Hi, I'm unsure how you arrived at no consensus in that RFC. I thought consensus to remove was displayed. By my count votes to remove were 13 and votes to retain were 9. correct me if I'm wrong, as I am viewing from my phone. Additionally the remove votes had a stronger basis in policy quoting sections of WP:NPOV, whereas the votes to retain mostly quoted WP:RS which is a weak argument because the question wasn't about complete removal, only about placement in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk12:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't count the !votes, but I'll take your word for it that it was 13:9. That's a "no consensus" sort of ratio. In contentious topic areas (which is where I do most of my RfC closes to be fair) I tend to view consensus as 3:2 or more after weighting. The fact that the supporters quoted WP:UNDUE would be more relevant if WP:UNDUE more clearly supported their position, but it doesn't. The theory that key emails on the laptop are genuine isn't a WP:FRINGE position.—S MarshallT/C15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I just want to leave a note of thanks for all the work at JKR. You've done an immense amount of heavy lifting there and it's appreciated. As someone who breaks templates by looking at them sideway, it's not my favorite format either. Hope everything is okay. P.s - I will keep your admonition re strong verbs in mind. When I get tired my writing gets very sloppy & weak. Be well, Victoria (tk) 22:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting up with my incessant blithering on that talk page!
I love grammar, because I'm a sad and hopeless man, so I'm delighted to be able to tell you that a "strong verb" has a specific meaning. In English and certain other languages in the same family, a strong verb is one that changes its vowel sound according to its conjugation. Sink-sank-sunk. Feed-fed-fed. Sit-sat-seated. Drink-drank-drunk. Write-wrote-written. Break-broke-broken. Ring-rang-rung. Do-did-done. And so on. English also has "weak verbs" that don't change their vowel sound: call-called; mark-marked; scratch-scratched, and so on. The weak verbs are what other languages call "regular". Anyway.
I tend to say (rather too often, because I repeat myself a lot) that specific verbs are more engaging than generic ones, but in articles you've got to be circumspect with that or you end up sounding like a novel: "It was raining heavily" --> "Rain slashed down". "He was very tall" --> "He loomed."
I recently read a novel I liked quite a bit, set in 7th century Northumbria and found a sudden interest in Old English. Back in the day, in university, I was told I had to learn Old English so naturally I scarpered. Now that I'm old and grumpy I find it fascinating. I learned to read & write in German first (though we spoke Am. Eng at home) and my head could never seem to fit English grammar in with the German - yes, I know they're similar. But not really. I've ended up with a weird sentence style with misplaced verbs and the modifiers always dangle. I struggle with English. I shall go off and think about verbs.
The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length, and it's noted that the Telegraph's misrepresentations about this remain unretracted. This persuades some editors into the "Generally unreliable" column, but leaves others distinctly unimpressed.
Can you clarify how you came to the conclusion that the Telegraph has unashamedly embraced this hoax? I think you may have misread the discussion, as editors found that in the articles cited in support of this claim the Telegraph, far from embracing it, explicitly calls it a hoax. BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come to that conclusion. I assess that the community came to that conclusion, at a rough consensus threshold.—S MarshallT/C11:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify how you assessed the community came to that conclusion, at a "rough consensus" threshold? From my reading - given the telegraph has explicitly called the litter box hoax a hoax - those who opposed the claim have the stronger argument, and were more numerous. BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your word for it that those who opposed the claim were more numerous, because I didn't count them. I weighed them. I agree that in one article the Telegraph called the litter box thing a hoax, but in my assessment the community felt that that one article isn't a full counter to the community's concerns about misrepresenting trans issues. BilledMammal, you're very focused on that one facet of my close. Can I take it that you agree with the remainder?—S MarshallT/C11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able provide additional details why you gave !votes in favor of the claim that the Telegraph embraced the hoax greater weight than !votes that rejected the claim? Unfortunately, it's not currently clear, either from your close or from your comments here, what lead you to that conclusion, making it difficult to determine whether the close was reasonable.
