Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 29 September 2011

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Laurence Tribe

FYI all who follow this page: Somehow the biography of an eminent legal scholar became a BLP snake pit, but it was quickly resolved when a representative of the professor raised the issue in an RfC. See Really disgraceful. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And; alas, the type of editing found in many BLPs where the mere use of a word by a "reliable source" then becomes the centerpiece for outright mis- or mal-categorization of the individual. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, Tribe was placed in the "plagiarist" wiki category for a year, and the article failed to note that he denied the plagiarism allegations. I'm surprised his people didn't notice earlier and didn't raise more of a stink. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they've heard tales that if one objects, the article is made even worse. Misplaced Pages does have a reputation for that, deservedly so or not. Surely all of Tribe's students read the article at some point, and told him about the problem material long before now. Well-known people know how to deal with such things appearing in the news media, but not in wikis and blogs and such. They're becoming more proactive, as they should, but there's a learning curve and the feedback loop has to be a positive experience. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be the reputation, but the response here was fast and the problems were corrected swiftly. What's astounding is how long this bio was an attack page.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming "his people" just recently noticed the problem. I'm not. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

War propaganda?

Dear Mr. Wales, I urge you to have a close look at this article Drone attacks in Pakistan. It is full of misinformation. I know you and many other people here are from the USA but that should not play a role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.105.34 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You should start by explaining on the talk page of the article what is false and why you are sure that it is false. If you don't do that, other editors are not likely to pay attention to your complaints. Looie496 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have ask Mr. Wales to have a look at it. I am sure he is smart enough to notice it. Let's see what is he will say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.105.34 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at the article, but I don't have time at the moment to read it carefully. Please point out specific problems with the article, as Looie496 suggested. The talk page of the article will be a fine place to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales i do not think that it is necessary for a person with your experience and it makes me wonder why you did not spot it at the first glance. This article is full of misinformation, weasel words and vague phrasing accompanied with biased sources, unverifiable information and misinterpretation of references that is almost reads like propaganda. This article is a mess. What can you do to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.105.34 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can start by asking you to be more specific. Please point out specific problems with the article. I'm happy to take a deeper look but your help will be appreciated. Can you give me, for starters, one example of something in the article that misrepresents what the source says, and one example of something in the article that is 'unverifiable information'?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

that ip is a waste of time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's up, pal?

misrepresentation and unverified claims. Killed people are presented as "militants" even when it is not sufficient verified and killed people are presented as "militants" based on sources that base their words on anonymous or unnamed "security officials" - often without attribution to the source. Just a mess in comparison with the standard of an encyclopedia. Can you do something about it? 24.232.105.34 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales i do believe that such articles harm the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Is there anything you are willing to do about it? 24.232.105.34 (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But you're doing a perfectly fine job. I recommend logging in, so you have a stable identity over time, and posting to the talk page. Stick to the kinds of points you are making here, i.e., working to make sure that the article follows the sources carefully, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Awareness

Dear Mr. Wales, what is your take on this situation? My very first article was Triangle Studios, a translation of the Dutch wikipedia article. Triangle Studios is the leading game developer of the Netherlands when it comes to Nintendo DS platform games and the article has been on the Dutch wikipedia for three years without anyone ever complaining. Now I create it here, on the Dutch wikipedia, and it is immediately deleted. The same goes for Cross of the Dutchman (game), an article on a major upcoming game. It is the largest Dutch-based game project ever to take place in gaming history, and two years of research have gone before the official announcement(s). Still, it has been nominated for deletion. For speedy deletion, no less! Only after much comments on my part, it was changed into a regular deletion attempt. I would like to raise some awareness over this issue by sending you this message.

