Talk:Children in emergencies and conflicts

Regarding turning this into a redirect

...see this discussion at the Teahouse for background. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 699#Children in emergencies and conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Another discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Children in emergencies and conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• And a new one opened at WP:VPP#Policy question about turning a page into a redirect. Please discuss there, not here, nor anywhere else (as long as the VPP discussion is active). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting this article

Please note that discussions involving article content are required to happen on the article talk page itself. So far, at least 2 different people have objected to this redirection, and there has been no discussion here, nor was there a notice here, to have this discussion. Do not reinstate the redirect until AFTER there is consensus on this talk page to do so. For the purpose of this discussion, I am officially neutral on the matter. I don't care which way it goes, I just want to see that those interested in this article, who watchlist this article, have the opportunity to discuss this article on this article's talk page. --Jayron32 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As another neutral participant, I am pinging all participants in the previous discussions, in case they don't have this page watchlisted: @John Cummings, Sadads, Elmidae, Cordless Larry, Francis Schonken, Flyer22 Reborn, Battleofalma, GreenMeansGo, Bri, Smallbones, Kudpung, and DGG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep I could see this article needing some rewriting/trimming, and potentially extension with new/different sources: however, it is drawn from a source whose job is to create literature surveys, and has a fairly well defined scope. It's also a field of study, important to both public health and the news. Sadads (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I remain uneasy with copying the viewpoint of one aggregator of a topic in toto, which is why I kicked off the original question [1]. I mean, this is UNESCO - they are not going to insert Scientology propaganda or NRA ads - and usually we are quite happy to take their material as objective and reliable sourcing. But this is not a few sources, this is an entire article, without any other viewpoints at all. For a topic this wide-ranging, I wouldn't find that acceptable from any single source. It seems the salient points have been made quite well at this Village Pump discussion. - As I said before, I'd be sad to see so much good material go, but this needs content from other sources to satisfy WP:NPOV. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  If there is specific concerns about the content's POV, then it should be notified in a tag at the top of the page. However, there is a long history of us copying CC and PD content to Wikipedia to create articles -- including Encyclopedia Britannica, US Gov sources -- including the military-- and academic articles in other contexts. These sources arguably have more challenging and troubling POVs to start with -- the solution should not be removal, but revision -- which is more in line with the values of the community -- that Wikipedia is in fact a work in progress. In the meantime, there is a very clear declaration on the page that much of the content is from this source: I don't know why we should object to the content. If an expert wrote the exact same article, but published it on Wikipedia first, instead of in another venue, we wouldn't be having this debate. Objections should be on the content itself, not on the way in which the content arrived. Sadads (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)