Talk:V (programming language)

Removal of logrocket as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Victor Jonah. "I am a Software Developer with over three years of experience working with JavaScript and its frameworks. I currently work as a remote software developer for a tech agency."

References

Removal of DEV as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Vic Shóstak. "I'm a Software Engineer with over 13 years of practical experience, Open Source & Free Software Popularizer, UX Consultant & UI Designer."

References

Removal of nequalsonelifestyle as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Hank Grabowski. "Biohacking" software developer.

References

Remove Heap Structs section

I don't think the Heap Structs subsection in the Syntax section is helping anyone since its just a straight copy paste from the Vlang docs without any explanation on memory management or allocation.

If no one objects I will remove it and add a bit to the Memory management subsection explaining when the compiler decides to allocate. Jan200101 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly object to any further degradation of the article, which now appears related to the vague and catch-22 type of tag, that has arguably set the stage for encouraging continual content removal. The tag really should not be there, as it came after content was already removed, leaving only the minimum. For instance, content about Vweb and ORM (built-in features of the language), were already forcibly removed without debate or consensus.

Not clear about what the fixation is with continually attempting to remove content from this article (including the previous case of confirmed vandalism), even when such efforts are attempted slowly, it still displays itself as odd. Would be better to see and advocate for more productive editing, like adding of content, and a bit more put into the memory management (as was mentioned) and performance subsections (which has only 1 sentence). Wukuendo (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To come back to this subject:

The Heap Structs section is poorly explained, copy pasted from the Vlang Docs and doesn't use the cited source at all.

I'm going to remove it right now despite your objects because it violates WP:COPYPASTE. Jan200101 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not make false statements. The explanation above the example on heap structs comes from the reference provided, page 172 and "Understanding heap structs". Additionally, a particular person's lack of understanding about programming terminology or the material covered, would be their personal issue and not grounds for removing sourced content (WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE). Wukuendo (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, page 172 of the book briefly talks about Heap Structs after the introduction of Structs however the exact text on the wiki can be sourced back to the Vlang documentation which is licensed under MIT and copied without attribution.

This is a blatant violation of at least WP:COPYPASTE and the MIT License in multiple cases Talk:V_(programming_language)#copy_pasted_article_contents.

I also don't understand why you are talking about programming terminology, I do not take issues with the terms used but with how the content is layed out to give incomplete information while also not detailing how the functionality of the language actually works. Jan200101 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

From the statements, what you appear to want or are focusing on has nothing to do with copyright law or Wikipedia's policies. Small code snippets are not protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen or so lines of code, where they can then be considered creative enough. Paraphrasing is not WP:COPYPASTE and is what editors of Wikipedia are suppose to do when explaining text from a reference. The point of an example, is to visually illustrate. The text above the example is to describe what the example is doing. Wukuendo (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been told that the best way to resolve this is to simply add attribution.

To cause no conflict its been added under the WikiProjects on this Talk Page leaving the article untouched. Jan200101 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Changes should be clearly explained, either in the edit summary or on talk (WP:ES). Especially to not look like a form of vandalism (WP:SNEAKY). Adding the date of 3 November 2022 is baffling as well. Additionally, most books written about a programming language and nearly all programming articles have some relationship to the language's documentation. So far, searches on other programming language articles with examples on Wikipedia does not show them doing what was attempted here.

You left a blank edit summary and have stated on talk that "I've been told". It's vague and gives the impression you are working as a team with unknown persons. Who told you? (from your statement of "I've been told"). What specific Wikipedia policy are you referring to and what's the connection to this article? Wukuendo (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, the summary got lost when I was previewing the changes.

I ask you not to accuse me of something that you cannot prove, I've been trying to converse with you in good faith believing that we are both arguing to improve the article.

The date 3 November 2022 comes the earliest revision of the article [1] which is the initial revision of the article which also contained the sections copied from the V documentation. The Dual template requires that a date is given so I needed to pick that date.

I've said that "I've been told" because I've asked on IRC what the best action going forward with this case is since you take any modification to the article as a personal attack.

What "I've been told" is that this issue is minor and generally not worth fighting over and that simply adding attribution to the Talk page would be the simplest solution since it would satisfy the MIT license and thus count as proper attribution (though I do not fully agree with that but this could be argued about).

Regarding citing books or documentation, there is nothing wrong with that but it is important to properly cite sources and when entire sections are copied it is important that the license of the source is respected which is not the case here.

To mention it again, the text is a 1:1 copy from the docs which puts it under the MIT license which requires states

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

attributing the original source is good enough in this case.

I'll put the license notice back up with a full summary that explains everything I have written down here because Talk sections can be archived making it impossible to find this message. Jan200101 (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Being told what to do by unknown persons on IRC is not Wikipedia policy or a noticeboard. Repeating false claims, do not make them facts, Wikipedia policy, consensus, or a decision from a Wikipedia noticeboard. Tags referring to years old and partially non-English drafts are not the present article. Trying to force misinformation into an article can be seen as subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY). Wukuendo (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The non-English draft is still the earliest revision of the Article on the english side of wikipedia and where the offending sections were added.

If you believe my claims are false or misinformation then lets please put it on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems so that people more qualified than both of us can judge this.

You can even ask for a WP:3O and if the other party agrees that this isn't at least worth bringing up as a copyright problem then I'm going to willingly drop this. Jan200101 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My focus is not about what you want to do. I'm here to be productive, where possible. My intervention in this case was because of an apparent violation on subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY), stopping the injection of misinformation, and adhering to Wikipedia policies (including how they are applied on other programming articles). I've already demonstrated how your claims on the heap struct section were false and went into detail about other false claims made. Wukuendo (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how constantly fighting with other editors and causing edit wars is productive, you've already been blocked for being disruptive in the past but lets forget about that for a moment.

You have never refuted my claim that sections of the article were directly copied without proper attribution which in the worst case can be seen as plagarism because it is not original but claims to be and also a violation of the MIT License under which the V documentation is licensed. I also want to make it clear that I am not accusing you or anyone of actual plagarism, it seems to me that he initial article version used text copied from the docs as placeholders that were simply never replaced and I think other people would view it the same, I'm just stating what this would be in the absolute worst case. It still violates the MIT License.

Your arguments against it have been that citing books or documentation is common or that its paraphrasing, neither of which are true since the copied text matches 100% with the documentation (before your edit).

Again, I know that if I am going to submit this article to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems you are going to revert it which would be avoidant vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES) which is why I am asking you to either submit it yourself, ask for a WP:3O or allow me to submit it without doing the vandalism you are accusing me of.

