Wikipedia talk:Recentism/Archive 2

Be careful using the Recentism template
Can someone here please keep track of how Recentism is used? It's misuse led to a TfD nomination. The nomination has now been withdrawn, but the examples presented by the nominator clearly show that the template is subject to misuse. I have modified the template so that it now automatically places any articles containing the template in Category:Articles slanted towards recent events so you can keep a better eye out on where it is used. The TfD nominator has also added some helpful documentation. This is a useful template, and recentism is a clear problem on Wikipedia, but unless the use of this template is not kept in check, then it is sure to be nominated for deletion again. - 52 Pickup  (deal) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Related essay
Notability does not degrade over time. For your consideration. Lawrence §  t / e  09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction
Following the discussion at this deletion page Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_2008_Sichuan_earthquake I believe it is time for editors and administratiors to get together and discuss what to do with international reaction sections. There are some fundamental opinions on both sides - those who say it contravenes policy on lists and recentism, those who say it creates a "blog" style section to articles, those who feel it is Wiki's responsbility to record the after effects of world events such as the 11th September attacks, the recent Chinese earthquake and such. My feelings are pro such articles and sections. Wikipedia could be at its best if it shows the reactions from country leaders or pledges from nations (and those who did not), Wiki could show itself as being very useful in bringing together the pledges and reactions from numerous sources into one easily navigated article. I fully accept the problem with always showing that the Pope prayed for someone or George W Bush sent his deepest condolences, which is why I am here, really. I think we should have some standards set for these sections, when they can be used, and how to record the international bodies and nations in the aftermath of an event. But there will be claims of "recentism" which need to be looked at of course, which is why I am here! If anyone can help me draw up a policy on "international reactions" or direct me to an existing discussion on the matter, I think we can use consensus to move forward on this issue. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess a few things which spring to mind are: (1) provide more than just a list of facts or quotes (per WP:NOT). For example, after a disaster group together offers of aid separate from messages of condolence, (2) avoid repetitive text.  This often will mean being sparing with quotes, if a lot of leaders are saying similar things. Kingdon (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recentism in chronological lists?
Please give some feedback on the follwing issue. Is a chronological list, which starts with the most recent events, and ends with the oldest events in a list a variant of recentism? See List of civilian nuclear accidents -- Eiland (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oldest to newest generally strikes me as best (different from, say, a blog, per NOT). See for example the lede to   where it starts with ancient China, proceeds to the spread into the west in the 1700s, and ends with the status in recent decades. Kingdon (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per WikiProject_Usability/Areas, the more important an article is, the more visible - more on top - it should be. I guess that a recent nuclear incident is more important than one fifty years ago? -- Eiland (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chernobyl disaster is far more important than anything which has happened since. But importance isn't really how we organize lists; see LIST. Kingdon (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but since it is a list, it needs some sort of ordering, and I find new>old better than old>new. LIST#Organization doesn't come up with a guideline, and I cant get to agreement with User:Nailedtooth. -- Eiland (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The list you keep trying to invert into newest-oldest order is a list of civilian nuclear accients. It's meant to compliment lists of military nuclear and radiation accidents which are also in oldest-newest order. The reason you can't get me to agree with you is because I don't. You have no reason for newest-oldest besides your personal preference. This does not give you the right to simply edit the page to your choosing. Given that the context of the complementary articles and the fact that there's no reason to change the article, I find no reason to change the article and some reason to keep it the same, therefore I wish to keep it the same. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumbest example of recentism ever?
Palin which had been a disambiguation for a long while was changed to a redirect to Sarah Palin without discussion. Ignoring the obvious systemic bias here, guess what editors suggest we should do if she loses? Why move it back of course... Perhaps next time Britney Spears has a melt down, we should redirect Spears to Britney's page. We can just move it back in a few days right? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Value of recentism essay
I don't think I've linked my essay about recentism here before, but it's come up in a few discussions; see User:Dcoetzee/The value of recentism. If Recentism ends up being a guideline, it might be useful to incorporate some of this balancing viewpoint. Any feedback is appreciated. Dcoetzee 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Guideline Proposal
I saw the guideline proposal tag, but could not find an actual discussion going on. If there is one, then maybe the section header should be made more clear. If not, then this can be it. I have no problem supporting the idea of making "RECENT" a guideline. I have seen a lot of articles (and this affects fiction articles a lot) get edited to reflect the "current status" of actors on a show, while ignoring the significance of who was there first and longest (e.g. An actor who was on a show for 7 years being moved to "former cast" in favor of a section of "Current Cast" that represents people are are new to the show that year...favors the new over the long standing).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Also, this talk page needs to have some serious clean-up and archival work. The actual discusion that the tag is talking about took place 3 and half years ago. Most people consider it a policy now, so I am going to remove the discusion tag.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal was three months ago (October 27, 2008), See this edit. Unless we have an official guideline proposal process (which there has not been one since the tag was put up in October), then this essay will never be taking seriously.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Benefits of recentist articles
Is this actually being done? Are cited web articles being archived by Wikipedia? Or is another entity handling this for Wikipedia? Is there perhaps a Wikiproject that does the archiving? If this is done and controlled well, it seems that it would be a tremendous boon to future historians! What about the copyright issue? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.   06:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "If temporary reference sources can thus be identified as important and put in a web archive for future reference before it is lost, this benefits the Wikipedia community directly, as well as the larger community it is intended to serve."

