Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

whitehouse.gov status as source

Given things like https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/, in which a controversial theory is stated as fact with no indication of uncertainty, can whitehouse.gov any longer be considered a reliable source for anything other than the views of the current administration? (This may be tricky: it may be that the status for current content is different from the status for archived content from certain past periods.) Do we already have a determination on this somewhere? (I know it is not on the blacklist.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought it was ever to be taken as anything other than a collection of statements—propaganda—by the current administration. Note that the entire site is replaced every Inauguration Day, as it's a set of position pieces, not an enduring portal for truth. Well-intentioned or not, in good faith or not, it isn't objective, objectively peer-reviewed content.

As for now, given my impression (I say this based on the couple of times I've brought myself to look at it, I could be wrong about the rest of it) that this incarnation is written in the style and with the tone of a crew of petulant, defiant teenagers looking to offend and in want of critical thinking skills, I can't imagine using it as a source other than as a primary one for confirming anything other than, as you said, the administration's views on something. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But on many, many topics, the White House's opinion will be a notable one. St Anselm (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that statements from the White House will continue to be reported by major media sources. That does not make the White House a reliable source. The current White House is fast building a reputation for dispensing inaccurate and misleading information, and of changing its story from day to day. Donald Albury 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the White House is a reliable source when it comes to stating positions of the Administration. for statements of fact, the reliable sources would continue to be reliable news sources, like the bbc, etc etc. for objective government findings, research organizations like Congressional Research Service would be prefrerable. Sm8900 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://covid.gov used to be a reliable source, now it's perversely the opposite, the very thing the old site warned about. But this problem is happening across *.gov which is becoming a propaganda network, both in what it includes and excludes. Social Security Administration will be moving everything to X, and X is privately controlled ecosystem of targeted propaganda. It goes on like that, many examples of once reliable government sources that are off the scale on general reliability. -- GreenC 22:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be reasonable to strip any .gov domains of their reliability for the time being mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is a thought; this might be worth an encyclopedia article of its own. perhaps Controversy over Trump Administration credibility, or something like that. obviously it should be based on reliable coverage, in major well-known reliable news outlets and publications. Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some possible references for this:

Fact check: Debunking 100 Trump false claims from his first 100 days By Daniel Dale, CNN, Tue April 29, 2025
Removal of pages from CDC website brings confusion, dismay Chris Dall, MA February 3, 2025, University of Minnesota website.

etc etc, thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doxxing, how to report?

I encountered what looks like doxxing of another editor. Rather than post the information publicly (bringing broad attention to the doxxed information), is there any admin I can send an email about this? WP:DOX provides no useful pointers. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A section on the harassment page that WP:DOX is part of is devoted to that regarding harassment in general: Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment. Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp: WP:SUPPRESS has the link for how to request suppression near the top. If the doxing attacks were part of a campaign, WP:ARBCOM has a link for how to email the Arbitration Committee who could look at a bigger picture if warranted. First, a trusted admin could be emailed to revision-delete the material. Probaly best is to request suppression as they usually react quickly and deal with any related issues such as blocking an attacker. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look, I don't have the time to research this stuff. I'm just a drive-by editor who was alerted to an edit in an article on my watchlist. I just want to report it to someone who cares to deal with it. I KNOW how long it takes to read these wiki-guidelines, figure out how to this or that, research the edits, collect some diffs, etc. It's probably just a returning sock in IP form. I don't have the time to get fully involved.

So here I'll post it and maybe someone more experienced in these matters will read it and care to take it up.

IP editor (redaced) is seeming to dox someone they call by name which doesn't match any of the other users in the article history. Their contributions list shows several edits made today (redacted). Two of the edit summaries mention the name, and one of the edits to a talk page also mentions the name (redacted). Their edit here (redacted) is a revert of an earlier long-and-slow edit warring over the SAME CONTENT as far back as September 2022, perhaps involving some socking and several blocked/banned editors. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sending an e-mail message to Special:EmailUser/Oversight is usually the right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sent. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding articles with links to specific pages

Hello, I’m wondering if there's a way to block or hide all articles containing links to a specific page on Wikipedia. I recently experienced a traumatic event and, while I want to continue contributing, I'm not in a place where I can handle seeing certain topics. Is there an existing tool or workaround that can help filter out these articles? – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 01:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are various browser extensions that filter/block specified words. They might work for you when reading wikipedia, but you wouldn't want them running when you edit as the extension could make changes to the text in the editing view and thus be included when you publish. Schazjmd (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's a reliable solution. I'm sure you're not the only person who's wished for this (the cancer patient who wants to think about anything except cancer, the unemployed person who wants to think about anything except their job loss, the alcoholic person who wants to think about anything except drinking, etc.).

