Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 5 April 2009

Source Credibility

Source Credibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It looks like an essay someone did for school. --Pstanton (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: As original research. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete--and may it snow soon. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make.

  The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a perfectly valid referencing style for a Misplaced Pages article), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.

  You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the University of Macau, writing in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. This isn't a Misplaced Pages editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what actually would be covered by the original research policy here. This is a Misplaced Pages editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources and citing those sources in full. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).

  The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which actually explains that people favour presentation over substance. There is no reason supported by deletion policy for deleting this. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a discussion board. No one has committed a cardinal sin by having a debate on the notability of an article as it was initially presented. Please refrain from explaining our reasons to us, as in "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing..." Also, I did actually read the article. My interpretation of what was presented was clearly different from yours. It isn't really fair to target people in such an aggressive manner for trying to apply standards to the thousands of new articles that flood wikipedia. A vote with an explanation might suffice next time. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong, as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Misplaced Pages. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.

      Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Misplaced Pages. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)

      Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Misplaced Pages style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.

      When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

      • Right, so the 500 words you devoted to my "training" came on an AfD discussion, rather than on my talk page. Thanks for that. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • A full and civil explanation is far better than some curt "grow up and shut the fuck up", in my book. Only you keep making this about you, by the way. As far as I'm concerned, this is about the article, how policy applies and does not apply to it, and errors in its application in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per others, essay unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Uncle G, you're not arguing your case very well - the level of vitriol is unnecessary. Verbal chat 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it's "essay unsuitable for an encyclopaedia" that isn't a good argument. Because, as already pointed out, this isn't an essay. It's the start of an article, complete with source citations, on a perfectly valid subject. Articles have started far worse than this. This cites sources right from the start, cites reliable sources, and gets the name of the subject right. You have presented no explanation why this is an essay, and the only vitriol anywhere is someone else calling xyrself names. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The article, according to the sources provided, seems to be about credibility in public speaking. But that is not what the title suggests nor most of the prose. There does not seem to be sufficient material, beyond jargon and isolated examples, for a renamed article on Credibility in public speaking and it seems unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It is an unnecessary fork of Public speaking. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it's about a concept in social psychology that is, quite definitely, called "source credibility". You can see that for yourself by reading (a) the cited source by Pornpitakpan that the article creator provided that calls it source credibility, (b) the cited source by Yoon, Choong, and Min-Sun, also provided by the article creator that calls it source credibility, (c) the source that I cited above that calls it source credibility, or (d) page 344 of The handbook of social psychology (ISBN 9780195213768) that also calls it source credibility. This is a valid subject, that has been discussed in many sources, and this is its name. This is not made up by a Misplaced Pages editor, not an "essay", not a sub-topic (as the lengthy summary of the literature in the handbook should indicate), and not a fork. It's a recognized subject in a valid discipline, and this article is, simply put, a stub. It's not finished, and not comprehensive. Why on Earth are you judging the content here to be the full extent of the subject?

    Go and read the handbook to see what more there is to write. Indeed, read page 345, where it summarizes what social psychologists have found out about attractiveness and how it affects processing and cognitive response, and compare it to how Misplaced Pages editors have demonstrably responded when an unwikified and unattractive stub with (excessive) Harvard referencing is added to Misplaced Pages. Some social psychologist somewhere is probably thinking of making this a case study. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect - Seems like a valid topic, and some useful material, but it seems to me better covered as a section elsewhere, to give more context and prevent it becoming overly scientific (WP:NOT an academic journal). So merge to communication or possibly persuasion. Rd232 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with technical content in Misplaced Pages. The statement that Misplaced Pages is not a journal means that it doesn't fulfil the publisher of first instance function of a journal, not that it cannot cover academic topics. We don't aim to just cover "unscientific" topics. We aim high. We aim to cover science as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Odd combination of a dicdef and summary of a study that purported to demonstrate that people are more inclined to trust a speaker that they feel is trustworthy over one they feel is not. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We call this sort of start to an article, where it contains a definition and some assorted facts, a Misplaced Pages:stub. Per Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, we don't delete stubs with scope for expansion. And there is plenty of scope for expansion here. This is a real, and amply documented, social psychology topic. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates