This is an archive of past discussions with User:Woodroar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm duplicating a message I posted on the NS article's Talk page. I now see that you were advising Dukezhou about secondary research, and not necessarily planning to collaborate with them on future edits to the article. Hello Dukezhou and Woodroar. There is a 2006 collection of academic essays about Neal Stephenson and his fiction up through the Baroque Cycle, Tomorrow Through the Past: Neal Stephenson and the Project of Global Modernization, edited by Jonathan Lewis, an English professor at Troy University (Alabama, not Çanakkale Province). [On my original post] I linked to the collection's Google Books preview, which has a detailed ToC and part of the index, as well as a helpful Preface containing a biography of Stephenson and detailed descriptions of each essay. The essays are not visible in the GB preview, but if this looks like a useful source of notable/reliable secondary research sources, I can contact the editor about making it available to you. Bridgman (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Excuse me Woodroar, but i think it's a total mistake to undone the edit about the subject in question. The information bringed is totally real and verifibly, i don't know if it's posible to cite porn pages to show you how the category of hardcore pornography and the type of porn he has realized are accurate.
Also the other paragraph with new update about his life is accurate, and the cite for that video it is there. I don't know what can be better than a video with the person itself admitting and saying those things in front of camera to the public.
How is it possible that a video of the person himself is taken into account less than information from third-party media ?
I hope you could let this edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberBoB (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@CyberBoB: most content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party published sources. That means reputable news sites and magazines, books, journals, and so on. When it comes to content about living persons, especially claims that could be seen as negative or controversial, the bar for sourcing is intentionally set very high. Now we do allow some claims based on what people say about themselves, but mostly for basic, uncontroversial facts. In this case, we'd need high-quality sources to support any claims about the type of pornography someone makes, particularly if we're throwing around words like "violent". Likewise, a YouTube video from an unverified account is unlikely to meet our sourcing requirements. If reliable sources consider the video important enough to cover, then we can mention it in the article—but we'd cite them, not the YouTube video itself. Keep in mind that our "job" here at Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources say, not to highlight what we think is important, and not to add our own commentary or opinions. You can click those links I added to read more about our policies and guidelines, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your point about Matthew's surname. Your point about the Yearbook doesn't make any sense since Mizkif himself reacted to these photos and he claimed to be the individual in them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4mzILoBv6c&t=509s) This PDF shows the yearbook from Verona High School. In the yearbook, you will see pictures of a person who clearly is Mizkif, which he himself has stated to be the individual in the pictures. He also claims that he was a "class clown" which is why you see "Matt Misrendino" under the class clown section in the PDF. Also from Mizkif Enterprises it also clearly shows that Mizkif is Matthew Misrendino. If that wasn't enough proof, his close friend Erobb221 streamed with one of Matthew's close friend, where the friend accidentally used Matthew's real surname. The vid There are also various of other proof that shows that Mizkif's real name is Matthew Joseph Misrendino.
The name "Rinaudo" comes from an old meme in the 2017 era, where he called himself Rinaudo to jokingly act like he is siblings with Emily Rinaudo. There is proof that those two are not related at all and that it was a meme that started in the Ice Poseidon subreddit. Everything points to Misrendino being the real name. The other sources which called him anything other than that has clearly not done enough research about his real name. The yearbook is literal proof and probably more reliable than the sources you've looked from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exentily (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with this argument, I believe, is that this argument is essentially synthesis of research, and Wikipedia is not a research website but a collection of sourced facts. Since the overwhelming majority of sources record Mizkif's name as Matthew Rinaudo, including himself personally along with news articles reporting about the content creator Mizkif, that this is the commonly known name and should be the name used in reference to Mizkif on Wikipedia. BreckenK (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Exentily: at Wikipedia, we base our articles on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). And when it comes to claims about living persons, we must be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources" (WP:BLP). Sure, sometimes that means we get things wrong. But we're a tertiary source, which means that we summarize what reliable, secondary sources say.
There are probably dozens of reasons why we shouldn't use "Misrendino". It could be a middle name that he went by. It could be a mistake that he didn't mention in his video. It could be a birth name that he changed later on. We don't know. The yearbook is simply not a reliable secondary source because yearbooks don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We can't use the opencorporates.com source because it's a copy of a public document, which isn't appropriate for claims about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The video from his friend can't be used for claims about other persons (like Mizkif) per WP:BLPSELFPUB.
What we do have are several high-quality reliable sources that give Mizkif's name as Matthew Rinaudo. It doesn't matter if it's wrong or if it's based on a joke, because it's what those reliable sources use.
