This whole "Gordon Brown's open mic" brouhaha has been snowcloned as "Bigotgate", a term that at the moment does not exist at the Wikipedia, but they want to overturn it at DRV. Am I cracked, or should the desire to not want a 65-year-old pensioner to be forever linked to accusations of bigotry outweigh a "useful redirect" ? Redirects and neutrality are held to a much lower bar than the rest of the Wikipedia.

The belief that the suppression of this redirect will somehow cause the genie to retreat quietly back into the bottle or cause this woman any less harm is dubious at best.

If the readers are searching for the term "bigotgate" (and why wouldn't they?), then redirecting them to a neutral treatment of the event seems entirely reasonable.

Doesn't WP:NEO already state that such a term should not be used? Sigh.

NEO covers articles about neologisms, not redirects from neologisms...

Isn't that kinda bad though? What we're saying really is that in one form it is disallowed, but in this other form it is ok, and the only reason it is ok for the latter is for user navigation.

We've carved a loophole in policy for the sake of readability, and I dunno, but I'm finding a problem with that.

NEO is meant to prevent articles on new words that haven't entered the common lexicon and wouldn't pass DICDEF. Has nothing to do with redirects.

As long as redirects are in the article section I would think that redirects are articles too.

Apply it and block anyone who disagrees (standard admin protocol). If anyone asks, say you were [[WP:BOLD]]ly applying standards against [[WP:Tendentious editing]] by people who were violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] and they possibly made a few [[WP:NLT]] violations.

But seriously, just delete the redirect and salt.

Too late...

Just curious, but why is this getting any prominence on Wikipedia? It was a non story and disappeared after a day. This is why I want to impose that rule that nothing can be written on until after a month has passed. That way, people who were so overly enthusiastic have moved to their new pet project and the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic.

It looks like more than a flash in the pan to me, and has hardly disappeared...

/sigh

Can you not do any better than a wiki-semantics rationale?

/shrug

It's true.

See the topical example at Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects

According to who?

There is little mention of it at all in the US, and even the UK papers only made a big deal about it for a day then it trailed off quite quickly.

There is far more mention of gaffs Bush or Obama made and I can point out how they lack pages. This is only being mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a game for political people to promote their agenda during election times. Ban them all.

Well, there's still news on it being printed as we speak and some are saying it's "the" incident of the election.

Then it could deserve a wonderful one line mention of it on the page about the election and be done with it.

It is not news, it is electioneering. Of course, the pedants will squeal its been reported in "reliable sources" but, so what, it is electioneering and all the newspapers will be taking sides politically.

Is Wikipedia to become a summary not of just the Google first page on every subject but also all media coverage?

Then you get 3 bigots on the Wikipedia deciding what history in real time ... forever ... because they are "community consensus".

NPR's daily newsmagazine, Here and Now, spent about 10 minutes on the story on yesterday's program.

But not a useful navigational redirect from the name the media has given to it (which has already generated over 36,500 ghits) ?

Whether or not it's a non-story, imposing some sort of "delayed gratification" rule would be extremely beneficial for WP in terms of quality improvement, which is why they're not going to do it. (That, and the fact that they'd find it a difficult rule to enforce.)

Personally, I'd make it three months, though even a week would be better than nothing. The fact is, most people are actually very polite, and don't want to "mess with" someone else's work, much less fight over it - even if that work is a paragraph written in the midst of a confusing media circus, based on scant or even false information. The mess is created up front, and then someone always has to clean it up. But hey, as long as a few people register new accounts to get their digs in and (in the process) pump up those monthly recruitment numbers, it's all good, eh?

NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media.



Google hits get blogs and the rest. It is a bs term, as well as anything with "gate" behind it (besides Watergate, and then that kinda had to have it). It is a big "no one really cares".



Hell, 48 hours would be enough to cool off some of the people who need to "post it now". It would definitely help when posting about people's deaths beyond stating the date.

I think an easy way to fix one of Wiki's BLP problems is to deny notability unless something has been published by a legitimate critical publisher. Putting the minimum quite low (say, one publication by a legitimate critical publisher), that would destroy everything that is solely found in newspapers. Books are published quite quickly on political matters (I'd say, 6 month delay). Someone like Obama would have one book published early on which would allow the rest. But spin offs would be denied unless they had a book devoting something to it.

But the word "notability" on Wiki has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, so I doubt that will ever happen.

Reuters carried it. CBS News carried it. The Washington Post carried it. USA Today carried it. MSNBC carried it.

Shall I go on?