You do not agree with me on the issue hence why we must submit it the article, Copyright problems handles copyright things but also copyright disputes such as this:

The removal of copyrighted content has been contested.

and this Talk page section can be included as reference so all your claims will be available to the people making the decision on that.

And if you aren't willing to let this the article be submitted to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems then I'm going to do it anyway and report any vandalism that you do. Jan200101 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) You made false statements, like about the heap section, "doesn't use the cited source at all", and were proven wrong and shown the source does have it. (2) Based on teaming up with unknown persons on IRC (from your statements), you then attempted to force a tag that related to a partially non-English draft from 2022 that is not related to the present version of the article. This type of distortion and misinformation falls under subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY), it was removed, and you were notified. (3) It was explained to you (including other talk section) how the present article does not look to be in violation of plagiarism or copyright, aligns with other programming articles, and that rewritten articles can be within policy. (4) Lastly, you appear overly intent on pushing other editors to do as you want. That is not Wikipedia policy (WP:CHOICE). Wukuendo (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are confused right now.

We are having a disagreement right now about what is true and what is false.

Normally you would go on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard for this however since this is about copyright we need to go to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems.

This is not about pushing or forcing other editors to do as I want, its to resolve this dispute once and for all and I've said that if they ruled against me and and that I am indeed wrong I would accept that.

I've also, in good faith, given you the faster option of asking for a WP:3O to see if someone else agrees that going to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is reasonable and if they didn't I would not persue this anymore.

I'm trying, in good faith, to get you to understand this so we can resolve this dispute through a third party.

But because this appears to be going nowhere I'm giving you an ultimatum: In 24 hours I will submit this article to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems myself, this will require that the following template be put on the article

{{copyvio}}{{Copyvio/bottom}} which will hide the content from view and since you keep accusing me of vandalism you should understand that removing this template all constitutes as avoidant vandalism. Jan200101 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I've marked sections that I could directly match to the documentation as copyvio and reported it Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15 Jan200101 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright clerk has made the determination that, "the snippets of code are too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation. As it stands, there is no copyright infringement". This will also be placed in a separate section of the article's talk, not to instigate, but to guide future editors.Wukuendo (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Decision Concerning Copyright Challenge

Per copyright clerk, 24 August 2025, the article has no copyright infrignment. Code examples used in the article are also "too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation". Original statement can be read here. Additionally, the license statement placed under references by the copyright clerk should not be removed, unless under their advisement or direction. Wukuendo (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism

Please, assume good faith! Wukuendo has repeatedly tried to assert that criticism against the language is vandalism, which is not the case! This is very clearly an attempt at white-washing the image of the language.

I have tried to add a maximally unbiased critique of the language, as inspired by the Java (programming language) article, citing very popular articles by developers. Vlang, like any project, has its own fair share of problems with the language and community, as has been noted by not only just one source, but multiple.

I ensured that my paragraph cited not only one source, but rather various. I ensured that the paragraph also highlighted that the project is still in beta, and thus it is natural to have some problems.

User Wukuendo in specific has repeatedly tried to highlight any critique against the language as "vandalism" and "scandalmongering", when it is merely a lens into the reality of the language. They have repeatedly tried to "warn" me that I will be blocked from Wikipedia for this alleged vandalism. When asked on how this is vandalism, they have not responded.

I don't want to throw any accusations against anyone, but rejecting any valid criticism of a project as vandalism is very suspicious of conflict of interest. They do not own this article. Stop trying to edit-war! MapleTheColor (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific:

1. They have accused me of vandalism: Which is clearly wrong! This is not a case of vandalism, I am merely adding unbiased content to an article
2. They have accused me of adding original research: I have not added any of my own original research. I have only cited verifiable and legitimate research performed by others.
3. They have accused me of citing anonymous bloggers: All authors of the articles I have cited used their own name, and neither are they "unknown"! These articles have been shared hundreds of times across many different forums.

Who else but developers would critique a programming language? MapleTheColor (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@MapleTheColor @Wukuendo If the criticism is written by recognised experts (with relevant degrees, professions, who had been published in RS), then their attributed opinion can be included in the article, even if that opinion is self-published. WP:SPS: Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The three blog posts by Xe Iaso from Anubis_(software) fame should more than qualify as reliable research by a professional but the other two cited sources from mawfig and n-skvortsov-1997 appear to be from unremarkable users with private github profiles (potentially related to them being from russia? Unsure what github is doing) and blogs that only consist of their Vlang review.

I also don't think that that talking about the chatroom bans is worthwhile since that is more about the character of the people moderating the community and less about the language. Jan200101 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

By mentioning the contentious material and authors in the talk, this might become more problematic, and was possibly avoidable (but who knows). As you clarified, 2 of the 3 do not qualify as SMEs. In the case of Xe Iaso: (1) appears to have been involved in a personal conflict or grudge over chat room ban (2) has made statements indicative of possible grudge or revenge motives (3) comments in blog and else where can be seen as libelous (4) appears to have conflict of interest as speaker to promote Golang (rival language). Additionally, such content looks to plunge the article into the middle of language wars and to generate scandal. Wukuendo (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Xe Laso was not the one banned as far as I can tell? The source containing that mention was another author.
2. Please specify which statements from the source, what "grudge or revenge motives"? Until you specify, this is pure projection.
3. Again, please do not be vague. Specify what can be seen as libelous. Because until you do so, any criticism ever can be considered "libelous".
4. Xe Laso is not associated with the Golang project. There is no conflict of interest.
5. Merely having a section about criticism does not incite language wars, it merely responsibly provides additional information about the drawbacks of the language, as shown by other decades-old language articles with criticism sections.

MapleTheColor (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. You are misstating or making false statements about the references that that you tried to force in. To say others are engaged in "pure projection" is ridiculous or something else. Xe Iaso stated, on the reference that you gave, to have been blocked (banned). Even more, there appears to have been continual hostility, spanning over years that gets into grudge and revenge issues.
2. Xe Iaso is a speaker that is well known for promoting Golang, in addition to self interests. There is a very clear and continual association with Golang, at a public level.
3. The issue was and is about statements made that were not in the references and problems with the references used. Wukuendo (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. They were banned only after their first post on V. That is not enough to convince me (or apparently anyone else here) that there is a grudge that compromises the factuality. There's also nothing about a chat room.
2. What do you mean well known? According to whom? What do you mean "self interests" and "association"? If you mean personal opinions, those are not a conflict of interest, and even then they stated in a 2021 interview that Golang was their least favorite tool, in fact.
3. Which statements, then?

