Wikipedia:Omit generic reactions

In the aftermath of a violent event, it is typical for politicians (or other people perceived as leaders) to issue generic, effusive statements condemning violence and expressing sympathy for the victims. These statements should be omitted from the encyclopedia unless they can be demonstrated to be noteworthy.

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Readers gain nothing from thoughts and prayers statements, and certainly do not need lists of two dozen such statements from other politicians, often packaged into a "Reactions" section that takes up article space better spent on analysis.

Invalid reasons for including a reaction are:

• because it exists in a reliable source (recall that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion);
• because there are already a bunch of reactions in the article (please be bold and delete the section); and
• because other articles do it (again, please be bold and delete the section).

Possibly valid reasons to include a reaction might be:

• because the event involved the politician's constituent(s);
• because the statement is unusual (e.g., expresses scorn); or
• because the statement contains actual information (e.g., an action to be taken).

At one point it seemed that scornful reactions to violent deaths were censored on Wikipedia, not as the result of a grand conspiracy but rather because of some commonly held notion of propriety (in contravention of the principle that Wikipedia is not censored). That seems to have abated, perhaps because the amount of political polarization in Western countries makes such scornful reactions impossible to ignore. As always, reliable sources are required to include such scorn in articles.