I've used the analogy before that editing articles about living persons is like playing a game on hardmode. You can get blocked or banned very easily if you're not familiar with our policies and guidelines. I'll leave some links on your Talk page. I suggest you read them before editing any more articles about living persons because I'd like to see you become a productive editor. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I'd like to apologize. I'm very new to this, so I shouldn't have edited the article without reading how it works. I understand now that Rinaudo is more commonly used with reliable sources and even Matthew refers himself as Rinaudo. So the obvious choice for the Wikipedia article is to use Rinaudo even though it's wrong. Exentily
Exentily: it's totally fine, really. I'll admit that this is a weird case. It's entirely possible that Rinaudo is a joke, but if he got The New York Times and ComicBook.com to go along with it, then that's kinda what we have to follow. And maybe sources will come along tomorrow that say "wait a minute, his real name is Misrendino!" and then we'll change it back. Definitely a weird one. Woodroar (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Exentily, if reliable sources cover the name controversy/discrepancy/change/etc., then yes—or more accurately, maybe. So say a reputable site publishes an in-depth article covering the joke, where it came from, that some places were duped (if that's what happened), then that might deserve a sentence or two in the article. But if it's a trivial mention in a really short news report, then maybe it's not important enough for us to summarize at all. Or let's say that multiple sources cover it in-depth, then we'd almost certainly write about it and maybe even add an entire section. Our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say and roughly in proportion to how much coverage they give each aspect of the subject. So we really need to look to them and gauge whether such a section would deserve a sentence or a paragraph...or nothing at all. But the sources really need to come first. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Exentily: that's exactly right. In fact, our "core content policies"—the policies that say what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia—are 3 different ways of saying the same thing: Verifiability (we need to base content on reliable sources), Neutral Point of View (we need to fairly and accurately summarize what reliable sources say, we can't twist them, we can't cherry-pick claims, we balance around sources, etc.), and No Original Research (don't write based on what you know). Woodroar (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Skydawnknight, we would need better sourcing than ICv2—and the game would likely have to meet our general notability requirements as well. Note that most of the games in that section are cited to reliable, independent sources, they have pre-existing articles, and are connected in some way to Dungeons & Dragons—or at least the source makes that connection. By contrast, ICv2 is an industry/retailer site with questionable reliability or independence, and in this case, it's covering a pre-publication Kickstarter launch. In short, that source is basically a rewritten press release. If you can find more reputable and independent sources and start an article about the game, then maybe we can add it back. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @TBirdNeil, thanks for your message! I can't say I did a whole lot at Motorcycle Action Group but the article is on my Watchlist now so I'll be keeping an eye on it. Also, I've removed much of your message here because it ran afoul of our policies regarding outing and claims about living persons—which apply everywhere on Wikipedia, even on Talk pages. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and please let me know if you have any questions! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
How dare you say I am being disruptive and suggesting I am edit warring.
I have not been "edit-warring" I have returned to one page and this has opened up a furore
from the other user that reverted my edit. That user has then moved to the admin page to tell tales.
" And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. ".
Fact: I am not doing anything of the sort to get my own way, have actually checked this "edit warring"? Also, why are you suggesting I am doing this to get my own way? I have looked at the
specific page and admited my mistake. Instantly the other user went to the page to reverse this
and then had another go at me for not reverting my edit. But regardless of that you
have saw fit to accuse me of edit warring and being disruptive and all I have done is try to make a point. A point I might add that has not been respected.Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who you are or where you come from. But I am simply trying to correct information for where people are from in the Liverpool city. Not one person has challenged me on this matter. Yet several people are singling me out. Advising I am being disruptive, I am canvassing, I am this I am that. STOP. I am trying to edit as people are free to do; I am not vandalising pages or adding incorrect information. I am correcting the pages. I am also asking for help within the confines of the Merseyside community. As people like yourself do not understand what I am editing and are trying to bully me off here. I won't have it. This is unjustified. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I am working on the page itself: give me some time, geez ;) It's one of the oldest still running browser games on the web and it's criminal that it doesn't have a wiki page. Baron Rea (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Baron Rea! You're certainly welcome to read our guide to writing your first article and start a draft. However, I don't believe the game meets our general notability requirements. We did have an article once and it was deleted because there was no coverage in reliable sources. When I look at places like Metacritic, I don't see any reviews from critics. I also don't see any other coverage at video game journalism sites. That being said, if you're aware of reliable sources covering the game and you do write a draft, I'll be happy to take a look at it for you! I'll also leave a welcome message on your Talk page with some basic information about editing. Let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi @Valjean! Yeah, I saw that and was initially going to !vote to un-topic-ban per ROPE. But I'm not an administrator and I've had (relatively mild) disputes with Deicas before (here then here), so I figured it's best to let neutral admins and experienced editors give their thoughts. Aaand it's probably moot because Deicas appears to be fashioning nooses at a few different Talk pages.... Woodroar (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI
Hello, Woodroar,
Any time you see any version of an article or draft for a Bikram Malati, it's a sockpuppet of, well, Bikram Malati. I think there are at least 6 or 7 versions of page titles with his name that are on extended protection because he keeps recreating biographies of himself. I've reported this account at SPI but since you have had interactions with him, I'd thought I'd tell you in case you come across his drafts in the future. Thank you! LizRead!Talk!21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Scarletpachyderm91! It's a source, but not the type of source that we're looking for. A lyrics database is functionally equivalent to the "White & Nerdy" lyrics themselves; musixmatch is just hosting the lyrics, not providing any analysis or commentary. What we would need is a reliable secondary source that specifically calls out D&D getting referenced in "White & Nerdy". That means a source like Rolling Stone or NME or Consequence. (You can read more about the difference between primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS.) Our "job" at Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about our subjects, not what we personally think is important. That includes avoiding our own analysis of primary sources. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! You can also get help at the Teahouse, a place for editors to ask questions about Wikipedia. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I spoke to you some time ago about adding a wikipage about Battlemaster, and about how sources work on wikipedia. I was wondering if a book published in 2006 counts, and/or if TVTropes does? edit: or if wikipedia itself counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron Rea (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Baron Rea! A book written by an expert and published by a reputable publisher might be considered reliable, but it depends on the context. Is the expert widely cited by other reliable sources, or do they simply claim that they're an expert? Does the publisher have a transparent editorial process and are they known for publishing trustworthy books, or is it front for self-publishing? The specific claims being cited also matter. You can get more general (but important) information at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and also get details about specific sources at WP:RSP and WP:VG/S.
As for TV Tropes and Wikipedia, both are user-generated sources, so they are not reliable.
This book was self published, but a quick google shows he's got several other books and teaches some courses at a university in Romania - I will admit I don't speak the language most of his qualifications are in. edit: also I figure there is little point to writing a draft and sending to the teahouse without decent sources first, and you seem like a cool person that knows what you talking aboutBaron Rea (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, self-publishing is usually an instant fail as far as experts go. Now there may be exceptions, of course, but you'd have to prove that this expert is widely cited by reputable media despite self-publishing. That's especially rare for academics, who are often pressured to submit to prestigious publishers/journals/etc. by their universities. But it's up to you, if you'd rather not deal with writing the draft, I totally understand! Woodroar (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I would love to write a draft, but getting everything deleted because of a lack of sources is...counter productive? It's not a video game, per se, so places like meta critic arn't really where the game exists at...and the word "Battlemaster" makes *any* information hard to find since every game since runescape has had something called "battlemaster".....not including the endless dnd stuff I am sorting through. :D Battlemaster is a piece of internet history as well, so the sources vary *wildly* in quality. Hmmmm..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron Rea (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. How does this sound? If you ever do find more sources, start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and mention the best three or four sources you've got. For the most part, those are the editors who would be commenting in any deletion discussion, and they should be able to gauge if it's worth going to the effort of creating the article. Even if they don't like your sources, they may know of better ones in older magazines. Just a thought! Woodroar (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a great place to start! And it means I don't have to keep bothering you till the end of time either, thanks! Baron Rea (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as I understand BLP policy, having Quinn's birth date on their article wouldn't count as a privacy violation because they revealed it on a public venue (i.e. Twitter) and, as far as I know, made no effort whatsoever to hide it after Gamergate broke out. BLPPRIVACY does allow for the inclusion of certain personal information if it's been published by "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public," which runs contrary to your rationale for leaving the birth date out. Philroc (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Philroc! I believe WP:BLPPRIVACY has changed somewhat since that discussion in 2019. I don't remember how new the sources linked to the subject section is, but the example of today is my 50th birthday was added recently. Personally, I think Oh uh I guess it's my birthday now. Weird. falls short of the criteria for inclusion. There's no age and it reads as comical, not an intentional "I'm broadcasting my specific date of birth to the Internet". It's clear that other editors agree with removing it. I will say that I'm not strongly opposed to including it, just leaning opposed. Of course, you're certainly welcome to build a consensus at the talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Based on the tweet's replies, though, Quinn's followers clearly understood that she was referring to her actual birthday. (As per your advice I'll most likely start a new discussion about this at the talk page in the near future.) Philroc (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of query string did you use for your Google search on CAhighways.org? I would like to know how to be able to perform this kind of search. I know a small handful of basic Boolean modifiers, but not any advanced query strings. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Huggums537! I searched for "cahighways.org" -site:cahighways.org, "Daniel P. Faigin" -site:cahighways.org, and "Daniel Faigin" -site:cahighways.org to give results for "cahighways.org", "Daniel P. Faigin", and "Daniel Faigin" that are not at https://www.cahighways.org/. The "All" tab on Google can be hit or miss. In this case, it showed mostly social media sites, forums, etc. so I switched to the "News" tab. From there, I read through all of the 9 results (1 of them duplicated across 2 searches) to see if they cite Faigin as an expert—and most don't:
The Press-Enterprise calls him an "enthusiast" and recommends cahighways.org for the primary material that Faigin has collected.
True Blue LA gives a standard credit for a primary source, an image.
Streetsblog links to cahighways.org in the comments, not the blog article.
Green Prophet cites cahighways.org but it probably isn't a reliable source.
I don't think any of the regulars at RSN would consider this a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:RS/WP:REPUTABLE. We're looking for hundreds (or even dozens) of other reliable sources citing cahighways.org for their claims, interviewing Faigin for his expert opinion, or even calling him an expert on California highway history. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you did there. Not really any advanced query strings, but just doing a correct set of Boolean operators. I have no formal training, and learn as I go, so for all I know that might just be enough to qualify as a query string, I dunno! Well, thank you for your help. However, I remain skeptical. "We're looking for hundreds" seems like a fantastically extraordinary claim to me since that would likely require an editor to peruse through hundreds upon hundreds of "throwbacks" just to get to the "required" hundreds of "keepers", and that just does not sound believable to me from a practical standpoint, especially when even you yourself limited the numbers of sources to be reviewed by switching from the "all" tab to the "news" tab, and it makes more sense to me other editors would be seeking to lessen their workload in this same manner, not increase it by searching for an overkill amount of sources if they have enough to prove reliability. "Dozens" sounds more believable though. At least that sounds like it might be within the realm of possibility! Anyway, thanks again for your help. :) Huggums537 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MK-Ultra (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Orphaned non-free image File:Propagandhi - Where Quality Is Job Number 1 cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Propagandhi - Where Quality Is Job Number 1 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
On 17 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nintendo Switch emulation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kotaku revised an article about Nintendo Switch emulation after Nintendo complained that the previous version encouraged piracy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nintendo Switch emulation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nintendo Switch emulation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
I agree the source wasn't up to standards. but the page for the game claims it was realised in 1975, so does the claim of when it came out need to be cited if the page of the game alrady has sources for that? If not, should the article for Moria be labeld as in need of rework? FopCrow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good question. Ironically, the page for that game got moved to Moria (1978 video game), so it probably was released in 1978, not 1975. However, there aren't any good sources backing up that claim, so what we need is a reliable, third-party source. We can use primary sources like interviews in a limited capacity, but release dates—especially when it comes to "first" this or that—should really be cited to someone neutral. I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, the talk page for our Video Games project at Wikipedia. Maybe someone there will know more. Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @AwesomePhilosopher, thanks for the message. What we would need is a reliable, third-party published source—for example, a noted historian published by a reputable press—to make the claim that "Elfred" is a common alternative name. Citing a coin would be your own original research, which we can't do on Wikipedia. After all, this could be an example of a rare coin or a mistake at the mint, and it doesn't necessarily follow that the spelling "Elfred" was widely adopted. (Here's a contemporary example: about 20 years ago, Chile minted about 1.5M Chilean pesos that read "CHIIE", but we can't cite that to show that "Chiie" is a valid alternative name for Chile.) If you happen to know of a better source, you're more than welcome to restore the claim and cite that—or if you're not familiar or comfortable with our citation styles, you can always start a discussion at Talk:Alfred the Great with the source info and someone can help. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Confundototalus, thanks for the message! My opinion is that we should not, especially as it would involve claims about a living person. The paper appears to have been published in the Journal of Contemporary Religion while the author was a PhD candidate. The source has been only cited once, in another paper by the same author. My understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is that we should avoid graduate dissertations/theses unless the paper is widely cited by others. Now I'm no expert on scholarship sources, so you're welcome to get a second opinion at WP:RSN. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion! I think the information here is academically relevant & presented in the correct context, but it's a contentious subject so I felt it best to ask someone with experience here. Confundototalus (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Films are not published. This film of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" was distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences from 2012 - 2019, then I cancelled the contract. I am doing all this work to satisfy your need to know the legitimate existence of the film - what work are you doing to verify the sources I have been providing you? I am on the defensive and I don't even know who you are. Ronald Gerard Mith (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ronald Gerard Mith! I'm sorry but I think there may be a miscommunication or perhaps a misconception about what Wikipedia is about. We don't need to know that your film exists because Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that exists. As an encyclopedia—a tertiary source—we're a summary of what "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" have covered. To demonstrate that your film has influenced culture at large, we need reliable sources to say that—in reputable journal articles, news magazines, and so on. Lectures by an academic (who is widely recognized as an expert on the subject) can sometimes count, but they must have been published somewhere. For example, on their university's website or a conference's official YouTube account. (For our purposes, "published" just means that it must have been "recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party". You can read more about that at WP:PUBLISHED and WP:PUBLISH.) In any case, we may need to verify that a source or sources meet our requirements at the reliable sources noticeboard, but we can cross that bridge if there are any sources to verify.
