Wikipedia talk:Attack page/Archive 1

Suggest delete

It's silly to have tiny guidelines like this dealing with one minor point. That point is already covered under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Suggest we delete this one. Stevage 11:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a merge with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -Not Diablo 08:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is not getting deleted. Guideline pages are important. This page is fine as it is. By the way, if you think a page should be deleted, read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. Giant Blue Anteater 03:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Other possible kinds of attack pages?

The definition restricts itself to pages that disparage their subject. What about pages written for the sole purpose of documenting its subject's disparagement of others? It would seem to me that this would be a sort of attack page too. Schizombie 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think that such a page would probably fall afoul of the rules against overuse of primary sources, not to mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me an example of attack pages?Moguera 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I know this may violate NPOV, but surely a biography page on Hitler, for example, is going to be slightly biased against him?

Expansion

This page surely needs to be expanded.

--Meno25 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-deprecating humor

Perhaps there should be some qualification about self-deprecating humor? There is a page on MfD where some guy makes bad jokes about himself on his own user page, and people are citing this page as a criteria for deletion. That seems like following the letter of the law but not the spirit. Perhaps we should add a qualifier like "Self-deprecating content in one's own userspace does not constitute an attack page." --Dgies 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Namespace And Definition

A Wikipedia article, page or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.

I believe sole purpose of disparaging its subject is poorly worded and is overly broad. I routinely create my own workspace pages (personal sandboxen) that I use to gather evidence or keep notes during a dispute or investigation. I have seen some administrators accused of keeping "attack pages", which seems to be a rather gratuitious use of the term.

If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be blanked (or, if necessary, deleted) and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.

The second part of this guideline seems like it is intended to be applied to the main namespace -- articles created to disparage a notable or non-notable subject. I propose that we delete , page or image from the first part of the guideline. This would narrow the charge of creating "attack pages" to the intended purpose as shown in the "what to do" part of the guideline.

Please note, I am being completely proactive here -- I have not been accused of any WP:ATTACK, I just can see how some people can use it with broad strokes. /Blaxthos 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this has to apply to Images and User pages as well... Images can be used to deliberately attack the subject just as much as words. And a user page (talk sub-page, sandbox, etc.) that exists ONLY to attack someone or some group has to count as an attack page. They should be brought to admin attention and deleted. Now, as to a personal sandbox used to compile evidence or to keep notes during a dispute or investigation... to my mind such a page does not fit the criteria. It does not exist for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject. Granted, it can sometimes be a judgment call... Material that is compliled as "evidence" by one person, might be considered an attack by another. Blueboar 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly why we should narrow the context of "attack pages" -- to remove the ambiguity. What about changing it to "Any article or image" then? /Blaxthos 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The intent was to avoid attack pages within userspace. I actually added this because Radiant! re-worded some CSDs, adding G10, which covered all attack pages. I think that there's a definite difference between an attack page and a RFAr; the latter is more than the "sole purpose of disparaging" its subject; it keeps evidence on a user's conduct. But I feel strongly that the word "page" should still apply; user pages have been historically used as actual attacks on other users (i.e. XXXX is a racist Serbian nationalist), and this change reflects that. Ral315 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ATTACK would apply to RfAs or sandboxen being used to prepare an RfA. I think it does apply to pages on Wikiprojects and personal sandboxen that make attacks with less obvious purposes. I can think of some cases where this happened; I'll have to try to find the links. Шизомби 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the guideline should not apply to RfArb / evidence pages, but I have seen people use it as a misnomer. Modifying the inclusionary language might not be the answer -- what about adding an exclusionary clause. Something along the lines of Userspace pages used to gather evidence on other editors' conduct are not attack pages. /Blaxthos 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If I live for 1000 years I will never see what earthly purpose the maintenance of highly subjective Userspace pages used to gather evidence on other editors' conduct serves in an encyclopaedia that, believe it or not, is supposed to be about information and content, not politick and sitting in judgement on, or even harassing, other users.

I was personally appalled to discover such pages could exist at all in an environment where civility is supposed to be defined in terms of restricting comment to content, not other editors. --Zeraeph 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You should be more appalled to discover that there are editors whos conduct warrants administrative action, and you should be glad there are administrators and users who do due dilligence in investigating and addressing such. Is it unfortunate that something like that is necessary? Of course, but it is necessary and it hurts us all when admins and users trying to help by gathering and presenting evidence can be accused to harboring attack pages. /Blaxthos 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to show me some examples of these pages? --Zeraeph 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The only pages I can (will) offer are ones I worked on:

• User:Blaxthos/Charles8854 - Indefinitely blocked.
• User:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79 - User changed accounts or left the project.

/Blaxthos 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I honestly cannot see what contribution these pages make to the content of articles, which is all that counts and it is my considered opinion that such pages are more likely to exacerbate than resolve inter editor disputes. I also think that you might find WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND of some relevance.--Zeraeph 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience such user pages to "gather evidence" about users tend to be rather one-sided and serve mostly to cast that user in bad light, and as such I would have no regrets about deleting the lot of them. You can always keep evidence on, I don't know, your hard drive? Or possibly that stack of note paper next to your computer, if you want to go analog. Productive dispute resolution is, of course, not an attack, but a list of "bad things done by User:Foo" is far from productive. >Radiant< 15:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever participated in a WP:RfARB? It takes a lot of collaborative effort by editors, which can't be done offline. As unfortunate as it may be, sometimes it is necessary to bring an editor's conduct into question -- which is precisely why RfARB exists. I believe the official policy referrs to such pages as workspace (which is very productive when prosecuting an arbitration case). I am not advocating that we endorse users' ability to "keep a list of bad things done by User:foo" -- please understand that my purpose in this RfC is to limit the use of the "attack page" charge to its intended definition and not to allow users to extend it to administrators and editors who keep such pages as part of an ongoing investigation or arbitration regarding someone's conduct. /Blaxthos 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the talk page attached to any WP:RfAR should be ample for any appropriate collaborative discussion, anything else should be kept privately, on the hard drive, if at all. --Zeraeph 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. If there is an RFAr, there is already a page there for evidence (which, incidentally, has more purposes than simple disparagement). If there is not, or not yet, an RFAr, there is no need for this so-called collaboration. >Radiant< 09:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• But that's not how it works. Unless you have a case before you file a request, it will get rejected. I've seen it happen. So you need to make some case before it is filed. -Amarkov moo! 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As written, this guidline applies to objects...

... and I just put a {{db-attack}} on a page created solely to disparage Stetson hats. However, this might be an unintended consequence? --N Shar 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that someone does create a page solely to disparage Stetson hats, an XfD would result in deletion anyway, so why bother with the extra bureaucracy? It's fine how it is – Qxz 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

In the spirit of reducing the confusing and byzantine amount of policy pages... this page basically tells us that attack pages are deleted. In that, it is redundant with WP:CSD, which says the same. Are there any objections to redirecting this to the latter, since it completely overlaps? >Radiant< 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is such a tiny point. Maybe I have selective attention, but it seems to be something of a growing fad at the moment to create pages for the sole purpose of subjectively maligning other editors, whether overtly and abusively, or passive aggressive and covertly passed off as "collecting information on *questionable* users for the good of the project" (Hell--oo...designating an user as "questionable" or similar, is, in it's own right, an attack, and I guarantee that if you are obsessed enough to dig long enough you can selectively collate enough diffs to make any editor who has a pulse look *questionable*).

I was genuinely staggered the first time I saw a page like this. It seems totally contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, and the only purpose for which such pages are ever used seems to be to facillitate the harassment of other editors and the re-igniting of old flames. (I feel quite sure that WP:NOT should really specify that "Wikipedia is not a theraputic intervention or an encounter group" just to blow a few of the fascinating excuses produced for this rather sly form of harassment to smithereens!).

I would like to see this page not only stay, but be expanded and elevated to a policy that will eradicate such pages from Wikipedia and take the focus away from collating information to use against other editors at will, and back to collating information from which to build an encyclopaedia. I honestly feel that, in terms of the spirit in which Wikipedia was created, and exists, the creation of such pages should, like the 3RR, warrant an automatic ban. --Zeraeph 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• But it is already policy to delete attack pages, per WP:CSD. It's not a bad idea, it's simply redundant. Oh, and please do point out the pages you refer to? >Radiant< 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is more in the definition of attack pages, reports of which are so often dismissed with some variant of "ah but it is just an harmless NPOV intervention so that every editor who knows me may lynch offer tough love, for the sake of his own good, and that of the project, to these editors who have demonstrated their tragic dysfunction by rejecting my, well intentioned, offers to put their mind right in the past".

• ...and as I do NOT particularly want to become "much higher than 18, with a bullet" on the personal "hit charts" of several editors simultaneously who are fond of creating user pages to "constructively define and critique other editors", I will regretfully decline your invitation to point any out, pending a clear definition that specifies all pages set up for the sole purpose of discussing and critiquing other editors without their consent, be speedy deleted without recourse to future appeal. --Zeraeph 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a minor point or a confusing and byzantine ... policy page and as a policy guideline definitely should not be summarily redirected. Reverted. /Blaxthos 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's a guideline – Qxz 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I subconsciously referenced Radiant's assertion that he is cleaning up confusing and byzantine amount of policy pages. I did not mean to assert that this was a policy. So corrected. /Blaxthos 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not about this page, it's about what it says. This page says we delete attack pages. We also, already, have a policy page (WP:CSD) that says we delete attack pages. That's why I said that this (i.e. deleting attack pages) is already policy, and that's why this page is redundant. >Radiant< 09:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  I would support a merge to WP:CSD, but it should be a merge (preserving any information here that isn't there) rather than just a redirect. Of course, most of what this says is in WP:CSD#G10 already, just more concisely worded. --ais523 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's a good point. >Radiant< 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This page exists because we need a guideline that defines what constitutes an attack page . Think of it in a legal sense... the legislature makes the law that says thus-and-so is prohibited, and then the law is specifically defined by the courts (what exactly constitutes thus-and-so). I believe that's how this page came into existance, and why it definitely should exist. /Blaxthos 10:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, but no. Wikipedia doesn't do legislation, and we don't need a strict definition of "attack page" because that'd encourage wikilawyering and gaming the system. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, doesn't have firm rules, and most definitely doesn't have a lawbook. If this page gives that impression, that'd be an additional reason for removing it. >Radiant< 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well if we don't need a strict definition of an "attack page" we probably don't need definitions of "vandalism", "incivility" or "NPOV" either. The lack of clear definition is more likely to encourage wikilawyering than the provision of it, because it means there is no "bottom line" on the subject and obscure half relevancies can be dredged up out of context, ad nauseam, to excuse any aspect of it on either side.

• Also, an attack page is a problem, WP:CSD is a solution. Think about it, the main reason for any editor to look up a problem is because he does not know what the solution is. If you start filing all the problems under their solutions, nobody will ever be able to find any policy or guideline. --Zeraeph 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct. We do not keep exhaustive lists of what exactly constitues vandalism, or incivility, or NPOV. Please look up the definition of wikilawyering, because it means the opposite of what you appear to claim it does. You can't use the letter of a rule against its spirit if the letter is absent. >Radiant< 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now that WAS a very neat piece of Wikilawyering if ever I saw one. :o)

• I wasn't suggesting an "exhaustive list", just a clear definition, of the problem, suggestions for avoiding causing it, alternative approaches and, if all else fails, redress, like:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:VANDAL
• WP:CIVIL

• --Zeraeph 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• PS. This seems relevant too Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attack page--Zeraeph 12:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep. It says "Give it a few months to grow and to prove its worth (or not). If, after a reasonable period of time, it's not working, change to a redirect". And that was a year ago. >Radiant< 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• And it ALSO says "Page should probably be expanded to cover attack pages in general not just speedy deletion of attack pages" and "The result of the debate was keep". --Zeraeph 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied from the village pump)

"Seems logical Radiant!. (→Netscott) 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It even says that it is based on CSD, I would definitely support this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your evil plan policy/guideline-combining plan Radiant, but I shall play along anyway :) Frankly, though, I would support a merge, so long as the deletion criterion is expanded somewhat (so that we don't lose anything), which should be brought up WT:CSD. Gracenotes^T § 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)"

So, just to be clear... being completely unaware of the previous AfD, I asked a while back that we expand this page. Radiant, you argued against expanding the page during my request for expansion (see above), and now you want to use the fact that the page hasn't been expanded expanded as a reason to delete it. As another editor pointed out previously, The lack of clear definition is more likely to encourage wikilawyering. Also, I used an analogy in my previous comment, with the attempt to help you understand why this is here, and why we need it. I wish my attempt at illustration was more successful.  :-) I am aware that wikipedia doesn't have laws. Also, please don't bring up discussion and then selectively copy responses that support your position -- let's have this disccusion in one place. Again, I strongly object to gutting this guideline. /Blaxthos 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Update after reading the WikiAFD posted, I think this is just an end-run around a WP:CONSENSUS. The result was clearly keep (and possibly expand). The community spoke on this not eight weeks ago. /Blaxthos 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't make spurious accusations. Thank you. You should know that AFD governs deletion, not regular editing processes like modifying, merging or redirecting a page. >Radiant< 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as any kind of "accusation", seems more of an observation...and what is "spurious" about it...unless you want to call the whole principle of consensus spurious? Currently, on this talk page, there seems to be a clear consensus of editors (even those who hold differing views in how this page should be worded) that the page should be retained and expanded. --Zeraeph 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Radiant, please don't try to Wikilawyere here -- the change you propose has the exact same net effect as the AFD proposal. The AFD proposal was based upon the same premise as you're espousing now. Every suggestion that has been made (expand, redirect, move, etc.) was raised and answered -- you're trying to use a different rule/procedure to effect the same change (essentially gutting the WP:CONSENSUS). Please show good faith regarding the community decisions (specifically, to keep and expand this guideline), instead of trying to find a way around it in furtherance of your own position. /Blaxthos 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:KETTLE, WP:NPA, HAND. >Radiant< 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is this personal attack, radiant? I see no comment from any editor about you (negative or otherwise). The only comment that was made is that you're trying to invalidate a properly reached WP:CONSENSUS, to which there is ample opposition. I think we've given ample evidence why your unilateral change (ignoring the WP:CONSENSUS and without discussion) a few days ago is inappropriate. Further discussion seems moot -- making false claims of personal attacks, and most especially the "HAND" comment, is inappropriate and counterproductive. /Blaxthos 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed merge. I think it is useful to have a specific page that can be linked to by the relevant db template, and that expands somewhat on what an attack page is, and what (besides deeltion) can be done with it. This page also clarifies that this does not apply to good faith reports of problems on wikipedia, and is the proerp place for discussing possible changes to that standard. If "attacks" should be limited to people or groups of people (it has been suggested that an 'attack" on a product or object should not be considered an attack page), this page (provides a good forum for discussing such changes in policy. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge: this article is about a phenomenon, not policy. Also merging would make referencing this article more difficult, particulary interwikis. гык 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs expansion

I believe this page needs expansion. Recently, several pages I had in my User space were regarded as "attack pages". I felt these claims were unjustified and unwarranted given everything I have read so far under WP policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, the pages were nominated for MfD. One of the supporting users recently replied to my query concerning why she thought this was an attack page:

As the pages have been deleted, it would be hard for me to go into exact details, but generally, I think it's a bad idea to maintain a page on Wikipedia in which you document the real or imagined misbehaviour of other editors and/or your problems with them. It makes for bad feeling, as they inevitably discover it. If you need to keep a record of these things, I suggest you keep it on your own hard disk. That's all I really have to say. (ElinorD)[1]

However, as the page currently says:

It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.

