Talk:Trouble with authorities

vfd
Some of the advice on this page comes down to Captain Obvious: "In general, law enforcement responds proportionally to a threat, so avoid any violent gestures."

Others such as the following example is a combination of naivety and false advice: "Be aware of the local attitude to corruption. In low-corruption countries, trying to bribe an officer can be disastrous. In high-corruption countries, it can be the only viable option.".

Firstly, dealing with corruption is a complex subject. Even in a 'high corruption' county, bribing can still very much be disastrous. Secondly, WV should never condone bribing or illegal activity.

I believe this page should be deleted based on the lack of any relevant content, as well as the poor advice offered so far.

This page does cover a broad subject, so I am open to counter-points on this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I must admit that was my first reaction too. However, it was only born less than a week ago and there are editors actively engaged with it now so we might want to give it a little time to see if any valuable content develops... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I also thought about that, although the user who created it is busy creating links to these pages throughout WV, and not spending any more time to make any factual content on the page itself. I am concerned for long term quality.
 * Additionally, the subject 'trouble with authorities' is to me not a generic article but something very specific to each and every country. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment The article is too general right now, but I'm not sure we should delete it yet. Could some discussion on its talk page be of any use? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I would also like to reach out to the author and ask then to desist adding links in other pages to this article until it is ready. Perhaps we can reevaluate in a fortnight? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My concern would be this article's scope; dealing with authorities can vary so widely from place to place that it seems like there'd be nothing useful to say as a general matter. That said, "Captain Obvious" concerns are less important on travel topics; if "obvious" claims can go anywhere, it's on an article like this one. LtPowers (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm going to suggest a merge to Stay safe. As with most things, we should only split it out again once the amount of information begins to overwhelm the parent article.  LtPowers (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a merge in Stay safe Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like the best best short-term solution, but I'd like to hear from the creator before any merge is done. Depending on his or her plans, I might support keeping this.


 * In the longer term, I would probably support an independent article with a specific title like "Bribery" or "Corruption". However, I absolutely detest the current vague/euphemistic title and we don't yet have enough material for a separate article. Much of this sort of info should be in destination articles or other overview pieces like Tips for travel in developing countries. Pashley (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Police corruption is only one form of trouble with authorities. In some countries, certain minorities (such as gays) are targeted for discrimination; in others, there are problems with police brutality or oppressive régimes. The scope of this piece needs to be defined before changing its title. K7L (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, while in the long term having lots of internal links is a good idea, I don't think this article is ready for that yet so certainly no more links should be added and quite possibly some existing ones should be removed.


 * Personally, I'd scrap all the names I do not like &mdash; Authorities, Trouble with authorities, Authority trouble and Authority misconduct &mdash; which currently form a rather complex structure of redirects, keeping only Bribes and Corruption. That may be too harsh or just be me being a curmudgeon. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, though, I strongly support the notion that having an article on bribery would be a good idea, for more-or-less the same reasons we already have Pickpockets, Begging or Bargaining, all of which I have contributed to. These are widespread issues and trying to deal with them in multiple destination articles does not really work. Pashley (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe WV should cover bribery as a general subject because apart from the obvious serious legal issues around bribery, the laws around it do vary significantly from country to country and often between one person's unique circumstance and another's. The only general advice we should be giving is 'do not bribe government officials', and that doesn't need its own article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I might be convinced otherwise, but I tend to agree with you. And this is partly covered by this site's illegal activities policy. Advising people on when or how to bribe is pretty dangerous. At most, in guides to specific countries where what is considered a bribe elsewhere would be considered a gift in advance for good service, that can be mentioned somewhere ("Respect" is usually where such a thing would get stuck), or it could be observed that many motorists in a given country choose to pay a "fine" directly to the traffic cop who stopped them for speeding, instead of getting a ticket. There might be other situations worth mentioning, but only in guides to specific countries, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A few days have passed, and no comment from the creator of this article . Additionally the content has not been improved at all. Is there a consensus to merge into other articles? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's only been six days, policy is to wait two weeks. Given the season, we might even think about waiting longer. Pashley (talk)