If I'm the one misunderstanding what you're looking for, please let me know and I'll see if I can help. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"Why This Film of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Must be on Wikipedia"
This is a very difficult thing for me to write, not only because I've had to justify the relevance of this film so many times, but also because there have been so many interlocutioners, I'm never sure I'm talking to someone who can make responsible decisions about a culturally relevant object. But here goes, for the last time with you.
Woodroar, I appreciate the tone of your reponse to me, and of course your general point that there must be a standard by which something goes on Wikipedia, as a kind of democratic encyclopedia. I also can appreciate the difficulty you might have in determining the significance of this film, especially since it is from an adaptation from a text, from a philosopher from the western tradition who is controversial for some. So let's talk about the existence of the film and what counts for putting it on Wikipedia. I could easily refer you here to my website, which really is a kind of resume, but that would be self serving, self promoting, and only one source. In addition, like a resume, one must believe what is there is true. So all I can do now is explain things, then you must go check.
That the film exists:
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra", by Nietzsche, Film, Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation, (1993), 97 minutes with English Subtitles, by Ronald Gerard Smith, distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019).
The film is 30 years old.
The adaptation from the text and producer of both the theater and film productions were made by an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the College of San Mateo, California (at the time). On his website, you will find a brochure that describes the scenes from the text that are in the film as well as an explanation of the productions. It was produced by the College of San Mateo and the Goethe Institute, San Francisco. The theater production occurred at the EXITheater, San Francisco, in Spring, Summer, 1993 and was filmed at the end of the theater run.
This film citation was on Wikipedia before and it was not taken down - perhaps policies have changed or challenges have been made about the film - I hope all this discussion clears alot of things up.
PROOF THAT THE FILM IS INFLUENTIAL FOR CULTURE AT LARGE/IS A CULTURALLY INFLUENTIAL OBJECT
(From Reliable Sources)
Nominated: Goethe Prize, Germany, 1998
Reviews: Prof. Kathleen Higgins, The Univ. Texas, Austin (1995)
Prof. David Hoy, The Univ. of California, Santa Cruz (1996)
Prof. Christa Davis Acampora, Emory Univ. (1995)
Prof. Brian Domino, Miami Univ. (1998)
and others ...
Cited in: Book: "Nietzsche, Postmodernity,and After" by Endre Kiss, et al, Traude Junghans Verlag Cuxhaven and Dartford, 2000.
Distribution of Film: Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019)
How many bought the DVD? How many saw it streamed from this company? There is really no idea from the royalty statements. I do know that when the distribution contract was being renewed, it was noticed mistakes were made in the streaming subtitles so the contract was cancelled.
Conferences: Discussed: International Institute of European Ideas, Haifa, Israel, Summer, 1998
North American Nietzsche Society, Georgia State Univ. Atlanta, October,
2021
Streamed: North American Nietzsche Society, Brown Univ., October, 2022
I understand the difficulty in determining the value of this object, both because it is original and not a Hollywood film. But know we have not had a miscommunication here but rather a clashing of worlds: the old idea of publishing and the new one; the old way of making films and the new one; the old idea of encyclopedias and the new one - and now making an encyclopedia that is democratic but reliable (note, on any search engine, the number of entries for films of "Zarathustra" - how does one know what is legit and not? - what a context we are living in today).
Yes, there is a trailer for this film on YouTube... But what does that mean? How many people are deceived by the Internet?
You have the burden of deciding what goes on Wikipedia and I am only one person writing to you. But go out and check the veracity of what is being said here about this film. Highlighting terms in blue regarding veracity does not change the fact that someone from you must take the responsibility of making a decision. You must determine reliable sources in your own manner. I am not a collection of interlocutioners, I am one person. But I do know what is true. Ronald Gerard Mith (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ronald—at least I'm assuming this is Ronald. It would help communication immensely if you logged into your account. It would also be best to remember that we're all volunteers here.