The "process" of: recentism --> history
I like this new word, "recentism", I enjoyed the article, and I love this subject! Here is why this subject must become a guideline...
 * This is something that separates Wikipedia from other reference works. Traditional encyclopedias perform this process "under the table", out of the public eye.  Experienced editors of, say, Britannica must keep track of current events with an eye toward their historical value.  And by the time the next publishing rolls around, the current events have evolved into historical articles suitable as encyclopedic content.  In Wikipedia this process is out in the open, continuous, ongoing.

Perhaps the fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia is a drawback. [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_fights_back_against_Wikipedia,_soon_to_let_users_edit_contents Evidently the Britannica people think so. And yet, isn't it odd that inside this here Wikinews article Britannica at one and the same time shows its disgust for Wikipedia AND expounds about becoming more like Wikipedia!] What's up with that?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Wikipedia gets fully four times as many hits each day as Britannica does?

An encyclopedia is the result of an evolutionary process, current events into historical facts, recentism into history. And for the first time this process is visible thanks to Wikipedia. Is this not an historical event itself? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.   09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with 2006 Lebanon War being longer than George Washington?
It seems to me that an article on any serious war has every reason to be as long if not longer as an article on a single individual. sephia karta |  di mi  15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is quite a poor example. We should find something better, which doesn't compare apples to oranges like this example. I'll see if I come up with something better. Right now, I'm thinking about Tenerife airport disaster vs Air France Flight 447. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochonfou (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick fix could be preferable
Sometimes a quick edit can remove the most flagrant example of recentism, even if the fix is not of the most elegant nature. I submit to you this example, where a new Section title seemed to take care of the situation. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-recentism: separate essay or a good addition to this one?
I've encountered some people who interpret this essay as meaning that Wikipedia should avoid covering recent events at all until some time period has passed. And, hypothetically, one could make a good argument that any news under 24- or 72-hours old should be left to Wikinews and only later integrated into Wikipedia itself. But I don't think that's what this essay is suggesting. To clarify, I thought about adding text such as the following:


 * At the same time, nothing in this essay suggests that recent events shouldn't be covered if they meet Wikipedia's content policies. Wikipedia articles routinely cover a variety of notable events as soon as they are reliable sources are available.  For example, articles routinely cover the deaths of notable individuals, major natural disasters, outbreaks of war, election results, etc.  Just as editors should not devote too much weight to event due to recentness, nor should they devote too little coverage to notable, verifiable events due to recentness either.