I think this guideline, then, requires further "fleshing out".

--Otheus 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking as precautionary measure?

Hi.

Would it make sense to permit page blanking in attack page cases to hide the offending content before it is actually removed from the wiki in order to keep it fron hurting someone during the brief time it is up? mike4ty4 07:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with removing attack content, but the page should not be completely blank: there should be a {{db-attack}} tag so an admin can find it and delete it. —dgies^t_c 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I've removed the merge suggestion template, per significant opposition on this page (as well as the result of the AfD a while back). /Blaxthos 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is an article about a deceased person an attack page?

i.e. An hero/Mitchell Henderson?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not by default, but it can be. Disparaging the deceased is still disparagement. Note that both pages you mention have been deleted for reasons unrelated to whether or not they're attack pages. >Radiant< 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Content policy?

This is an important policy page, but we don't quite need to hang on monthly updates of this page the way we do with the other 7 pages in Category:Wikipedia content policies: WP:NAME, WP:NFCC, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and the 3 core content policies. I suggest that "official policy" and "global policy" should cover it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to my adding this to Category:Wikipedia deletion policies? This doesn't change anything; I'm just trying to figure out what's the best section for this page in WP:List of policies. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What subject?

This page forbids attacks against "subjects". But what does it mean "subject"? Is it only a person, living or not? Can it mean an "attack" against a theory (say theory of evolution)? This should be explained at the page. Another important question: how can we distinguish a legitimate criticism from an attack? Biophys (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not clear what editors supposed to do

For example Gilad Atzmon was a carefully worked on article balancing partisan criticism with accurate info for over a year and then four days ago one person turned into an attack article which 2 other people agreed with, all of them insulting other editors as antisemites. Why can't we ask for a revert to the original so we can make point by point changes? Instead we are forced to make point by point changes to undo poor sourcing, etc. in an attack article. And even obvious corrections get undone. (With little help from WP:Blpn, WP:NPOVN etc. At least one of them was blocked for 24 hours for 3rr edit warring.) Very frustrating. Guidance on this page welcome even if redundant to other pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an outstanding question, and I'm surprised that this page and WP:CSD#G10 don't give more guidance, and we're in luck: the Obama case currently at WP:RFAR deals in part with a related issue, when to speedy attack pages. I'll think about this a little, and please tell me what you'd like to see, and I'll bring it up at the Obama RFAR workshop. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I got involved in editing this article when I saw a notice on a noticeboard. That's three days, I guess. However, taking a look, just now, going back to 15 March 09, I see a lot of heavy editing was going on then too [2], and the article at that point was very unbalanced, giving a catalog of Atzmon's statements about Israel, Zionism, and Jews, without bothering to supply much in the way of the reliable sources that are critical of those statements. That is not the way a WP article is supposed to be written.

Considering that the Atzmon article is within the area of Israel/Palestine dispute article, and the subject is flammable, it is a little hard to understand your surprised at the ensuing mess. Right now the problem is to balance the article, and calm the editing situation down. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make more clear, by summing up, what I said above. In my view the problem is an editing dispute, with two sides disagreeing what constitutes a balanced article about Gilad Atzmon. I asked several times for specifics of the BLP accusations (the main issue raised), but never got those specifics. Nevertheless, I did make changes to the lead, that I considered problematic. I think calling the article an attack page is a misrepresentation of the actual situation.

This article is also listed on another notice board, and there was also a request for page protection that was denied. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When new editors constantly engage in behavior of attacking both the subject of an article and other editors, some editors will consider it an attack article. The issue is what to do with a (possibly flawed) article that suddenly becomes an attack article for whatever reason, as far as asking for a revert. That needs to be in this article and perhaps others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter what you think of my talk page edits, my editing of the article has been only to reduce the criticism of Atzmon without eliminating criticism that is WP:reliable. But even without my changes, the article was in no way an "attack page." I have asked many times that other editors point out what the consider BLP violations, and have never gotten a response from you or any other editor. In my view, the article is more balanced now than it was when you claim (above) that it was more "stable", but if you still think the article is an attack page supply some specifics. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any discussion of WP:Attack page yet; that's not a problem, of course, but if you guys would like to continue this conversation, perhaps we should move the thread to the page that's being discussed? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on better language/tag change

Sorry to specifically name an article and start brouhaha above. Here are my specific tweaking suggestions in italics to deal with the reverting to an original version issue. Of course mentioning the revert option in the tag probably would be necessary under changes described below.

An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the {{db-attack}} tag to them, and should warn the user who created or edited them that the article is a candidate for speedy deletion or revision to an earlier neutral version by putting the {{attack|page}} tag on their talk page.

If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision for an administrator to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.

...

{Note to administrators section)

When deleting or reverting attack pages, it is important that you don't quote any of the content in your deletion summary. In some cases, MediaWiki will offer a prefilled deletion summary that includes some of the content being deleted; make sure you replace the summary with something more appropriate (such as "[[WP:CSD#G10]] - Attack page") before clicking the delete button. Once added to the log, there is currently no way to delete a deletion summary short of direct Oversight intervention.

This addresses my confusion and concerns, assuming I'm interpreting things properly. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

non-personal attacks?

Someone just changed "personal attacks" to "attacks". Are we considering non-personal attacks? WP:CSD and db-attack and related templates assume either a person or a group of people (such as a company) as the subject of the attacks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the long-standing word "personal", but if the problem was clarity, I'd also be happy with "attacks against a person or group of people". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missed this, I've changed it to 'attacks against the subject of the page', since the subject of the attacks could be a company, church, society, ethnic group, country, etc., no need to qualify it as 'personal'. I think we don't want to see a page with content such as 'XXX group are idiots'. LK (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial exception for redirects?

I notice that in practice we frequently permit redirects whose sole purpose is clearly to disparage the subject, if the name is in sufficiently common currency. For example, Butcher of Baghdad redirects to Saddam Hussein, Butcher of Beijing directs to Li Peng, etc, etc. Shouldn't we reflect this in the policy? Ray^Talk 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a judgment call; I would delete a redirect from "Jeremiah-Wright-lover" or "Butcher of Baghdad" as an attack page, and perhaps we should say something about that at CSD, I don't know. (To people who would argue that "Butcher of Baghdad" gets 39K hits so it's a legitimate redirect, I would point out that some of those hits refer to George W. Bush, so do you want a disambiguation page that lists both?) For less graphic terms that get significant hits, Wiktionarification might be a partial solution, but I'm not familiar with how Wiktionarians feel about this issue. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Some terms are ambiguous, others less so, but definitely in historical usage (e.g. Ivan the Terrible). It's this "judgment" call part that bothers me, at least a little. We rely on judgment, but this is a topic where the latitude seems far too wide. One man's reasonable redirect for reference purposes can easily be another man's mortal insult to a national icon. I think some form of formal control on the subject will be necessary, sooner or later. Since Wikipedia is supposed to provide access to information, even where that information is uncomfortable, I'd prefer to allow all such redirects, so long as they're reliably sourced, and to point them at disambiguation pages if there is common usage of a term to refer to more than one person/event. Ray^Talk 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think I probably lean in the other direction, per the example I gave. I don't want to be making the argument that it's okay to have "Butcher of Baghdad" redirect to a disambig page that mentions Bush and Saddam, or just to Saddam; either way, it's going to lead to both the reality and appearance of bias, and endless, endless arguments that have no chance of improving the encyclopedia even if they're resolved. The judgment call should be: if this is something that U.S., Canadian and British respectable newspapers generally won't print (and I can't imagine that a story about Bush in the Washington Post in 2009 would begin, "Bush, known to some in the Mideast as the 'Butcher of Badhdad', ..."), then we shouldn't have that in a redirect page, either. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