 * I guess that is fine. As long as this article is not linking everywhere yet then it isn't a burning issue. Suggest asking again end of January. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bumping awareness for this nomination. Today the article still hasn't addressed the key question of whether a subject so generic can provide useful advise to travelers that is applicable to most countries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is intended to expand on the very generalized and lengthy Stay safe article, where there currently is a "law and authorities" section. There are indeed different issues that can be covered; corruption seems to be the most substantial one. Police brutality and/or detention could also be worth a section on its own. /Yvwv (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yvwv. Although I agree that if there is repeated information between countries then it can be optimal for that to be maintained in a single article. Unfortunately I just do not see it here. Although corruption and police brutality do exist in various forms in all countries, how exactly do you propose to provide advice that is equally applicable to North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sweden on these subjects? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, that can be worked out during the road, as many other travel topics. Just as there are enormous differences between aggressive animals, pests, common scams and issues with money around the world, a travellers' confrontation with police and customs officers will look very different between countries. /Yvwv (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wasp and Jellyfish stings have common advice no matter where you are in the world. Similar malaria advice is required in many different parts of the world. Shark attacks have similarities all around the world. It just isn't the same as police issues which vary widely from country to country.
 * If a traveler has potential issues with authorities in North Korea or Sweden then it should be addressed in that country's article. A general article about this topic has unfortunately nothing of value to give the traveler (Sorry for the bluntness of the statement).
 * My position is still to Merge with stay safe. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suspect there is common advice which applies to entire groups of countries - for instance, the same issues with police corruption keep cropping up in multiple third-world nations - instead of being merely country-specific. K7L (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That advice can be found in Tips for travel in developing countries and Stay safe. The scope of this article appears to be trouble with authorities in ALL countries, and is therefore too generic. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to support a merger with Stay safe, too, but certainly not a deletion, and without precluding the possibility of a split later, if necessary and appropriate. As User:LtPowers says, there's no need for a split until "the amount of information begins to overwhelm the parent article" - or at least until it's highly developed as a coherent section. But right now, I'm a bit skeptical about a separate article. I don't say "No," but I do say: Make the edits within the more general topic and prove the need for a separate one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to keep
Okay: as we'd hoped, the author of this article has come out of the woodwork and made his (her?) case for keeping it. But Andrewssi2 has been vociferously arguing for its deletion, and from his tone it looks unlikely that he'll be swayed. It's been three weeks since the nomination and, given that we lack a unanimous consensus to keep, policy dictates that it should be deleted imminently. Absent any major sea changes within the next day or two, I'm going to do that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's the standard, then any one person alone could get anything deleted, including real geographic destinations, just by nominating it and stubbornly refusing to back down. Ronald Reagan could nominate Russia for deletion and, in the absence of unanimous consensus for or against, bombing would begin in five minutes. Wow. K7L (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only are you both right about the current disproportionate "one man on the nuclear button" policy, it's also against policy to discuss it here - as opposed to on the discussion page of this project page... --118.93nzp (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any place that demands unanimity for a keep result. Powers (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Um. Our policy has never been taken to mean we need 100% unanimity to keep something. I seem to remember quite a lot of things being kept despite my personal opinion to delete, and the world didn't end. Texugo (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a consensus, while broader than a 50%+1 majority, does not require unanimity, and I thought we had already exorcised that notion in some other decisions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted, Saqib is the one who's generally handled VfD's lately, but I distinctly recall that our interpretation of "guilty until proven innocent" has been that all outstanding delete votes have to be recanted before an article is kept. If that's changed at any time over the past few months, I apologize. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If consensus doesn't require unanimity to block a user, how could it require unanimity to keep an article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that I remember this being our procedure, but a) I've been fairly inactive on VfD for a while, b) I see nothing written in policy other than a vague reference to "guilty until proven innocent", and c) I really don't feel like digging through the archives for examples, so I'm prepared to just drop it. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if that was the rule, that's a pretty bad rule. --Rschen7754 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're all right. The policy is just vague, and various admins have interpreted it in various ways over the years. We should just clear it up, and as far as I'm concerned, get rid of that "guilty until.." sentence. On other wikis, there are (often far too) extensive and well-considered policy pages for these things. Maybe we should just take a few basic ideas/procedures from there and see if they would work for us. That would also bring our deletion policy more in line with the way we handle other discussions and nominations. Adapt the Consensus page to better explain that it is not the same as unanimity, and link it here. Officially adopt the Wikipedia and other wikis procedure of an uninvolved admin determining such a consensus based on arguments (which in practice we often already do) and adopt the policy that in case of a lack of consensus, we maintain the status quo, leaving some option for relisting. If others think it's worth reconsidering the policy itself, I'm happy to write up a first proposal on the talk page for further discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the "guilty until..." bit contradicts our infamous "status quo bias," which is policy. In the absence of consensus, a fail-safe approach would err on the side of not nuking Goldsboro. :) K7L (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That it contradicts the status quo bias is intentional. We want articles to have to pass a high bar, and not get a pass just because they went undiscovered for a while.  Powers (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how a vfd with a status quo bias only in the case of no consensus and with an option for relisting is not a high bar indeed? It seems to be fine for many other wikis as well. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page, let's continue this discussion there without cluttering this page? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise
Well, if anything it looks like this has at least asked us to look at the nature on consensus :)

