Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81

Just shoot me; possible hatnote template, for Israel-Palestinian articles

section break 1

Trying to work on article relating to Israel. I am finding it less pleasant than french kissing an alligator. I think we need to have a banner like this on some articles:

Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a good idea but will likely only lead to the ire of editors being directed even more fiercely or towards others/the creator of said banner(s). See: any time someone is told to cool off and work on something else (here or elsewhere). Reconrabbit 14:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The only topic notices I can find are Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice and Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice that appear as an edit notice and on the talk page, respectively, and the user talk page CTOP notice. Nothing as bluntly honest as yours. Progress was made at WP:ARBPIA5 in getting some of the hateful/unreasonable editors out of the topic area, but there are still plenty more. All we can do is to be active at WP:AE and tell administrators that the community wants long-term pov pushing to be sanctioned more severely, especially in this topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. We do have {{POV}} for article pages. Problem I am having with that is my colleagues on the article we are engaging on are like "No, we can't have that tag. No sane, reasonable person could believe that the article is POV" (altho it is actually quite POV, or at any rate arguably so). So I mean if we did have a tag -- alright, not like the one I wrote about, but something along the general lines of "Because of the topic, this article may not meet our usual standards for neutrality and veracity" or something -- it would have to be placed by some outside agency, such as members of the admin corps or something. But that's not an admin function and would be viewed poorly, with perhaps some justification.

We do have {{Recent death}} which has

This article is currently being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Information about their death and related events may change significantly and initial news reports may be unreliable. The most recent updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article (but edits without reliable references may be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page.

which is kinda-sorta similar in way, at least in that it warns about possible unreliablity. But people are usually on one side or the other of a clear DEAD/NOT DEAD line where there's no arguing over whether the tag should apply or not.

Oh wait we do have {{Unbalanced}} and {{cherry-picked}} and various kinds of POV templates. But all those have the same problem: "Article is fine, removed per WP:BRD, make your case [which we will never, ever accept or even bother to read] on the talk page." I mean we could have a rule that everything in Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict gets tagged. Some won't rate having it but some do, and it gives a clear GO/NOGO line. (Yeah then you coulg get "This article doesn't belong in Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict so I am removing the category and the tag" even if it does belong. But unless it really is a marginal case that might not be super easy. IDK.

Oh well. Governance here is pretty much Rube Goldberg. I hope the Foundation doesn't feel they have to come in and basically take over editorial oversight, at least on this subject. But, entities that are unable to govern themselves find themselves governed by someone else sooner or later. So maybe. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{POV}} should be used as a link to active discussion. If there's not an active discussion on the talk page, then drive-by POV tags should be removed. But if there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, it belongs on the page per WP:WNTRMT and I'd support a pban or a topic ban against people who keep removing it. But again, the most efficient way to handle this is to have these people removed from the topic area, which many admins are too scared to do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Scared of what? Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Scared to impose topic bans at WP:AE on the basis of WP:TENDENTIOUS POV pushing. (They can also impose them unilaterally, but that should only be used for egregious offenses rather than long-term issues.) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Because of being brigaded and scolded by one "side" or the other? Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether pages like Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict would benefit from a basic primer on the subject area, especially wrt to neutrality. Maybe a top 10 list? I'm not sure what the main points of contention are, but imagine a page that says things like:

• Do not conflate anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment with antisemitism, even if you can find a source that uses the terms sloppily.
• It is possible to support Palestinian people or to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza without approving of Hamas or being antisemitic. It is possible to support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself or to oppose Hamas's murders and kidnappings, without approving of Israel's actions in Gaza.
• Wikipedia does not decide whether a situation truly is a genocide. Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say about that. When enough reliable sources say that something is genocide, then Wikipedia will state it "in wikivoice", i.e., will write things like "The Gaza genocide is..." rather than softer things like "The situation in Gaza, which has been called a genocide by many observers..." or "The situation in Gaza, which Alice Expert and Paul Politician have called a genocide...". As of 2025, editors have formed a consensus that enough reliable sources say that the situation is Gaza is a genocide, so we are using the stronger wording. WP:Consensus can change if future sources do.

but I'm not sure (a) what would go on the pages and (b) whether they'd really be useful. Maybe something more behavior-oriented would actually be more useful (like "report this kind of behavior here, add this template there")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft of possible hatnote template; please comment

moved the discussion below, to the Idea tab.

hi there. way back in the past, i was actually highly active in that topical area. ok, so based on my own experience, how's this draft, below?

Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata edits: P- and Q-numbers

Hi everyone, I am wondering what your thoughts on how P- and Q-numbers are displayed in an edit summary (when the edit is from Wikidata). Currently, the edit summary will just show a P-number and Q-number or the value text. Could that be improved if we showed the labels instead, or both? I'd like to hear your thoughts over on this discussion page.


Thanks, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The less we use Wikidata the better. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Blueboar, would it be possible to expand your thoughts on why? -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to repeat what I and many others have said over and over. Look through the archives here and at the Village Pump. Look at just about every discussion we have had that concerns Wikidata for the last five years. Problem after problem after problem. Wikidata simply does not work well with Wikipedia. I would simply ban it completely. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The question at hand is about cross-wiki watchlist notifications. Specifically, if you have enabled "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist-advancedwatchlist, do you want your watchlist to say "Q123" or or do you want it to say "September"?

Cross-wiki watchlists are an optional way for an editor at this wiki to be alerted to changes in the Wikidata items for articles on your local watchlist, without ever having to go to Wikidata directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing, you succinctly captured the essence of the ask! - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I will search those out (I have already browsed through RfC on Databoxes). - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Can't speak for Blueboar, but for me it's, among many other issues, for things like this: this item has since it was deleted on enwiki as basically unverifiable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dabil (1517)) had the following English titles on Wikidata, starting from Battle of Dabil (1517), in 2025 alone:

• Chaldiran recaptured
• Battle Of Dabil
• Battle Of Qara Hamid
• Battle Of Erzurum
• OTTOMAN SWORD ⚔️-Safavid And Ottomanist Shia War
• Result Safavid And Ottomanist Shia Victory
• OTTOMAN SWORD ⚔️ ☠️
• Battle Of Erzurum
• Battle of Dabil
• Battle of Urfa
• Battle of dabil
• Ottoman-Qajar War (1906-1907)
• Tabriz Occupation (1915)
• 8-10 million killed
• Battle Of Chapakchur (1387)
• Battle Of Mush (1387)
• Battle Of Dabil
• Sultan Salim VersaqCastle Campaign
• Battle of Urfa
• Russia-Safavid War
• Battle of Polun Altı
• Assassination Of Omar Ibn Abdulaziz
• Assassination Of Valid Ibn Yazid
• Assassination Of Ibrahim İbn Valid
• Assassination Of Marvan Ibn Muhammad
• Assassination Of Al-Muktadir
• Assassination Of Ar-Radi
• Assassination Of Al-Mutawakkil
• Assassination Of Al-Mustazim
• Assassination Of Al-Mustənsir
• Assassination Of Al-Mutawakkil III
• Qajar-Wahhabi War
• Rexy-Mark War
• Rexyoe (WIA)
• Rexy-Ma3kx War
• Rexy - Talzk War
• Rexy - T4lzk War
• Battle of Dabil
• 2 Million Abbasid killed
• Battle Of Asad
• Fotball Wars

Please tell me how such a site can be taken seriously as a steady source for anything? Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

They also have little to no checks on newly created items, the place is filled with spam entries. Something blatant like this would be rapidly spotted on enwiki, but on Wikidata is passes unnoticed. Or this one, 5000+ edits, 1 year and counting, constant spam: "COLWORTHS Medical Centre offers professional services on male infertility and erectile dysfunction with well equipped experts for the job" (well, they just seem to copy the first line of "about" pages likehere, so more copyvio spam than self-written spam). It really is a much less well-regulated version of enwiki (which has plenty of problems of its own), so "outsourcing" our data needs to there is just a very poor idea (and that's before one even starts about the editing environment). Fram (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