This article is obviously not within the spirit of this policy but I think the policy page should discuss why these articles are not considered attack page. It was when Barack Obama substance abuse controversy was deleted as an attack page did I notice a void of policy on these types of articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G10 says: "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." If it had been a re-creation of a speedied page, I would have speedied as G10; otherwise, I would take it to AfD and argue the point. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, articles that are recreations of previously deleted speedy pages are never speedy eligible. They are only "speedable" for their own intrinsic reasons. Secondly, G10 is not the criteria for re-creations. But regardless, the article was never previously deleted. But getting back to the issue at hand, Barack Obama substance abuse controversy was not what G10 has in mind, and the policy should reflect this so that next time the article can be deleted through its proper forum, afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. As the link shows, the title is part of the consideration of what gets speedied under G10. If the article doesn't have a reliable source, then a title that implies that a person has a substance abuse problem is an attack and it should be speedied per G10. Proposed changes to G10 should be discussed at WT:CSD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just read George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, and even though it's well-sourced, I think it harms rather than improves the reputation of Wikipedia, provides no useful information, and should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation unless better sources can be found and a better case can be made. (And btw, I'm not a fan of W, but that article is crap.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD

Please see WT:CSD#WP:ATTACK for a discussion of the August edits. (This is one of those rare policy pages where the subject gets discussed more on another page, CSD.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackwashing

A page started to coin a word used by Stephen Colbert on his show. And you guys consider that to be threatening or disparaging to who? Blacks or Whites? Hilarious. Be honest guys, you perceive the article to be disparaging to whites because it points out a racial bias by some (not all) white against black people and oh no you can't have THAT! Guess what, some white people are racist. I know this may be a shock to many of you, but it's true. I just put a word up that was used recentl and is gaining notoriety and boom, knee jerk reaction again on Wikipedia. --Panehesy (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems some black people are racist too.. who knew? PS. read WP:NEOLOGISM as well. -- œ^™ 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Random WP:CSD#G10 (attack page) things to think about (I'll add more as I think of them). - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page sounds like an attack page, but the subject is only weakly identified:
  • Delete, probably. Example: "How do you edit a page", which said only "alex is an convicted terrorist born in 2000 lives in hong kong". Very few people will know who is meant, but any 9-year-old boy in Hong Kong named Alex is likely to feel targeted.

Signpost Policy Report

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

A summary of your comments on our Attack page policy will be featured in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Any question you want to tackle would be fine, including: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed over the last few months? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for content, or something in between? Does this page contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines?

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfCs in userspace

Relevant discussion that involve three current cases that cite attacks policies is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Attack sections?

Does this need to be expanded to deal with the issue of "attack sections" where sections are created entirely to attack the subject (especially people or organizations), usually in a WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:OR fashion, usually having to do with some often politically motivated allegation of bigotry or other character fault. It can be frustrating having to argue those failings of policy over and over when it is clear a whole section is just an attack. (I've seen them deleted by admins only to be re-established a month or so later!) Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "attack page"

Where is the line between a well-sourced article that covers a topic and an attack page? Say a highly notable (former US president for example) person gets arrested for something and it makes the news all over the world in a way that meets any WP:NOTNEWS issues (months of coverage in mainstream reliable sources, shows up in biographies etc). In the context of that person's notable life it's a pretty minor incident and it would be undue weight to take up too much space on the topic in the main article. But creating a spinout article on the topic (in an article that likely already has 6+ spinout articles) would be an attack page. Is this policy really saying that such a spinout is inappropriate? Issue comes from [3] on Lance Armstrong. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I usually draw the line at "significant impact upon the subject's public or professional life". This means an arrest or accusation of wrongdoing by itself does not qualify for inclusion (based upon WP:BLP's stipulation that biographies of living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"). Charges that lead to an indictment, impeachment, professional suspension, or can otherwise be shown to have a significant impact (i.e. a successful FUD attack or October surprise) are usually appropriate for inclusion. An accusation or incident that causes nothing but personal embarrassment and inconvenience to the article subject should not however be included. --Allen3 ^talk 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable stand, consistent with the "do no harm" maxim: if an allegation has already resulted in perceptible harm to a person, then we should not simply assume that the harm would be ongoing, but rather take a measured approach: is the encyclopedic value greater than any harm delta done by continuing to report the issue. This seems consistent with the low-profile individual clause, too: if the allegations are the only or primary thing reported on a person, the ongoing harm probably exceeds the encyclopedic value. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to understand that the doping allegations in question with regard to Lance Armstrong in the context of his notable life are not at all "a pretty minor incident". That is, this is not about recreational drug use, for example. It's about engaging in behavior that allegedly brought about the results that made him notable in the first place; that without the alleged behavior in question he would not be notable. So, this is fundamental to his notability.

If there were just one or two obscure allegations, okay. But there are ten, and that in and of itself is significant. I don't see how we're doing our readers or this encyclopedia any good by hiding these facts from them.

It also seems to me that that WP:BLP#Public figures is so clear about this, that I don't understand why there is any question whatsover: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". Why is there even any question about inclusion? Based on what, exactly? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping to gain a sense of some broad guidelines for this independent of the LA issue. I think we've got competing issues here that when taken to an extreme either result in pure and unfounded attack articles on one side or whitewashed biographies (where a biography is more than one article) on the other. I'm hoping we can find some guideposts for the general case which we can then turn around and use in specific cases. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. But above you wrote, "In the context of that person's notable life it's a pretty minor incident ...". If that circumscribes the scope of this endeavor (limited to "pretty minor incident[s]" "in the context of that person's notable life"), then it would not address situations like this one about Armstrong's alleged doping. In fact, I think it's more important to clarify what should be done in cases where the allegations in question are about something that is very significant to the public person's notability. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider the situation where a public figure is arrested on suspicion of a serious crime only to be cleared of any wrongdoing after a couple of weeks. Such situations usually result in a short lived media frenzy and significant coverage of the arrest. Should Wikipedia be in the business of immortalizing the embarrassment felt by said public figure from having his mug shot circulated around the world just because the initial allegation was "about something that is very significant to the public person's notability" (i.e. if there was a basis for the charges then it could have resulted in imprisonment)? Unlike a newspaper which uses juicy stories on the front page to sell itself while printing retractions somewhere between the public announcements and the personals section, Wikipedia should pay attention the result of serious allegations and remove/not include anything which turns out to be nothing but a tempest in a teapot. --Allen3 ^talk 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Allen3. Encyclopedias don't make such a huge deal out of minor legal problems (especially if they later fizzle, but even if they don't). That's the job of the tabloids. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I agree too. But in this example even if the person is found guilty the murder is probably not very relevant to his notability in the first place. For example, even though they were found innocent (and yet we have O. J. Simpson murder case), the achievement of notability for both O. J. Simpson and Robert Blake had nothing to do with the murders in which they were implicated. In the case of the doping allegations about Lance Armstrong, these are inextricably tied to why he is successful and notable in the first place (winning bike races). Very different; and much more relevant than even a murder conviction (much less a dismissed murder charge). We are not talking about tempests in teapots here. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New section

I've boldly gone ahead and added this section to the article:

Legitimate spinouts are not attack pages

A spinout article created from well-established content in the main article about a public figure that is created legitimately because "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article" is obviously not created "primarily to disparage its subject" and so is not an attack page, even if the content in question is critical of the public figure or his or her behavior.