Overall, what do you mean when you use {{talk quote inline}}? Those aren't things anyone's said before. For tonal emphasis just use <em></em> and <strong></strong>. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Iaso, from statements on that blog, made a direct appeal to HN (a forum). This person apparently has an account of a related name on that forum, where they appeared engaged in years of conflict with V's creator. And made many scandalous statements, while arguably promoting their blog. In fact, the person has accounts tied to their previous and present names (that are publicly admitted to by Iaso), which are also in open and direct conflict with V's creator and where more libelous and contentious statements appeared to have been made.
• Statements made by Iaso in that blog, were specifically called out for dishonesty, by Steve Phillips (elimisteve). Who is also a programmer, public speaker (DEF CON 23), and has made numerous public statements against Iaso's blog.
• Statements involved in this scandalous conflict, is what the anonymous account (178.69.159.68) appears to refer to.
• As of the writing of the blog in question, Iaso stated to being banned from the V project, which presumably is GitHub since that's where to contribute. These blocks and bans appear to take place prior to the writing of the blog entry being referred to.
• We and readers are being dragged into or are being asked to entertain a scandalous conflict, which looks unencyclopedic. Wukuendo (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Again, which scandalous statements? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

wait hold on, how is Golang a rival language? are you thinking of a competing language since have similarities?

Is this why you accused me of having a COI with Zig, to stop me from being able to work on this Article? Jan200101 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Practically, Golang is at a much higher scale and not even near a "rival" language for V (Especially considering that V is in beta and has been for many, many years). I agree with your sentiment, though I believe you should take the Zig article discussion to a more appropriate place <3 MapleTheColor (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@MapleTheColor @Jan200101 I looked into Iaso. She has spoken at conferences and tech publications interview and quote her.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I would say that her opinion can be included with attribution, although we can always consult WP:RSN.

That said, looking at the cited post, there are other concerns. The post doesn't support the claims in the reverted edit. I agree with you that the chatroom stuff isn't WP:DUE. She also doesn't write about "memory leaks", but says that memory management is a work in progress. The post was made 5 years and three months ago so the opinion/information is outdated, so I don't think that should be included either. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the content in the reverted edit is fairly poor but I believe that the source could be used to mention the critisim at launch due to false promises, however I wouldn't find if it was left out until newer information is published. Jan200101 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the Java (programming language) criticisms are 17-20 years old, so I believe that the inclusion of a criticism section citing Xe should still be considered for Vlang. :) MapleTheColor (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That person literally wrote "V should die". A very unbiased source indeed. 178.69.159.68 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to find where they said that, please point me to where. MapleTheColor (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Bias has no bearing on reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ that is correct, however (and see my response below): (1) if the references are libelous and regardless if the author is an SME, the content is to be removed. (2) References were provided, that are clearly not SMEs. And one is an unknown person. (3) Statements and conclusions were given that were not in the references provided and fall under WP:OR. (4) references are contentious, disputable, and also appear to involve grudges over chat room bans. Wukuendo (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

if the references are libelous

That applies to biographies of living persons, not articles about programming languages. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:Libel does not state it applies to only biographies, have not seen any interpretation specifying that, nor would libelous content be unconstrained in that way. Otherwise, libelous content about any person could be freely leveled all over Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Referring to a reference from an otherwise reliable source as libelous is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Can you please specify the purportedly libelous reference and provide some evidence of its inaccuracy? Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For other readers, this was answered (2X) further below. Wukuendo (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a fair look into the matter, and I am willing to remove citations from the other 2 authors (and thus accordingly change the content), and also remove the mention on chatroom moderation. MapleTheColor (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: WP:RSN. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Response to claims

Please do not engage in false characterizations and character assassination (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). To "assume good faith", goes in both directions and applies to all editors. My intervention in this situation is about multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. Arguments that I'm making are about content and Wikipedia policy. Forcibly trying to include content or material that violates Wikipedia policies can be considered vandalism and/or disruptive editing. Applies for both article statements and references used.

1. Wikipedia is not about adding libelous references, injecting personal conclusions not in references cited, scandal creation, grudges for being banned from chat rooms, or using articles for language flame wars or to promote cyberbulling.
2. "It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified". "Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences" (WP:Libel)
3. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
4. "Do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
5. "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable" (WP:RS/SPS)
6. "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" (WP:Burden).[note-changed]
7. "(Subtle) Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles" (WP:SNEAKY)
8. "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information." "can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths" (Misinformation).
9. "Promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping" (WP:NOTSCANDAL).
10. Point removed, per TurboSuperA+. Wukuendo (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Point ten applies to WP:BLPs. This article is not a BLP. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS also has similar language, and does not specify BLP. "Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page." Even under WP:Burden, it states it as "You should also be aware of", where also implies in addition to and not exclusively for. Though that may require the higher levels to decide or links to past interpretations. Wukuendo (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What you are doing now is called WikiLawyering. Libel or defamation applies to legal persons, and to certain state symbols, institutions, and so on. But it does to apply to programming languages. The Teahouse is always open, you can ask over there. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagree with that assessment. At least one reference used, was not talking about a programming language in a general sense. Rather, that blog author had specified, talked about, and leveled insults using the person's name. Additionally, is was not the only reason for content removal. Wukuendo (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Consider taking a break from this article. Nearly half of all your edits are related to the V programming language. You need to trust that other editors are able to discern reliable sources from unreliable ones and what is due from what is not due. This is a collaborative project. Remember that being right is not enough and it is a fine line between stewardship and ownership. I gave my opinion on the proposed edit and sources above and I have nothing more to add. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The other person in the dispute, has 95% of their comments and attention directed at the V programming language article. The appearance of where edits are focused can be due to back and forth conversations on a specific article, where otherwise, they would have concentrated on something else.

Would like to add, that I respect all editors and their passion, even if we disagree. My involvement, is in regard to policy and doing what is right. Wukuendo (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have edited Wikipedia for years before making an account from my former accounts, and before that anonymously. The reason I made an account was while motivated by adding this section to this article, it was also motivated by me transitioning online from my old name. MapleTheColor (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Though I assume no such thing from their end, I'd like them to be aware that such strong conservatism on the article's end makes it appear as though they are affiliated with the Vlang project (even if they're not.)

