Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Wikipedia is Not Censored" needs to be changed or deleted

Even one of the co-founders of Wikipedia has pointed out it's clear bias, which is evident if you view the pages of anyone remotely political or any issue that is remotely political. It would be best to change the title to "What Wikipedia Censors" as the section is clearly misleading 2601:246:5A83:D090:8035:BFA6:C575:A041 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Larry Sanger, who has been spectacularly wrong about online encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular for 22 years. He is hardly a reliable source. As for bias, Wikipedia is certainly biased in favor of summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not routinely suppress, alter, or delete objectionable material? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you define "objectionable" to include "not properly supported by reliable sources", then sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also referring to a number of articles that are more smear pieces than neutral in tone. [[1]] Talk:It's_okay_to_be_white, [[2]], where there are clear and well articulated conversations in the chat that request a more neutral article, point out that it seems like a hit piece, and are rejected outright for the political slant.

That alone speaks to the extreme bias and an unwillingness to even change the articles for neutrality. And those are just three that I found, there are many more, it is endemic to nearly every right or center figure and not at all present in the other side, where most of the articles sing praise rather than neutrality.

With the clear divide, Wikipedia IS censored and does NOT have a neutral bias at all, but rather, as evident from the talk pages here, is an extremely bias source that actively blocks (again look at the talk pages) anyone that is not of the same bias as the mods here 2601:246:5A83:D090:9581:1645:55E8:7756 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have mods. "Bias" is not an adjective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, even if you look at the discussions in talk, when presented with multiple sources from mainstream media on the center and right (seen the most in the logs of example one) you see the moderators picking a single left wing source rather than allowing for the article to be changed to a neutral tone, or edited out altogether, and in some instances you can see parts of articles that are favorable removed because the news articles from the NYP, Fox, the Daily Mail, SCNR, and many others are considered "unreliable" and "bias" for virtue of lacking a left wing bias to keep with the slanderous tone of the wikipedia article. Where as Politico, The Intercept, and The Hill in the talk section of articles are either accepted or rejected as invalid sources on the basis of if they support the bias in wikipedia or counter it in a request for a neutral tone.

The talk sections on wikipedia alone are proof of censorship and bias by the moderators here 2601:246:5A83:D090:9581:1645:55E8:7756 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so easy. 10-15 years ago I used to edit articles on the Ukraine. Some of the Ukrainian nationalist editors accused me of being a Russian nationalist (one even called me a Putinist). Some of the Russian nationalist editors accused me of being a Ukrainian nationalist. They cannot both have been right.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We reject Daily Mail and Fox and those other sources because they have shown to make false claims in their "factual news reporting" and stand by them (that is, they do no redact information if they they learn the information was wrong or falsified). They fail to meet our definition of reliable sources. This tends to be a problem with far-from-center right leaning sources, since they also tend to prescribe to things like medical misinformation and climate change denial. We do have sources that are right-leaning that we consider reliable, like the Wall Street Journal, but even there, their editorial board is known to be farther right than what they normally publish. We also have far-left sources that we do not consider reliable for the same problems as the far-right ones - they publish misinformation without any concern towards editorial oversight.
Perhaps we do need to state that we do not censor information when it is supported by reliable sources. Masem (t) 01:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we needn't play word games to appease strident ideologues by defining "censorship" in the broadest possible way. If we say any dynamic where someone doesn't get to what they may say otherwise as a form of censorship, then the idea is absurd. We would have to cherrypick what forms of censorship we ignore as to not render speech or decision making itself impossible, as some ideas or speech inherently exclude or dampen others, either directly or through accretion of a toxic culture. It would be inane to worry too much about this milieu of thought-terminating nonsense. Remsense诉 01:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Remsense. Requiring sources isn't censorship. If someone wants to point out a reliable, verifiable fact has been omitted from Wikipedia, they can raise it at that article's talk page, or start an RFC for greater participation. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS WaPo, NYT, etc have all knowingly run false stories in the past, most notably Covington, where the full Youtube video exonerating Sandman of their claims was available instantly... and as where other news outlets got the story correct, they decided to double down by showing pictures of a blackout game taken years before he attended the University and claiming it was black face, along with claiming, from the same game, that he was making the KKK hand sign when it was a basketball game and it means 3 points. And then a whole slew of Trump quotes, where "Inject Bleach" was falsely reported when the correct quote was a question to Faucci "Is there a way we can disinfect the body of COVID"