And then of course there is the direct impact on all sites which do dare to use Wikidata information in their infoboxes (or elsewhere). A BLP gets vandalized a few hours ago on Wikidata[1], so now Commons, Catalan Wikipedia, her home wiki Norway, Italian, ... show her as an 111cm tall volleyballplayer born in 2013. And it's not as if such BLP violations get quickly removed, these obviously vandalistic edits by the same IP took nearly one month. Fram (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Fram, apologies it took a few days to get a reply to you! Undoubtedly, Wikidata has some ways to go to if it is to see an expanded or heavier usage here on enwiki and many other wikis.

The discussions/RfC's and that it is not currently widely-used (aside from Sitelinks) are testament to this. But I think that discussion might be going over this current topic or contain too many tangents and large issues not easily resolved.

(If enabled) Wikidata edit changelogs will display in the Recent Changes / Watchlist, with addition/removal/change of a property (PID) or its value (maybe a QID) - if this was changed to show an EN Label, would this increase clarity for those reading and potentially-acting on those changelogs?

It might be a small change, but we hope it's in the right direction and one we can add to or build from. At the end of the day, we only want to improve upon something that's already being shown and is opt-in for visibility. Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove Wikidata for everything but interwikilinks, and not to waste more developer time on this (it exists for what, 13 years now or so?). It is a divisive timesink which keeps getting pushed (I don't mean by you or now, but in general) as the next big thing, and just fails to live up to the hype every single time. Yes, your proposed change would improve the Wikidata changes on enwiki watchlist, but it's in the end slapping cosmetics on a dead horse. Fram (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Fram, I am happy for your candour and taking the time to reply. Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for engaging with it in a positive manner. Fram (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE), I'd love to see the English labels here. I'd also love to see these labels in e-mail messages about changes to watchlisted items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the use of Wikidata. Would be happy to see English labels. (no preference on p/q numbers) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WhatamIdoing and @JackFromWisconsin, many thanks for the reply and feedback! I will pass it along to the team. - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

English labels would be helpful, but they'd probably have to truncate at a certain character count. CMD (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Chipmunkdavis, great point! I was curious if watchlists would truncate extremely long article names (which they do not). Truncation / hover-text / click to expand are just some of the options we are considering in cases where Labels could inflate the edit summary to an unreasonable size. - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect middle names

Yesterday, an IP noticed that the article Josef Mengele incorrectly stated that Mengele's middle name was "Rudolf". This had been in this vital article for more than two years, and it isn't by far the first incident involving fictitious middle names. Have there been attemts to adress this issue systematically? Janhrach (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It was added by an IP on 18 Nov 2022; that IP has only made 4 edits so this one doesn't seem to be part of a major problem. It's disappointing that none of the 853 editors with this article on their watchlist (according to Xtools noticed and queried that unsourced addition, but it happens. PamD 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Citations

I have in the past made numerous references in Wiki and, a few years ago, on citations being requested, I went through them and added citations, mostly to source documents in google, which I found in Google Chrome. These were fine and showed the pages from original documents. Recently I have discovered that google have been altering these documents, so that my citation references do not arrive on the correct page. This means that all citations to google sources are unreliable. Whilst I was checking them I found that some citations I made on Corfu have been altered by means of a citation bot and now the citation points to the pages in Wikisource, which whilst accurate in every way regarding text etc are not original documents. What exactly is going on with citations? Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