The fourth paragraph appears to follow and rely on the third, so I currently disagree with that one as well. Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6 appear to be reasonable readings of consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph is independent of the third. Third paragraph is an attempt at a brief summary of one facet of the debate, fourth is an assessment of the debate as a whole.—S MarshallT/C11:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to expand on both paragraphs, in that case? If the fourth paragraph is independent of the third, then it's unclear how you determined that Wikipedians simply do not have this level of confidence in the Daily Telegraph - while your close is extensive and well written, it's a little vague on these key points. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can I ask you to clarify one more thing? In your expanded close, you say various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. What misrepresentations are you referring to here? As far as I can recall, and looking through the discussion appears to confirm this, the only alleged misrepresentation raised was whether a student actually identified as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, on that point alone this close is bad, though there are other concerns.
It is a no-consensus close. Where there's no consensus about a source's reliability, that source shouldn't be called generally reliable.—S MarshallT/C11:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was split on whether to add a disclaimer to The Telegraph saying it is generally unreliable on trans issues, or not. There was no consensus to add such a disclaimer, so adding a disclaimer that calls its reliability disputed seems to be a change to the status quo not supported by a "no consensus" result, I would have thought. But perhaps more importantly, you've added "gender-critical" in your closing wording, which is not part of the RFC, and significantly widens the scope beyond anything that was discussed. The subject of whether The Telegraph was reliable on "gender-critical" views was never discussed, and no evidence was presented either way. Void if removed (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read your expanded justification. You say:
Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.
The one conceded potential inaccuracy seems to be whether or not there was a literal child that identified as a cat, or a hypothetical one. The Telegraph initially reported there was a child identifying as a cat because that is what the students who made the recording and their parents said. You can corroborate this with other sources like this, which has direct quotes from the parents. But a later Telegraph story on this says:
The school now says that no children at Rye College identify as a cat or any other animal. However, the girls and their parents claimed it was their understanding that one did.
This article was already included by the opener of the RFC. It isn't a matter of needing to unearth a correction because this is just evolving coverage of a story originally sourced to the parents and students view, that later includes the school's denial. All those involved are sticking to their story. Any purported inaccuracy in the earlier coverage is all covered by WP:RSBREAKING. Void if removed (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I did not see many people arguing the Telegraph is “allowed to make mistakes”. I saw people arguing that they accurately reported on the news at the time - that the people who made the statements claimed it was because of that. Yes, those people are wrong, but they didn’t report it in their own voice, and contrary to SM’s analysis my reading of discussion after the refuting is that it was clearly considered normal news coverage - not even a mistake. I appreciate the closer trying, but I also do not think the close did anywhere near enough to discount votes of “I don’t like it” or “it’s biased and I don’t like it’s bias”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out on what basis you think the community came to a consensus that the Telegraph unashamedly embraced the litterboxes in schools hoax? I understand that this was asserted. The basis of this is a few articles in the Telegraph about a teacher reprimanding/punishing a pupil for anti-trans statements, including a disparaging reference to another student identifying as a cat. However, some editors disputed that the coverage could be considered part of this particularhoax. The proposer of the RfC acknowledged in the face of this that whether the coverage fits into the category of the litterbox hoax was besides the point, as opposed to whether the articles are evidence of false reporting.
So saying that it has unashamedly embraced the litterbox hoax is the consensus of the community seems unsupported to me from the discussion itself. If the contention is that the reports on the Rye College incident were false and therefore sufficient evidence to declare DT unreliable on these topics, can I ask how you weighed this contribution by Chess, which many editors seem to have subscribed to and viewed as the last word on this issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, if you think I've decided the Daily Telegraph is unreliable about trans issues or anything else, then you've completely misunderstood the close and I'd ask you to re-read it more carefully.—S MarshallT/C13:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you've said that reliability is disputed. As a factual matter, this is undoubtedly true, but I thought the point of a wikipedia discussion was not simply to count votes but to weigh arguments. If the argument for general unreliability (which you have found sufficient to overturn the status quo consensus of general reliability) rests on "Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax", then I ask you to answer my previous comment.
