Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia discussions |
---|
Arguments to avoid in |
Arguments to make |
Common outcomes |
On Wikipedia, talk pages serve a variety of functions. One of the main purposes is for Wikipedia editors to discuss how the article should be written, and what material should be included or not.
While involved in a discussion, there are arguments that can make or break a case. Inclusion of material can hinge on what existing policies and guidelines allow for. Therefore, all arguments in such a discussion should be based on these, and not one's personal perceptions.
Unlike a deletion discussion, where people "vote" with terms like "keep," "delete," and a variety of other actions, talk page discussions are not as formal and can follow any number of structures. The examples below use terms like "include" and "remove" just to get the point across. But a real discussion may appear quite differently.
Arguments without arguments
[edit]Just a vote
[edit]Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include – ThoughtlessMcInclude 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove – ThoughtlessMcRemove 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include because it should be included – Because This 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove because it does not belong – Because That 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
It is important when engaging in a discussion that your comments are not votes. It helps in reaching a consensus when each person who comments gives a reason why they believe in their decision.
Per others
[edit]Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include per consensus – Echo 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove since that is what everyone else wants – Copycat 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Discussions are a place where people present ideas in working toward a solution. Simply going along with the crowd does not present any new ideas. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good.
There must be sources
[edit]Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include – There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include – You should find sources, instead of deleting it. ItsUpToYou 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
We keep content because we know it can be sourced, not because we assume it can, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.
Just pointing at a policy or guideline
[edit]Examples:
- Include Meets WP:NOR – Policylover, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist, 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that content should be removed, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.
As noted above, content discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.
Keep in mind that content can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)
Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.
Begging for mercy
[edit]Examples:
- Include I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? – DoNotHurtMe, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your opinion – Mindchanger, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I need more time to work on it – Not Finished Yet, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home – InTahiti, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I placed this template on top of the page so my work wouldn't get deleted – ConstructionSign, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I placed hidden text next to my work telling others they were not supposed to delete it – WarningMarker, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.
You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's canvassing guidelines before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.
If you feel you need more time to work on new content, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the content until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space.
Personal point of view
[edit]Article appearance
[edit]- Include Makes article look good – Vanity Fair (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove Makes article look bad – Eyesore Buster (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with policies and guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up.
Personal taste
[edit]- Include I like it in there – All for me (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove I hate it in there – Yuck (talk) , 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include This is great, and I think it should stay. – Peacock (talk), 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
- Remove: No need. – WhoNeedsThis (talk), 06:07, 5 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove: I'm so ashamed this article is on Wikipedia. – Mortified_Molly (talk), 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove: Got bored of reading. Not of interest to English-speakers. – HastyHannigan (talk), 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Remove: This makes me look stupid! – Reputation Defender (talk), 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove This offends me. – OnTheDefense (talk), 11:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Remove Does not belong here. – MembersOnly (talk), 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Remove That would never appear in a paper encyclopedia. – WebExclusive (talk), 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "I don't like it, therefore it should not be included". On Wikipedia, inclusion of content is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content.
As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient. On the other hand, claims that content should be excluded require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for removing it.
In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.
It's interesting
[edit]- Include Makes the article more interesting – WOW 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove No one is interested in reading that – Boring! 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
There are many interesting facts out there. There are also lots of things you may perceive no one is interested in reading. You never know. Once again, this is opinion.
Simple truth
[edit]- Include Is verifiable – C4Urself 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include Is sourced – Good Enough 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is actually quite a lot of true and sourceable information out in this world that does not belong on Wikipedia, or in a particular article. For example, Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, trivia, or how to information. And besides, you would not write facts about an apple tree in an article about sharks. Simply saying something is "verifiable" or "sourced" does not show how it is relevant to the subject or why it otherwise belongs.
It's useful
[edit]Example:
- Include Useful. – Usefulisgood, 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Remove: We don't need this here. – Judgmental, 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.
A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikivoyage for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided unless it supports a cogent argument.
If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."
There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.
It doesn't do any harm
[edit]Examples:
- Include Why change this, it is not harming anyone. – Hippocrates2, 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Remove This content is very harmful to many people. Get rid of this now! – BiographyPolice, 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No content on Wikipedia is censored. Just because content does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should stay in an article. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for content that does not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping it actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here.
The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.
In some cases, such as WP:BLP, whether content is harmful is often a relevant issue. The rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.
It's valuable
[edit]Examples:
- Include valuable. – Gollum, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
- Remove adds nothing of value – Scrooge, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
- Include: This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin,
- Include: This content is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – SaveTheKids!Please!,
- Remove: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. – SaveTheTroops!Please!,
Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember, you need to say why the content is or is not valuable; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.