Here's one idea: Since putting deepcat:potatoes into Special:Search finds all the articles in Category:Potatoes, you could add -deepcat:potatoes to any searches, to exclude all articles in that category. I hope you are starting to feel a bit better already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting(?) dates

Hello. I am currently working on editing an article, and the sources are giving me a bit of a headache. For context, the article is Juana Belén Gutiérrez de Mendoza. At some point between 1913 and 1916, Gutiérrez was imprisoned for 10 months. Half of my sources say that such an imprisonment happened in 1913 (2-3 sources: specifically, one implies a 1913 date but does not state it explicitly). The other half (3 sources) say that such an imprisonment happened in 1916. I believe that these are referring to the same incident, since the sources that mention the 1913 date do not refer to a 1916 imprisonment and vice versa. The amount of time spent in prison is also the same between the alleged 1913 imprisonment and the 1916 imprisonment: 10 months. The difference between 1913 and 1916 is consequential, as different individuals held power during these periods. To be more specific, about half of the sources claim that it was Victoriano Huerta that imprisoned her, which is consistent with the 1913 date. The other half claim that it was Venustiano Carranza who imprisoned her, which is consistent with the 1916 date. It's also possible that I'm mistaken, and these were actually two different instances.

Right now, I have adopted the latter date, since there is technically one more source that fully supports it. Here's my current approach:

In February 1913, Félix Díaz, nephew of Porfirio, joined with General Bernardo Reyes to launch a coup d'état against the Madero government. Huerta supported the coup, successfully arresting Madero and assuming the presidency himself. Madero was subsequently killed while being transported to prison. Huerta's forces were defeated by a coalition including Zapatistas, Carrancistas, Obregónistas, Villistas, and United States Marines in July 1914. However, the coalition collapsed later that year, leading to renewed fighting. Gutiérrez also founded a new newspaper in 1914: La Reforma (transl. 'Reform'), which advocated for Indigenous Mexicans. Orozco, her adopted son, died in February 1916. Also in 1916, Gutiérrez was arrested once again due to her involvement with the Zapatistas.[f] She was held for 10 months in Belem Prison, where she was interrogated by authorities who believed her to have valuable information about the Zapatista movement.

[f] Some sources, including Javien and Rubio, claim that this occurred in 1913. These sources claim that Huerta was responsible for her imprisonment. However, a majority, including Porter, Devereaux Ramírez, and Valles, claim that it took place in 1916. These sources claim that Venustiano Carranza was responsible for her imprisonment.

What do people think? This is driving me nuts. Spookyaki (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of your sources cite each other or another identified source for this point of information? CMD (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so looked into it. Here's the rough breakdown:

1913

Villaneda (1994, actually pretty clear)—Citing primary sources, excerpt included in text
- "For this reason, I had to be in Mexico City on August 25, 1913. I left for the capital, and what we had suspected was beginning to be confirmed. Mr. Palacios had learned the route, the itinerary we followed on our excursions, and when I tried to return by the same route, in Joquizingo I found out that the pass was under surveillance and that I was expected. It was almost necessary to return to camp, but I had to be in Mexico City by August 25. 'I arrived in Mexico City on August 25, at ten in the morning... Among the people helping me was Mrs. Manuela Peláez, who told me about an individual, a friend of hers, a schoolmate, who ran a newspaper called Anáhuac, and who wanted to help the Southern Revolution...' Manuela Peláez invited me to meet her at her house on September 4 at five in the afternoon to speak once more with her friend... I was punctual for the meeting; But instead of Manuela's friend, Francisco Chávez showed up with his entire entourage of reserved seats..."
- "The police carried out a new raid on agitators, obeying the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior. The head of the Security Commissions, Francisco Chávez, accompanied by several secret agents, arrested Mrs. Juana Gutiérrez de Mendoza yesterday morning. She was engaged in propaganda for the Zapatista movement. When her house was searched, several safe-conduct passes signed by Emiliano Zapata, the Zapatista anthem, and other documents were found."
Javien (2005)—Citing a source that I don't have, published in 1983
Rubio (2020)—Citing Javien

1916

Porter (2003)—Not directly cited
Devereaux Ramírez (2015)—Weirdly citing Villaneda, which seems to contradict the date
Valles Salas (2015)—Not directly cited

Spookyaki (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If mainly reliable sources don't agree about something and can't be reconciled then we should be honest and tell the reader that sources disagree, so we don't know. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spookyaki, no need to go nuts. Totally agree with Phil Bridger. It goes to our basic role as an encyclopedia, that is, we are a WP:TERTIARY source, which reflects the state of WP:SECONDARY sources. If the secondary sources do not agree, then we reflect that, and summarize the majority and minority views. See WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reflect that the sources disagree but not derail the article with a discussion of sourcing, this is the perfect time to use a footnote (not a reference). See MOS:NOTES and Wikipedia:When sources are wrong#Approach_3:_Get_it_right_and_add_a_footnote for some examples. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for responding! I think I have it worked out in this particular case. However, perhaps I should get a bit more specific about what is causing me problems, in case anyone has any thoughts about how I should approach instances like this in the future.

My main issue is that I'm not sure where it would be best to place the information so that the order of events is clear—a writing issue, primarily. For example, let's say there's a paragraph that includes the following events:

1. Something that happened in 1911.

2. Something that happened in 1912.

3. Something that happened in 1915.

4. Something that happened in 1920.

And then something that could have happened anytime between 1912 and 1930. The evidence is not stronger or weaker for any particular date, and to complicate things even further, let's say it could have been caused by event 1, 2, 3, 4, or none of them. Where should this information go? How would you approach writing a convoluted timeline like this in a way that is as clear as possible? Spookyaki (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FropFrop, didn't you have a similar situation at Daisy Bates (author) recently? Maybe you'd have some advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ demanding actions against Wikipedia/Wikimedia

Best not to split discussion, please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney CMD (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akin to Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and India, the US DOJ has demanded a few things from Wikimedia in regards to Wikipedia "rewriting of key, historical events". Gizmodo article on it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huffpost, The Verge, New Zealand Herald. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, late to the job then, apologies. Posted here as this is where the HF's plan to start attacking Wikipedians was posted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meaningful intervals for edit size histogram

With T236087 XTools is going to get a histogram of a user's edit sizes soon. This will be a bar chart. For screen real estate reasons, it's max ~12 bars. The idea is that each bar gives the number of edits in a certain size interval. My question is: which intervals do you think we should use? The current code uses 200-width intervals (0-200, 200-400, &c), up to 1800-2000, and lumps the rest into >2000.

The issue with fixed-width intervals is they don't allow much granularity for smaller edits (e.g., separating the +1 typo fix from the +120 paragraph addition). I was thinking also of perhaps something exponential like 0-20, 20-40, 40-80, 80-160, 160-320, 320-640, 640-1280, 1280-2560, >2560. What do you think could be more meaningful to users, and why? Welcoming suggestions. Thanks, — Alien 3
3 3 16:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at my most recent mainspace contributions, the <10 typo fix or minor c/e shows up, then from 10-100 there's larger copyedits, adding categories, and formatting tweaks. The adding text+adding source seems to start from perhaps 200. I have a small number of +2000 edits which seem meaningfully distinct from say reverting page blanking vandalism, so I'd put the final bin a bit higher. CMD (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer! When you say "higher", where would that be? 3K? 4K? 10K? Just asking for a general order of magnitude. — Alien 3
3 3 09:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something like 5K or 10K? Maybe someone has an existing histogram this could be based on. CMD (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about negatives? A few years ago I looked at my edits (in mainspace) and found that my median change was −3 bytes. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be in absolute value, i.e. putting -1 with +1. Else it takes twice as much width. We could do both positive and negative, but then we'd have pretty low granularity (could only have about 6 bars on either side). — Alien 3
3 3 05:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you split the bars in two? Top colour is positive and bottom colour is negative. 80.76.122.163 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could, I think. Question would be, what do we do with 0? is it positive or negative? — Alien 3
3 3 09:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the exponential (or semi-log?) better than a straight division. Most of our edits are actually small.

What I really wish is that we could get numbers for changes to readable prose (e.g., not fiddling with whitespace and template formatting). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that's just not doable on a statistical scale. The best possible in reasonable time would be a bit below 100 edits, which is not a lot.

If you're ready to wait something like at least 30 seconds for it, we could make a separate tool that does this.

Update: now looks like this. Other suggestions? — Alien 3
3 3 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter closes on 1 May 2025 at 23:59 UTC (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community in your language, as appropriate, so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C --

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Syrian Petroleum Company Logo.png

Hi ,how deleted this logo (File:Syrian Petroleum Company Logo.png) ,is not a official logo in this website (https://spc.sy/) the official logo is a colour blue in top? (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~Berilo Linea~ and Yedaman54, it looks like the logo at the top of Syrian Petroleum Company might be outdated (or maybe they use different colors for their website vs other places?). Could you look into it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headache-Inducing Wikipedia

Sometimes, while browsing Wikipedia articles, I’ve felt that the dense tables make my head hurt. However, this wasn’t quite the case when I browsed Namuwiki. The issue was the design. So, I created a very, very simple CSS to make templates look more like those in MoinMoin Wiki.

Just add the following code to your `Common.css`:
@import url(//ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Whatback11/moniwiki.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css);
Now your head should hurt a bit less. Whatback11 (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2025 (KST) Whatback11 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also cleanly changes the design of the categories, test it out on wikipedia page or English language page! Whatback11 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, you can view the style sheet at ko:User:Whatback11/moniwiki.css. It doesn't touch tables in general - only those that are used within an infobox. It also makes no difference to templates that aren't infoboxes. The "design of the categories" is another misleading claim - the category box at the bottom of pages is altered, but that's all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]