I'm still incredibly busy as I'm moving, but I went through your list:
Nominations for prizes are rarely worth mentioning unless they receive significant coverage in reliable, secondary/third-party sources. We mention nominations for, say, the Academy Awards because there is significant coverage, even of nominations. Many smaller awards don't even garner coverage for the winners! In any case, I looked for coverage and couldn't find any. (As for your statement about the film not being a Hollywood release, I understand and empathize. Unfortunately, our verifiability requirements mean that content on Wikipedia skews towards the mainstream. My own work and much of the music I listen to and writers I read will likely never appear on Wikipedia—but we're here to summarize subjects that receive significant coverage in media, and that can't include everything.)
I wasn't able to find reviews from any of those professors. Where were they published?
I found the Endre Kiss book on Google Books but couldn't search inside it. It appears that Endre Kiss edited the book and the publisher only existed for a short time (and published less than 20 books), so it probably wouldn't meet WP:REPUTABLE.
I found part of the Teaching Philosophy review, but it's very short so doesn't count much towards significant coverage of the film. In addition, it doesn't sound like the author actually recommends your film, which we should take into account.
Inclusion in "Films for Humanities & Sciences" isn't something we'd consider, unless it was covered by reliable, secondary sources.
Conference mentions/discussions would need to be recorded and published somewhere, and may also need coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I looked briefly for the conferences you mentioned and couldn't find anything.
Thank you for responding to my prod and for doing so in a time that is so busy for you, especially moving. I am sorry I did not log-in before, I just get rather quickly quite confused in going through this whole process of justification, for so many times. I'm not really sure how Wikipedia works - you say you are a volunteer - but your rigor, here, is commendable. It is just the standards that are difficult for me. I suppose rapid clarity on some of these issues could be achieved by going right to a website, "bookb4face.wordpress" but that is just one source and could seem self promoting.
Regarding the reviews of the film of "Zarathustra", the most significant is the one from Prof. Kathleen Higgins, from the Univ. of Texas at Austin, who is a Nietzsche scholar and Zarathustra expert who wrote the review to the film's creator and was recommended to do so by another known Nietzsche scholar, Dr. Uschi Nussbaumer-Benz (who co-edited the above book mentioned, with Endre Kiss, and who also nominated the film for the Goethe prize).
You mentioned the review of the film in Teaching Philosophy by Prof. Brian Domino, Miami Univ., that is was short. Was what you read, the 2 pages (80 and 81) from the Journal? It is true, he critiqued the sound quality of the cassette but otherwise was very positive about the overall piece. It is also true that I neglected to tell you that the sound and images were greatly improved before the film was being distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences. In fact, when the film was being considered for viewing before the North American Nietzsche Society, 2021 - 2022, Prof. Domino saw the film again and complimented the improved sound and imagery. And the deep impression the film made on him again after almost 20 years. Communications between him and the film's creator confirm this.
In terms of any record of the film being distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019), I believe one could check their online catalog of films during those years, contact Kathy Tan at the company (who was in charge of acquisitions), determine who still has access to the film through the company today, or inspect the royalty statements from the film's creator. If you know of this company, it has been around for a long time and they are scrupulous in what they distribute.
Regarding the value of its presentation at conferences - what greater validity to the cultural importance of this film can there be than it being made available to watch before a group of Nietzsche scholars? I refer here to the fact that it was made available for streaming at the North American Nietzsche Society meeting at Brown Univ. last October, 2022. This can be confirmed by inspecting the communication sent out to members during the conference, contacting Paul Kastafanas at Boston Univ. (who is presently the head of the organization) for confirmation, or contacting the organization itself, which is based at Stanford Univ. (North American Nietzsche Society or NANS). Also the keynote speaker at their conference in Atlanta in 2021 was Prof. Christa Davis Acampora of Emory Univ., who also was head of the Journal of Nietzsche Studies for years, and who also positively reviewed the film.
I hope this is all helpful for you. I do appreciate you digging into all this when you are so busy, the fact that you are volunteering, and that you are trying to develope standards for Wikipedia. For my part, I continue to justify the importance of this film (especially for students), the only one yet made of "Zarathustra", understanding the difficulty of doing so in today's context, with something so original.
