User:SamuelRiv/DraftEssay

Arson, murder, and jaywalking

Consider the following: the year is 1062, and an article topic is in the news a bit more frequently. Maybe there have been some controversial incidents popping up, and with attention to WP:RECENCY bias, editors put some of this coverage in the article as it is essential to a contemporary understanding of the topic.

Now it's five years later, and this part of the world looks very different. For the topic in question, the news has no longer been about "controversial incidents," but significant consequential events. The article now has sections that read like: 1067: Arson; 1066: Murder; 1062: ... Jaywalking.

It's hard to predict, when significant news is coming in, what will ultimately be relevant to the 10-Year Test. But for topics that have had significant news coverage several years in the past, it may be worth reviewing whether the old coverage means much today. If an academic source has reviewed the history of the topic and has assessed the minor coverage, that might be a far more useful, perceptive, and concise reference than the contemporary coverage itself.

BLP: Who cares?

Information on a BLP must be encyclopedic. Information useful for cross-referencing may include a brief family summary (for genealogists?), a select bibliography, significant professional history and media coverage, and notable recognition and achievements. It is not a CV and not a dump of each minor appearance in media, even if the medium itself is notable.

BLP: No saints

There are no living saints. You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain. A normal BLP should appear concise and factual. If it seems particularly affectionate, even if the facts reflect an unusual goodness, maybe it's worth taking a second look at the references, or at what other sources are out there. If a BLP is completely self indulgent, this author will make it their personal mission to destroy it.

MOS: A real jerk (AKA: Show, don't tell)

Typically actions speak louder than words. Even words, if coming from the subject of the article itself, speak louder than words in WP:wikivoice about that subject. A well-known comedy punchline goes like

Albert Fish ... was a serial killer who slayed children and ate them. ... He was dizzyingly happy, smiling as he descirbed the grisly details of the tortures and the murders appearing to the detectives 'as the devil himself'. I mean this guy was a real jerk!

In an encyclopedia article, does anything like the last line have to be included, even if it were quoted from a WP:Reliable source? In a less-exaggerated scenario, consider paragraphs such as

Person X was criticized for racist statements^{[RS 1]} including X, Y, and Z.^{[RS 2]}

Could we not expect a typical reader to understand statements "X, Y, and Z" to be racist just from reading them? Or if context is necessary, wouldn't it be better to provide context, or to quote sources who explain the historical context then and now appropriately?

Note that this is a somewhat different issue from the ongoing debate over moralizing in the lead, in which the MOS:LEAD is by necessity an editorial summary of the historical evaluation of a subject, and should be well-supported within the body.

MOS: If someone took their time, they may know something you don't

Every editor reacts differently to their first encounter with a manual of style. Some see it as scripture from Heaven, as if validating their latent frustration with centuries of unresolved inconsistencies, while others see it as an unnecessary speed bump in their Indy Prix Turismo of creative productivity.

Regardless of your position, if you see something in the wiki markup that itches a nerve, remember the guideline that when used consistently in an article, style choices should be retained.

Furthermore, if you see style decisions that look odd but seem deliberate and consistent, or were marked as fixes in the edit history of the article, consider that the editor who made the changes may know something you don't. Maybe they checked the actual source and corrected the citation or the prose to correspond appropriately, or perhaps they understand the various bibliographic styles (as of June 2022 there are 84 archives of discussions regarding en.wiki practices thereof) in a way that you don't. Generally have some restraint unless you are sure you are adding to the integrity and usability of the information within the article.