Carried what, exactly? More than a mention? There is no real detail to squeeze out on this issue.

I have pages and pages devoted to tiny poems written by people who died hundreds of years ago published by major world class universities. There is no real comparison.

Hell, the Elegy page didn't exist until just recently. There should be priorities.

Carried the story as an headlined item or article.

See for yourself.

I don't see anything there to suggest it was 1. independent from Brown, 2. from the campaign, or 3. warranted its own page. Sorry, but based on that rationale, every time two politicians meet it should have its own page, which is ridiculous.

By the way, read your own damn link. Most of that was from blogs. Opinion pieces and blogs are not news. Number one: Huffington Post (blog). Number two: Reuters UK (blog).

That just shows how worthless the story is. The fourth link is to a youtube short mention. None of them spent more than a sentence or two as the articles focused primarily on the campaigns or poll numbers.

By the way, there is news all the time just like this. That is why Wikipedia has "Not News". And

Sourcing is not why I brought this up in the first place. Here, less me draw a picture.

bigot ------------------------------------------------> Gillian Duffy

Having that arrow on the Wikipedia does more harm than good. When the arrow is an article, i.e. "bigoted woman incident", it is easy to slice. When it is a redirect, i.e. "bigotgate" ? Slicing it is a hell of a lot more difficult. I'm bothered by the discrepancy.

Most newspapers, even newspapers of record, stopped carrying just news a long time ago.

The internet is causing their demise. So is the ensuing atrophy of budgeting and wages. Especially, or example, of foreign correspondents.

So, here the Pee-dia is tripping itself up yet again, ignoring that not all "reliable sources" are reliable, not all data in "reliable sources" are of archive quality. And the average ignoramus or POV grinder on the Wikipedia has no way, nor any incentive, to know or learn the difference.

I have seen this many times where something is quoted because it came from a "reliable sources" but reading it makes it clear that it is nothing more than an op-ed or lightweight "funny" column padder. Not news at all. I have dealt with the media from both sides. Its a screw up.

Here too one has to apply a different filter because of the political biasing going on during an election time.

Do Presidents and Prime Ministers say "bad words"? Of-fucking-course they have throughout all history.
Are many of their electorate uneducated, ignorant and bigoted? ... Of-fucking-I-blame-the-bloody-Blacks/Jews/Pole/Irish/Gays/etc-course they are. This woman was.

So what you have is a strong resonance go on between those of a similar demographic and class in both the general media and the Pee-dia; snarky, conceited, pseudo-intellectual middle class WASPs who social climbing is largely based on their successful attempts at pulling other people above them down. And teenagers trying to be like them, the Pee-dia become a school debating club.

What's with moving the goal posts? I pointed out that NPR carried the story. You pooh-poohed that, saying NPR had a small audience. Then I point out that major mainstream news outlets also carried it as well (and not just on their associated blogs). Reuters carried it both ways. If I knew how to tell Google to omit the blogs, I'd do that for you so your eyes wouldn't have to do the work to skip over them. With over 2000 media sites carrying the story, you will find many small media outlets in the list. But the big mainstream news media carried it too.

I could care less whether WP includes it in an article on Brown or in a related article. The only point I cared to make, Jeff, is that the story of his open-mike gaffe was carried worldwide by mainstream news media.

Here's a few more...

BBC News. Sydney Morning Herald. Wall Street Journal. UK Telegraph. Business Week. CBC (Canada).

Etc.

So it's not just a small audience NPR story. It's a worldwide story carried by dozens of major mainstream news outlets.

But they didn't carry the story. The may have made a mention, but so does the ticket crawing the bottom of CNN and Fox News. Definitely not "headline" material.

By the way, where is the article on Biden cussing on mic? Or the Senator the other day saying "shitty" over and over? That sure got a lot of "news".

NPR did carry the story. I listened to it yesterday on my local NPR affiliate, which is why I knew about the story. NPR is the only news outlet I listen to. Then I linked you to the rundown for yesterday's edition of Here and Now where you can play back the 8-minute audio segment that was aired on the program and also view the video of Brown's conversation with the lady (where he gets in the car and calls her a bigot). If that's not carrying the story, I dunno what is.

And yes, my local NPR affiliate carried those other stories, too. The one in the Senate hearings aired several times on multiple news programs, news magazines, and news discussion programs on my local NPR affiliate.

No, you heard a person mention it. That is not "carrying the story". Carrying the story means to make it headline news.

Furthermore, NPR is still talk radio. We don't make pages because Rush Limbaugh mouths off about an issue. That isn't news or even significant news.