MapleTheColor (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've already made a COI statement on this talk (further above). If anything, your attempts at pointing the fingers at others, calls into question what your motives are. Particularly based on the unreliable sources and original research that was attempted. Furthermore, you have made no COI clarifications. Wukuendo (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I am in no way associated with any projects that rival or compete with Vlang and I can confidently state that there is no conflict of interest with my intention to include a criticism section. I am simply surprised by the opposition to the addition of a criticism section. It has already been discussed, and I agree, that only Xe's blogs shall remain. MapleTheColor (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Again, Having a criticism section is not an invitation to language wars. It is the responsible thing to do when such faults are well-documented by experts into the matter. For example, Java (programming language).
2. A critique is not libelous, had I added text such as "The vlang is proven to be incompetent for tasks", that would be clearly libelous. However, the paragraph only remarks that the language has documented drawbacks that the reader, a possible user of the language, should be aware of.
3. The paragraph drew no conclusions, it only quoted the citations.
4. Same as above
5. As discussed earlier, it is agreed that only Xe Laso's articles should remain as the citation.
6. This was not about a living person.
7. This is not misinformation. If you're going to continue asserting it as such, I'd like you to specify on how it is.
8. Again, this is not misinformation!
9. This is not gossip, please do not infantilize the situation as such. This is a straightforward critique of the language.

MapleTheColor (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarified this for you before, and I'm asking you again, stop with the continuous insults and attempted character assassination (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). The issue is about the references you had and are attempting to use. Anonymous bloggers, unreliable sources, references arguably containing insults and libelous comments (referring to the language creator by name) and contentious content that can be considered misinformation. The problem with the references include Xe Iaso, over what look like grudges over chat room bans, a speaker that promotes rival languages, etc... The problems with Xe Iaso, was also noticed by TurboSuperA+, who typed that she should not be used as a reference. Wukuendo (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Literally none of the message you're replying to has any insult to you and does not assassinate your character in any way.

As noted by TurboSuperA+, the age of the articles is a downside of the citation. However, leading by other articles as an example, it shouldn't be that big of a problem and can still be considered for discussion in a separate topic. Xe Laso does also still remain a trustable source, and is an expert in the field. MapleTheColor (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please identify for us what statement(s) in the message you just replied to you consider to be an insult or character assassination?

Be as specific as you can. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, if seen as replying late, as did not see this sooner. It was being claimed that I was trying to assert that criticism was vandalism, attempting to white-wash, and infantilize. That I was trying to do something other than what I explicitly stated, which was that statements in the article and references used were violating Wikipedia policy. If the references used passed policy and statements in the article came from them, then I would not intervene. Wukuendo (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

But you literally did claim that criticism was vandalism?

We’re all glad that you aren’t doing that any more, though. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

For clarity and to answer the question, I've not typed nor believe that criticism is vandalism, that was an accusation under the talk topic created by someone else. Was referring to only content that violates Wikipedia policies. And yes, I respect the rights and privileges of other editors on any article. Wukuendo (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You did indeed claim criticism was vandalism. You did indeed try to make the matter look like "gossip", when it is not (i.e infantilize).

I have made no personal attacks towards you or your character, and have neither insulted you. I am directly and exclusively responding to your message. MapleTheColor (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

MapleTheColor, a possibility here, is the topic title that you created "Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism". I have never typed, believed, nor made the claim that "criticism was vandalism". Your response above and other places is attributing and asserting something I have never claimed and looks to be creating confusion. Wukuendo (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect, you claimed that the criticism section was vandalism in your first edit summary. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. I've never typed the words that "criticism was vandalism", but rather the removal of the section and a reason given was/can be interpreted as such. Among the 3 reasons given in the first edit summary: (1) similar content (by Jvoisin using 2 of the 3 same bloggers) was completely removed by an administrator (2) Original research (WP:OR) and WP:RS (unreliable sources) (3) WP:Sneaky (subtle vandalism). The removed section had statements not in the references given: (1) lack of memory safety (2) out-of-date documentation. That was interpreted as misinformation and to fall under WP:Sneaky. Note: the other issue about WP:Libel involved content in the linked references.

It's being considered inappropriate to have boldly removed the section (as was done previously), and is being viewed that there should have only been edits and discussion on the specific policy offending content and references.

MilesVorkosigan, I agree with you, that criticism is not vandalism and with the use of discussion. At that time, was taking actions for apparent policy violations. Wukuendo (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Java has existed for decades and has possibly hundreds of scholarly works critiquing every aspect of it. V barely meets GNG, and in my opinion, shouldn't have been kept. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

W.R.T "shouldn't have been kept", the article itself or the criticism section? MapleTheColor (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The article. I do think it's just a WP:TOOSOON problem, and sources would appear in a few years or so if adoption increases. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Agreed. MapleTheColor (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In regards to the article, V went through a long AfC process (which I think is good), where many other programming articles (including those in a similar category) have not. Even as a draft, every sentence was heavily scrutinized and debated about by many senior editors. Wukuendo (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok since you didn't answer when I asked before I'll bring this here. Is the source you removed in this diff the source that you are objecting to? Because, if so, it does not look particularly libelous at all. It's literally just describing perceived flaws in a programming language. With that being said I would question its inclusion as it appears to be WP:SPS. Is this the source in question? I am going to set aside the libel claims, which seem less than half-baked, but I will ask anyone who supports inclusion to explain why we should be using self-published material. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

1. A similar question was responded to, but it appears it was not read (see MilesVorkosigan). And the way the questions are being framed and then repeated by you in multiple places, is as if I must immediately respond to it.
2. You are correct, that the self published sources from non-SMEs, was an issue. In addition to questions over possible: cyberbullying of V's creator, revenge motives over being banned/blocked in chats (stated in 2 of the 3 blogs), libel, etc...
3. As was typed previously, the libelous content (WP:Libel) was in the linked references (blog being linked to) trying to be forcibly included (3 times in total by Jvoisin and MapleTheColor). And despite violating other policies.
4. The previous similar attempt to push contentious material and add such a section (done by Jvoisin and using 2 of the 3 same bloggers), was deemed inappropriate and removed by an administrator. It seems that the previous administrative removal is being ignored.
5. Statements typed by MapleTheColor (memory safety and out-of-date documentation) were considered in violation of WP:OR, as were not from the references used, and can also be interpreted as misinformation (under WP:SNEAKY).
6. The discussion looks to be getting very circular, arguably dead horse flogging.Wukuendo (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

   This is very nearly unreadable so let me try again: What about the otherwise reliable (under WP:EXPERTSPS) source that identifies issues with the architecture of the programming language is libelous? I am not concerned about WP:OR assertions - obviously WP:OR has no place in the article. But I'm not asking about that but about a specific source. It's also remarkable to accuse me of flogging a dead horse when I have posted three comments total to this talk page prior to this one. So let's try again. How does WP:LIBEL apply to the expert SPS source raised by @TurboSuperA+? Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

   The flogging reference was about the discussion as a whole, not an accusation to any specific person. Similar questions are being asked, responded to, then another line of similar questions, that are then given a similar response... It looks like the discussion is going in circles.

   You repeatedly asked me to respond. Also posted a link to what MapleTheColor typed (which was similar to the Jvoisin attempt), therefore explained what happened about that. Wukuendo (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

   We actually have an essay about the dead horse. It... isn't very clear unless you have tons of Wikipedia experience, so I'll refer to User:Guy Macon/One against many instead.

   I also do not see where you answered the libel question. We're asking for the exact passage. From my skim as a very new newcomer to this discussion, I can't find where you specified that besides simply saying it was in the Iaso article. Could you help me find where you did specify, or quote it again? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Iaso seems like an expert: #c-TurboSuperA+-20250902153700-Jan200101-20250902141500 Aaron Liu (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, WP:EXPERTSPS would apply based on @TurboSuperA+'s diffs. I would concur that there is nothing in the blog post that looks even a little bit libelous. I'm kind of scratching my head over how that objection is being supported. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ addressed this, and recommended not to include Iaso. It was also mentioned that the blog is very old (dealing with an alpha version of 0.1) and that there was clear personal hostility (that carried on for years) between this person and the language's creator, which includes being banned/blocked from chat (as mentioned in their blog) prior to making the blog entry. Wukuendo (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about "personal hostility" - that an expert has with.... I'm going to assume some personality associated with this language. If Iaso is an expert in software languages then she is qualified to speak to its flaws. Bias is not a factor in reliability though expertise is. If she is talking about an alpha version that should be specified in copy but does not disqualify the source. I would like to hear from @TurboSuperA+ regarding their opinion on this source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Iaso made very clear statements about being banned, at the very top of the blog referenced. Furthermore, the comments were more about the existing list of features in the alpha version (0.1.27) being looked at, not an analysis of (security) flaws. Additionally, the blog itself acknowledges that the information given may be subjective and no longer correct or relevant.

In regards to WP:BLOGS and WP:NOTSCANDAL, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". Issues like cyberbullying or statements related to why something was written are arguably not to be glossed over, "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person". "Gossiping", we can not ascertain the specifics or truthfulness of what happened between them, per blog statements made. Wukuendo (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NOTGOSSIP is about. At all. I think I understand your positions although I find they have little merit. Thank you for explaining. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Understand there can be different views. However, beyond the issue of disputable value and relevancy, we (and readers) can't be expected to pretend not to see arguably scandalous allegations (Iaso blog) or libelous statements (other blog) that are being linked to. Wukuendo (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Their concern was that 1. the proposed article text did not match the source 2. the source is five years old. I disagree that being five years old means we can't say this was criticism of the language's state in 2020, and we can always change the proposed text to match the source. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much this. She is an expert and her opinion is DUE. In her posts she calls the language a "work in progress" so I understood her post less like criticism and more like an update on the progress of language's development. I'm not sure if even she would call it criticism because it is apparent she was somewhat of a fan of the language but stopped following it after the argument/drama. So if we're to include her opinion it's important we don't twist words or say something she didn't. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Statements made by Iaso in that blog, were specifically called out for "dishonesty", by Steve Phillips (elimisteve). Who is also a programmer and public speaker (DEF CON 23) and he has made numerous public statements against Iaso's blog. It could be argued to include the counter by Steve Phillips.

Statements involved in this apparent conflict, is what the anonymous account (178.69.159.68) appears to refer to. We and readers are being dragged into or are being asked to entertain a scandalous conflict, that appears part of a larger language war, and that looks very unencyclopedic.

Similar attempts to add that type of contentious content were removed by other editors (one who is an administrator). Additionally, many of the comparable programming languages do not have such a section, let alone one of such a scandalous nature. Zig for example has removed its criticism section (created by Whizkin and named drawbacks). Wukuendo (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to adjudicate whether Iaso or Phillips is correct in their inter-personal dispute. We are here to assess and report reliable sources, which Iaso's blog post is. This is honestly starting to look like WP:1AM and I would recommend it might be more productive to work with the other involved editors to craft neutral language, based on the source, that does not over-reach or editorialize upon what it contains. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize the situation or merge different actions and views of different editors as only being me. This is why:

• 2 other editors removed such contentious material from the article (who are not me).
• In addition to the 2 editors above, an anonymous editor (who is not me either) and TurboSuperA+ made statements that can be interpreted as against Iaso.
• Phillips is an expert (SME), of arguably equal standing to Iaso, who directly disputes claims Iaso made in the blog. It would be inappropriate to characterize his criticism of Iaso's blog entry as only a personal dispute.
• I did craft and publish a statement that looked neutral and was based on the blog information, however, a different editor (who is not me) stated it was better to remove the section entirely. This was presumably for the Iaso blog entry being of low quality, relative to keeping a new section based on it.
• It is fair to point out that other comparable languages, based on age and ranking, do not have a scandalous criticism section (i.e. Red, Crystal, Zig, etc...). Therefore, not sure what the continually odd and sustained focus on this language is about.
• As I was the one who submitted (it was created and started by other editors) the draft for AfC, I likely know more specific details about the situation (as researched sources), where others might not.

Steve Phillips statements disputing Iaso's blog entry from more than 5 years ago, are relevant to what is being proposed and technically specific. Wukuendo (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ has articulated their position quite clearly - and with greater nuance than you present here. If Phillips meets the ExpertSPS criterion (having been published on related topics in reliable sources, being frequently interviewed by reliable sources on related topics, etc.) then I have no objection to the use of his statements under the normal WP:EXPERTSPS rubric - the same one that covers Iaso. I would kindly ask that you try to be more clear, concise and direct with your comments going forward as quite a lot of what you've said is entirely extraneous to this conversation. I will note also, per @Aaron Liu, you still have not actually stated clearly and straightforwardly what about the Iaso piece you believe to be libelous. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

If similar criticism for these other languages are found, they should be included as well. I'm not focusing on V; I'm enthusiastic about programming and reliable sourcing in general and this is just one such discussion posted to the FOSS and Reliable Sourcing noticeboards.

Usually, editors on Wikipedia tend to prefer discussing the rationales themselves instead of prior action (since anyone can make an action, whether or not they should), and "{insert details others can easily verify here} therefore this shouldn't be included " instead of "I know details you don't that show why this shouldn't be included". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Steve Phillips is an SME, whose portfolio can be viewed here. Reliable sources on related topics have published about him, for example Clive Thompson's book Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World.

My comments were specific, however, it appears that you and Aaron (as came later) have confused 2 different conversations:

1. The original line of conversation was about MapleTheColor's claims, edits, and the 3 blog links he had used. It was on why his statements were removed and what disqualified the references (blogs linked to). Of which, 2 of 3 were used by Jvoisin (edit history), and the entire section was removed before by an administrator.
2. The conversation then branched off into and about Iaso's blog (which was not the original topic). It was repeatedly stated that the other blog had libelous content (which is n-skvortsov-1997). It was later seen as being disqualified, for also not being an SME.

I stated that the blog entry being referred to and from Iaso, was scandalous and had other issues. This is because: (1) Directly addressing HN (a forum in which the person has a long history of continual conflict with V's creator). (2) Stating they were blocked from V's Twitter and indicating they were banned from V's GitHub and other places too. This creates issues based on grudges for being banned and a possible vested interest to make inaccurate statements. (3) Other admitted to aliases of Iaso (cadey and others), on other forums, were also making what can be interpreted as scandalous and libelous statements while in direct conflict with V's creator (lobste.rs and other forums). (4) Iaso blog entry links to more blog entries that have titles and statements that could be interpreted as libelous and for the intent to spread false allegations. (5) Old age of content (over 5 years old). (6) Various technical aspects are clearly a matter of interpretation and are arguably irrelevant. Thus can create confusion. For example, V's memory management as beta (0.4) is different from the alpha (0.1) version referred to or what should be or not be considered a dependency.

Shoving in what is technically debatable and old, is arguably not helpful, other than possibly feeding the peripheral scandal and language wars by use of links. Wukuendo (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

My participation in IT has been on the policy and human resource side for a very long time and I will assure you I have no stake in "language wars". However I'm glad we have put aside the "libelous" claim regarding this clearly non-libelous source. A source being five years old is not a barrier to inclusion but I would say any use should specify the version that Iaso was describing in order to avoid over-generalizing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Again: If another SME directly addressed the comments then just include those comments as well. (1), (2), and (5) have also already been repeatedly addressed above and do not belong under the "libelous" category of concern at all. (6) is your WP:original research. We asked you to specify what the statements are, and (3) and (4) continues the handwaving at statements without letting us see what they are. And if said statements do not demonstrate any serious doubt to reliability beyond what's already been addressed above about (1) and (2), I do not see the harm in citing an article that does not include such statements.

Sorry for the language I'm using here, but my time is short, this discussion is taking too long to move forward, and I feel like there is enough support to accurately summarize, attribute, and include Iaso's statements in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• "but my time is short". Wikipedia is not in a rush (WP:THEREISNORUSH), for the purposes of forcing possible misinformation, confusion, or links to any libelous and contentious content. As was repeatedly mentioned, the Iaso blog entries refers and links to content that could be described as defamation, as well as what could be considered harassment and cyberbullying of V's creator and their project across various social media sites. Not to mention the comparatively oddness that this article has been subject to, like confirmed vandalism, with attempts at partial and complete deletion.
• Iaso looks to have the alias of xena (and possibly more), based on their public self identification from their blog article. The xena account appears to have been used to self-promote their various blogs and sites. This includes posting the claim or inferring the language is vaporware (post created by xena) and that it "should be ignored until it dies into obscurity". This might possibly be the statement referred to by the anonymous account (178.69.159.68), that can be interpreted as showing maliciousness or desire to cause harm.
• There is no handwaving being done. In addition to the Iaso blog referring to HN, where they have posted content about the language as xena, the blog entries link to the last one published. From the Iaso blog, "my last post" includes a link to the last one, and then links to their "vaporware" blog entry (that they also posted on HN too). These other blog entries make accusations against a person, that can be considered as libel and for the purposes of doing harm. It wouldn't be honest of us to pretend the blog does not link to other blog entries.
• For clarity. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences. Making specific accusations against V's creator and project, is not a critique of the language. There is a difference between accusations against people and criticism of a language.
• It is not original research to know what V's beta version age and number from its article (0.4.11) is different from the alpha version (0.1.27) listed on Iaso's blog. That V's beta uses a GC, among the memory management options to choose from, is listed on the article itself and arguably does make Iaso's blog statements on the subject irrelevant or the basis of confusion.
• As was previously mentioned, I did publish what looked to be an accurate summary of Iaso's statements, however, another editor removed it. Upon further reflection, it looks correct for the other editor to have done so. The Iaso blog entry is of poor quality, just on the technical content being old, highly debatable, and subjective (last word used by Iaso). Statements made on the blog, looks to be about dragging readers into a wider language war. The particular blog entry's subjective interpretations are also not confirmed by other published, independent, and reliable sources. Wukuendo (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  • WP:THEREISNORUSH is in regards to articles and Aaron is talking about writing a better response if they had more time. I assume this was a misreading but please take more time reading replies, this has happened a few times now.
  • Hacker News is a news aggregator / forum that doesn't ban self-promotion and only discourages it, I believe that posting it there was relevant because the pre-release announcements for V were also posted there.
  • I looked through the articles and couldn't find any statements referring to a direct person, only relative subjects like "author" or "team". Did I miss anything?
  • 1. the first post containing criticisms against V came shortly after it was released to the public with 2 update posts 6 months apart showing what has changed since the previous article. Subjects like false claims and unfulfilled promises appear to be perfect for a criticism section.
    2. in the article "V is for VVwork in Progress" they mention that they intended to wait for V to get its 1.0 release in December 2019 which was later lowered to a 0.2 release and then delayed up to December 2020. I'd argue that that in itself is criticism worth mentionin
  • In my opinion the whole criticism section as it was was too short to be its own section and didn't really say anything in its own words, it would be better to include some details in the history section instead.