This really is a syllogism so there should be no objection, but I think it needs to be stated clearly because such spinouts are so easily misconstrued to be attack pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And because it's little more than a syllogism, it solves nothing and isn't helpful. All this does is adds "legitimately" to the language people would argue over. If something is "easily misconstrued," btw, it's hard for its intent to be "obviously" "legitimate." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it was reverted, with the edit summary comment of, rv, the "legitimate" language simply begs the question, making this a revision which solves nothing, more discussion reqd;

Not sure why "legitimately" is problematic; it works just as well without it. I've restored the section without the problematic word. If there are other issues with this, please discuss here. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "legitimately". The point is that this policy defines an attack page as an article created "primarily" to disparage. Therefore, if a spinout is created primarily for other reasons (i.e., the content in question is taking up too much space in the article), then it's not being created "primarily" to disparage, and is therefore not an attack, by definition. What is the harm in stating this clearly? The benefit is that this reminds people to look deeper into why some apparently critical content is in a separate article before jumping to the conclusion that it is an attack page. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still useless in terms of resolving disputes, and it obviously doesn't have consensus, so it shouldn't be added to the policy. For example, if the content appears to have been added to the main article to disparage the article subject, the "legitimate" motive for spinning it off by an insufficiently sensitive editor shouldn't immunize the page from deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

First, please read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

Second, even if the content was added to the main article in the first place in order to disparage, it is valid content according to WP:BLP#Public figures as long as the disparaging content consists of "allegation[s] or incident[s] [that] are "notable, relevant, and well-documented". Then, if the arguments about why the spinout of that section should be created are primarily or solely based on that section being too long, then we have to AGF and not delete. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" is an essay which states clearly enough that is doesn't apply to policy pages (and would be inconsistent with WP:POLICY if it did.) As for your second point, I obviously disagree, and believe that material intended to disparage fails the BLP requirement that content be "written neutrally to a high standard." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It says "Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy"... Possibly. Nothing proposed here changes long-standing policy; it's merely a clarification. Reverting for "no consensus" is no less unhelpful here than anywhere else. Anyway, we're past that now.

So, is it your position that content "written neutrally to a high standard" cannot be disparaging? Or that someone whose intent is to disparage is incapable of creating content that is "written neutrally to a high standard"? I don't see why these necessarily conflict. I agree what matters is whether the content is "written neutrally to a high standard", and I'm updating the latest version of the proposal below accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that if you go back to the original version of this policy in 2005, the wording was not "primarily", but "sole". That is, if there was any other purpose in creating the article in addition to disparaging it subject, it was not considered an attack page. Somewhere along the way "sole" was changed to "primarily", so now the other reason has to be more important than the disparaging to not be an attack page, but the spirit remains the same. The point is that if it is content that is or would be accepted in the main article and is clearly in a spinout because the size is too much for a section in the main article, then it's not an attack page, even if it is disparaging to its subject. How can we say that? How about this?

Legitimate spinouts are not attack pages

A spinout article created from well-established and accepted content in the main article about a public figure that is created primarily because "a section of [that] article [had] a length that [was] out of proportion to the rest of the article" is not an attack page, even if the content in question is disparaging to its subject.

Better? Any objections? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It's still useless for resolving substantial disputes, still begs the question of legitimacy, and still doesn't necessarily reflect consensus or BLP. "Well-established and accepted" would mean that a prior consensus on BLP compliance couldn't be altered regardless of the strength of the analysis, or that a BLP violation which went uncorrected could enjoy immunity.

It's fundamentally a bad idea to rewrite important policy on the fly, especially when a related DRV discussion indicates that your view of applicable policy doesn't appear to have consensus support. Please don't revise the policy page until your proposed revision enjoys consensus support from the community, which really takes more than two hours to demonstrate. Exhausting my interest indebating it isn't sufficient.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry, but I believe this version meets your objections.

Legitimate spinouts are not attack pages

A spinout article created from content which is "written neutrally to a high standard" per WP:BLP in the main article about a public figure that is created primarily because "a section of [that] article [had] a length that [was] out of proportion to the rest of the article" is not an attack page, even if the content in question is disparaging to its subject.

If not, how would you change it to be acceptable to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no good way to define exactly what is an attack page, and the proposed wording is a wikilawyer's dream, allowing them to argue that policy supports all sorts of coatrack news-of-the-day nonsense. Sure, a "legitimate" page is fine; but that's the point: what is legitimate? Unfortunately, each case will have to be argued on its merits, such as at the AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with me. I'm just unable to follow the reasoning of so many people. I understand the concern about "coatrack news-of-the-day nonsense", but existing articles are just as prone, if not more prone, to having that stuff added to them, and we handle that by using criteria at WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, etc. I don't see how this proposal makes that more likely. The scope of this section is very limited - to situations in which an existing section of some article is too large, and, so, a separate spinout is made from it. So to even have this apply, the content in question already has to be "legitimate" in an existing article. We're talking about simply moving it. Now, if it turns out that the content was inappropriate in the first place, just overlooked, then it can be addressed accordingly, just as it would be if noticed back when it was still in the main article.

As to what is legitimate, it's the same criteria as for WP:BLP: "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources". Why not be clear about this? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer

Negative Spinout articles

When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question is disparaging to its subject.

I think it scans somewhat better and makes it clear we aren't saying it isn't an attack page (which frankly it could easily be or become) but rather it shouldn't be automatically considered one. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it reads better and captures most of it, though I would like to provide indication of what distinguishes such an article from being an attack page... and that is that it is "written neutrally to a high standard" per WP:BLP, or something to that effect. Also, I think you're missing a comma and an "it".

Negative Spinout articles

When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question is disparaging to its subject. Such an article is not an attack article as long as all of the content complies with WP:BLP criteria.

Is that okay, or going too far? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Change last sentence to "Such an article is still required to comply with WP:BLP." would probably be best. It makes it clear that it is expected to comply with WP:BLP but not that doing so automatically makes it not an attack page. I know you'd prefer that, but we don't generally write policy/guidelines that way and I'm not sure we should here. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• We've just had a thoroughly discussed AFD which resulted in deletion of a spinout article. Changing this policy to allow for that article to be restored or recreated would not in my view be an appropriate way to develop policy, if anything we should be changing this policy to resolve any ambiguities and make it clear that that AFD is the recent example to follow. If you want to reverse that decision I would suggest Wikipedia:Deletion review, or better initiate an RFC on the principle of such spinouts. NB I have something of a COI here as the initiator of said AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but, for me, this clarification has nothing to do with that article, except that I learned about this page through that discussion. Taking into account Hobit's suggestion, we have:

When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question is disparaging to its subject. Such an article is still required to comply with WP:BLP.

I will go ahead and make the change accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Caption that may constitute an "attack page"

I am considering listing an image seen on another editors userpage as an "attack page". It is a photo of a flying armed military helicopter with the caption "Funny pictures I found: An Israeli Air Force AH-64D Apache Longbow. In Israel, the AH-64 is the second leading cause of terrorist deaths, after suicide."

At first it reads as a funny play on the language of statistics, but there is a subtext.

Civilian Palestinian, Gazan, or Lebanese editors or readers who have lost adult relatives or children to Israeli gunship helicopter invasions might find the humour on the subject offensive.

Sales of this helicopter to Israel were blocked recently by the USA over concerns about civilian deaths and its ongoing threat to Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. "During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip" from a US govt. report per the Wikipedia article about the war use.

For those of us who have lost close ones to suicide it is never a subject for humour or mockery.

The assertion in the photo caption that the helicopter does its killing within Israel may be additionally problematic for obvious reasons concerned with territory definition and could be seen as additionally offensive. The inference in the "funny" caption is that the country(ies) where it does its killing also belongs to Israel.

Am I being a bit precious ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said to this same user on my talk page,

1. The picture and its caption are part of userspace and Wikipedia has a policy of being quite lenient in regards with what users do with their userpages;
2. The section the picture is placed in is called Humor and the subsection Funny pictures I found, so it should be obvious that their intent is to be humorous, not to make any political statements;
3. As a matter of fact, I did not make up the captions of either of the two pictures in this subsection of my userpage. I found them on other users' userpages. That's why I called the subsection "Funny pictures I found";
4. Black humor and political jokes are always likely to be less appreciated by some, especially by those who hold the specific view that is being mocked. Nevertheless, comedians continue drawing full houses with it;
5. The suicide it is referring to are the suicide bombers, with whom nobody is likely to associate himself, and shouldn't in my humble opinion, including those who have lost relatives through suicide;
6. Even if some would argue that the humor of the caption is arguable or even misplaced, which I do not think it is in the least, that would not justify calling it an attack as in Wikipedia:Attack page.

Debresser (talk) 8:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Pollio

This article was tagged as {{db-attack}}. I've removed the tag, as the information is referenced by reliable sources. However, the article consists primarily of negative information against the subject of the article (see the section "Criminal Convictions"). Is my approach in this particular matter correct? The article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvio Pollio. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading the section Wikipedia_talk:Attack_page#Clarification_of_"attack_page" (listed above), I'm inclined to remove the information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For further information, see Talk:Silvio_Pollio#Removal_of_sourced_controversies. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified also the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Silvio_Pollio. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there any clue why the editor who placed the attack template considered the page an attack -was it the movie mocking Christ or the string of criminal convictions? Although Silvio sounds like a lively Pollo- Is he notable at all? --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on including captions in "attack page" definition

Version before edit

An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Users who find such pages should add the {{db-attack}} tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by using the {{uw-npa}} series of user warning templates.

---

Version after edit

An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image,or image caption, that exists primarily to disparage its subject or others. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Users who find such pages should add the {{db-attack}} tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by using the {{uw-npa}} series of user warning templates.

---

I added the above two phrases(in girly pink) to the policy page, as a common sense amendment. Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée; car chacun pense en être si bien pourvu, que ceux même qui sont les plus difficiles à contenter en toute autre chose n'ont point coutume d'en désirer plus qu'ils en ont.

Another editor feels otherwise and drew his feelings to my attention on my talk page. He has reverted the edit. In keeping with the consensual common sense of the site I now list them here for your study and delight. The above discussion about the jocose caption on the killing helicopter photo prompted the edit --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument is simple: this policy is about attack pages, that is: pages from the various namespaces of Wikipedia whose sole or main purpose is to attack. A single caption is never more than a sentence or two within such a page, and falls outside the definition of this policy's subject and purpose. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as notability is applied to content rather than subject by many editors (if not by me) so attack can apply to a short piece of text as it already applies to a single image. When the two are combined it can intensify the offense. The winning of the Wikimania bid by Israel may make the next six months a particularly sensitive time for civilians who live in areas under attack from these self same helicopters. Brevity is no excuse -One could caption a photo with two words and make it horribly offensive--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But this is a guideline for what to do with entire pages that are inappropriate. "Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image" are all types of pages. Why should image caption be added? And are you suggesting that an entire page should be deleted because a small part of it is inappropriate? --Bsherr (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not ! The remainder of the offending page is delightful. Templates, categories, redirects and images are NOT pages but are included as potential attack pages in the guidelines already as they all have the potential to ATTACK as does a caption. As does part of a page.As does a caption and photo combo. See the example in the discussion earlier on on this page about a helicopter photo caption. Should I go ahead and submit it for adjudication?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but your definition of "page" isn't the definition used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Glossary#Page. On Wikipedia, a page is a webpage residing in any namespace, be it category, template, main, or anything else, and regardless of whether that page is transcluded onto or linked by another page, as are templates and files. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be nonetheless the definition used for the purposes of this proceeding-see the Project page overleaf--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. This page explains what to do when the entire page is unsuitable and must be removed. A single caption doesn't require speedy deletion of the entire page. Your proposed edit is inappropriate. Any further issues you have with the helicopter image/caption must be discussed in an appropriate venue, which this isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, although I understand the confusion, I don't think your interpretation is what was intended. I've clarified the policy to try to eliminate this confusion. Bear in mind that certain "attack" edits may be WP:Vandalism. Pages of which only a part are negative in tone may nonetheless be balanced and acceptable. Labeling these pages "attack pages" may have the unintended consequence of causing the deletion of articles that contain negative statements only in the context of a balanced article, or pages that can be saved merely be removing the "attack" portions. --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one completely agree with the recent edit of Bsherr. Meaning that I feel it expresses the intent of this Wikipedia policy in a correct way, and actually even better than the previous version. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of consensus seeking before action, I should perhaps have gone ahead and registered the 'entire" image as an offensive attack page, per yesterday's definition, as an image alone. I like the solution too- move the goal posts-that is really too funny.

Userpage content that is critical of dodgy reverts  ? -delete it. but a userpage image that offends millions -change the regulation wording to no longer include images : priceless!- jurisprudence wikistyle. and bingo ! a bonus- this is now no longer an appropriate venue for discussion per Sarek-neat one lads. Was changing the header title on this section and removing the direct reference to the photo image a preparation for this debate? Where are you quoting "entire page" from exactly Sarek? Not the policy page even as per last amendment. I cannot believe I ate the "entire" thing LOL your "aquatic friend"--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This policy explains how to tag an attack page for deletion. There is no way to delete half a page and leave the rest. You can only edit it to remove the offensive content, and that is not covered by this page. No goalposts have been moved. You cannot tag a picture of a helicopter as being offensive, because it can be used for encyclopedic purposes -- such as an article about the helicopter! See WP:USERPAGE for a better venue. (Re "aquatic friend": I recognized your username as Gaelic, and was wondering what it meant. :-) )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bsherr that we have both contravened the yellow box instructions at the top of this page.It should sit also on top of the Project page to dissuade the hasty. However it also states that"Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." So as things stand an image still constitutes an attack page even if its caption may not.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bsherr -'your entire page' argument is a red herring -an attack template can as easily be added to an image as a page--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To spell it out for you: an image is a page. Technically speaking, and in terms of this policy. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not as rejigged by Bsherr--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, before and even more clearly so after the edit by Bsherr. Which is what three users are trying to explain to you here. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, an "image" is a page and is not a page. On Wikipedia, images are called files. Each file is a page in the file namespace, with the prefix "File:"; for example, File:Example.png. File:Example.png is a page.

Now, files are included as content in other pages, like, for example, articles. This is done using multimedia syntax, sometimes called a "link". It looks like a wikilink, but this "link" displays the file rather than linking to it. One would not call an included image in an article "a page" (although a file page is underlying that included image).

Replacing, for example, on Elizabeth I of England, the protrait of the queen with File:Plains Zebra Equus quagga.jpg, an image of a zebra, does not make the Queen Elizabeth page an attack page. (It's not an attack page because the primary purpose of the page is not to attack Queen Elizabeth, even though a portion of it does.) Nor would the otherwise harmless and actually quite beautiful image of the zebra (the underlying file page, File:Plains Zebra Equus quagga.jpg) be an attack page. It is, of course, a vandalizing edit, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Now, if someone were to upload an image of a zebra, and named it "Queen Elizabeth.jpg", that would probably be an attack page.

