relationships) does exist, but it doesn't actually propose anything in particular (it is just a list of options that looks more like a WikiProject discussion page), none of the options seem to admit that two countries may not have bilateral relations (which might be possible for the distant past), and that proposal gives no guidance for the notability of embassies, consulates, ambassadors, high commissioners, treaties, non-binding agreements, etc. It is marked as rejected, the discussion of it is too old to be relevant now, and it is such a mess that I think it best to start over with a new proposal. James500 (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

inherent notability
This page attempts to give automatic notability to ambassadors, embassies, and bilateral relations when community consensus has shown no inherent notability for these, in fact 100s have been deleted. The fact that James500 sneakily tries to refer to this draft guideline that he invented himself in an AfD as somehow advancing his keep argument is dodgy at best. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of the procedure here. Is MfD the proper way to suggest deletion of this page? J bh  Talk  02:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so, since the draft is being used to try to sway an AfD/support the creators. It is a draft that is not in draftspace, and the author actually claimed we "WP:IAR" and just accept it. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:LibStar, User:Jbhunley User:Wikimandia: The proper procedure is to change it so that it does reflect consensus or mark it as rejected. The draftspace is for draft articles. Even if I was wrong about that, this page could be moved there, so that isn't an argument. There is no rule against citing draft proposals at AfD, and that has no bearing on whether the draft should be kept. James500 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck out that it belonged in draftspace. I had (wrongly) assumed it was under active construction. I should have noticed that you only basically made one edit to it and stopped working on it three days ago. Most telling, you've not brought it to the attention of any WikiProjects to invite other editors to discuss it and contribute to it. You've ONLY used it to support your position at AfD. You also brought it up at another AfD and suggested it should be followed as it's a "correct" interpretation of guideline: "We should, therefore, follow the draft notability criteria of WP:NBILATERAL, which are a correct exposition of that basic idea." . Wow. —Мандичка YO 😜 15:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors can discuss and contribute to a proposal without being invited. Proposals are immediately visible to the entire community. Proposals need wider participation than members of particular WikiProjects to avoid being treated as "local consensus". If it had occurred to me to invite them, I would. Sometimes these things slip a person's mind. James500 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My edits
I have edited the proposal to express my understanding of the current consensus notability of bilateral relations, please modify it as needed since I am sure I missed some nuance. I removed the ultra-contentious topic of Ambassadors. I also removed the section on Embassies and made it clear the proposal had no current consensus to be used in discussions of notability. My personal opinion is that the entire concept of inherent notability is wrong and exists only to allow niche groups of editors to write massive numbers of stub articles in their favorite topic area. Bringing inherent notability to yet another topic area is not a service to the encyclopedia. J bh Talk  18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)
Begin copied text. @User:Jbhunley: Thank you for your edits to the proposal. They don't really reflect my opinions, but they may in some respects be an improvement on GNG. Would you now agree that the arguments above for the deletion of this proposal no longer apply to it in its current form? Would you now agree that the draft proposal should be kept and improved? James500 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of WP:PROPOSAL it is not really a proposal until it is placed in RfC. As it stands I do think it should be worked on quite a bit in user space or draft space to bring it up to a quality level that has a chance of passing RfC. I posted a link at WikiProject: International Relations to try to get more editors to show up here and/or there. If more people start editing/commenting on it I will strike my delete !vote. Right now I admit that there seems to be no policy to delete but as it stands I do not think it should be kept because it pretty much rewords just rewords GNG. My concern is in how you used it and how others might use it in deletion discussions to imply some form of consensus to readers who do not click through to the actual page where it says Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" nor yet even as a proposal. (Emp. mine) . I admit that is not a good basis for deletion so I am stating it so the closer can take it into account. I would be willing to work on crafting a notability policy on bilateral relations either on the page, if it is kept, or in user space. Whichever there need to be a lot more editors commenting on it before I would be comfortable seeing it cited at AfD.  J bh  Talk  18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Jbhunley: It does add to GNG. You've removed "independent" (which is reasonable because it would be ludicrous to require all the sources to be independent of two whole countries) and "secondary" (which is ambiguous, confusing, open to extensive objections for certain types of sources at least, and has never been taken particularly seriously, being used a code word for "good source" by the vast majority of our editors who still have no idea what it means). "And only if" will have to be removed because an SNG that says GNG can't be used as an argument for keeping an article has little chance of achieving consensus. "It might be cited at AfD" is an argument that would require the deletion of all notability essays. There is no question of imposing restrictions on what can be cited at AfD. James500 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about copying this thread over to the article talk page? As to your comments I actually did not really consider those points when I did the changes, although I should have. If I had I would probably have used 'independent, third party reliable source'. By this I would mean to exclude 'press release' type announcements, from embassies, government press officers and the like. I would also consider trivial mentions of normal diplomatic functions to not contribute to notability. J bh Talk  21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(bilateral_relations)&diff=669535683&oldid=669519786]

End copied text. J bh Talk  21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to 's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(bilateral_relations)&diff=669541731&oldid=669537407 comment] on WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations).