However, those outlets that have also time and again knowingly ran false stories are accepted because they support the bias of the Admins that have clearly written articles from their political slant rather than presenting them in a neutral fashion as is wikipedia's policies. Your cherrypicking of sources as reliable there only further proves that Wikipedia censors for bias. Especially when requests (as proven in the link from the talk sections) to present the articles in a neutral fashion are dismissed to maintain the bias. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OP chose "Wikipedia is not censored" to make the point that we have problematic bias in certain areas rather than seriously suggesting that we change "Wikipedia is not censored" which I think we should not change. And since there a zillion reasons, requirements and ways that something might be kept or removed from Wikipedia, we should not expand "Wikipedia is not censored" to list all zillion as caveats. On their actual point, I do think that we have systemic bias in certain areas to a problematic degree. I tend to not have the lofty and hard-to-define goal of neutrality on my worry list until it gets to the more extreme degree of hurting the informativeness of articles, which does sometimes happen. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on your articulation, of course: unfortunately there's nothing in OP's formulation that's useful or actionable. Remsense诉 22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be addressed you can:

1) Allow for sources from all sides to be used on Wikipedia, thus allowing for people who argue for a neutral bias to make an acceptable argument. Right now your prohibition on sources from only one side of the alley despite the acceptable sources being guilty of the exact same things you have labeled right wing news of having. That would allow for the crafting of neutral articles and stop the censorship of non left-wing views, as well as prevent the creation of articles that serve as hit pieces.

2) Moderate the moderators. It seems that Wikipedia's main issue is the moderation, especially when looking at talk and seeing moderators shut down conversations that call for neutrality in favor of their own bias. If you take corrective action against moderators who do this, Wikipedia would be more of a public forum and see less censorship of opposing views while allowing neutrality.

Right now you have, as the Talk sections prove, a bias that is enforced that censors voices and creates hit pieces rather than neutral articles. The logs in the talk on "Trump" and "It's OK to be White" alone show several instances of moderators closing topics when they call for neutrality.

3) Actually enforce your neutrality policy. The reason why I can correctly say that Wikipedia censors is because it's not neutral, and as such it restricts center and right voices in the crafting of their articles with immunity.

It very much can be addressed... it just WON'T be addressed, and, honestly the attitude in this discussion alone seems to suggest that no attempt will be made for neutrality for lack of desire 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point #1 is still wrong. We do not restrict use of sources based on what side of the political spectrum they are on. We restrict them when they willfully publish false information or the like, showing a lack of being a reliable source. That most of those that we have blocked this way fall onto the far-right of the spectrum is not WP's choice, that's how far right media tends to operate. If right-leaning sources want to have more credibility on WP, they should strive to stick to publishing truthful information in a conservative light. Masem (t) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your request that we "Allow for sources from all sides to be used on Wikipedia" is an ill-defined, motherhood one that simply cannot be satisfied. Does "all sides" include views that the Earth is flat? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get people who agree with you to be taken more seriously, I guess. It's categorically not our problem that they're not published by university presses or what have you. Remsense诉 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not wrong, it is in this thread where it is pointed out that Fox and the Daily Mail are considered not reliable for running bad stories, just like the news sources that are considered reliable here, and I cited examples. It is not coincidental that the sources are on the right while left wing sources that have done the same thing, to a staggering extent of late, are considered "reliable."

It very much speaks to the assumption that the issue is that right and center sources are considered bias or unreliable by virtue of not having a left wing bias. It can EASILY be corrected, however, it seems to be ignored as correcting it would allow for more neutrality by eliminating the exclusivity of sources with a liberal bias.

And please note, unlike most of the moderators I see here in chat, I am not arguing for the rejection of a leftwing bias, but rather for the allowance of neutrality, a neutrality that is absent by virtue of censoring one side of the debate.... because I am sick of looking up people on Wikipedia only to see find articles that read like more of a smear piece than your average Taylor Lorenz article.

Frankly I had no idea who Stefan Molyneux was, came to Wikipedia, and found an article that seemed more disinformation than informative, went to his website linked, and found nothing that the article stated, and he wasn't the first person that I have searched only to find a hit piece. If you allow for an end to the bias by allowing for both sides to be heard, i wouldn't have to go through all of that effort to find out about someone that I wouldn't care about save for wanting to find out who a name was in a mention in an article smearing Noam Chomsky. That is a lot of effort all because Wikipedia won't allow for neutrality by virtue of censorship, because it restricts sources and views. Had it been neutral, I wouldn't have had to go through the effort because the article would have been written at least close enough to a 0 bias where I could trust it