  Jan200101 (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  • By default, we are to assume that you are not Aaron, so he is capable of explaining for himself. Nobody is forcing when to respond. The statement was also followed up with taking too long. This implies impatience or wanting to rush.
  • "Unfulfilled promises" is both a loaded term and nonsensical in the evaluation of any alpha version of software. By default, an alpha version of something would not be expected to be optimal or complete. The provocative use of such a propaganda catch phrase adds to the oddness, because it was not used by Iaso. This term, however, was used in language and flame wars by (various self-identified) direct competitors.
  • The statement about self-promotion shows that Iaso intentionally meant to spread the blog and accusations, across various social media sites, arguably causing injury or harm to the reputation of V's creator and the V project. Someone else did not post it, instead Iaso purposefully did so (under one of their self-identified aliases).
  • It should be noted, that the accusations made by Iaso as to why they were banned and blocked, can not be substantiated or verified (WP:V). Such gossip and scandal (WP:NOTSCANDAL), can be argued as a self-serving tool to promote blog traffic and to attack the reputation of another person.
  • Iaso is directly referring to a person (does not have to be by name), while making accusations. Examples: (1) the V author (2) he claims that (3) the author has been claiming (4) V developer (5) The developer (6) the author (7) compiler author. Iaso also refers to and makes accusations about the V team and V project, in addition to using the overall accusatory tone.
  • Falsely accusing a person or company and causing injury to their reputation falls under libel (WP:Libel).
  • Referring to other blogs with contentious content, demonstrates the dangers and validity of the argument presented. Iaso's possible vested interests in referring to other social media platforms that they are promoting themselves on and use of links can not be ignored. The blog entry has made other arguably scandalous and libelous content a main focus. In fact, even starts off with it.
  • Forcibly including or linking to demonstrably false blog claims and insinuations, like the language is vaporware or ignoring differences between beta and alpha versions, can be seen as promoting scandal and confusion. Wukuendo (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

    I suggest you read WP:1AM. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, I did read it (and gave a response) the first time it was suggested, thank you. Wukuendo (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

    It has been repeatedly confirmed by people, not only here, but also on the Teahouse that the material in question is not libelous.

    If the majority disagree with you, almost always, there is good reason for it. Please stop repeatedly asserting that the material is libelous when the consensus is that it's not, and try to understand the situation before stepping ahead again. MapleTheColor (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

    Do not make false statements and continual mischaracterizations. (1) Teahouse confirmed that libel (WP:Libel) applies to any living person (referred to) in Wikipedia, not only biographies. Suggest you go read that article again. (2) Without even going into the question of libel, statements attempted to be forced into the article had violated multiple other Wikipedia policies, thus what you and the previous person did had resulted in those statements being removed (Jvoisin's attempt was removed by an administrator). That is not even counting the SME issue, for 2 of the 3 other blogs (which Jvoisin tried to use too). (3) Teahouse was commenting on if the statements in the article were libel, which I was not claiming they were and have explained that point. The issue on libel, was and is about the references used (blog links). (4) A valid critic should be a disinterested third party, not a person with a vested interest in promoting scandal for blog views over accurate statements (called out by Steve Phillips). Along with the obvious hurt feelings and revenge motives from prior bans to fuel language wars. Wukuendo (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

    The issue on libel, was and is about the references used. If the article contains "libel" or other policy-violating content, and if you don't include those parts in where you use it, then it doesn't matter. In fact, most reliable news reports contain WP:BLPCRIME violations or sometimes even libel, and it's fine to cite them as long as you don't include them in the article.

    Maybe it's time for WP:DRN? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  So to summarize, the only statements you consider libelous are "vaporware" and "should be ignored until it dies into obscurity"? I do not consider those defamatory at all. Again, please quote anything else you're referring to. You've said that "it's linked" five times already as we're asking for quotes. Yes, the post claims that people within the V team did things. Which of these claims, specifically, do you consider defamatory?

  not original research to know what V's beta version age For the last time, that the article is five years old can simply be included. The particular blog entry's subjective interpretations The entire point is that the post should be included because it's an SME's opinion. That's what criticism is—an opinion.

  also not confirmed by other That's not enough. They'd have to present contradicting information and be more than SME opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I should note that Wukuendo has been informed that the material in question is not libelous by people in their Teahouse query as well. The consensus stands that this criticism in specific is not libelous. MapleTheColor (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Do not make false statements. (1) Teahouse clarified that living person (WP:Libel) does not only apply to biographies, but any person referred to in Wikipedia. (2) They were not commenting on all material nor the blog links. They did not endorse nor give judgement on the blogs used. Wukuendo (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Attacking Open-source Projects & Languages

Read this crazy long talk after finding the article about V. Hey, it is clear something is going on here and Wikipedia shouldn't be about that kind of crap. Seems like there are people dedicated to deleting the article. If that fails, then smearing the project and lead developers. That's wrong.

Thumbs down and downvote to those trying it. The other articles are not full of crap or weird blogs full of smears. Respect open-source projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.67.223.98 (talk) 148.67.196.87 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt should go to the project, developers and the many contributors. V has a number of articles on Qiita. Even there is translation of their documentation to Japanese.

Easy to see many doing hard work at their repo, to make better language and programming world. Many enjoy their work. Impression made that others come to delete, fight and strange talk.

Gives bad taste, that maybe it is about fight for some other language or bounty from competitor. Sad to observe bad behavior or questionable objectives. Truly this is not seen on other pages backed by big companies. Even the case, like small rock in big pond, so no effect to them. Too much attempt to delete something or smears, as you say. 148.68.89.198 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please keep comments focused on improvements to the article and not on editors. No one is trying to delete this article at this time, despite V only being marginally notable, and the project still having no release version nor any sign that any of the big claim features have been implemented. What we need, however, are secondary sources. Encyclopaedic articles cannot be written from the project's own documentation. We need the books and articles from independent people writing about V, and not just uncritically repeating unsupported claims found on the V website. Are there any that are not self published? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It can be said that's unfair. It smells biased to push negatives. Nobody goes on like that for other articles about programming. The project for V or language founder wouldn't usually have anything to do with who writes about them and how they do it. 148.67.196.87 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody goes on like that for other articles about programming: Criticism of Java exists, and so does Criticism of C++. One could reasonably create Rust (programming language)#Criticism if they wanted to. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia article should be written from secondary sources. No exceptions. What independent and reliable secondary sources do we have that talk about V? Project documentation is not independent and is primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion or a mischaracterization about what was added to the article by a copyright clerk. There was an attempt to delete most of the article's examples and their descriptions, on the false premise that they violated copyright. This was a long and drawn-out affair, lasting months. It was something that I haven't seen attempted on other programming language articles. The copyright clerk made the decision that there was no violation and it was deemed best to add clarification under references. The reference to the documentation, is about license and copyright, and was considered (by the copyright clerk) as the best way to do it at this time. Wukuendo (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Your own explanation is a mischaracterization of the events, I had pointed out that the entire Syntax section was a copy straight from the docs which, at best, would be an issue of attribution and at worst a license violation.