Greetings from a long-time reader and a new but quite discouraged newbie. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Triangle Studios article has been proposed for deletion, with a notification that notability has not been stated nor established. There is actually nothing in the article that says anything that you have said above regarding notability, and no external third party reliable sources that help anyone find it. You'll note that the notability requirements on the Dutch and English Misplaced Pages's are quite different - but on either one you need to actually provide proof of any claims. Why not add those references, then remove the PROD notice...you have 7 days. The second one, you'll need to beware of WP:CRYSTAL, as it's not necessarily notable before its release, no matter how much time has been spent on it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the article itself I have provided five reliable sources. In the discussion at the AfD entry I have provided 12 different reliable and verifiable sources. I provided links to several websites, newspapers (local, regional, national and internantional) and magazines, I provided all these sources and this is just the tip of the iceberg, all that to prove the article's notability. Because it is notable, and some people seem to be hellbent on deleting it still. The requirements at the Dutch wikipedia are, btw, probably stricter then here. So that, too, is a non-argument. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would focus your efforts on improving the main article, Triangle Studios, ensuring that you reference the claims there using valid third party sources (not blogs, etc). For example, you have made claims that it is "one of the largest...in the Netherlands", but no third party reference to prove it. The individual game is probably less of your worry - if I were you I would ask for it to be userfied, and resurrect it once it is released to the public (the same concept around music albums). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could userfy the game article and redirect the page to the "In popular culture" section of the Pier Gerlofs Donia for the time being, if the RfD fails. But I'd rather wait a couple more days with that, see where it goes. Thanks for the advice, Bwilkins. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to further inflame anything, but I felt I had to remove a chunk from the "Triangle" article as a copyright-violation .  Chzz  ►  12:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As of a few minutes ago, the backlog in Category:All unreferenced BLPs was completely cleared. The remaining 140 articles are all in a deletion process. About 20 months after the BLPRFC(s) and the >50,000 article black hole is gone. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

--intelatiColloquium 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yay! That's amazing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reading/External links