Does that clarify? --Bsherr (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That would merely be funny. Joking about murder and suicide of the oppressed- not so funny - if you cannot see it and remove it of your own accord, and cannot be made to remove it, and an admin sits gleefully by, and the mechanism that would logically address it gets jimmied, I can see which way the wind is blowing,sophistry on why the word image was removed notwithstanding--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All other arguments aside (see above), it's my userspace, and (withing reasonable limits) I may mock and ridicule and do whatever I want with whomever I want. (Not that I had any such intention. Just making the point.) And I would hope, we had heard the last of this by now...Debresser (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

One more edit confusing editing out a single line of text with deleting an entire page, and you will have heard the last of it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, the volcano is going to erupt? :) Debresser (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, I don't mind the discussion here, but I'm focused on writing good policy, and that's our goal here on this talk page. I'm very open to being convinced that I'm incorrect about the meaning of this policy, or that the policy should be changed. Sarek and Debresser are right that if your concerns are confined to a specific incident, this isn't the right venue for you. If you think a user has something inappropriate on the user's user page, you can talk to the user about it. If you don't get a satisfactory resolution, you can start a discussion at WP:AN/I, and the community will discuss whether and what to do about it. If you think I've inappropriately jimmied this policy, you can discuss that there too (just follow the instructions there to give me notice when you do). I'll try to defend my edits based on the same reasoning I gave you, and the community will discuss it and decide. But Debresser's summary of our practices is correct. We do afford users wide latitude on their user pages, and Wikipedia isn't censored, even though we all may sometimes wish it was. On the other hand, the purpose of user pages is to further the encyclopedia. Where this incident falls is up to the community to decide at AN/I, if you want to bring it up. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As things stand, with your current proposed edit Bsherr, an editor approaching the page may now find no clue that the jesuitical "page" means (and recently defined by inclusion) an article, or a page,or a template,or a category,or a redirect, or an image. I believe the policy should also specifically include and mention image captions.

I believe this because I stumbled across a good example of this in Debresser's userpage. I do not believe Debresser intends to be offensive. He did not put the image and caption together but just imported them from someone who did. But intention, brevity or source do not alter the fact. Perhaps a good compromise from a policy point of view would be to include on the Project page some carefully chosen hypothetical examples of each of these 6 or 7 routes of attack, so that all readers of it fully understand. I also believe the phrase" that exists primarily to disparage its subject or others " is important as, in this case, others are being attacked (ironically the victims of the helicopter attacks) (although they do not appear in the image) BECAUSE the caption ties them to the image.

Imagine an image of Belsen and a caption that reads "The leading cause of death amongst parasites after suicide" An image of Belsen has no context. A phrase about parasites has none either-put them together and you have as offensive a synthesis as you could imagine. The examples for the Project page could be chosen to be illustrative rather than so graphic.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, the remedy this policy discusses is speedy deletion of the entire page. The problem with including image caption is the appropriate remedy wouldn't be speedy deletion of the entire page. That's the issue. However, if you have any suggestions on how the definition of page as used here may be clarified, I'm open to it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind, however, that if you want to discuss a specific incident, this isn't the place to do it, and I won't stand in the way of administrator action if you do. Please focus on the policy, or if you want, go to WP:AN/I concerning the incident. --Bsherr (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding whether this thread is disruptive

Sarek and Debresser, I understand each of you have taken action to block this user and foreclose further discussion. I don't intend to wheel-war over it, but from my point of view, I don't mind continuing to discuss it, so long as it's relevant to the policy. I assume good faith of Tumadoireacht regarding his concerns on the scope and clarity of the policy, and I don't find the conversation disruptive, though I make no judgment about the edit warring that's been going on here. Perhaps we can try to return to a normal, civil interaction, if all parties, including Tumadoireacht, agree. --Bsherr (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the remedy for an attack page is deletion. The remedy for an offensive edit is editing -- therefore, it is not appropriate to discuss it here. If he wants to raise the particular issue he has elsewhere, it's already well-covered by other policies. Trying to change this one, for this reason, is wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear that, and I agree, but so long as no one's edit warring on the policy, I have no problem hearing why he disagrees. If you'd like to step away while I do, I understand, and I'll be sure to send you a message if any serious change is contemplated or if it becomes disruptive. Cool? --Bsherr (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll unwatch this page for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I have better, and more pleasant ways to spend my time. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The log of the preceding now de-archived debate resembles the Marie Celeste -bits missing with no clue and others bobbing up again- a mystery that may never be solved.Tant pis. Onward wikipedian soldiers.

The restored reply to your last remark Bsherr and the two pieces of text wrapped around the block and block appeal rejection contain the gist of most of what i wanted to say I reproduce key excerpts from the latter two here in the interests of continuity and clarity and in line with the title of this new thread. Block ----12 hours for "disruptive editing", Once the block has expired, you're welcome to" make useful contributions." Block Appeal: How much material is required for the initial notice of intent to appeal a block ? The revert cited as the reason for the block was a reasonable action.

The discussion thread that the revert was the label of was begun by me to open a discussion on including captions, and caption and image combinations in the Policy page definition of what constitutes an attack page attack, and also to look at the idea of whether folk other than the depicted, can be attacked by such means with reference to an interesting example. That discussion was still underway when user

Debresser decided unilaterally to archive it. As the example in question which led to the proposed policy wording change is on Debresser's userpage, the early archiving and the title shortening by him alone raise some additional awkward questions.

Debresser and SarekofVulcan both chose to attempt to shorten the title of the debate in a crude attempt to prevent the debate from considering what it had set out to do.

SarekofVulcan reverted this entry from the middle of the debate: As things stand, with your current proposed edit Bsherr, an editor approaching the page may now find no clue that the jesuitical "page" means (and recently defined by inclusion) an article, or a page,or a template,or a category,or a redirect, or an image. I believe the policy should also specifically include and mention image captions. "I believe this because I stumbled across a good example of this in Debresser's userpage.

I do not believe Debresser intends to be offensive. He did not put the image and caption together but just imported them from someone who did. But intention, brevity or source do not alter the fact.

Perhaps a good compromise from a policy point of view would be to include on the Project page some carefully chosen hypothetical examples of each of these 6 or 7 routes of attack, so that all readers of it fully understand. I also believe the phrase" that exists primarily to disparage its subject or others " is important as, in this case, others are being attacked (ironically the victims of the helicopter attacks) (although they do not appear in the image) BECAUSE the caption ties them to the image.

Imagine an image of Belsen and a caption that reads "The leading cause of death amongst parasites after suicide" An image of Belsen has no context. A phrase about parasites has none either-put them together and you have as offensive a synthesis as you could imagine. The examples for the Project page could be chosen to be illustrative rather than so graphic. "

This is the the single revert that inspired the block{[3]] This is the edit label that was on that revert(my revert)

(manual revert of no c'sensus edit(debresser) of title of thread I started just to discuss captions,+ caption+ image combos in Policy page definition of attack.no more revert w'out talk please)

I do not regard the revert or it's description as disruptive.I am not convinced of anybody else's bad faith, but I think the issue I have raised is an important one and would like the opportunity to discuss the wording in the changes I proposed without that discussion being truncated or having bits cut out of it.

I was in the process of writing a fuller explanation on the4 Policy talk page when the block occurred and I had intended to also revert once the early unannounced sudden archiving of the discussion to permit further discussion of the proposed policy amendments.

This is an unusual block case not fitting into any of the commonly cited cases on the block help page. I was acting in good faith to try to contribute to improving a policy and a policy definition. I do not see that offering to stop trying to do that would be appropriate, in attempting to lift the block.

Block Appeal Declination

Request reason: block misapplied to stifle an ongoing policy page debate about image and caption combinations potential as attack pages — Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason: You're blocked for tendentious disruption on a subject that was closed. Importantly, it had no consensus - and you weren't gaining any - despite your insistence on the matter. But you persisted. Very bad form on a policy page. Just don't do it in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Riposte

I disrupted nothing . I DID attempt to stop a weird censorship :The subject was"closed" for the purpose of preventing further debate, and the debate that had taken place was censored by changing its title,by excision of a large key portion, by attempting to discourage a key writer of the original policy 5 years ago from participating, and most importantly perhaps by removing key words from the original policy wording itself to fit rejecting the idea that the policy even applied.

That is a remarkable series of events. Sweeping an attempt to protest that process under the carpet of "tendentious disruption" is a dubious response. It addresses none of the issues raised in the appeal. Here are some key phrases from the 2007 debates on this very point (which remain conspicuously unarchived on the talk page 4 years later !)