If not, I ask you which of the arguments for general unreliability you are according weight equal with the arguments for general reliability, sufficient to overturn the prior consensus that one of the UK's papers of record is generally reliable? Samuelshraga (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right: the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did. Weighing arguments doesn't always lead to consensus. Sometimes, as here, we get to a no-consensus outcome. And you're getting to a very arguable point indeed: what do we do where there's no consensus? Wikipedia has two possible outcomes.
By one set of rules, for example at AfD, "no consensus" means "no change". This places the burden on those wanting change to achieve positive consensus for it.
By another set of rules, for example in content decisions, "no consensus" means "remove the disputed content". This places the burden the other way around: those who want the status quo need to achieve positive consensus for it.
I've assessed that this decision is in the second camp. In other words, I think it's more akin to a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than to a deletion decision governed by AFD procedures. You could very well argue otherwise, and if you do, then I suggest you raise it on the Administrator's Noticeboard. The community might think you're right and I'm wrong.—S MarshallT/C13:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What practical effect on editing do you think this “no consensus” close should have? If somebody attempts to use The Telegraph as a source on a trans-related matter, and another editor objects, how does the outcome of this RfC inform the next steps, and how would those steps differ from the previous status quo? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, the Daily Telegraph was "generally reliable" on trans issues so absent a compelling reason otherwise, I would have expected that its claims and conclusions could have been repeated in Wiki-voice. Now that the community has more doubts about its reliability in this area, I would expect more circumspection about its use, which to me would suggest an increased tendency to use reported speech and in-text attribution.—S MarshallT/C17:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough
I've been asked to explain, and I've explained. I've been asked to expand, and I've expanded. Now I'm done. Those who're still unhappy should proceed to close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard.—S MarshallT/C21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have substantially misread the discussion.
First, you say various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. This appears to be a misunderstanding of the discussion; as far as I can tell, and you haven't provided specifics to the contrary, only one misrepresentation was alleged, that the school falsely claimed that a student identified as a cat.
Second, you appear to believe this misrepresentation was proven on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report. This is also incorrect; scholarly sources were not provided in relation to this claim, and the Ofsted report was only cited by editors who disputed the allegation, pointing out that it didn't take a position on whether a student actually identified as a cat.
Third, you appear to interpret this representation as meaning that they embraced the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. I don't see a consensus that they embraced the claim that a student identified as a cat, with editors disputing that on a number of grounds, but even if you do, embracing the claim that otherkin exist is different to embracing the litter boxes in schools hoax, and editors who disputed the allegation pointed out that none of the sources that were provided by editors supporting the claim actually included such a statement, and one did the opposite - saying that such claims were hoaxes.
Fourth, you say towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes. While a few editors on both the "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" side said that reliable sources are allowed to make occasional mistakes, it doesn't appear that this statement was especially common among the "generally reliable" camp, and to interpret this statement - which is aligned with policy - as meaning that those editors are recognizing that this specific example is a mistake is to read something into these !votes that is not there.
I do think very highly of your closes, and usually think they are reasonable readings of consensus even when I disagree with them, but in this case I wonder if your personal opinions have perhaps sub-consciously influenced your decision? Last year, in a discussion on the reliability of the Telegraph on a different sub-topic you argued that it employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, even if it is reliable on that subtopic, and these themes do appear to be present in your summary of this discussion.