There are discussions going on at Talk:Hugo Chávez#External links and Talk:Hamid Karzai#External_links about a request for some typical links being added. The differences seem to be over wildly different interpretation of the EL guidelines, along with some confusion as to the difference between a search engine and a database. These aren't the sorts of things which should be re-fought on every single BLP article. In an ideal world, each article would have thousands of people worldwide constantly watching and updating it. That would not be this world. Either we want to provide readers with extended resources, or we want to limit them to what a contributor or two believe is important. (Which is most articles, once you remove the bots and copyedits and category additions and such from any article.) The latter doesn't sound reasonable or sensible to me, so I think we need a broader discussion than what's likely to be attracted to the Talk pages of these two articles. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this issue at Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard#Collected news and commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here - and I was briefly involved in the request to add links. I think that our EL policy is already perfectly clear, and covers this - as I said on the Chavez talk page; we must avoid Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Misplaced Pages isn't a directory.  Chzz  ►  03:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our existing EL policy is either too strict, or interpreted too strictly. I have seen this in several cases now. (I am NOT commenting on the current examples here; if I comment on them, I will comment on the appropriate talk pages.) I'm making a philosophical point that I think NOTDIR does not imply, in any way, that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should be avoided. This is particularly true when we recognize that many articles are not featured articles and not likely to become featured articles anytime soon. Avoiding linking to something because it contains information that we would have directly, if we had a featured article, is silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the greatest challenges in maintaining articles is fighting the constant tendency for them to turn into link pages. Lowering the threshold can only make the job more difficult, and that isn't a service. I estimate that the articles I maintain get about 10 edits that add a spurious EL for every edit that adds meaningful content. Also the spammers are getting steadily more sophisticated at disguising their crap as legitimate material. Looie496 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Looie; you're on the other end of the stick, Jimbo. You're saying "don't remove for no reason" and policy, practice, and yes, common sense says "don't link for no reason" - many of these EL sections are huge spammy linkfarms, and there is no specific reason to have them except that they're there, like Everest. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is incredibly rude of you to put words in my mouth which I did not say and do not believe. I never said, of external links, anything remotely close to "don't remove for no reason". Will you apologize for that misrepresentation? And re-read what I have actually said?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found that rude; it was not my intent to offend. It was meant as a summary, not as a direct quote. You said "Avoiding linking to something because it contains information that we would have directly, if we had a featured article, is silly." which I interpreted as an argument which in effect is arguing to keep ELs unless there is a reason to remove them beyond basic link-trimming, or pruning. Did I misunderstand your meaning? and if so, would you be so kind as to clarify what you actually meant? also, I would appreciate it if you would make a bit more of an attempt to AGF when I post; I presume a certain level of informality in user talk page discussions of experienced users, which leads me occasionally to employ shorthand such as "you're saying this, yadda yadda" and my expectation (and until today, my experience) had been that if I'm in error, the other party will correct me in a civil fashion - "No, I'm not saying this, I'm saying that" which clears things up nicely without people becoming outraged and /or upset / insert preferred term which you don't find rude here. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"the spammers are getting steadily more sophisticated at disguising their crap as legitimate material." - this has got nothing to do with the two requests at the top of this thread, has it? I see only clearly WP:RS sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The request in question may be one that we reject, but it's a perfectly respectable request about clearly WP:RS. It seems clear to me that this question has absolutely nothing to do with spam.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should jump in here and state I'm not a spammer contributing 'spurious' links. Consider it stated, and consider me appalled at feeling required to state that. Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? As for "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", that was, I believe, intended to discourage the endless lists of individual news articles which were once prevalent. People who didn't have the time or inclination to update an article simply added a link to some news article they found, confusing Misplaced Pages with sites such as Digg, Reddit, Delicious and/or Facebook. Nothing to do with Topic collections from major news sources. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case the request was to provide links to searches for several publications. My concern is that there is always an inherent bias in the choice of sources. In this case the Guardian is the only British newspaper listed. It is one of many quality UK newspapers. If all BLPs had links to this one British newspaper only then that would show bias. This is particularly relevant to UK newspapers, where they each are associated with differing political viewpoints. If we extended the list of news media then the list would become excessively long. Perhaps we could include in every BLP a link similar to the one used for articles for deletion. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) TFD (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Click on 'news' in your example and I think you'll see why that's not nearly as helpful to our readers. Pat Robertson calling for Hugo's assassination? It's just a jumble of individual news articles. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

that is in line with SandyGeorgia's comment here - her view is that the links that were suggested violate NPOV, rather than EL and NOT. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've slightly misunderstood her claim. She is not saying these links violate NPOV. She is agreeing that they are NPOV and relevant, but saying that the real problem is that highly reliable sources (like the New York Times) have been removed from the article by POV pushers, and if adding these external links back is meant as a corrective to that POV pushing, it isn't enough, and isn't the right thing. That's not saying that these links are POV violations (they obviously are not). I have no opinion on the validity of her claims about what has happened in the past on the article, as I have not been monitoring it lately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I understood her correctly, but phrased myself poorly. As I seem to be batting -1000 today in that regard, I'll simply leave it at that. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Those are not 'searches' but Topic pages. If you had checked the links for yourself, you surely would have realized that. Not all news sources provide Topic pages. Not all news sources have extended archives. In fact, the list is very short. The Guardian (and a few others) do both. Of course The Guardian has an editorial view, as do all news sources which have editors, but it's well known for providing a platform for those of other viewpoints to express them. That's the point of all op-ed ("opposite the editorial") sections. Their Topic pages include links to news, analysis, commentary, editorials and op-eds, same as the other Topic pages in the other news sources listed. That's why they're valuable resources for our readers. An international figure is erson covered by international news sources, and often in different ways. It's important to present multiple views. It's also important (imo) to present full, extended and unedited video statements and interviews in which the person is allowed to speak for himself. There are very few collections of these available, but they're very important to gain a fuller understanding of the person. Same goes for books by and about a person. I can't see Misplaced Pages summarizing each and every one of them, but a reader can be pointed to them if said reader wishes to explore further. That's our job.99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be a question of semantics, TXIP.228 - the Topic pages are dynamically generated with a sitesearch, then formatted and presented to the end user (us.) But the underlying mechanism for the Topic page is a site search. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's more like a relational database. The point of not allowing general searches in EL is because they often include irrelevant and unwanted material, particularly for people with common names. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all online news sites use relational databases for their content. Whether the query searches a database or flat files is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion; we are not speaking of adding a link to a query string to a search engine, but to a topic page - which is generated by a search string. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Which doesn't explain your post here which you gave as your reason for turning down the request. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Since the discussion for both identical requests, made at the same time on two different BLPs, was on Talk:Hugo Chávez and not on Talk:Hamid Karzai, then what you link to is not strictly speaking the reason I gave but an abbreviated version of it. The discussion is still on the second article mentioned; there is no point in any of the several editors who have contributed to the discussion replicating their statements in both places. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a controversial subject make reference to subject-relevant peer-reviewed journals?

