Jump to content

Talk:Children in emergencies and conflicts

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) at 10:02, 6 May 2018 (→Issues: guidance rewrite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDisaster management Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Emergency Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:Friendly search suggestions


Regarding turning this into a redirect

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Keep: Having an entire article written from a single viewpoint is how all Wikipedia articles are started. The only difference is that this 'start article' is extensive, written by an expert on the subject and includes 49 academic references. Everyone is free to contribute to the article as with any other article.
Many chapters and user groups run workshops to encourage experts to write on Wikipedia, this is the same except the text is already written and the person who brings it into Wikipedia is copyediting for a new audience where needed. The potential for expert contribution to Wikipedia using this method is very large, there are 100,000 of openly licensed OERs and milions of journal articles written by academics with potentially useful text.
John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this article at the time DGG PRODed it. My thoughts were that it was written as an academic paper. Which is what it comes across as, and why its title isn't necessarily a common search term. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good as the source is, it is inappropriate to use it alone. I suggest it could best be handled by being divided up--the pregnancy section for example is quite distinct from the rest. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose this being an article in the encyclopedia. It simply, as defined by its title, not a notable subject for the encyclopedia. It appears as an essay. To be notable in Wikipedia's terms, a subject has to have detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. The subject here is not really definable, so no determination can be made on its notability. It certainly doesn't show its notability, as it comes from a single source. My suggestion would be to userfy it, and use it to make additions to multiple articles, deleting this title. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than what I stated before, I have nothing to add. Will contact WP:Med about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the subject belongs in the encylopaedia, but some thought should be given to the ecosystem (for want of a better word) these articles exist in, the placement and order of creation and iteration. As we see, good, quality encyclopaedic information is coming from UNESCO sources, and we shouldn't see granularity on an issue we usually see talked about in broader terms as out of place. The problem is that this article doesn't have a parent, and I think its parent should be the recognised and notable field of "Early Child Care and Education", for which I've created a draft here which if worked on a bit in terms of MOS could be used to replace this article as well as History of early childhood care and education without losing some of the great information that's been contributed. You are all welcome to work on this with me. Battleofalma (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is written as an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The material could be used in articles relevant to the individual sections. It's an impressive piece, but not appropriate for wikipedia in its current form. Natureium (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have marked the page as patrolled for WP:NPP purposes given this ongoing conversation and that owing to article age was already indexed and the top google result for this search term anyway. This in no way reflects any opinion about this discussion - I have none. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate article. If you were writing an "encyclopedia of disaster management" or an "encyclopedia of wars and conflicts", you'd certainly have a section on children affected by emergencies and conflicts. There is a huge amount of literature on the health, nutrition, educational, and social effects that these events have on children. While the article isn't going to pass WP:FAC any time soon, it definitely passes WP:GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WAID rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important article. It does need a little work and perhaps a new lead should be written. The effects of stress on the mother during pregnancy is an important subject and I'm glad to see that it is included. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Good question: the issue is however not a (mere) style issue, but an issue relating to one of Wikipedia's core content policies, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in particular: "voice of Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia's voice" is explained at WP:WikiVoice which is a redirect to a section of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:
  • a "style" issue is not a problem for the content of an article (so is in principle not an issue of whether we should have the content or not): a content issue is, of course, a question of whether Wikipedia should have the content or not.
  • I think the basics of the "voice-of-whom" problem that needs to be addressed for this article, and for other articles resulting from UNESCO editors in residence, is that several claims in the article are not generally shared among experts in the field: only claims that are generally accepted among experts can be written in Wikipedia's voice, that is, without a "according to ..." kind of phrase. If no "according to ..." kind of qualifier is added, then you're writing in Wikipedia's voice, which should probably not happen for a large part of the content of this article. Most sentences would need a "According to a UNESCO report published in 2016 ..." or "According to Marope and Kaga writing in an UNESCO report in 2015 ..." addition.
  • If it's "according to ... UNESCO ..." for more than half of the content of the article, we should probably not have an article like this, or the article should be seriously trimmed, or views of other experts should be added, that is until less than half of the content of the article derives from UNESCO's specific views.
Further, I refer to earlier comments in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources? – see also the kind of commitment I asked for in my last contribution to that section, and for which I received no answer so far. The fact we're still explaining basics many months later does not seem too hopeful. But you're asking the right questions, better late than never probably. We absolutely need a commitment from UNESCO editors in residence on this point. Trying to understand which point I'm talking about is a good first step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Francis Schonken:, I think part of the issue has been that since reusing existing open license text in Wikipedia has been an uncommon practice we've had to create process and guidance, adding improvements based on feedback as we go to Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. What I'm hoping is that existing community members help to refine and improve the process and adapt text where new contributors don't fully understand the (often very complex and not very well connected) rules yet, rather that rejecting it. The text that is being added from UNESCO represents the work of 100s of experts and the process is something that could be repeated using text from many other organisations.
Regarding the reply to your comments I have not added much text from publications outside of testing the process and refinements and Susan stopped contributing to Wikipedia months ago due to harassment and the accusations of COI which were potentially professionally damaging. John Cummings (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... we've had to create process and guidance ..." – all the guidance you'd need already exists one way or another I suppose, it's rather about finding the parts you need for the specific situation in the vast amount of policies and other guidance:
  • a ruleset for "reusing existing open license text in Wikipedia" does not really need to be "created", it rather needs to be "extracted from existing guidance" – this starts with thoroughly grasping what is expected for Wikipedia content according to the current policies and guidelines
  • creating an independent parallel ruleset is a recipe for disaster: won't work in the long run
  • I think you have a key role to play in explaining Wikipedia's rules to people who want to reuse UNESCO's open license texts: it would certainly not be your task to "create" a ruleset.
One of the core issues is that "UNESCO's point of view (POV)", although highly respected here at Wikipedia, does not equal "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)". I think UNESCO's POV often comes fairly close to WP:NPOV, which is a good thing in one sense, but, on the other hand, sometimes makes it more difficult to disentangle the POV from the NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point: Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Converting and adding open license text to Wikipedia has a fairly good explanation of how to convert imported text to Wikipedia's core content policies... however, it is there presented as a "style" issue ("Adapt the style:...") – sorry, this is misleading, and would quite naturally lead to the kind of frustration we're experiencing here ("... stopped contributing to Wikipedia months ago due to harassment and the accusations of COI ...") – a core content policy issue is not a style issue. If the problems with the current Children in emergencies and conflicts article were mere style issues, I'd go through the article, fix the style issues per Wikipedia's manual of style (WP:MoS) in less than half an hour, without needing any prior knowledge about the "content" (i.e. field of expertise) discussed in the article. It doesn't work that way: adapting an external text to Wikipedia's core content policies involves, almost always, a thorough rewrite, drawing in additional reliable sources, which almost never can be done without having some clues about the field of expertise (at least: where to find additional reliable sources). I can't do that for this article in half an hour: I'd be occupied for several days, at least, finding sources, disentangling UNESCO's POV from generally accepted knowledge etc, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Children_in_emergencies_and_conflicts&oldid=839885231"