Talk:Sharon Presley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC

What sources, brought forth at the AfD or otherwise, should be included in this article, and how should content from them be phrased? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• [1] ]]Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right By Jennifer Burns; 380 pages; Oxford University Press 2009

Would appear to meet WP:RS and mentions Presley Sharon Presley, one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement which appears to describe her as "one of the few women" in the "libertarian movement." Being singled out thusly is likely to mean she is regarded as important therein. Collect (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We really need sources which verify what, if anything she actually did "in the libertarian movement." The article could say she was one of the few women active in the libertarian movement. We know what "woman" means. We don't know what "few" "active" and "movement" mean in this context. It would be like General Eisenhower's article saying "he was a brave soldier." The text is innocuous but not informative. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No - we use what the source states and do not seek to make it more opaque by surmise. The source says "few" so we do not second-guess a reliable source, unless you wish to argue that the source does not meet WP:RS? If a reliable source said "George Gnarph was a brave soldier" then we most can certainly say "source X states that 'George Gnarph was a brave soldier' " and we do not, in fact can not, parse the statement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also in this case it's helpful to provide the context of what year we're talking about; 1960s I believe? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY refers to the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have never heard of an RfC that tries to decide what sources are appropriate before anyone has tried to use them. Especially when some of the sources have multiple page mentions and some may be relatively trivial and others more important. I haven't even figured out how to get a hold of one book that rumor has it repeatedly mentions her. Also, a WP:RS source that might seem trivial might have a factoid that clarifies something in a more important and lengthy source, including one that hasn't even been listed yet. So this really seems like a strange and not very useful use of an RfC. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: is correct, and she has summarized the issue more succinctly than I could ever hope to do. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to this RfC there are 5 entries on this talk page dealing with the removal of sourced material and what the sources say, and whether the source counts as WP:RS. I opened this RfC after a contentious AfD, when I questioned the removal of content that had been added by @Carolmooredc: and was sourced. The feedback seemed rather tense, and it did not seem that the regular commenters at the AfD or on this page could come to a consensus. That is why I opened the RfC. My goal was to avoid, what, at the time, I thought could evolve into an edit war because of the number of reverts that had already happened along the way. This RfC was/is supposed to be inclusive of all the other commentary above on sources, that it seems people are having a hard time coming to a consensus on. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I understand your motives. Thanks for trying to help. We're really talking about Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources: But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number or validity of the sources cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. This is a WP:ANI issue which has been raised over and over by involved editors at ANI and on various article talk pages, but not dealt with yet. (It's so hard to write an ANI that will motivate Admins to action even when it's clear some action is needed.) So I don't think an RfC will help. ;-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article is basically that SP doesn't appear to have done much and it was a close call as to whether she's notable in the WP sense. It's fine to err on the side of keeping the article, but ultimately we need to find content which clearly establishes her notability. The source publications by themselves are not so much the issue (despite a few errors we've found in them) but rather the problem is that they don't describe what WP would clearly consider noteworthy accomplishments or what WP would clearly call a notable individual. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position. I understand that she is not the most important libertarian figure around (I also couldn't tell you who is-- I am very removed from the libertarian community ideologically and do not really engage with libertarians on political issues.) The issue seems to be that the AfD was closed as keep with sources being provided, and these sources being the primary reason the AfD was closed as keep. You seem to feel that they do not meet the policies regarding inclusion and are arguing because she is not notable, she should not be included. My view is that since she was deemed to meet WP:GNG at AfD, we should include anything that was considered by a substantial number of editors at AfD to be a WP:RS in the article. Since those involved on this talk page/at the AfD cannot come to consensus on our own, I opened an RfC to get outside comment. I agree with what Collect has said, and I think that it is generally consistent with Wikipedia policy. If more uninvolved editors could comment, I think it would be better, but as it stands, I think the view of most of the people at AfD and those who have commented on the source discussions is that the sources are reliable at face value, and if they say something, it should be cited. Again, I would like more outside input before I could claim we have a strong consensus, but that is why I opened the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think Collect said anything new. He appears to have misunderstood my post and was just stating basic WP policy. The point is we don't use everything stated in a credible source as article text. Some of what's in the sources is innocuous, commonplace, and of no interest. That's all. We still need to find RS which provide noteworthy content to build the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. And that seems to be where the disagreement is, which as I have been trying to explain, is why I opened the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you restate what's disagreed, in a sentence or 2? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

From other discussions on this talk page and at the AfD, it appears that there is disagreement as to which sources count as RS, and what within them should be included in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that the content should be proposed (i.e. inserted in the article) and cited. Then if any editor has concerns as to either the content or the source which supports it, that concern can be resolved on the talk page. But the sources by themselves, with no indication that they support encyclopedic content, are of no significance. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that although Presley is mentioned in many sources, she is just mentioned in passing, with very little information. Basically all we can say about her is she was one of the few women in the Libertarian movement. Maybe someone can check whether there are any magazine articles or scholarly papers about her. TFD (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Transadvocate.com a useable interview?