Not to mention the fact that if you look at the logs from Talk in It's OK to be White, you have people making it very clear that they know it started as a 4Chan hoax to smear the left into denouncing an innocuous statement... but are going to to push a bias instead 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're simply not going to credulously let everyone through, sorry. We care too much for that. You should participate next time there's an RFC on the reliability a particular outlet, what else do you want? Other than to spill paragraphs repeating yourself rather than engaging with any specifics of how specific sources have been reviewed by editors. There have been discussions on all these sources you could be pointing to (the little numbers for each on WP:RSP, but that's seemingly too fragile a premise for you—potentially too falsifiable a premise? Remsense诉 01:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much have engaged in the specifics. The problem is that you seem to want to ignore the specifics for, again, pushing a bias rather than neutrality. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about one talk page discussion. If you want Fox in on the same grounds as CNN, engage with the latest RfCs where we reviewed each. Remsense诉 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I listed multiple talk page discussions, all with the same bias. I listed Jack Posobiac, Donald Trump, and It's OK to be White. And, I would wager that if I looked at more than just those three, the SOKAL Affair, Stefan Molyneux, Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock, and the dozen or others I found, I am sure that EVERY politically divisive figure with an article that reads like a hit piece will have the same calls for neutrality in Talk, and the same rejections from the moderation in Wikipedia. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck on the source RfCs? Remsense诉 01:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you look at your bio, you are tagged as a talk page stalker, it seems you yourself have a reputation for involving yourself in Talk threads to push an agenda. And that is from Wikipedia itself, and exactly the behavior from the moderation here that I called out as a reason for the censorship. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🐆 Remsense诉 01:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly you are proud of it, but given that you are actively defending censorship to push an agenda and wikipedia itself has you tagged as someone more concerned about pushing his bias over allowing for neutrality in the articles, it does make everything you say suspect.
And further proves my point. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
😿 Remsense诉 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that if you look at the logs from Talk in It's OK to be White, you have people making it very clear that they know it started as a 4Chan hoax to smear the left into denouncing an innocuous statement... but are going to to push a bias instead 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case study on scope of NOTHOWTO: second opinion please?

There is a discussion at Talk:Diameter#Not manual on the scope of NOTHOWTO, as some experienced editors have rather divergent opinions on its scope. I would welcome a second opinion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"NOT:DICTIONARY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NOT:DICTIONARY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 § NOT:DICTIONARY until a consensus is reached. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are hurricane forecasts WP:CRYSTAL or are they covered under WP:V

An interesting question has come up in part from a reversion by @MarioProtIV. Basically, MarioProtIV stated the following is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL:

Also at 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, Jack Beven with the National Hurricane Center published an official forecast, which included the system reaching tropical cyclone strength in 36 hours, with a forecasted maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours.[1]

My argument for it not being a violation of Crystal, despite "predicting" the future, is WP:Verifiability's policy. The NHC is a reliable source for information and already, despite being named formally about 45 minutes ago, several RS media are already covering it and, more importantly, the potential impacts (i.e. the forecast). Examples include national-level sources like Fox Weather, CNN as well as regional-level RS like WDSU, KHOU, WKRG, WTXL and many more. All of these sources talk about the future or potential impacts. For example, an article from WGNO is even titled "First “Cone of Uncertainty” of the season with Potential Tropical Cyclone One. Here’s the latest."