To me it reads as a non-controversial description of standard operating procedure that I might normally just BOLDLY insert, but since this is an essay, I think a certain amount of ownership does attach to essays, so I thought I'd ask people where-- should this be added to this essay, or does it better fit as being its own essay? --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A small guidline for recentism.
Use the scientific method to test the article. The test of time, the test of space (distance).
 * Change your point of reference to a position far enough removed so that the topic in question appears to be placed in infinity. The emotional impact of the specific article becomes less and the significance of a multitude of articles and commentaries are conglomerated into one of several directions. Economics is always an issue.

For any individual still living, with entities in relation that knew or reference that individual, recent can be as long as 200 years for personal involvement or a single moment if there is no personal involvement. Examples are Copyrights and Patents, which are vested long-term economic interests. All current figures with sufficient importance have nestlings just out of the eggshell that attempt to obtain nutrients by picking at their beeks. Also called yapping dog at heel syndrome to see if he/she drops something usefull, interesting, or nutricious. You can add something similar to animals in extinction to define the recentism of an article and the amount of yapping. (Fractalhints (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Resentism and Recentism

Recentism - From re-cent, current affairs, to close in time to now. Something to do with a cent, not a nickle.

Resentism - From re-sent, an emtion dealing with dislike, Some form of come again smell.

Resendism - From re-send, to send again, and again, and again, and again.

For those that did not grow up in an area with strict english/american linquistical tone and stress control, without internal dictionaries containing at least several similar sounding references, all three sound sufficiently the same to be somewhat indistinquisable. For those that parse, as learned in highschool, to define the meaning and the usage of words in another language, that creates confusion.(Fractalhints (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

"Current" sections in articles
I've noticed a number of soap opera related articles have sections devoted to things like "Current main crew" or "Current cast members" (ex. The_Young_and_the_Restless, The_Young_and_the_Restless, and List of Days of our Lives cast members). Are these sections examples of recentism? Rocksey (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Recentism being particularly prevalent on pages for sports clubs/teams
Something I would like to add to this discussion is a section to draw people's attention to a particular category where recentism is happening on almost every page. That category is sports clubs, in particular English Football League Clubs which I have been researching, but I have no reason to doubt the same would apply to any club.

Club Histories start off usually with sections titled Pre-War, 1930s, 1945-1979 etc. dependent on the club's rise and fall, usually with more written about periods when they were winning more. This is to be expected, the problems start around the 1990s.

As you get closer to the present date, the roughly one section per one-or-two decades becomes one section per season, and nearly always culminates on the last 2 or 3 seasons that club played having a section each, often longer than sections on whole decades giving minute detail of ins and outs, key players, key games and so on.

I mean in as little as 5 years' time no-one will care about the significance substituting player X for player Y in the Zth minute of a game against A, had on the outcome of B's season in the 2005 League K championship. Not unless we can say that one event had repercussions for decades to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.34.114 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Recentism and NOR
The phenomenon of recentism is not especially bad in itself; also, I understand the reasons for the WP:NOR policy. However, the intersection of these is ugly. For example, taking the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 as an example, it would be nice for someone to synthesize the data there into a more readable article, but NOR says this is impossible until we have secondary sources providing this synthesis, which may never happen. So not only does the article remain as little more than a proseline, it is not possible to improve it without violating NOR. The result is Wikipedia may come to be dominated by timelines of recent-ish events without meaningful interpretation. Is there any way around this problem without resorting to deletionism? -- Kevin Saff (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting you cited an article that I have been following for many years. I believe the article has already been "synthesized" in sections 1, 2 and 3, although you might want to cut down the wordiness, perhaps. Anyway, Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 is not, to my way of thinking, an example of Recentism because it is now no longer Recent. The effect of the trial might be mentioned a little stronger both in this article and in the Pitcairn Islands article, but I can't see how Recentism applies here. Maybe you could elucidate? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)