@BilledMammal: just take it to AN at this point, since S_Marshall has stated that is their preference too. Given the woefully inaccurate reading of the specific articles in question and no consideration of the "turn of the tide" after Chess and others refuted, as well as no comment on the significant minority (if not majority) of "non-reliable" !votes being based on bias/"I don't like it", I can't imagine the close will stand.. but I think given S_Marshall has asked that it be taken to AN and refused to reconsider further, it would be disrespectful to them to continue to discuss here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, I would recommend a statement at the top of the discussion that the closure is being discussed on AN with a link to the section - that way people only looking at the RSN (or who only have RSN on their watch list) will see that the close is being discussed/reviewed. I agree that pinging or otherwise notifying everyone involved is likely not necessary. If I wake up tomorrow and don't see a note at the RSN, I'll go ahead and add one for you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar for you
The Closer's Barnstar
A barnstar for your contentious closure of The Telegraph RfC. Regardless of the closure decision (GR/NC/GU), the closure was always going to be controversial and contested. It may even require and "panel of three" to close it again, but the no-consensus decision on transgender topics appears accurate to me. There simply wasn't enough to claim it remains generally reliable on these topics, or that it is deemed generally unreliable. CNC (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are appreciated
I have not yet read your close of the Telegraph RFC, nor have I read the entire discussion itself, so I can't say whether or not I agree with the close or would have closed it that way myself. But I did see your comment at the administrative action review noticeboard about feeling disrespected, and I just wanted to let you know that at least one admin very much appreciates the work you do in closing lengthy and contentious discussions. Such work is often a thankless task, so thank you for doing it. 28bytes (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I find myself echoing 28bytes. I don't really understand why the Wikipedia Way involves (1) identifying people who are doing the hard work no one else wants to do and (2) kicking them repeatedly in the groin until they stop helping. But that seems to be the way it is, and I want to at least - whatever minor comfort it brings - say thanks for repeatedly trying to help out by doing possibly the most thankless job we have. I have never seen you close a discussion in a way that isn't thoughtful and even-handed. I'd rather see you close a discussion than any replacement-level admin. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's because Wikipedians feel that getting to the right outcome is more important than sparing people's feelings, so any and every close can be challenged in the most robust terms. And that's actually a good thing. Nobody should be able to win a content dispute by being offended, only by being right; and we as a community can only get to being right through discussion; so we have to allow wide latitude for people to say things, including things that are uncomfortable to hear or that we disagree with. Sometimes the closer gets a kicking. Goes with the territory.—S MarshallT/C15:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have a far better attitude than I do. Also, I'm more thinking about the "overturn because not an admin" approach. Along with the "agree on the result of the close, but 500 kb of text at AN to decide if the wording was imprecise" approach. That you're willing to take the kicking is admirable, but it is probably also the reason that so many closures languish for so long. I, for one, do not have the intestinal fortitude to put up with the crap that comes along with trying to close an RFC. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. In discussions about NAC's I've previously cited you as one of our best closers, and the fact that I believe you've made a mistake here isn't going to change that; I still greatly respect you as an editor and a closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this talk page to thank you for even attempting to close the RFC. It must have been a herculean effort to read through and it doesn't go unappreciated. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fundraising
Hi S Marshall (and User:BilledMammal!), some editors feel that since the 2022 RfC on WMF Fundraising's paltering there may have been a certain amount of backsliding in the WMF's banner and email texts, currently being discussed here:
Glad to see you back, and thanks; that one was bugging me from the outset for the same reason you indicated. I'm not sure what the path forward is going to be now, considering that two of the three main authors of most of the content are no longer editing :( Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you felt there was no consensus in this move review - particularly when reviewing the !votes through the lens of policy - and why you felt it was appropriate to deviate from standard practice when closing as "no consensus" and instead relist?
(As a general note, the decision to relist while not moving it back is generating a lot of confusion - and historically such back-to-front RM’s have been difficult to close) BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen". This may result in acceptable inconsistencies; the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey.
As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:
If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.
If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.
At issue here is the question of whether the primary topic of ABC News is the US media site, and that's a matter of editorial judgment. Because it is a matter of editorial judgment, I have no policy basis on which to give greater weight to one side or the other.
