List of serial rapists
Mr Wales, I came across a page here last week called List of serial rapists. The first thing that I noticed about it was that lists the "serial rapists" by the number of victims (generally women, of course). It looks like a scoreboard. That didn't set well with me at all, so I went back a few days later and removed the column called "proven victims". I left a note on the talk page explaining what I had done and why, but my removal was reverted. As you can see on the talk page, the people that edit this page want to keep the "proven cases" column for various reasons including, to quote one editor "it would be far too complicated to rearrange the entire list to be in alphabetical order".
Let me briefly outline some of the many problems with this page:
- If it is sorted by number of victims, it automatically looks like a scoreboard, whether that is the intention or not
- "Proven cases" is not defined and it is easy to see that the numbers listed are anything but "proven"
- "Rape" is a very loose word. Does rape mean sexual assault of any kind? Does it only mean penetrative sexual assault?
- The definitions for sexual assault charges differ between countries and even between jurisdictions within countries
- The list contains people who have been charged with sexual assault but not convicted
Right now, the list includes actor Danny Masterson. He is listed as having four "proven cases". Based on his Wikipedia page, Danny Masterson has been charged, but not convicted. I don't know how long he has been listed or who added him, but something seems terribly wrong here. I'm sure there are other cases like him on the list.
The page was up for deletion before, but it was kept. As a result of the discussion it was renamed from "List of serial rapists by number of victims". Yesterday on the talk page, one of the frequent editors suggested "renaming the article to 'List of serial rapists by number of victims' or something to that extent". I don't think that they see the problem with this and outside of a small group of likeminded editors, no one seems to be paying attention to this page.
Mr Wales, I don't expect you to do anything about this personally, but I find this page absolutely disgusting and I needed to say *something* even if it has no result. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I think documenting the number of victims is hard to avoid (there are those that may have had 2 or 3, and then those with dozens, in the same manner as serial murders) it is definitely a problem to default sort that list by the victim count. Alphabetical or chronological is far better, even though a reader may end up sorting on victims. Masem (t) 19:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I might agree with that if the "proven cases" column were defined as the number of victims and that number was documented. Clearly, if there are people in this list who have not been convicted, then the "proven" in "proven cases" means absolutely nothing. It is an undefined field that each editor interprets on their own. How can you vote to keep something that has no definition? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, and if someone has been charged but not yet convicted then of course they should not be listed under such a directly defining title. I've never seen the page but, if this concern about people being listed without conviction is accurate, hopefully others more familiar with it can correct this literal biographical injustice. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we absolutely cannot include those (living or dead) not convicted of rape. And it would be ;est for those that have been victim to only include the number of cases they were charged with, not estimates of other unnamed victims. Masem (t) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've deleted Masterton from the list which, yes, showed that he hasn't been convicted (his page states that his trial date is August 29, 2022). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we absolutely cannot include those (living or dead) not convicted of rape. And it would be ;est for those that have been victim to only include the number of cases they were charged with, not estimates of other unnamed victims. Masem (t) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, and if someone has been charged but not yet convicted then of course they should not be listed under such a directly defining title. I've never seen the page but, if this concern about people being listed without conviction is accurate, hopefully others more familiar with it can correct this literal biographical injustice. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I might agree with that if the "proven cases" column were defined as the number of victims and that number was documented. Clearly, if there are people in this list who have not been convicted, then the "proven" in "proven cases" means absolutely nothing. It is an undefined field that each editor interprets on their own. How can you vote to keep something that has no definition? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Only 2 thoughts. First, obviously no one should be listed on such a page unless there is a conviction unless there are very strongly compelling reasons. Second the default sort should absolutely not be on number of victims as a matter of human dignity for those victims. Chronological seems most useful to me since alphabetical ordering isn't really that useful when pele can just "find in page" when looking for a particular name.
- I am tempted to say don't even make the numbers column sortable but I can imagine some legitimate research uses such as finding cases of a similar magnitude etc. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have linked to this discussion in a Signpost comment, so it would be nice to have it here for a little longer. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Huntsville history
Greetings Jimbo. I hope all is well with you and your people. I found this image of Huntsville City Hall in 1882. It doesn't seem to appear on any Wikipedia pages.. at least until now. Cheers. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- As it turns out they are building a new one in 2022. $90 million. I started a draft on it but accidentally put it in mainspace so I got blocked. Oops. Anyway, I found some other photos and put them there. I think it's interesting to see the evolution of architectural styles. The way the city evolved. And the people involved. One building in one city, or one historic figure, the pieces that make up part of the puzzle we're trying to put together. Take care. The draft is at Draft:Huntsville City Hall. A better photo of the 1960s city hall being replaced would be wonderful. The draft is at Draft:Huntsville City Hall. (I put some other stuff there too for when I can again edit in mainspace). FloridaArmy (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Moving uncited material to talk pages after a month
@Jimbo Wales, Unomi, TheDJ, and Looie496:
Hi, Jimmy. Back in May 2009, I asked you here about my practice of removing material lacking citations. You gave a nuanced and qualified answer (see the link), one that placed some emphasis on negative material, and material that fell into "France is a country in Europe" territory.