Transadvocate.com. Maybe too advocacy of a site? I did note the questions were phrased as not to evince some libertarian views vs. govt intervention; or maybe they were removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No one has thoughts on this source? Should I move it to section above? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What question do you wish editors to address here? It's a primary source, although I note that the editorial statement preceding the interview confirms that Nathan acted alone in founding ALF. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

First, ALF about page and main page have been corrected and updated, including to explain how Toni Nathan founded it and others joined in to make it a national group.

Second, the issue isn't "primary source" since quotes from interviews often are useable. The issue is whether this website is useable for quoting interviews it has done, including with Presley. Sometimes they are even in sources like this that ordinarily would not be used because they are WP:Self-published. I personally don't care that much, but wanted to see if others thought this source would be an exception to the SPS rule or not. If not a problem, we can see what might be of interest to use. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's Bass Ackwards. If there's content you believe should be sourced from Transadvocate, please propose it or insert it and the editing and talk process will process and evaluate it. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's Amart Sss. Actually, I said the same in section above. How quickly we forget. Well, if someone else cares, they can add it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rapid Google session ≠ evidence of notability

The AfD failed largely on the basis of a dozen or so "RS" User:Binksternet cited as establishing her notability. I was disappointed but not surprised to find that these sources are either fringe, connected (from friends and former colleagues), or mention Presley in only a cursory fashion (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for instance, mentions her in two sentences -- it cites her as a source a few times, but that is not evidence of notability, only reliability (on the subject of libertarian anarchism)). It appears that most users took Binksternet's word for it rather than personally reading the sources.

Given some of the more absurd misstatements (e.g. saying that AOL linking to Reason which once interviewed Presley shows that AOL thinks she's notable) I have trouble believing that they were read at all, rather than used to justify a predetermined conclusion that Presley is notable and her page should be kept. Steeletrap (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage [in a source] is more than a passing mention." A source that gives Presley only a passing mention is inadmissible for WP:GNG purposes. Steeletrap (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The AfD did not "fail", it concluded in consensus. You are free to file another AfD, but I imagine other editors would be irritated at the waste of time you caused them. If you have a problem with the way I collaborate on Wikipedia, start a Request for Comment, User. Don't be surprised if it turns around to look at your adversarial attitude.

Regarding the sources containing a passing mention, each one adds incrementally to notability. The sources discussing Presley in depth put her over the top. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That multiple passing mentions can allow one to circumvent the 'substantial coverage' requirement is your own OR. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink, could you cite a link to WP policy which supports the view that "...passing mention, each one adds incrementally to notability." ? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What statement, the one Steeletrap incorrectly ascribed to me, that lots of passing mentions "can allow one to circumvent" the notability guideline? Or the statement I made, which is that notability gains incrementally from multiple mentions? Let's just ditch right now the "circumvent" bit, which I did not say.

At WP:BASIC, the guideline says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The interpretation of what is trivial becomes the core argument here. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Academic or GNG?

I think it's obvious that Presley fails WP's notability text for academics. The question we should be considering is whether she meets GNG? If the article is to be tagged, I think the "academic" one is not needed or at least the GNG one would seem to be what's under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? Noteworthy?

It seemns to me that primary statements like this are neither noteworthy nor encyclopedic:

With regard to transfeminism, she said that transgender people should be judged on their individual merits, just like anybody else. She rejects the view

that transgender women are not women, or that they should not take part in the feminist dialogue.

It's a view shared by the vast majority of people and has not been contextualized or commented on by any secondary source. It's logically equivalent to an interview in a fast food trade publication which quotes the subject as saying "Dr. X prefers ketchup on his hamburger." Would that be encyclopedic information? In fact, it's not even clear that the publisher of the primary source interview is RS. A newsletter of an advocacy group. That's a pretty broad and untested category for a WP reference.

SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I read Transadvocate from time to time. There seem to have fairly loose editorial standards; there is a lot of first-rate stuff but also some amateurish drivel. I am happy to see trans advocacy sites gain popularity. But I don't know if this one is at the point where it is RS by WP standards. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not saying Presley is amateurish (I was merely questioning the reliability of the source). She is well-educated and seems like a thoughtful, serious thinker. But there is no evidence that she meets GNG either through her academic work, her popular writings, or political activism. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Transadvocate people did not interview Presley at random; they interviewed her because she offered an interesting viewpoint for their readers. Despite the fact that any subject's comments in an interview are considered primary sources on Wikipedia, the context of the interview in this case is a third party contacting her to get her views. It's not like she's running for office or selling a book, trying to engage the trans community. She does not have a horse in that race. So if Transadvocate thinks the questions they posed are important, then that establishes the importance of Presley's answers. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's not speculate as to Dr. Presley's motives. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)