I tried adding attribution, you reverted it and protested against its inclusion at which point you refused any kind of good faith communication and refused to my agreement that if a Third Opinion sided with you I would drop the situation.

To give this the proper attention I blew this up into a Copyright Problem where you were told to Please try to assume better faith next time and proper attribution, as I had tried to add previously, was added.

For reference that whole ordeal can be found here: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15 Jan200101 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The following are examples and direct quotes of inappropriate ultimatums and false accusations: (1) I'm going to remove it right now despite your objects because it violates WP:COPYPASTE (2) Because of the violation the offending sections should be removed (3) But because this appears to be going nowhere I'm giving you an ultimatum

Your own words and actions, shows seeking the deletion of large sections of the article, while continually making wrongful claims of copyright violations. It was also unnecessary to cause disruption by making large sections of the article not viewable for months or to continually issue threats. The disruption to the article's full availability would have likely continued for many months more, had I not intervened, to get a final decision to remove the tags that you placed on the article. As was repeatedly told to you (by various editors) and clarified by the copyright clerk, there were no copyright violations. Furthermore, your attempt at attribution, was your own personal solution that was not viable and was not under the guidance of copyright problems, a copyright clerk, or any other clearly identified persons on Wikipedia.

The workable or viable solution is what the copyright clerk suggests or does, and that person (not me) decided on clarification of licenses under references. Lastly, to assume good faith works in both directions and is not unidirectional. Wukuendo (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Reference "Convert Go to V with go2v" in other Language

Convert Go to V with go2v appears to be japanese and lacks the `language=ja` parameter, I do not know if this is just an issue on my end or if this was just left out by accident. Can anyone confirm that there is no english section/translation? Jan200101 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed, the title is translated to English, and the V code it contains is also in English. Wukuendo (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct and I never stated anything else, I am asking if the language parameter to the reference is missing because of something I am not seeing or by mistake. Jan200101 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no info about this and clearly no opposition I've gone ahead and added the paramter. Jan200101 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Maintaining the book list

The V article now has almost as many books referenced as the C_(programming_language) and its start to look more like an index of V books than a helpful list of further assets. It might be time to go through and cut some of them out, for example the Article from Linux Format seems to be completely inaccessible through the publisher. Jan200101 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of things going on here: (1) Your statement looks very opinionated, if not odd. It would be like an editor going to the Zig language article and saying its external link section has too many movies in it. Maybe the movies in Zig's article should be removed, because the C and Crystal language articles have less or no movies. (2) There is no specific or hard limit to how many books or links must be in further reading or external links (AFAIK), as long as it's reasonable and subject related. (3) Books are often first added to further reading, where they might later be used specifically as references, debated about, or referred to for study. (4) It looks inconsistent or hypocritical to make the claim of wanting more sources, while claiming there are too many sources or books at the same time. (5) There is nothing stopping a complaining editor from adding or suggesting books be added to the C language or other language article. A lack of or less books on a particular article, has no bearing on other articles. That the Zig language article has more or less books than the Crystal language article, or has a bibliography section instead of further reading, is not demonstrating any relevant relationships.

Linux Format magazines are still accessible, and the publisher is still recognized, despite going out of business. WP:PUBLISHED states, any source that was made available to the public in some form. It does not state that if the publisher goes out of business, all references using that publisher must be removed from all of Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wukuendo: I've removed the movies from Zig (programming language). See WP:ELNO. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the movies as an example of the logic displayed, not as any kind of action item to remove video links from both articles. I'm not a proponent of deletionism and did not have a problem with Zig keeping their video links in the external links section. Additionally, it was suggested by another editor to add a particular video to V's external link section, and now a different editor has removed it without discussion. Though you might be correct and have mentioned WP:ELNO, it is not clear how both videos violated policy. Wukuendo (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Before I reply, a small bit of feedback: could you split up your arguments in a way that makes them more readable, for example by using a list or putting them into seprate paragraphs? This would make it a lot easier to read each point separately and respond to them accurately.

1. I mean, yeah. Its my opinion which is why I put this up here to see if others agree with me and if this would be a worthwhile change to improve the article.
2. You are correct, there is no hard limit for how many books can be referenced however I am specifically talking about the "Further reading" section which appears to be used as a mixed references and further things someone interested in V might want to read. For references I agree that as long as its a reasionable inclusion it makes sense to keep but for Further reading the list should be kept to a reasonable size, see Wikipedia:Further_reading#Limited.
3. Taking C_(programming_language) as an example again, it has a section for books that were sourced as well as a further reading sections. Other articles add books directly to the references if they are not already included.
4. I am not talking about sources.
5. Nothing is stopping you from adding more books and me from removing books hence why I started this discussion. I am not looking to remove any books, I am simply concerned that V, a language that existed for 5 years, has almost as many resources listed in its Further Reading sections as C_(programming_language) which has had major changes over its 5 decades while languages that are more comparable in age like Crystal_(programming_language), Zig_(programming_language), Rust_(programming_language) and Go_(programming_language) have signifiicantly fewer.
6. (You didn't number this one so I will) the source cited is Linux Format 288, I've tried both the `Buy it now` and `Read a sample` links but neither seems to function. While there are some third party services that still sell that specific issue it is no longer readibly available and thus not suited to be for "Further reading", see Wikipedia:Further_reading#Available_access

Jan200101 (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The claimed reasons for wishing to delete references still looks odd and nonsensical.

• You linked to an essay and not a Wikipedia policy, therefore it becomes debatable to what extent that should be followed.
• Wikipedia's policy (WP:PUBLISHED), which I linked and quoted for you, states if the source was made available to the public in some form. It does not state that the source must be conveniently available nor that removal of references from articles are subject to a particular person's issues.
• Even in regards to accessibility, the publisher is clearly making past issues available to the public, as both PDFs (digital format via the Internet) and physical magazines. Whatever your problem might be, it can be resolved by contacting the publisher, who clearly has a website (link is on their wikipedia page) that also provides an email address to the public. Wukuendo (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I read the first sentence and I'm already going to stop you right there, I do not want to delete references, I want to clean up the Further reading sections.

If you want to maintain the list and stack books ontop of books turn it into a bibliography section instead because thats what you are using it as.

And in regards to the Linux Format issue, please provide me with a link to a place where I can read or buy the mentioned issue that is provided either through the Magazine, Publisher or a related party, its not my job to deal with poorly maintained or buggy systems from some company but feel free to inform them about this issue over email. Jan200101 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the Article and saw that Sirfurboy already cleaned the Further reaction section up and put the remaining literature into a Bibliography section, so that topic is already dealt with. Jan200101 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)