I would have assumed that question reads like a ridiculous one, but the article on Astrology has suffered a lot of disruption since Monday night, on the basis of this argument. I am talking about indiscriminate removals of whole passages of carefully referenced text, on the basis that if a reference goes to a journal which gives its focus to astrology - even if the journal is peer-reviewed and the author is a notable scientist with an excellent reputation for being a foremost authority, this constitutes an unreliable reference because it goes to a 'fringe' source. Other uninvolved editors have contributed arguments that sources are judged in context and even fringe subjects are allowed to reference their own journals. However this disruption is still ongoing by a few editors who claim that Misplaced Pages's policy on pseudoscience must prevent all reference to scientific claims unless they appear in mainstream recognized peer-reviewed journals.

I am trying to encourage the new editors to slow down and allow us all to work together to look at each passage critically, so we can identify if the problem really exists - and if it does, is it based on lack of objectivity or reliability of source. But the deletions keep re-occuring with the insistence that concerns about not giving coverage to pseudoscience-issues trumps all else on Misplaced Pages. The net result is that the astrology page is being prevented from making reference to what the dominant and influential astrological sources report.

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to give the content something like a 2-week period of edit-protection, in order to force amendments to go through the process of collaborative review. I see you are marked as having suitable status so can you do this Mr Wales? I am wary that I don't know who is going to be reliably objective on this matter, but it seems a big enough principle to deserve your attention. (And yes, the matter was brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard (see here) - but in such a way that it stirred up controversy, rather than clarifying what the issues really are.)

Hope you can find time to look at this - it would benefit everyone to have a sane voice from an objective observer, able to clarify that the real trump on Misplaced Pages is the application of common sense. -- Zac Δ 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually get involved to the point of actually protecting articles outside my normal personal editing interests. I do enjoy, however, hosting philosophical conversations about such matters. I'm reluctant to offer an opinion on the specific case, because I don't know anything at all about the journals in question. Are they published by reputable universities? Who are the peers in the peer review process? Or are they more like self-published fan-zines, with "peer review" being done by people without actual scientific qualifications of any kind? Editorial judgment is important, including judging some sources to be not good for much more than documenting the opinions of some people with fringe views. I don't know which is the case here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed this briefly, I did have one idea that may be helpful in some small way. A compromise might be reached here without having to determine the big philosophical question of whether "Correlation" is a legitimate source. (It is my view that without additional evidence, I'm inclined to think no, but I should re-emphasize that I know nothing about this area, and am not particularly interested in learning!) There seems to be no argument about Eysenck being a valid source, and so why not look that up and write about that? Does the "Correlation" article add anything useful to it? Is the author of that article notable in any way?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor of Correlation commented in the thread, with this post:

I am the current editor of Correlation, the journal of research in astrology that has been referred to as a fringe journal because, it is alleged, it is a journal of pseudo-science as defined by Misplaced Pages. Correlation is a journal of research in astrology and publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest. The journal also publishes reports from researchers about ongoing projects. It publishes comments from readers on papers that have appeared within its pages and it has a Letters page for critical comment of any part of its published content and to encourage objective intellectual exchange. It has also published material of a philosophical nature in order to encourage scientific and sociological research, which includes statistical analysis, and new approaches in thinking to the ever-present challenge of designing good studies that are appropriate to the research question. The journal aims to inform its readers on research matters and to encourage its readers to express their opinions within the journal in order to promote balanced and informed thinking in any issue that relates to research in astrology. The peer review process seeks to ensure a high standard is maintained within the journal pages where these matters are concerned. That which is defined as pseudo is that which is false, counterfeit, pretended or spurious as in the case of scientific claims, for example. The journal, Correlation is, therefore, not a pseudoscientific journal.

Pat Harris, PhD, MSc., DFAstrolS., Editor, Correlation.

But I am more interested in looking at the philosophical principle too - which is the question of whether Misplaced Pages accomodates reference to notable opinions, that have been influential upon the subject matter, regardless of where they have been published? (So long as they are published)? For example, one passage of text has been criticised as being apologetic, for giving Carl Sagan's response to a scientific condemnation. Editors are happy to have the scientific condemnation covered in the article, but not the Sagan response which gives another view on why the basis for the condemnation, by itself, is not convincing. This is relevant because his comment is repeated in astrological texts and publications, although in the article we are pointing out that this does not show support for astrology, only Sagan's lack of support for the basis of the condemnation in principle. I would not have thought that it is treading through dangerous territory to explain the issues involved; and it is not necessary for anyone to know the subject matter well to understand the point in principle here. You can see what I mean here. This is what I am trying to establish; that editors slow down and get involved in the process of ensuring appropriate, objective reporting of relevant issues; not slash away indiscriminately on content that involved editors have been trying very hard to get right, in what concerns a complex and controversial subject.

We have a situation here where one editor caused a panic by placing a provocative suggestion on a noticeboard that the article was using fringe to question mainstream research. A small group of previously uninvolved editors then came the same night to remove 1000 words with 30 accompanying references, and immediately suggested they were acting with consensus because they came at the same time. This was done without any effort to make talk-page arguments or reasonable review. Four days later it is still the case that one or two of the more extreme editors are returning periodically to mass-delete content rather than engage in the process of reviewing it to determine if it is appropriate, and if not, what needs to be done to get it right. A little bit of support for the process of thoughtful and responsible editing would be much appreciated -- Zac Δ 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the edits, Zac, but I'm definitely not seeing the same thing as you. I does look like the article gives undue weight to the whole question of scientific support for astrology and has serious problems of bias because of its improper use of sources. For example, an 1985 paper from Nature (one of the world's most highly respected science journals) is discussed and it is claimed as outright fact that the study had "deep flaws" and various methodological problems, purely on the basis of a critique (a primary source) from Scientific Exploration, a (genuine, peer-reviewed) journal dedicated to researching the paranormal. That's just not acceptable. --FormerIP (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the editor's comments but I'm personally unsure what to think of them. This is a journal that no one seems to have heard of. It has no website. It is not published by a University. It is not clear who is on the editorial board. It sounds super-fringe to me, despite the thoughtful comments from the editor, and so I think some evidence needs to be adduced to establish the credibility and importance of the journal. What is the paid circulation, and who buys it? etc. I don't think it's unfair to ask these questions. Anyone can write what is essentialy a fanzine with pretentions.

I should add that there are, to my mind, two separate and equally important questions. Is it a reliable source, and is it a notable source? If it is neither, we shouldn't reference for anything. If it is not a reliable source, it could still be notable, if it has a lot of readership and influence. And even if the journal as a whole is something we need to be skeptical about, there could be some exceptions, for example if a major scientist writes for it, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP - to answer your point first while I have a minute to spare; we have given a commitment to looking at every passage that has had a concern raised against it - so that section will be re-evaluated to get the tone and balance right. The problem here is that there was no criticism or demonstrated concern at all, then suddenly - wham - whole sections ripped out without any discussion or willingness to explain. That can't be right, especially once a commitment to review and incoporate all valid criticisms had been given, and that process initiated. At the moment, that problem does seem to have abated though and editors are showing willingness to go through the material systematically, so I'm less concerned about that now.