This was useful, but I also needed guidance on articles with material that is neither in the negative or "France" category, especially articles with large swaths of uncited material. Other editors joined that discussion and suggested using "unreferenced" and "refimprove" tags, and/or moving the material to the talk page. Since them, I've made a practice of fact-tagging such articles, putting the refimprove atop articles with large amounts of uncited info, and then moving that material to the talk page after a month. I've also worked to find citations for this material as time permits, as with this section in Phonograph record, which I rewrote and included 12 citations of reliable sources.
However, another editor is challenging this practice, calling it "bullying". I've mentioned the May 2009 discussion I had here, althought it was Unomi, and not you, who gave me this advice, so I wanted to know, do you support this practice? Do you regard it as in line with WP:V, WP:CS, et al.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Are you systematically removing potentially good material from articles? If so, that would be very unhelpful. While working on a particular article, it might be necessary to remove some text because, after an effort, verification seems unlikely. However, that should not be a habit as it is a very destructive procedure. Of course, removing text which is probably WP:UNDUE or otherwise misleading is fine. But possibly correct encyclopedic text should be left for someone with the necessary skills and source access to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- While I appreciate Jimbo's sage input, I'm not sure taking something he said 13 years ago as carte blanche is advisable. Wikipedia has changed deeply since then. As to your tactic of removing uncited material to a talk page, I'm generally opposed to that. The secret of most uncited content is that it is sourced, but either the citation got lost, the article never had inline sources, or the author had no idea how to cite. I'd wager that as much as 95% of uncited material is factually correct. I'd much rather see editors working on finding sources than removing likely truthful content. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- And how does one objectively determine if material, including entire multiple sections and paragraphs of uncited material, is "potentially good" or "possibly correct" if it's completely lacking in citations? As to your question, my question is to fact-tag uncited material, wait a month, try to find sources and copyedit it in some cases, and then move it to the talk page, complete with a diff that shows where it was in the article.
- CaptainEek, what is your basis for your assessment of the cause of uncited material, your 95% figure, or that it is "likely truthful"? Is it something objectively measurable, or completely subjective and made-up?
- If material is uncited, then it is not "sourced", since "sourced" means that the source is cited in the article. Nightscream (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- My number is a subjective guess, it would be interesting to do a scientific study of that though. But to your approach: I don't know of anyone else doing it that way en masse. I think it's not a good tactic. Wikipedia should be an additive process, not a subtractive process, whenever possible. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Again, it is the practice that was reached here as a compromise with the other editor who advised it.
- The administrator Johnuniq is now threatening to block me if I ever move uncited material from an article to the talk page, and even seems to be indicating that removing uncited passages about living people recently added by anonymous IP editors is "disruptive" too, and that I'm obligated to clean up that editor's mess when this happens. Do you think such a block threat is appropriate? Nightscream (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you are asking Jimbo, but I think the block warning is appropriate as your editing practices are, at times, not conducive to the goal of creating a high quality encyclopedia. The removal of, for example, "A tape would be inserted into the rewinder and pushed down so the rewinding mechanism would start." is one of many examples of something that is more appropriately tagged. While the citation doesn't support it, and it doesn't quite fit the definition of common knowledge, it is very close to common knowledge and clearly could be cited if effort was put into looking. MarcGarver (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- The administrator Johnuniq is now threatening to block me if I ever move uncited material from an article to the talk page, and even seems to be indicating that removing uncited passages about living people recently added by anonymous IP editors is "disruptive" too, and that I'm obligated to clean up that editor's mess when this happens. Do you think such a block threat is appropriate? Nightscream (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- There are many problems that can lead to citations being lost, or content appearing to be cited when it actually isn't (so two sides of the same problem). For example, someone may add two sentences, adding the citation at the end of the second sentence. If that second sentence is deleted for some reason, or moved to another place in the article, the link between the citation and the first sentence "disappears". The opposite problem is when people add a clause to a sentence that was cited, where the addition isn't in the citation. E.g., they change "He was born in 1928.[citation]" to "He was born in the US in 1928.[citation]". Maybe one day the software will allow the citation to be attached to specific text - e.g., like the citation is in the edit summary and can be directly linked to the text it supported. Anyway, this general problem - which in 17 years of editing I've seen a lot of - means that we need to be cautious in just dumping text that is uncited. If it is credible and not controversial a refimprove or citation needed tag is a better approach. Ultimately though you need to not follow a strict rule. Rather you need to use your judgement and determine if what you are proposing makes the article better. MarcGarver (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI
testwikidata:User talk:Prince ovy § Jimbo's adminship/'cratship -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Well, many have tried and failed, but I can now say I've successfully gotten Jimbo Wales desysopped.
... on testwikidata.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)