I decided to use my closer's discretion to relist after taking into account all the people in the MR who expressed a wish to relist it.—S MarshallT/C22:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I’m asking how you assessed the close review, not the move request itself - how you weighted the arguments, particularly those that relitigated the RM rather than assessing the accuracy of the close. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By MR, I meant Move Review, not Move Request. It's true that there was some relitigation and I understood that to mean that editors wanted the opportunity to raise points that would be appropriate at RM.—S MarshallT/C00:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that I gave additional weight to those !votes, and you're rightly going to ask why. I might need to write an essay about this.
As you likely know, MRV is a copy/paste of DRV.
Well, the rule at DRV that "no consensus" doesn't have to mean "endorse by default" but can instead mean a relist, has a long history. Specifically it goes back to March 2009, when I personally—callow newbie that I was at the time!—argued for that rule to be put in. The community supported me in this, and referred me to a comment by User:Xoloz, who was the original main closer at DRV, and is the principal architect of the review systems we now use. In March 2007, Xoloz wrote this:
One point of order before I begin: I've seen some newbies wonder "What happens if DRV ends in a no consensus"? Lack of consensus is impossible at DRV. An absolute tie is a consensus to relist. Why?
DRV is a forum for cloture, as I've said elsewhere before. Its role as a forum of appeal is primarily to determine whether a matter has been firmly decided, or should be referred to another forum for further discussion. Process is its primary concern, mainly because process in often overlooked in other XfD fora, and especially by speedy deletions. Since DRV is the place of last practical appeal, a process-weighted argument should ideally be favored: denial of process suggests that all points in a discussion have not been heard. If there is much more to said, cloture is inappropriate. Reviewers should ask themselves, "Was debate thorough?", "Were all relevant questions of fact and policy addressed?", and, lastly, "Was justice served?"
The last of these questions is fairly broad, obviously. As the final step in deletion process before a matter is pushed aside, DRV is specially positioned to consider fundamental fairness. This means that, while process is often the first place reviewers look for mistakes, other matters are relevant. Is new information available, relevant to the topic, that was unknown or unconsidered in the XfD? Has a new party come forward to present a perspective or argument unmentioned in the XfD? Is there some mitigating factor, beyond the strict letter of policy, that demands to be addressed in new debate?
Wikipedia trusts its admins, and its XfD fora. In general, they get things right -- or at least, we presume they do. That said, because DRV is just a forum for cloture, "consensus" has its weakest meaning anywhere in Wikipedia -- and that's a good thing. In order for a deletion to be endorsed, a majority must support it. Any other outcome results in referral back to an XfD, except in very limited cases. If a debate ends in a tie, we relist; a "keep closure" may be brought for DRV to review, but -- absent a very strong consensus of 80% -- any overturn simply sends the matter back to XfD. The (positive) biases of DRV are in favor of more discussion (call it, "if in doubt, relist") as well as the traditional Wikipedia content retention bias ("If in doubt, don't delete.")
I can feel the force of that argument, and at DRV and MRV, I'm heavily influenced by it. I'm always looking for cloture. At DRV and MRV, if I find that there's evidence that a substantial proportion of the community feels we haven't finished talking about a thing, then I think a relist is the right outcome.—S MarshallT/C07:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting text
On a separate note, RMCD bot is a bit confused about the RM. It seems like RMCD bot is expecting the relist text to be following the original proposal. I was wonder if you would be willing to adjust it or if I can have your permission to fix it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can do whatever's necessary to make the bot work! In future you're always welcome to make technical adjustments like that.—S MarshallT/C07:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your various contributions to Wikipedia
Since there are 67 days left until the US presidential election, could you please close the RfC related to it, if possible, at the link below? Or let me know if there is anything I can add. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
Thank you for closing Talk:List_of_genocides#RFC_-_Inclusion_of_Gaza_genocide. Not that it makes a difference but you wrote ' I discarded the frankly bizarre contention that "Consensus isn't the inclusion criteria for this list". ' presumable based on my comment 'Consensus isn't the inclusion criteria for this list'. I just wanted to clarify that i meant scholarly consensus that an event is a genocide isn't an inclusion criteria for list of genocides not that consensus of wiki editors doesn't matter. Sorry for the confusion—blindlynx15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to make the same clarification, as I had made a comment on the consensus of scholars as inclusion criteria, but I was evidently too slow. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we automatically "follow the scholarly sources", as you claimed?
Contrary to what you said at Talk:List of genocides, there is no reason that we cannot apply the same level of editorial scrutiny to scholarly sources that we do to other sources. For example, we have a long-standing precedent of not using academic journals in subjects like chiropractic as sources for factual claims, despite the fact that many of those journals are listed on PubMed. By the same rationale, it is completely reasonable to disregard sources (such as many of those listed at Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate), due to their obvious prioritization of an ideological agenda over factual accuracy. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct to say that we can apply editorial scrutiny to scholars. The vaccines and autism hoax was promulgated by a scientist. There are serious scientists with all kinds of insane views. Unfortunately, having a PhD doesn't mean you aren't a lunatic charlatan. Most really unhinged conspiracy theories have at least a few scholars on their side; there are academically qualified climate change denialists, for example.
We apply editorial scrutiny to scholars on the reliable sources noticeboard. Where the community reaches a consensus that a certain scientist is a nutcase or a certain journal publishes lies, we would not continue to use them.
But the comment I jettisoned didn't point to a RSN consensus and it didn't quite say that. It was about "ideologically captured fields", which is a red flag for a US alt-right perspective.—S MarshallT/C09:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also deny that newspapers like the Economist are more reliable than scholars on anything political. Scholars don't have owners who impose political stances on them from above.—S MarshallT/C10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking every source listed in the template above to RSN would be absurdly time consuming, especially considering many of them aren't used anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is very easy to tell that many of these sources will just publish anything that fits with their ideology, such as one source that believes that not allowing trans women to compete in women's sports is a form of genocide. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your close. I don't disagree with your close. I just came here to say you may have misinterpreted the "Consensus isn't the inclusion criteria for this list" comment by blindlynx. I think they were referring consensus among scholars not among wikipedians. In other words, they were pointing to the fact that it had been agreed upon earlier this year that the WP:LISTCRITERIA for an event to be included is not that there is scholarly consensus that it constitutes genocide but rather the event be "recognised in significant scholarship as genocide", which is a threshold lower than consensus.VR(Please ping on reply)02:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am astounded at how Wikipedians can be excepted to be taken seriously as a source when we cannot even decide on standards and stick to them. Changing standards just because a new case is controversial is absurd. Are we going to do this for the next one? What is a significant portion even defined as? Can we even quantify that?
We need to be having further discussion and engage with cautio. I think, with all due respect, S Marshall took the remarks about academics and Scholars personally and that blinded his judgment to a rushed decision out of spite and anger.
At the very least, he should make it more clear what exactly happened and clarify his rationale further on why he ended the discussion. As of now, he looks petty and hypocritical (see his dodging on why Ukraine is not on here or even up for discussion) BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. :) I assure you that I'm too old to take Wikipedian discussions personally, and neither spite nor anger affect my closes.—S MarshallT/C07:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing the splitting proposal. The following doesn't matter much, but Ivanvector's demo is not fully sortable; his table was split into three, each of which is only individually sortable, while one often wants to sort everything. However, merging and sorting everything is possible, as seen in my demo. This is really small, but hopefully you can amend the close statement to prevent anyone from being confused and asking questions. Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date (but Bach wrote it for the 20th Sunday, not the Tuesday after the 21st Sunday after Trinity). I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey, I want to say that I'm sorry for how I treated you and your grievances a couple of months ago when I botched my closure of the review of your closure on the reliability of The Telegraph. At the time, I thought you were being unreasonably bellicose and responded harshly; now that I have a couple of closures of my own under review, I better understand how stressful and even hurtful the process can be, and I regret that I wasn't more patient with you. —Compassionate727(T·C)18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