Additionally, Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE and "It's useful".
Surmountable problems
[edit]Quality of writing
[edit]- Remove Has a lot of misspelling and poor grammar. – English Teacher 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove This paragraph is messy and poorly laid out. – LostWillToFix,
- Remove It's not referenced properly – Lazy1, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include We'll find some sources later – NotRightNow, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Material that is included on Wikipedia is judged on its accuracy and strength of sourcing, not on the quality of writing. A paragraph or two that has spelling, grammar, or punctuation problems can always be corrected. Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and content should not be deleted just because no one has felt like cleaning it up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not removed. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to remove it.)
In the Wiki model, content which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such content is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and it can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such content is cleanup, not removal.
With that said, if content is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then removing it now, and possibly adding it back later, is often a better option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements about living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible. Additionally, if specific problems with content have been known for some time, such as when statements are tagged with a {{citation needed}} template, that may be grounds for concluding that no sources actually exist.
Sources are inaccessible
[edit]- Remove The only sources given are offline. – Cantmakeittothelibrary, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove With only offline sources given, there is no proof that this is not a hoax. – The Secret Keeper, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove One look online shows that this does not even exist. – Jumping to conclusions, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Google Books only allows you to see pages 1-45 of this book, and the source claims it's on page 57. – Restricted access, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove All the sources given have fallen victim to linkrot. Therefore, we have no way of knowing about this. – Evidence Destroyed, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove The book sources don't have any ISBNs, so they must be fake. IAmANumber, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove The sources are behind a paywall. InformationWantsToBeFree, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I can't access this so I don't know if it's true. Suspicious, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I won't accept your argument until you cite sources I can check myself. NoTrust, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. Unless we have good reason to suspect that an editor is mistaken or dishonest, we take their contributions to discussions at face value. This doesn't mean we can't doubt what someone says, but it means that we need actual reasons to do so.
There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If content is sourced to offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the content. That said, all sources must be verifiably published and thus accessible somehow (even if at expense and trouble), as well as reliable.
Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)
[edit]Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Remove This hasn't been improved in 2 years! – TheyDidntWork, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remove Creator has totally neglected this article – Plant and run, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Each time we discussed this, User:WantItKept promised they would improve it. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise. Last straw was long ago, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There are variants, such as "maybe someday but probably not" handwaving, and "who'll ever work on it?" attempts to skirt the rules:
- Include I know I can improve it, I just have no time now to explain how. PrettyPleaseWithACherryOnTop, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge If we merge these two little stubs on basically the same topic, we'll have one crappy stub that's a little longer. Keeping them forked might attract an extra couple of editors. ShotgunSprayer
- Oppose split We do clearly have two unrelated topics with the same name in this article, but if we split them, we'll end up with very short stubs, and I don't see anyone volunteering to develop them. An Indiscriminate Smelter, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes content is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited in a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the material is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. Content should be assessed on its own merits, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.
Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the content better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the fate of the content is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way.
Similarly, whether a merge, split, move, category/list conversion, userspacing/draftification, or other action might entail more long-term work, might not produce immediate major improvements, or exists in a state someone things "begs for attention" of a different kind, is never a rationale to avoid compliance with policies and guidelines on matters such as when to merge (WP:MERGE, WP:CFORK, WP:POVFORK), when to split (WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:COATRACK), when to move a page (WP:AT, WP:RM, WP:DAB, WP:NAMESPACE), when to listify (WP:CLNT), when to userspace of draftify (WP:DRAFT), etc., etc.
Conversely, a vague suggestion that something reasonable might eventually come of substandard material is not a very good rationale for retaining it, especially if its compliance with policies and guidelines seems dubious. If the entire page is trash, but the subject does need an article, the WP:TNT principle may apply.
Exceptions:
- While "no work" sorts of arguments may not be good ones for removal of content, they often are excellent arguments for a merge of sections or pages in cases where an excessive number of undeveloped sections or redundant pages exist. (A counter-exception is that user essays are usually left as-is.)
- Content of a potentially dubious nature that is about a living person, but which has not been sourced properly (or at all), should be removed on sight.
- Material that unambiguously is advertising or other (e.g. political, religious) promotion may simply be deleted, if there is little to no content worth saving. (An article consisting entirely of promo material may even be speedily deleted.)
- Other exceptions include unambiguous copyright infringement, and edits by a blocked or banned user in violation of their block or ban. In the latter case, it is not required to revert them if the edits were constructive, and even talk-page comments by sockpuppets are typically struck rather than deleted, especially if others have already replied to them.