"No, this has to apply to Images and User pages as well... Images can be used to deliberately attack the subject just as much as words."(Blueboar)

Thats exactly why we should narrow the context of "attack pages" -- to remove the ambiguity. What about changing it to "Any article or image" then? /(Blaxthos)

The intent was to avoid attack pages within userspace.Ral315

An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject.(Carol Moore DC)

This remained the core definition list until I proposed adding image captions, and including non image depicted victims. Then the whole list got chopped out in 5 minutes.

I've changed it to 'attacks against the subject of the page', since the subject of the attacks could be a company, church, society, ethnic group, country, etc., no need to qualify it as 'personal'.(LK 2009)

Does this need to be expanded to deal with the issue of "attack sections" (Carol Moore 2010)

See also the earlier discussion on 13 January2010 which I also instituted 5 which precipitated the second longer debate.

To dismiss an attempt to raise these issues by silencing the raiser for 12 hours and then a further undefined period in the kindergarten of "make useful contributions" is Kafkaesque. Please reconsider.--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

To sum up -I began by looking to have image captions and image and caption combinations added to the list of specified types of attack pages. In addition I felt that those attacked, even though not depicted, in an image should get specific mention.

WP has become concerned, as JWales mentioned in a recent interview, at the inhibition and turning away of otherwise useful potential editors by walls of wikispeak on policy pages. The move to streamline these in plain english and to provide "what you see is what you get" editing is a good one.

In this vein, i feel that your edit Beshrr cutting the list and substituting the single word 'page' is a backward step, and contrary to the intentions of those who set up that policy.

Can a raw recruit or anyone else be expected to comprehend that “page” means at least 6 or seven very different things in your wording ? She feels attacked by something she sees or feels it attacks others. She sees "attack page" It seems to fit. Then obscure wording clouds the issue. Here is an example --the first paragraph of the definition of namespace from your amended definition

"A Wikipedia namespace is a set of Wikipedia pages whose names begin with a particular prefix recognized by the MediaWiki software (followed by a colon), or in the case of the main namespace have no such prefix. For example, the user namespace consists of all pages with names beginning "User:". Encyclopedia articles appear in the main namespace, with no prefix. Wikipedia has 22 current namespaces: ten basic namespaces, each with a corresponding talk namespace; and two virtual namespaces. These are all listed in the box to the right. Note that the prefixes "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:" can be abbreviated to "WP:" and "WT:" respectively when searching or making links (see Aliases below). The table on the right shows what number to use when you want to hide pages that are on your watchlist"

You may agree that even a lawyer would blink at that ! The beginner would baulk as would others.

The question of how to remedy attack pages whether they are a single image or an entire user page is a separate matter. Simply chopping the whole userpage is a blunt response, not unlike silencing someone for 12 hours who is trying to improve things.The text of the policy already acknowledges that an "attack page" can be a portion of a larger"page". I suggest restoring the list, adding my additions to it and giving examples of each on the policy page, for starters. I do go on ! I feel I may now just be, like Ripley,’grinding the motor’ Thoughts ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where the policy states that an attack page can be a portion of a larger page. Could you clarify? --Bsherr (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You do not "see" the first example because you removed it; a single image can be an "attack page" AND can be part of a User's page as I have exhaustively explained above per the currently reverted definition.

The second example is the "material within a biography of a public figure" in the Negative spinout articles section. It says a section of such material "is not necessarily an attack page" but acknowledges the principle that a portion of a page CAN BE. Damn I should have been a lawyer!--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So, first, "image" did and still would refer to a file page, as I explained above. Second, you're removing the context of the quotation from the negative spinout section. It refers to a section of an article that has been spun out—become a separate article—and the policy states whether such a separate page is considered an attack page; incidentally, it answers in the negative, anyway. --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As to the concern that the remedy is irrelevant from the definition of an attack page, understand that this policy is designed to deal with only whole pages that offend. The remedy here, speedy deletion, did dictate the scope of the policy. There are other policies governing two separate relevant situations. The first, a content page that is biased, is WP:NPOV. The second, a user page that contains inappropriate content, is Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content. Do you disagree that those pages cover an image caption as you seek to here? If so, why? And, then, why would the remedy not be to amend those pages? --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

got tired of scrolling up to edit -other pages question/ degree of offensiveness/speed of response/nature of response/recourse for alleged offender

One could equally argue that the entire policy is redundant and that WP:CSD covers it just fine. The policies and procedures you reference have their place and I suppose some overlap is inevitable. It is a question of clarity, ease of use, and a visible recourse for an offended reader/editor,speed of response,nature of response, and being fair to alleged offenders.

An editor who states "I may mock and ridicule and do whatever I want with whomever I want" may need help.

The image and caption combo (helicopter etc.)[[4]] that started me examining this procedure and first asking whether it fitted, and the fictitious example I have given (Belsen etc.) above are hateful, attacking,and should be speedily deleted in my opinion. That fits this page.

If I see an attack image and caption combo and I find the attack page policy page, I want to be informed on how to go about making it gone . If I alert an admin to such a combo, I do not want him to tell me "it went over his head" or that photos are harmless, or to mock my user name and say to the alleged offender that it pains him to agree with me.

Perhaps the reason that I see this page applying over the half dozen others, is a question of degree -an attack at the highest level of offensiveness should be dealt with by a page with that title. Consideration for classification as such a gross attack should not, and did not, depend on its size until your excision two days ago. Why did you remove the list that had included the word 'images', and also remove the phrases I added about undepicted victims of those images ? Also "....material....is not necessarily an attack page" refers to a portion of a page. "not necessarily" is a phrase like "includes but is not limited to" not a plain negative --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you are misquoting the policy by omission of context. (Absurdly, I could similarly quote the policy to say "An attack page is...good...material.") The correct quote is "material [] spunout of a biography of a public figure...is not necessarily an attack page". You understand that a spinout is a separate page, right?

WP:CSD is a deletion policy, and most of its provisions are backed by a more detailed policy. For example, the criterion for deletion vandalism pages by WP:VANDALSIM, advertisements by WP:ADVERT, etc. This policy is necessary because speedy deletion is not the exclusive remedy for attack pages—reversion is also used.

Fundamental to understanding this policy is recognizing that "page" means the entire page: A page is an attack page only if the entire page is an attack page. Many people understand this intuitively, because the alternative is a fallacy of composition. For those that don't, this policy page serves to clarify. To the extent that can be improved, suggestions are welcome.

As I explained, the reason is because the remedy for an attack page is usually speedy deletion. While I understand you believe that is a justifiable remedy, community consensus disagrees with you, because it recognizes that deleting an entire page when only a part of it is bad results in unnecessary collateral damage to content, or is unjustifiably punitive. Thus, the community has decided other policies and guidelines should control this situation. I've explained what those other policies are, and you don't disagree that they apply, so what's your continuing concern? --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is the disparaging material subsection an attack page, before, and during( between being recognized and being moved) the spinout as it leaves the parent page ? I say yes from a reading of that section.

Is an image a page? You have said that it is. If an image is a page and it is within another page then it could be an attack page on its own and be deleted on its own. Must speedy deletion deal only in large pages ? Can a template be an attack page ? Yes until yesterday ! Vandalism and Advert have no relevance here.

I still believe that the case and amendments I raised are valid, and that your edit of the policy has not helped, but think it now unlikely that anyone else is too bothered !

However if the policy re-write goes in the direction you envisage it should also spell out what it is not for -such as attack images and image and caption combos and give some good clear advice on where to bring those.

Ditto for the other categories you excised in that list. It should explain where and how attacking material in each one is dealt with.

I often think the site suffers from the lack of a good flow chart with yes/no switches and maybe a better A-Z FAQ or in-house only policy and practice searchbox. The advice on images should include the point about the non depicted. We are but two -should we post a notice of this debate elsewhere for wider consideration before action ? or mail all previous contributors to it ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I realize that some of this is down to my own ignorance of both editing and computer terms--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)