User:JeremyMcCracken/AGF challenge
The original questions are here. My answers are below.
A newer edit added an additional question to many of the scenarios, which was how much time editors should spend on these concerns. My answer is universal- as much as it takes. Wikipedia has no time limit.
My wife is not a coauthor
[edit]People can't bully the truth into non-existence. Wikipedia should reflect what the reliable sources say. I would expect a court of law to side with Wikipedia should legal action be taken. (Of course, all of this is assuming that the author is notable; if they do not pass WP:N, PROD or AfD the article.)
My town's library
[edit]Regardless of anything else, this article badly needs the language fixed for WP:NPOV. I'd start by searching a quoted phrase or sentence to make sure it wasn't a copyvio. If it wasn't, but I absolutely couldn't find any sources through internet searching, I'd tag it with {{unreferenced}}, {{originalresearch}}, and {{notability}}, as well as fixing the language, and watchlist it. I'd also notify the creator. If a couple of weeks passed and nothing changed, I'd PROD/AfD it. It doesn't belong if there are no sources; however, I would not PROD it immediately, because someone else may be able to find sources that I did not.
I am the best
[edit]This situation also comes down to reliable sources. There are a number of reliable sources (including the university press release) stating that the subject is not a professor, does not have advanced degrees, and that his books are poorly received. Primary sources can be very useful, but if contrary to many reliable secondary sources, should be excluded. I would structure the article as follows:
- Intro, with (cited) information about birth, high school, and any early football involvement prior to the cheating scandal.
- College section, stating that Johnson has a bachelors degree, and a sentence about the expulsion.
- Section about the football cheating controversy
- Orchids section, stating:
- He is an author of books about orchids
- Reviews are uniformly poor
- He claims in these books to be a prof of Botany, but the college in question specifically denies that fact (cite press release)
Simply, the article doesn't make him look good, but that would be impossible considering his history. The article should be a dry rundown of facts, and the facts are simply unfavorable to him. Wikipedia should not bend to a lawsuit threat, as they would have the legal upper edge, as the sources are reliable.
Arrow of Time
[edit]This is actually a decent concept to mention, since big bang and YEC would have different definitions of the beginning of time. However, this does not have anything to do with Arrow of time. I'd recommend there be an RFC, to get outside opinions from people who don't regularly contribute to these articles. If the involved editors would agree to include/exclude based upon these, great. If not, I'd recommend mediation, first at WP:MEDCAB, then further up the DR chain.
In this specific instance, there is a wrench in the gears, which is the legal threat. I'd strongly warn the user to stop the threats and engage in DR. If they refused, I'd support a block of the user, for somewhere in the area of 48 hours. After that, if they'll sit down to DR, great. If they continue their previous course, a longer block (a month or two) would be necessary. If that doesn't do it, it's time for an indef block. They're obviously not willing to cooperate or compromise.
Ghost in the machine
[edit]WP:FRINGE addresses the inclusion of all viewpoints. Per WP:UNDUE, the article should roughly reflect the amount of reliable (not self-published) sources of the validity. Alternate explanation are indeed WP:SYN and WP:OR if they're not cited. We can't say that they're exempt because they're the obvious logical conclusion- the same argument could be made for inclusion of pseudoscience/fringe theory subjects into mainstream science articles. In the name of neutrality, we can't define an obvious logical conclusion, just what the sources say.
This doesn't include bare facts and classifications. If, for example, multiple studies by proponents have similar findings in terms of frequency, causes, etc., or multiple proponent sources use a classification scheme, it should be included. This is per WP:NNC.
Take me to your...
[edit]I don't see the concern with a sentence such as "Author David Icke, who has claimed many world leaders to be extraterrestrials, has continuously claimed (article subject name) to also be one. (in HTML comment) see the David Icke article for sources." It comes down to notability- if Mr. Icke and his theories are notable enough to make it on Wikipedia, then the statement is okay. There may be concerns about an article becoming filled with such statements, but these can be combined, such as "Numerous people have claimed (article subject) to be an extraterrestrial." followed by footnotes for each instance, saying "see (article)".
Related to a saint
[edit]Notability is not inherited, and these statements simply aren't cited. The editor should be advised that his aunt's claim does not meet WP:RS, and the information can't be included unless he can produce a RS. If the editor continues without producing any sources, a block would be in order.
I make my own rules
[edit]Bluntly, no. Policies and guidelines require broad consensus. Essays and people's userpage policies should never be used as a reason for reverts or editing a certain way. I have seen people point to a section of their user page in edit summaries for reverts ("reverted per..."), and when questioned, claimed that it was based upon other policies. This isn't acceptable. Link to the original policies that had other editors' input.
The questions for this section can be found here. These also had a time element consideration added; my response is the same as above.
Taking a Leak
[edit]This situation falls clearly into WP:UNDUE. The content of the article should state the facts of the theory (emphasizing that it is a theory or hypothesis), and should also include a rebuttal section. The makeup of the article should be proportional to the opinions out there- if 90% of reviews say it's crap, then 90% of the article should tell us why it's crap.
It is not free
[edit]In some of my own editing, I've seen musical group promo pictures used in members' articles to show who that person is, or album covers in the band article to show the lineup of the group. In this case, however, we're not actually supposed to glean any information from the picture. In this case, "its omission would be detrimental to ... understanding" would not hold true. The image should not be included.
Shockingly
[edit]I'l start by saying that I believe this to be a bit of a loaded question. It comes down to exactly what was said. "Shockingly incorrect" is rude, but not worthy of an incivility warning. However, "(editor) has no concept of reality", "(editor) is editing on topics (s)he knows nothing about", "(editor) is trolling" (or is a troll), "(editor) is POV pushing", etc. do indeed qualify as uncivil, and I'd warn the user (or support blocking if they had a history).
The Naked Truth
[edit]Wikipedia is all inclusive (within WP:N, of course). Wikipedia is not censored, and the fact that someone is offended by something does not warrant its exclusion. An article on the groups would be warranted if the group passed notability, and a mention of the ideology and/or groups would be okay, but not the exclusion of otherwise acceptable material.
How long is yours?
[edit]What is with these question titles?!
Seriously, this one is also simple. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not perceived truth. If there were sources on both sides, the article should state that sources differ. Without reliable sources on one side, it is the sourced statement that should stay.
Their discussions on WR aren't a concern here. I have no problems with watchdog agencies, and while many arguments on WR are invalid, I don't think it's harmful for the site to exist, or for people to post there. Smart people would see that this editor was just whining.
The US is collaborating with space aliens
[edit]If 80-90 percent of the Muslim population ascribes to this belief, it is notable. Mainstream sources will always have a cultural bias, but that doesn't make them unreliable. The article should state the following:
- What the theory says
- Information about the film
- Arguments that the film is not genuine
A sentence (or subsection with {{main}}) would be fine in the UFO and United States articles, IMO. If the article isn't a coatrack, there's nothing wrong with a mention.
I've never liked the classifications of "fringe" and "pseudoscience". It's a theory, and it either meets WP:N or it doesn't. Plain and simple. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV don't change or apply any differently.
No original research!
[edit]I don't believe that math violates WP:SYN, so the table idea would be fine. Personally, it seems a little complex; I'd put "sources differ, stating that between 36% and 65% are black", with a row of footnotes to the four sources.
If the administrator is indeed an admin, an RfC needs to be opened against them. They're clearly abusing their admin powers, and if the RfC doesn't chill them out, ArbCom might me needed. Administrators need to be neutral and accountable- if they have a conflict of interest, they should ask uninvolved asmins to handle the situation.
Sex and evolution
[edit]That explains the questions.
I'd check the users listed at the appropriate wikiproject, and if any have high-level Russian and English language userboxes, I drop them a talk page post and ask for them to interpret. If that wasn't doable, I'd use g-translate and babelfish to check them myself. If they did appear to check out, I'd clean up the article, or tag it with {{cleanup}}.
JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)