When you are adding citations, you aren't adding citations to Google, but to the original document, with a convenience link to a version being hosted on Google (or elsewhere). The citation doesn't become invalid just the link changes or gets broken, just as we are allowed to cite printed sources that aren't freely archived on the Internet. Note that what google books shows users can change over time, and can differ depending on where in the world the user is, so it is always important to give full enough details (publisher, dates, page numbers etc) so that they can be verified if the link disappears or changes.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess this edit is an example of what you are concerned about. For one thing, based on what you say in your edit, you did not read the original document. You read a Google excerpt of the original book. Since Google is pretty reliable, that's OK, but you should have given the page(s) of the book in your citation, or other location parameters, which are explained at Template:Cite_book#In-source_locations. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I must agree that the people at google provide a wonderful service. Unfortunately, I naively assumed that ancient documents from the 1830s are unlikely to be modified and, as my citations were pointing to the exact page in question, that would be enough. Now I know better and I will make it my next task to add these page numbers. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

CentralNotice for Bengla Wikibooks contest 2025

A contest will take place from May 7, 2025, to June 7, 2025, on Bangla Wikibooks to enrich its content. A central notice request has been placed to target both English and Bangla Wikipedia users, including non-registered users from Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Thank you. —MdsShakil (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Web archive is a reliable source ?

Hi ,I answer the web archive is a reliable source?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The internet archive generally isn't a source at all - it hosts archives of websites which may or may not be reliable and must be assessed individually.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Nigel is exactly correct. The same is true of any service which simply aggregates, archives, and/or delivers content from other publishers: Google Books, YouTube, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, Wikisource, etc. The reliability of a source derives from the source itself, not from the service which delivers it. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the archive is a reliable source for the fact that a website contained particular content at a particular time. The reliability of that content depends, as Nigel Ish says, on the website hosting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish@Phil Bridger and @RoySmith:Thank you for responding me ,you right (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

whitehouse.gov status as source

Given things like https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/, in which a controversial theory is stated as fact with no indication of uncertainty, can whitehouse.gov any longer be considered a reliable source for anything other than the views of the current administration? (This may be tricky: it may be that the status for current content is different from the status for archived content from certain past periods.) Do we already have a determination on this somewhere? (I know it is not on the blacklist.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it was ever to be taken as anything other than a collection of statements—propaganda—by the current administration. Note that the entire site is replaced every Inauguration Day, as it's a set of position pieces, not an enduring portal for truth. Well-intentioned or not, in good faith or not, it isn't objective, objectively peer-reviewed content.

As for now, given my impression (I say this based on the couple of times I've brought myself to look at it, I could be wrong about the rest of it) that this incarnation is written in the style and with the tone of a crew of petulant, defiant teenagers looking to offend and in want of critical thinking skills, I can't imagine using it as a source other than as a primary one for confirming anything other than, as you said, the administration's views on something. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

But on many, many topics, the White House's opinion will be a notable one. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sure that statements from the White House will continue to be reported by major media sources. That does not make the White House a reliable source. The current White House is fast building a reputation for dispensing inaccurate and misleading information, and of changing its story from day to day. Donald Albury 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

the White House is a reliable source when it comes to stating positions of the Administration. for statements of fact, the reliable sources would continue to be reliable news sources, like the bbc, etc etc. for objective government findings, research organizations like Congressional Research Service would be prefrerable. Sm8900 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

https://covid.gov used to be a reliable source, now it's perversely the opposite, the very thing the old site warned about. But this problem is happening across *.gov which is becoming a propaganda network, both in what it includes and excludes. Social Security Administration will be moving everything to X, and X is privately controlled ecosystem of targeted propaganda. It goes on like that, many examples of once reliable government sources that are off the scale on general reliability. -- GreenC 22:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to move User:Jorge_Ariel_Arellano/sandbox to mainspace

Hello, I am user Ariel Arellano. I have created an article about **Ariel Arellano** in my user sandbox (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ariel_Arellano. The article is now ready to be moved to the mainspace, as it complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with this process. Thank you in advance! Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am user Ariel Arellano. I have created an article about **Ariel Arellano** in my user sandbox (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ariel_Arellano). The article is now ready to be moved to the mainspace, as it complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with this process. Thank you in advance!

Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and the policies and guidelines that are linked there. If you do meet the requirements in the notability guideline for sports, then someone who is not connected to you can write an article about you. Donald Albury 15:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Central Notice

Hi!
For the second edition of the Wikidata contest Coordinate Me (May 2025) we, that is the organizing team at Wikimedia Österreich, would like to deliver central notices - request page - on several Wikimedia projects in the 27 participating countries and regions to invite people to join in. The CN shall be delivered, not permanently of course, from April 28 to May 11, in English only to users in Canada and India. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Doxxing, how to report?

I encountered what looks like doxxing of another editor. Rather than post the information publicly (bringing broad attention to the doxxed information), is there any admin I can send an email about this? WP:DOX provides no useful pointers.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A section on the harassment page that WP:DOX is part of is devoted to that regarding harassment in general: Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment. Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp: WP:SUPPRESS has the link for how to request suppression near the top. If the doxing attacks were part of a campaign, WP:ARBCOM has a link for how to email the Arbitration Committee who could look at a bigger picture if warranted. First, a trusted admin could be emailed to revision-delete the material. Probaly best is to request suppression as they usually react quickly and deal with any related issues such as blocking an attacker. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, look, I don't have the time to research this stuff. I'm just a drive-by editor who was alerted to an edit in an article on my watchlist. I just want to report it to someone who cares to deal with it. I KNOW how long it takes to read these wiki-guidelines, figure out how to this or that, research the edits, collect some diffs, etc. It's probably just a returning sock in IP form. I don't have the time to get fully involved.

So here I'll post it and maybe someone more experienced in these matters will read it and care to take it up.

IP editor (redaced) is seeming to dox someone they call by name which doesn't match any of the other users in the article history. Their contributions list shows several edits made today (redacted). Two of the edit summaries mention the name, and one of the edits to a talk page also mentions the name (redacted). Their edit here (redacted) is a revert of an earlier long-and-slow edit warring over the SAME CONTENT as far back as September 2022, perhaps involving some socking and several blocked/banned editors.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hiding articles with links to specific pages

Hello, I’m wondering if there's a way to block or hide all articles containing links to a specific page on Wikipedia. I recently experienced a traumatic event and, while I want to continue contributing, I'm not in a place where I can handle seeing certain topics. Is there an existing tool or workaround that can help filter out these articles? – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 01:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There are various browser extensions that filter/block specified words. They might work for you when reading wikipedia, but you wouldn't want them running when you edit as the extension could make changes to the text in the editing view and thus be included when you publish. Schazjmd (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting(?) dates

Hello. I am currently working on editing an article, and the sources are giving me a bit of a headache. For context, the article is Juana Belén Gutiérrez de Mendoza. At some point between 1913 and 1916, Gutiérrez was imprisoned for 10 months. Half of my sources say that such an imprisonment happened in 1913 (2-3 sources: specifically, one implies a 1913 date but does not state it explicitly). The other half (3 sources) say that such an imprisonment happened in 1916. I believe that these are referring to the same incident, since the sources that mention the 1913 date do not refer to a 1916 imprisonment and vice versa. The amount of time spent in prison is also the same between the alleged 1913 imprisonment and the 1916 imprisonment: 10 months. The difference between 1913 and 1916 is consequential, as different individuals held power during these periods. To be more specific, about half of the sources claim that it was Victoriano Huerta that imprisoned her, which is consistent with the 1913 date. The other half claim that it was Venustiano Carranza who imprisoned her, which is consistent with the 1916 date. It's also possible that I'm mistaken, and these were actually two different instances.

Right now, I have adopted the latter date, since there is technically one more source that fully supports it. Here's my current approach:

In February 1913, Félix Díaz, nephew of Porfirio, joined with General Bernardo Reyes to launch a coup d'état against the Madero government. Huerta supported the coup, successfully arresting Madero and assuming the presidency himself. Madero was subsequently killed while being transported to prison. Huerta's forces were defeated by a coalition including Zapatistas, Carrancistas, Obregónistas, Villistas, and United States Marines in July 1914. However, the coalition collapsed later that year, leading to renewed fighting. Gutiérrez also founded a new newspaper in 1914: La Reforma (transl. 'Reform'), which advocated for Indigenous Mexicans. Orozco, her adopted son, died in February 1916. Also in 1916, Gutiérrez was arrested once again due to her involvement with the Zapatistas.[f] She was held for 10 months in Belem Prison, where she was interrogated by authorities who believed her to have valuable information about the Zapatista movement.