Reading the thread once more it seems that there is a very tepid consensus to delete, with myself being the only driving force.

Although I still really don't like this article (for numerous reasons already listed), would it be an appropriate conclusion to keep the article but remove the incoming links from world trouble hotspots?

I would hope we can dissuade people from creating ad-hoc articles that can confuse travelers who want to find more relevant articles such as 'Stay Safe'. However by removing the links then we can at least provide a chance that content "can be worked out during the road" without confusing readers and relinked later if it becomes suitably relevant? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is clearly no consensus to keep, but I think there is a consensus to merge, and I think that also works as a suitable compromise, as (at least some of) the content will be retained.  If interested authors can demonstrate that the content is exceeding what's appropriate for the Stay safe article, then a split can be discussed.  Powers (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would surely agree if this was e.g. a neighbourhood article for a city. It's a travel topic however, and the creator (who is a regular contributor) has tried to give us an idea of where this article is going and thinks the issues raised can be addressed along the road. He indicated that he wants this article to be a more specialized one, building further on the general description in Stay Safe. I'm not saying the concerns aren't valid: they are. But I don't get the impression people rule out the concept completely, either, right? It then seems kind of fair to give the article that year that we give to all new travel topics, to see if it can indeed be developed out of outline status and into an acceptable separate article? It will then however be merged/deleted after that, if it didn't succeed. Does that make sense? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(indent) I don't think the current stay safe article is too long, so I agree that a merge seems appropriate. I also agree with the above comments that even if it develops into an article, I don't think the name is good. It'd be better to have more specific names but we're not there yet. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So after one month both the discussion and the article have not progressed. I propose merging now for the simple reason that it may take readers away from 'Stay Safe' and in so doing provide them with no useful content. If the 'trouble with authorities' (I'd prefer a different name) section of 'Stay Safe' becomes long enough then I'd say splitting out this article again could be considered. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This nomination has been lingering on VfD for far too long. In the next few days, I'd like to make the executive decision of merging it as Andrewssi2 suggested immediately above, so if there's anyone with a) strong feelings that this article should be kept, and more importantly b) an actual willingness to improve the article in the immediate term, speak now or forever hold your peace. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bribery and corruption should likely be an article in future. They currently redirect to trouble with authorities but are Requested articles. If you do merge to stay safe, I'd ask this be without prejudice to splitting police corruption out as its own travel topic (not all trouble with authorities, just corrupt third-world officers specifically) at a later date. K7L (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the merge activity will actually make this outcome far more likely in future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: Merged and redirected to Stay safe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)