So, my question is, does mentioning, in wiki-text similar to the highlighted one above, the official/RS-stated forecast of a hurricane, count as a CRYSTAL violation, or does it fall under the exceptions of the first CRYSTAL clause due to large-scale RS usage. Short TL;DR – Does WP:V trump WP:CRYSTAL if it is sourced by multiple (even-say dozens) of RS? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think it’s CRYSTAL because forecasts are just a prediction. Many, many times we’ve seen systems defy or not follow these forecasts because of forecasts. Who’s to say this system doesn’t form until it’s right on the coast or tonight? It’s best reserved for cases post-storm in which the intensity exceeded the predicted forecast intensity or location. Adding the above type of commentary while the storm is still active, is basically saying we’d have to do it for many advisories and change the expected location, which are all derived from a blend of computer models and the NHC’s thinking. Things change, and so I don’t think it’s necessary for Wikipedia to give a play by play for every single advisory. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a counter statement to "forecasts are just a prediction" - A prediction from a subject-expert in the field, which is widely published by secondary reliable sources. Whether things change would be irrelevant, since, factually, NHC published that forecast at this time. It is no different than recording the forecast of a tornado from the past. It was forecasted by NHC to be that strength at 4:00 PM on June 17. That statement cannot change whatsoever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part, but I also stress that they are also predicting the future as well. We have generally refrained from including the contested info when a tropical cyclone is active (at least, in the Atlantic basin), because it’s subject to change. Hence why CRYSTAL comes into play here. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, if it is excluded because "it's subject to change", why are "current" watches/warning boxes included? Those change often as well. Those are sourced by the NHC posts (and respective RS), just the same as the NHC cone of uncertainty forecast is. The "it's subject to change" argument, respectfully, has 0 ground to stand on. By that logic, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Watches and warnings, would also be a CRYSTAL violation. I don't believe it is, but there is no differences.
(1) Both [both being the forecast in the colored text above & watches/warnings] are published in the NHC advisories, and (2) both constantly change, every advisory.
The only real difference is, one would be a perm addition to Wiki-text while the other is entirely deleted after the storm. Like I said, there is no difference in terms of the CRYSTAL argument. Honestly, why does Wikipedia include things only temporarily (i.e. the watch/warning section). It is done for every active storm, and yet, it is deleted after the storm ends. Under the idea of it is subject to change, wouldn't that be a CRYSTAL violation?
As I stated, I do not believe either the text above nor the section are crystal violations (as of this moment in time), however, I think I just pointed out how shaky the ground is for your current reasoning that it is a crystal violation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, as a quick note, this question is not about whether it should or should not be included. Strictly just to see if the above statement would truly be a crystal violation or if it falls under Verifiability. That is the reason for the question, not about inclusion in an article or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't appear to run against WP:CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL talks about often poorly-sourced content characterizing uncertain events or speculation as if they are bound to happen, which invites further speculative content. This doesn't seem to be what's going on here. Instead, this appears to be an attributed description of a well-sourced and verifiable forecast per se from a noteworthy agency, which comports with WP:V. Care should be taken when describing forecasts: they can only be used to describe what was or is predicted, and never to describe what will (or in retrospect, did) happen. That said, there are definite tweaks that could be made here. While forecasters may have wide latitude to craft their forecasts as they so wish, specifically singling out Jack Beven seems undue. Sources generally refer to these forecasts as put out by the agency, not by the individual. Secondly, the hurricane center does not explicitly forecast peak intensities, so the mention of a predicted maximum intensity can probably be axed. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weather predictions are famously inaccurate. If you want to talk about a serious past event and the prior predictions and how they mattered, fine. But we are an encyclopedia. We don't document the future and don't want users to come here to know the future (where predictions constantly change). O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a head’s up Objective3000 — Wikipedia has “current” info on the storm related to this topic (2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Current storm information) as well as an image of the forecasted cone. I.e., rather than in text form, the image-form of the highlighted text (the one which started the discussion) is present right now in the overall article. So saying “we don’t document the future” is technically not true. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“we don’t document the future” was surely meant to be “we should not document the future” in the same way that we say we don't misspell words but we all know that it happens (and should be corrected).
Why would obeying WP:V override WP:CRYSTALBALL ? If either one fails then it doesn't belong. CRYSTAL attempts to stop "facts" that have a high probability of changing - hurricanes often change from the prediction even when the prediction is by the excellent people at the weather bureaus. I would say that it also fails WP:RECENTISM and it would be better being recorded when the event is finished - or at least the part of the event under discussion is finished. Readers should be looking at the national weather sources and not WP for emergency weather advice.  Stepho  talk  02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why is acknowledging what NHC forecasted a violation of CRYSTAL? For instance, on the 2013 Moore tornado we have "The Storm Prediction Center issued a tornado watch at 1:10 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT) early that afternoon for the eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma, northwestern Arkansas, and portions of north-central Texas." Why would saying, in short, "At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours" be a violation of CRYSTAL, when the other statement clearly isn't? Both are in the past now. It isn't 4PM CDT on June 17th. That statement cannot change. NHC did issue that forecast. By arguing that it as a "high probability of changing", you are saying the fact they issued a forecast at 4PM CDT on June 17 can change. It cannot. That is what my argument is. The shear fact they issued a forecast isn't a CRYSTAL violation, since the fact they issued a forecast cannot be changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a prediction based on the writings of Nostradamus that there will be a volcano eruption in the US tomorrow. The fact that I made a prediction is true and will never change - therefore my prediction does not fail CRYSTAL.
Which is of course total crap. It's not the fact that I made a prediction, its about how reliable the prediction is and how long it is likely to remain valid. If, say, physicists tracked a comet heading directly for the Earth then it would have a high degree of reliability and we could predict it will (or very, very, very likely) hit the Earth because celestial mechanics is well understand and is just a calculation with only a few variables. But weather systems are highly complex, have literally millions of variables, are very, very hard to predict reliably and storm predictions change frequently as new data comes in.  Stepho  talk  04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what this thread is describing, the following would indeed violate CRYSTAL:
"At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours.[2] At 10:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 50 mph (80 km/h) within 48 hours."[3]
Since weather forecasts are hard to be reliable, those two sentences would be a violation of CRYSTAL based on what you are saying? Correct? If yes, then that answers the original question. NHC published a new forecast (update #2) about an hour ago. So, the text, in theory, would read something like the highlighted statement I just typed out. I am honestly curious how the statement about 4:00 PM is a violation of CRYSTAL, since there is absolutely no denying that it is 100% true. Like it is not possible to deny that first sentence (or for that fact the 2nd sentence) is true. Both are, technically historical fact. So please, explain how historical facts are predicting the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NHC made a prediction - that is a fact. The contents of that prediction is not a fact.
Just like my prediction of a volcano eruption. I made a prediction - that is fact. The contents of my prediction (a volcano erupting at that time/place) is total crap. My prediction violates CRYSTAL. So does NHC's prediction (including the 2 green sentences just before this response).
The fact that within 6 hours they changed it from 40 mph to 50 mph for the next 48 hours is an indication that weather predictions are not 100% accurate yet. In another 6 hours it might increase, or decrease, or its path might deviate, or die out completely.  Stepho  talk  06:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, “the contents of that prediction is not a fact” is irrelevant. WP:VNT. Heck, right now Tornadoes of 2022 has factually inaccurate information, but it is verifiable. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. Their prediction is verifiable per tons of secondary RS. Saying their prediction, sourced by secondary RS, is perfectly in-line with Wikipedia’s policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu Why are we considering whether an encyclopedia should include verifiable statements of future prediction with a horizon of days to weeks? Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, question seems to be solved and discussion can be over. At no point should Wikipedia mention what a meteorological forecaster predicted or forecasted for, as it is a violation of CRYSTAL. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is definitely not the case. If the NHC anticipated strengthening to hurricane status and it doesn’t happen, that’s verifiable and legit info, as the very forecast itself could affect people’s actions they took to prepare. Similarly if the NHC thought it would stay a TS and failure to predict strengthening, like Hurricane Otis last year. The biggest thing with mentioning forecasts is whether it’s relevant to the narrative. If the NHC forecast strengthening to a TS, and that happened, a useful verifiable statement would be something like “The NHC anticipated strengthening due to a variety of environmental factors.” But if it’s just “The NHC predicted a peak of 40 mph this day, and 45 mph on the next advisory, then that’s trivial, as the minor difference wouldn’t have caused any change in outcome. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forecasts of past events might occasionally be worth mentioning, when they caused a panic, are noted by others as being unusually accurate or unusually inaccurate, etc. I think forecasts of future events fall under WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with David. We must remember that our standards for notability exist as a fuzzy eco-system, and the more we try to establish blanket rules that apply to everything, the less well those rules work in concrete situations. In the case of hurricanes, there is an allowance for images of maps with the predicted path of a hurricane, and we do have a current list of tropical storm watches and warnings. However, I do not think that current prose of forecasts are helpful to readers (and probably fail NOTNEWS) as the information will quickly become dated and there is never just one forecast. Now, past forecasts may be notable as others have suggested. - Enos733 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is about “future” events. So let me get this straight, are those sentences CRYSTAL violation or not? If they are, then are they a crystal violation in a month (i.e. after the storm has dissipated)? I still do not understand how mentioning an unchanging fact is a crystal violation. Those sentences cannot and will not change now or ever in terms of their content. But whatever. I guess mentioning the past on a current event is considered mentioning the future (somehow). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that an editor might cherry pick which forecast to use in the prose - if the NOAA is predicting a named storm, but the UKMO is not, which one should be used? Now, this question could be generally resolved through normal editing, our project works better in talking about the past, or the current, rather than speculating. What we have in this case is a Potential Tropical Cyclone, and at this moment, includes current information about the system. The proposed addition does not add much to our understanding of the weather system, except that one forecaster thinks it could quickly become a named storm. - Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They might be unsuitable or suboptimal for other reasons, but forecasts like this are fine with respect to WP:CRYSTAL. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Really, we're talking about predictions for the further unfolding of events that have already begun, which isn't fundamentally what WP:CRYSTAL addresses in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Beven, Jack (17 June 2024). "Potential Tropical Cyclone One Discussion Number 1". National Hurricane Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Archived from the original on 17 June 2024. Retrieved 17 June 2024.
  2. ^ Beven, Jack (17 June 2024). "Potential Tropical Cyclone One Discussion Number 1". National Hurricane Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Archived from the original on 17 June 2024. Retrieved 17 June 2024.
  3. ^ "Potential Tropical Cyclone One Discussion Number 2". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 18 June 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1229881020"