[f] Some sources, including Javien and Rubio, claim that this occurred in 1913. These sources claim that Huerta was responsible for her imprisonment. However, a majority, including Porter, Devereaux Ramírez, and Valles, claim that it took place in 1916. These sources claim that Venustiano Carranza was responsible for her imprisonment.

What do people think? This is driving me nuts. Spookyaki (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Do any of your sources cite each other or another identified source for this point of information? CMD (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so looked into it. Here's the rough breakdown:

1913

• Villaneda (1994, actually pretty clear)—Citing primary sources, excerpt included in text
  • "For this reason, I had to be in Mexico City on August 25, 1913. I left for the capital, and what we had suspected was beginning to be confirmed. Mr. Palacios had learned the route, the itinerary we followed on our excursions, and when I tried to return by the same route, in Joquizingo I found out that the pass was under surveillance and that I was expected. It was almost necessary to return to camp, but I had to be in Mexico City by August 25. 'I arrived in Mexico City on August 25, at ten in the morning... Among the people helping me was Mrs. Manuela Peláez, who told me about an individual, a friend of hers, a schoolmate, who ran a newspaper called Anáhuac, and who wanted to help the Southern Revolution...' Manuela Peláez invited me to meet her at her house on September 4 at five in the afternoon to speak once more with her friend... I was punctual for the meeting; But instead of Manuela's friend, Francisco Chávez showed up with his entire entourage of reserved seats..."
  • "The police carried out a new raid on agitators, obeying the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior. The head of the Security Commissions, Francisco Chávez, accompanied by several secret agents, arrested Mrs. Juana Gutiérrez de Mendoza yesterday morning. She was engaged in propaganda for the Zapatista movement. When her house was searched, several safe-conduct passes signed by Emiliano Zapata, the Zapatista anthem, and other documents were found."
• Javien (2005)—Citing a source that I don't have, published in 1983
• Rubio (2020)—Citing Javien

1916

• Porter (2003)—Not directly cited
• Devereaux Ramírez (2015)—Weirdly citing Villaneda, which seems to contradict the date
• Valles Salas (2015)—Not directly cited

Spookyaki (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If mainly reliable sources don't agree about something and can't be reconciled then we should be honest and tell the reader that sources disagree, so we don't know. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Spookyaki, no need to go nuts. Totally agree with Phil Bridger. It goes to our basic role as an encyclopedia, that is, we are a WP:TERTIARY source, which reflects the state of WP:SECONDARY sources. If the secondary sources do not agree, then we reflect that, and summarize the majority and minority views. See WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• If you want to reflect that the sources disagree but not derail the article with a discussion of sourcing, this is the perfect time to use a footnote (not a reference). See MOS:NOTES and Wikipedia:When sources are wrong#Approach_3:_Get_it_right_and_add_a_footnote for some examples. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for responding! I think I have it worked out in this particular case. However, perhaps I should get a bit more specific about what is causing me problems, in case anyone has any thoughts about how I should approach instances like this in the future.

My main issue is that I'm not sure where it would be best to place the information so that the order of events is clear—a writing issue, primarily. For example, let's say there's a paragraph that includes the following events:

1. Something that happened in 1911.

2. Something that happened in 1912.

3. Something that happened in 1915.

4. Something that happened in 1920.

And then something that could have happened anytime between 1912 and 1930. The evidence is not stronger or weaker for any particular date, and to complicate things even further, let's say it could have been caused by event 1, 2, 3, 4, or none of them. Where should this information go? How would you approach writing a convoluted timeline like this in a way that is as clear as possible? Spookyaki (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)