So here's the thing: we don't do original research on Wikipedia. All claims need to be verifiable, which means cited to a reliable, secondary/third-party published source. The word "published" is important because someone needs to be able to check that source. A review written by Kathleen Higgins to you hasn't been published, at least for our purposes. If it were posted online, it would still be a primary source and useless to us. The same is true about communications between you and Brian Domino, or the film being available to scholars. Similarly, we're not able to contact the distributor. Even if we could, it's not up to us, as editors, to decide if Films for the Humanities and Sciences distributing your film is somehow important. But if The New Yorker published an article stating that your film streaming at the North American Nietzsche Society or getting distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences or being positively reviewed by professor so-and-so is a big deal, now that is something we could cite. Woodroar (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok. And the fact that the film is mentioned in the published Kiss book (that you said you couldn't open) and reviewed in Teaching Philosophy, a published journal, by Brian Domino (which you said is really short but in fact is 2 pages long)? Ronald Gerard Mith (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm assuming the Endre Kiss source is this one: https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=xTwQAQAAIAAJ. The option to search inside the book wasn't working for me. I wouldn't say it matters, though, because the volume was written and edited by Kiss and the publisher folded after about a year, publishing just over a dozen volumes. Our reliable sources policy requires that sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which means that we need to consider the lack of editorial process and peer review, the limited longevity and standing of the publisher, etc.
Teaching Philosophy, on the other hand, has been a legitimate journal for nearly 50 years—at least as far as I can tell. However, I'm not sure if their reviews are peer reviewed or simply submitted. In addition, the only parts that I've been able to read, pages 80 and 82, weren't very favorable; in fact, on page 82 it says "I feel compelled to discourage the purchase of this tape". I understand that, according to you, the reviewer later "complimented the improved sound and imagery"—but without that being published, there's not much for us to discuss.
If similar sources to Teaching Philosophy existed that were unequivocally positive and it was clear that these reviews went through the editorial structure or peer review, then I'd gladly argue for including a mention of your film. And that's not to say that only prestigious journals count here. Significant reviews or accolades in news media, literary magazines, film sites, those all count, as long as they have that "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To get an idea of what kind of sources we value, you can scroll through WP:RSP. Woodroar (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
So, in the end, our discussion of positive verification rests on the value of the review in the journal Teaching Philosophy, which is a peer reviewed, published journal, in existence since 1975.
You have looked at pages 80 and 82 of the review - what happened to reading page 81? This leads me to believe you have looked at a version of the journal from March 1998, from the Philosophy Documentation Center, which seems to show only the first and last pages of the articles/reviews (unless you are a subscriber, I suppose).
page 81: "Ronald Gerard Smith, the dramatist, did a remarkable job of remaining faithful to Nietzsche's text while simultaneously offering a provocative interpretation of it. Postmodern interpreters of Nietzsche, among others, have long held that Zarathustra lacks a narrative structure rigid enough to prevent a reordering of the text while retaining whatever meaning Zarathustra imparts. Smith has shown this to be true in convincing detail. While about a third of the text is not adapted and several chapters are rearranged and combined, the film unfolds as smoothly as Nietzsche's text. Apart from its role as an interpretation, the video would also help to provoke discussion about Nietzsche's text itself. Several colleagues were surprised to learn that their criticisms of the set as too minimalistic and Zarathustra's voice as lacking inflection have no basis in Nietzsche's text.
Smith also makes the influences of Nietzsche's own life on the text apparent. Smith cleverly replaced the narrator of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", "life", with a character that fuses an alternative side of Zarathustra with Nietzsche. Sporting a nineteenth century suit and bushy mustache, this alter-ego often addresses Zarathustra in a way befitting a father speaking to his son - which is precisely how Nietzsche frequently referred to Zarathustra. Several scenes that address relationships between men and women, such as "On chastity" and "On little Old and Young women", take on a new meaning in the video as they become dialogues between Nietzsche and a woman. This woman is undoubtly Lou Salomé, with whom Nietzsche had an intense relationship shortly before writing the first book of Zarathustra.
There are many other spendid flourishes throughout the production. Zarathustra's serpent, for example, is played by a woman in an undoing of Genesis of which Nietzsche would surely approve. When Zarathustra complains that his auditors have distorted his teachings, a portrait of Hitler is flashed on the backdrop.
"Smith has done a marvelous job of dramatizing and interpretting "Thus Spoke
page 82: Zarathustra".
[End of quoted material. See picture of page 81 to follow]
I believe the way out of this is to make a distinction between the drama adaptation and the film. Although many "secondary" sources positively reviewed the film, as you have discovered, (and the flaws Domino refers to were corrected by Films for the Humanities and Sciences in 2012 when they began to distribute it), the only published, reliable source (according to you), giving a positive review is the one from Teaching Philosophy, and it makes a clear distinction between the adaptation and the film.