 * Independent, third party WP:reliable sources is the standard term of art on all notability guidelines. Nothing says other sources can not be used to write articles only that they do not contribute to the notability of the subject. See WP:PRIMARY or WP:ABOUTSELF. Take a look at how WP:NCORP is written paying particular attention of WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. Finding ways around GNG is not something I will be able to support, I see this as providing guidance for what GNG means in the context of bilateral relations not as a way of lowering the bar or allowing for inherent notability. J bh  Talk  22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:V requires that an article topic have coverage in at least one independent source, but it does not require that the coverage be significant. If we are going to create a notability guideline, we have to comply with the requirement in that policy, because guidelines are not supposed to contradict policies. A new guideline is not however required to comply with restrictions in existing guidelines. If we are going to create a notability policy, we can even create exceptions to the requirement in WP:V (though I don't propose to go that far). Whether existing notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent sources is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether requiring such coverage for the topics in question would objectively be A Good Thing or A Bad Thing. I think it would be a bad thing because the requirement that such coverage be significant appears arbitrary and more restrictive than the purpose it ostensibly serves actually requires. Notwithstanding this, a number of SNG do, however, allow forms of inherent notability, or something fairly close. Even N itself is worded in a way that seems to contemplate it. I certainly would not use ORG as a model for a proposal, as it is a complete mess, full of nonsense, that, judging by discussions on its talk page, doesn't reflect consensus and is likely to be heavily redacted, or perhaps even demoted, sooner or later. James500 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fundamentally opposed to weakening GNG and to most concepts of inherent notability. All I have seen come from weakened notability guidelines is a proliferation of articles and, worse yet, perma-stubs on third rate footballers, garage bands, crap songs, political office holders who are likely not notable outside a very small area and thousands and thousands of stubs, or worse completely un-sourced articles, on 'wide-spot-in-the-road' villages. What you are proposing, assuming 200 countries, is a green light for 19900 articles. Most of which, at best, will simply repeat press releases. Wikipedia already has a very loose definition of significant . My strong advice is if you want to construct a guideline that will pass RfC is to base it on the standards we have. If you want to write something that challenges the status quo then feel free to un-do my modifications and put it up for RfC. It will be a massive waste of time and will fail but knock yourself out. If you want to take a genuine stab at a guideline then I am willing to work with you. However removing sourcing requirements is pretty much a non-starter from my point of view. If countries have relations worth documenting then someone will have written about it. J bh  Talk  22:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts
I am still of the opinion that the bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations, ambassadors, embassies and bilateral treaties are notable. However, I will !vote for any proposal which, although it is less inclusive than the aforesaid, is still more inclusive than GNG (including one which, although based on GNG, reduces its subjectivity in a way that tends to restrict deletions, such as by defining, in terms of a specific number of words or pages, the absolute maximum level of coverage that can be regarded as insignificant, which GNG does not define). James500 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I can support better defining what GNG means and how it should be applied to bilateral relations I think specifying bright line numbers is not the way to go. A couple of major analysis articles in NYT, The Guardian or FT might easily pass GNG but a dozen articles in low circulation papers or reprints of press releases would not. To say X number of articles defines notability leads to crap like the 'two reviews make a book notable' standard at NBOOKS. GNG is vague because it allows for and requires editorial judgement which is key to everything we do here. There is a pretty solid consensus as to what is significant coverage and what is and is not notable. I removed ambassadors from the guideline for two very specific reasons. One, anything trying to define their notability will be overshadowed by that discussion and two, there is already an ongoing discussion on that topic. We do not need to rehash it here. J bh  Talk  22:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the 'two reviews make a book notable' standard at NBOOKS is a good thing, not crap, and I would reduce it to one review. James500 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is probably a reflection of what is likely our main difference in views. It is now trivial to get an article published via PR agents or the like. When the only information that exists is from someone with a vested interest in presenting a specific view or in 'getting exposure' we fail our readers. In such cases is is impossible not to violate NPOV. We end up perpetuating the narrative of an involved party and, in the case of international relations, it is likely a false narrative constructed for a specific political purpose. Only by obtaining independent third party analysis can we present an 'accurate' picture of what is going on. Also, without independent sources our citation requirements would result in articles consisting of only 'X says this but Y says that'. If an article can not be written neutrally and objectively is should not be written. RS is a result of the requirements of NPOV and V. I see GNG as a noise filter. Without it we would be seeing articles like Bilateral relations between Andorra and Sudan or Fiji - Nigeria bilateral relations. My primary concerns are the perpetuation of articles which can not possibly be expanded beyond stubs and articles which, by the very nature of the only sources available, violate NPOV. How would your proposals address those issues? J bh  Talk  15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pings
Any input you have would be appreciated. I am flying blind on the long term consensus of the specifics od section 1. Cheers. J bh Talk  12:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no inherent notability for bilateral relations. The GNG we have now works fine, which is why we don't have to worry about Fiji-Nigeria bilateral relations existing. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree entirely about inherent notability. When I re-wrote the page my intention was to write something that would reflect what consensus has shown GNG to mean with respect to bilateral relations. It seems that most disagreements consist of 'what is significant coverage'. The original draft by  made blanket claims of notability and now he is arguing against the requirement of independent, third party, reliable sources. If there is any interest in defining what significant is as it relates to GNG and bilateral relations this would be a good time to give it a shot. Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of such guideline pages. If the MfD fails I assume the best thing to do is put it up for RfC. Maybe that will get some more input. It would be nice if something could be nailed down that shows consensus for GNG. What I want to avoid is having this page floating in limbo where it can be cited like is was earlier. Thank you for getting back to me. Cheers.  J bh  Talk  21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be desirable to have much wider input than ourselves, Wikimandia and LibStar. A proposal drafted without input from others would be very unlikely to achieve consensus. James500 (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post it in appropriate venues. I posted a link on Talk Wikiproject International Relations when I first edited the page. The lack of interest from previously un-involved editors is one of the reasons for my desire to simply delete it at MfD. J bh  Talk  16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)