With regard to the report "that the study had 'deep flaws' and various methodological problems, purely on the basis of a critique (a primary source) from Scientific Exploration, a (genuine, peer-reviewed) journal dedicated to researching the paranormal": firstly, the Journal Scientific Exploration has also been called an unacceptable source because it covers 'fringe subjects'. Are you saying that is not the case? You see, this is not about Correlation per se, but the fact that if a journal covers fringe subjects then it is automatically questioned as a reliable source, regardless of its reputation or relevance to the subject matter. The second point is that the flaws and criticsms were not made by astrologers but by scientists of high repute, who undertook independent assesments. One was Suitbert Ertel whose paper was published in Scientific Exploration; the other was Hans Eysenk, whose assesment was published in the Astrological Association Journal. The AA journal does not have the standards applied to it or academic reputation that Correlation does, but I would argue that the weight of the scientist's reputation makes it notable and reliable. This brings me back to the question I asked earlier - does WP accomodate reference to notable opinions, that have been influential upon the subject matter, regardless of where they have been published? (So long as they are published)?. It seems to me that Jimmy Wales has given his opinion on that where he says "there could be some exceptions, for example if a major scientist writes for it, etc". I would say that's the case here, and that the real problem is not the use of sources, but the fact that the content is not balanced properly and needs to adjust its tone and approach. Would you agree? (Thank you for your response Mr Wales, I'll come back and give a brief response to your questions shortly) -- Zac Δ 19:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Zac: here are some statements which could potentially be put into Misplaced Pages and sourced to the same issue of Sci Ex:

Scientists are divided as to whether evidence of mediumship provides a better fit with the hypothesis that ESP exists or the hypothesis that ghosts exist. (Sudduth)

It is probable that human beings are able to perceive things remotely. (Braude)

Trancendental meditation probably works because of the existence of a collective consciousness among human beings. (Orme-Johnson and Oates)

And I haven't even looked at the book reviews, but can't you understand the concern at making such liberal use of these types of journals (although Sci Ex seems to actually be better than the others) in an article about astrology? I'd also be concerned that some papers have been cited without anyone who has worked on the article having read them. The Eysenck paper, for example, is 25 years old and doesn't seem to be contained in any databases. But it is quoted in the Sci Ex article, so I'm guessing that's how it found its way into the WP article. But it is normal for notable studies to be critiqued. One of the dangers of using primary sources is that the source will not tell you whether its critique is valid or not. Ertel's title describes Carlson's work as "renowned", which suggest to me that we are looking not at mainstream science, but at a fringe attempt to dismantle mainstream science. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What we've got here is a situation where believers in fringe theories are distorting the meaning of the term "peer-reviewed journal" to cover publications which are written by and for true believers, but masquerading as scientific journals. I've most often seen this trick used by so-called "scientific creationists"; I'm sorry to see it spread to other fringe topics. Adopting the mask of a peer-reviewed journal does not make a fringe-theory publication into a reliable source. "Just because the cat had her kittens in the oven, doesn't make 'em biscuits." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I need some advice...

Hi Jimbo... <br\>Despite not being a newcomer, I keep getting bitten on the Simple English wiki, especially by Administrators of all people, which actually came as quite a shock. I am currently catching up on the policy, but is there any way of getting them to stop biting? They are just constantly being what I consider nasty, and not using polite ways of explaining wrongdoings. Can you please help me? Orashmatash (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "Despite being a newcomer..."? Because otherwise this doesn't make sense. Looie496 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant what I wrote. Orashmatash (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to look into it and to try to provide some soothing words for everyone. It will help if you can show me some diffs in which you perceived something as being "nasty" and "quite a shock".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)