So the Wikipedia citation could read: "Drama Adaptation by Ronald Gerard Smith (1993), from which a theater production then film (1994, 97 minutes, with English Subtitles, distriibuted by Films for the Humanities and Sciences - 2012-2019) were made, of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation."
In supporting the citation as an adaptation, it is making reference to a known artistic category (c.f. The Academy Awards, US Copyright office, etc.). In addition to the fact that the artistic object here is a drama adaptation, it is also true that the adaptation and film have always been treated separately, including the fact that they were copyrighted separately.
I don't have access to Teaching Philosophy, only what I've found online through a Google search, and the summary was that Domino couldn't recommend the film. I know that Teaching Philosophy is a journal, which I assume means that its articles are peer-reviewed, but I don't know if that's the case for its submitted reviews. So to sum up, it's a questionable source (because of the unclear editorial process for its reviews) that gives an overall negative review of the film; either are disqualifiers for recommending your film in an external links section on Wikipedia. As I said, if there were unequivocally positive reviews that published through the editorial process of a reliable source, that would satisfy me—but I haven't seen those sources yet. Woodroar (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Adaptation? You say nothing of this, why not? You base your view of the piece not being able to read the middle page of the review? Perhaps a link other than "external links" for an adaptation? Ronald Gerard Mith (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Ronald Gerard Mith: I think Woodroar has a good handle on Wikipedia policy and practice evaluating sources for reliability. If you want this film to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, you need to point to accessible sources that satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. Donald Albury18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Donald!
Ronald, my view is based on the statement "I feel compelled to discourage the purchase of this tape" from the final page. As editors, we need to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, which means that we neutrally (or fairly) summarize what reliable sources say, without adding our own interpretations, whether or not we agree. Reviews often include positives and negatives, but we need to respect their overall view. Otherwise, we'd all be cherry-picking praise from Siskel and Ebert's two-thumbs-down reviews.
As for being an adaptation, it really doesn't matter. It could be a parody or a commentary or a documentary—or something other than a film. Ultimately, we must look to independent reliable sources to see what they think about it. Woodroar (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't really follow the argument anymore. The justifications for rejecting the citation have been many (too many computers involved, not reliable sources, etc.). Lately it's been the reliability of Teaching Philosophy (you mention it has been a "legitimate journal for 50 years" but then you question if it is "peer reviewed or simply submitted").
Quoting now from the inside of the Journal cover (from the March 1998 issue): "Manuscripts submitted for publication should be typewritten, double-spaced throughout, with wide margins on standard size bond paper. Notes, also double-spaced, should appear on seperate sheets at the end of the manuscript. Send three copies for a blind review process, with the author's name appearing only on a attached letter giving title, affiliation, and complete address. Contributors should keep copies of all materials submitted. Teaching Philosophy subscribes to APA guidelines for manuscript handling."
So now maybe we can agree about the legitimacy of the source, its reliability.
But before, without having the evidence for the "blind review process", and without knowing page 81 (unbelievable), you selectively choose the review's negative response to the tape (which is a different word than film, CD, streaming, and, most importantly, ADAPTATION, etc.). The only word constant throughout the years since 1993, with all the changes in technology, is adaptation.
What about page 80, which you could read? "... wonderful adaptation of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra ...".
So what do you weight in what you could read of the review? My focus on the adaptation demonstrates the review is positive, even conceding the fact you couldn't read the whole review, and I am being generous here.
So the citation: "Drama Adaptation by Ronald Gerard Smith, (1993), of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation."
Of course "adaptation" matters - it is a known and accepted artistic category. This particular adaptation was positively reviewed in a reputable academic journal that you could read.
Where should the citation go in Wikipedia? A category that was earlier listed "Film/Visual" is now gone... Perhaps it should go under "Further Reading" or "Commentaries and Introductions" or under "See Also" - "Dramatic Adaptations".
In the end, it sort of feels like bad faith here, something almost pre-judged from the beginning. "That it exists, continues, and with truth with it, it will continue to exist." Ronald Gerard Mith (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Ronald, it's clear that you're not understanding what I've been writing here, or perhaps not reading the policies and guidelines that I've been linking to. I encourage you to take some time to read through the entire discussion again.
Yes, the default position is "no, it should not be included", because that is the default position on everything. Our requirement for inclusion is coverage in reliable, secondary sources.
I'm done discussing Teaching Philosophy, unless on page 80 it says something along the lines of "I wholeheartedly endorse the purchase of this tape and kindly ignore the opposing statement on the following page". Woodroar (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
