User talk:Michael D. Turnbull/Archives/2023

Question from KamleshArora on Help:User contributions (05:57, 5 January 2023)

Hi,

I have published a page on Wikipedia and it's still under review. Please provide your guidance so that the page can be approved.

Regards Kamlesh --KamleshArora (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@KamleshArora Is this about Draft:Junglee Games? That was declined on 21 December and again on 24 December. I am not a reviewer of new articles but I know what reviewers are looking for. That is evidence that the company is notable in the specific meaning of that word used by Wikipedia. Evidence is needed in the form of citations which are all three of: from reliable sources, independent of the company and with significant coverage, not just a mention. That rules out anything mostly based on an interview (current refs #1, #2) or a press release (#5): I didn't check the other refs. Your draft says "recognized as one of India's great mid-size workplaces 2022 by Great Place to Work". That sounds very promising, since I assume that Great Place to Work is some sort of organisation independent of Junglee games. However, you don't cite your source for that statement, so readers can't verify it, a core principle here on Wikipedia. You need much more on what third-parties are saying about Junglee Games (for good or bad) and much less about what they are saying about themselves. The world is full of people and companies going about routine business. Wikipedia only wants articles on those clearly making an impact that others are writing about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Question from Vipul.sushiljain (17:51, 6 January 2023)

Hi I have started writing blogs, on Jainism, All the knowledge which I have to the best I am articulating it and writing it so people know and read about it. This is by blog URL - https://jainidologythirth.blogspot.com Kindly visit it, and help me in adding a backlink of my blog to wikipedia so people visit and read. Thank you. --Vipul.sushiljain (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vipul.sushiljain No! Wikipedia must not be used for promotion of any sort and spam links to external websites will be deleted on sight, as one you added already has been. In addition, blogs are not considered reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) and have very limited use within Wikipedia. Please restrict your contributions to material that will improve the encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not using wikipedia, for promotion, the content which I have written is logical and valid, which will help people to know more on thirthankar god. Vipul.sushiljain (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vipul.sushiljain Adding links to your blogs is promotion, irrespective of how accurate the material is. If you have published in a peer-reviewed journal then you could cite the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Question from Void if removed (11:14, 5 February 2023)

Hi, you've been assigned as my experienced mentor and I have a question about sources, verifiability and original research.

I've found myself mostly trying to engage constructively in a highly contentious topic area so I'm trying to approach edits with caution and build consensus, and work towards a neutral POV as much as possible.

When it comes to preferring secondary sources over primary ones, what should we do when there is clear disagreement? A primary source says x, a supposedly reliable source says y, yet anyone can read the primary source and verify that it is indeed x - should we still defer to the secondary source? That is, does a reliable secondary source override a primary one, or does verifiable disagreement put the reliability of the secondary source in question?

Thank you for your time! --Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed That's a tough question! I mainly edit in areas of science, so there tend to be multiple sources for most facts and a decent primary source will usually have been peer-reviewed, which gives it extra weight. I gather that your "highly contentious" topic area is for example the LGB Alliance. For these sorts of topics, much of the heat is generated because people express their strong opinions surrounding a limited number of objective facts and get into tangles over definitions. The role of a Wikipedia editor, I think, is to disregard all that and recast the information in a strictly WP:NPOV way for our readers. So it is quite reasonable that an article here should point out that primary source x and secondary source y differ and that yet another source z exists. Maybe we shouldn't comment at all until the dust settles: how will tertiary sources in 10 years' time view the issue?

I could perhaps give a better answer for a specific case but meanwhile my advice is that you WP:AGF with those who disagree with you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to be vague because I don't want to bother you with specifics, especially as it is so contentious and I'm well aware I'm in the minority here, but perhaps vagueness isn't terribly helpful!

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole (though I very much advise you don't), I think this discussion about "founders" is probably the area where I first really ran off the rails trying to pick apart how to reconcile primary and secondary sources. I'm in the minority in caring about it so I don't expect to make any headway with it and have dropped the whole issue - I only picked it in the first place because I thought it would be simple!

Here is a problem where an organisation says one straightforwardly factual thing about themselves, very clearly, in multiple primary sources, something backed up by *some* secondary sources and *some other* secondary sources disagree, *some of which* have been corrected or disputed directly by the individuals in question (on eg. Twitter). It isn't a subject that's easily deferred to "some people say x, others say y", nor is it a subject where summing together all possible options produces a useful result either.

It may seem a minor point, but from digging through the page history I believe that a specific list of names has been synthesised from multiple sources and then subsequently started to appear in secondary sources, which then has been used as citations to reinforce that original list, in a circular fashion. Obviously I can't prove that someone copy+pasted the list from wikipedia (or google) into an article, but I'm personally convinced that's happened.

So yes, anyway, I guess I'm a bit lost as to where the maxim of preferring secondary sources turns into a disregard for when they contradict primary ones, and how to navigate policy in this area. Void if removed (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed If I had been engaged in that discussion (and I'm glad I wasn't) I would simply have quoted this webpage as being fully in compliance with a Wikipedia policy, namely WP:ABOUTSELF. Other editors might have been able to find earlier versions of that page on the Wayback machine that said something different but by WP:ONUS (another policy) it is for those who wish to include potentially controversial material to come to a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. All that said, I think you were right to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Life is too short to fight these sorts of debate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance, it is appreciated. Hopefully I'll manage to branch out into less heated areas before I ask another question! Void if removed (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from CinemaScholar on Docufiction (15:16, 7 February 2023)

I need help adding a citation to an entry. --CinemaScholar (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@CinemaScholar I'm guessing here but I think you need something like this:

The neologism docufiction was introduced by Rhodes and Singer.

References

The page number can be specified using the {{rp}} template (I've checked on Google books and that's the correct page). You could include the Google books URL but that's unnecessary. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, please give more details.... and incidentally that article displays examples of WP:OVERCITE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from CinemaScholar (22:15, 7 February 2023)

Thanks very much. I made the change exactly as you suggested, with the wording and ISBN number. Someone called Mr.Ollie not only deleted the change, but keeps posting rude stuff about me. Why is this happening? Why would Wikipedia do this to a volunteer attempting to help, someone who reached out for help (to you) and then followed the suggestion precisely? --CinemaScholar (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This change is blatantly incorrect, and badly sourced. See Talk:Docufiction#First_use_of_the_term. -MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from CinemaScholar (22:44, 7 February 2023)

I've now added a secondary source, peer-reviewed, and this person is still "warring" against me. Is there anything that can be done? --CinemaScholar (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@CinemaScholar Having discussions in multiple places makes it difficult for editors to follow them. Please now restrict comments about the article content to Talk:Docufiction and behavioural conduct to WP:ANI, if you decide to go down that route, which I note you have not yet done and I would not recommend. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar from Clovermoss

Teahouse Barnstar

Hi Michael! I don't think we've ever directly interacted before but I just wanted to say that your efforts to help newcomers don't go unnoticed and are appreciated. I've had the Teahouse on my watchlist for quite some time and while I don't pitch in there as much as maybe I want to, I do notice the great work that you and other editors do on a regular basis. So here's a barnstar to show that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)