Baloney. Robin Young spent seven minutes with NPR's London correspondent. They played the audio during the segment that aired.

I could care less if WP relies on NPR (or any other mainstream news source). WP is not a useful source of reliable information. If you want to read the papers, you have the Washington Post, USA Today, or the Wall Street Journal (all of which carried the story). Whether WP consults the mainstream press is irrelevant to me, for reasons I'm sure you can still recall.

NPR is of course a network with many programs. Some of these are news, some opinion or entertainment. Often people say "NPR" meaning "Morning Edition" or "All Things Considered" which are news programs of the highest order. NPR News also provides hourly updates throughout the day.

Rush Limbaugh spends seven minute segments with people from London too.

Doesn't make it news.

Plus, the subject is more like political gossip than anything really worth while. This article makes it rather obvious that the London newspapers are all pushing candidates. That is not objective journalism that normally forms the definition of "news".

Here it is in the NY Times: In British Race, a Stray Remark Haunts Brown. That's a 21-paragraph bylined story with two photos. And it's not a blog. It's in their main section on news from Europe.

And here it is in the Washington Post: Gordon Brown's 'bigoted' comment threatens to shake up campaign. Again, it's a bylined story.

And the Wall Street Journal: Brown's Gaffe Upsets, Enriches 'Bigoted' Brit. Once again a bylined story.

But not about the comment but about the race and how the comment is part of the race. Thus, not a news story on the comment but about the race. You need to show independent notability. There is none. The only reason why anyone cares is that there is a campaign. As I said the whole time.

Regardless, most of the comments about it are fuel by blogs. And you think the NYT wouldn't play politics with stories? If we had a page about every topic that the NYT put up about people running for office, we would probably quintuple in size over night.

The reason it's a news story is because it affects the race. That's why major news media around the world carried the story. I could care less what WP does with it.

Yes, it is part of something else. Not independent. Thus, you proved the whole argument for not having any such page.

I could care less what WP does with that story.

Just in case you didn't hear me say it, I'll say it again.

I could care less what WP does with the story.

One of the symptoms arising from cut back in the media is that more and more "media" becomes media about the media.

It is cheaper and quicker to produce. No one loses their job over it. It appeals to their vanity of being the superior arbiters of knowing ... a bit like the Pee-dians.

These people are not journalists of old but just self-possessed chattering class chattering for others in the chattering classes.

Realistically, how can an encyclopediac judgement of the event's importance happen before the election is won or lost?

The Wikipedia become another PR tool.

Jeff, you are being an idiot right now. You should just apologize and move on.

An idiot? If you think that there should be an encyclopedia article on that nonsense, then, well, fine. But I don't think the word "encyclopedia" should have any connection with such trash. People blow things way out of proportion. It deserves maybe one sentence on some page.

Personally, I don' think the editors of WP should write articles on anything labeled "encyclopedic" for reasons you might still vaguely recall.

This morning, on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon devoted his regular weekly editorial to this story.

Good point. Wikipedia has many articles that are entirely based on stories the NYT website has picked up on. Except on economic matters (their coverage of microfinance has been excellent), the NYT does tend to overrate the importance of scandals overseas. I do not get the sense that editors do background and preparatory work before they start writing, for instance checking whether the story was published in the International Herald Tribune.

Editorials are not news. Sigh.

Editorials about items in the news establish the view that the news item in question is important enough to pay attention to, to think about, and to draw some insights or conclusions from.

Having said that, I still maintain that WP should not have any articles at all that are labeled as "encyclopedic" (whether they are related to current events, history, the arts, science, or literature).

No they do not. Editorials are no different than blogs. They are not news nor do they reflect news. News is objective and without opinion.

If an item in the news arouses some writer to craft and publish an editorial opinion, how can you say that such acts of editorial publication do not establish the view that the news item in question is important enough to pay attention to, to think about, and to draw some conclusions from? After all, the publication of such an editorial is prima facie evidence that the writer in question considered the item important enough to craft and publish an editorial about the news item in question.

You are without hope. What you're saying is utterly deranged and demented, thanks to your Wikipedia outlook on reality. NPR is a "niche" outlet? Harumph, harumph.

Let us be concrete: do you believe that Rosalind Picard should be labeled as being a believer in Intelligent Design simply because some editorial hack decided to not go off the facts and instead spout an opinion? I remember you fighting hard against such, but based on your above standard your previous actions are in conflict with your current beliefs.



Do you know what niche means? (a distinct segment of a market) NPR's audience is not reflective of middle America. Its audience tends to be upper middle class white professionals with a college education. That is a niche.