User talk:Rubioblanca

Click here to leave me a message.

List of Self Referential Songs

Hi Rubioblanca. There are quite a few applicable policies & guidelines.

WP:PSTS (part of WP:NOR) states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources."

WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and goes on to state that these sources, "defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."

Finally, WP:LIST states that "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying."

That's not an exhaustive list, but I hope it's helpful. Please feel free to ask if I can be of any help on this or any other topic. Best wishes, Jakew 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be confused by the term "research". In the context of Wikipedia, it has a very loose meaning - "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article" (this can be surprising at first, even excluding seemingly obvious statements, but there is good reason for it). So in this case, we must have a source that explicitly interprets a song as being self-referential. Without sources, inclusion is arbitrary and subjective.

As for notability, the question is whether the list is notable, not whether the inclusion criteria is. Judging by the available references, I'd agree that self reference in music and verse is a notable topic, deserving of its own article. But that doesn't mean that the list is itself notable.

Those are my concerns, anyway. Jakew 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rubioblanca,

I don't think you've gone off the deep end, as you put it, but I don't agree with your interpretation.

In particular, I think you're incorrect about "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." In this case, the lyrics are the established fact, the analysis is that the song is self-referential, and the lack of attribution for this analysis is painfully obvious.

I think that your argument about self reference is not unreasonable, but articles have to conform to all relevant policies and guidelines, not just parts. And I'm not convinced that the article could ever satisfy the requirements. Jakew 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may seem, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V. Unfortunately, if we were to apply the 'reasonable person principle', we would set ourselves the task, if only to a limited extent, of determining truth. If you think about that, non-experts determining truth via a 'reasonable person principle' could have negative consequences for the credibility of the encyclopaedia. As a hypothetical example, suppose that some superficially convincing but technically impossible pseudoscience was introduced at an article on a scientific subject. If we were to apply the 'reasonable person principle', we might decide to keep it, even though it is nonsense. And if a real expert came along and pointed out the error, what if he or she were dismissed as unreasonable?

If we insist on sources (as is the consensus that we should), such a problem will never arise. Our credibility and neutrality can be maintained objectively, by citing and attributing all significant points of view on a subject. "Is there a source" is a much more objective question than "is it reasonable", and vastly easier to answer. Tempting as it is, I think that the consequences of making exceptions, and the questions that would raise, are worse than not doing so. Jakew 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small token

		The Original Barnstar
		For your considerable time, effort, and skill in bringing the Emmylou Harris discography to fruition, you are the recipient of this Barnstar. Thanks to you, the project has gone from "One Of These Days" to a current reality. And it looks great. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]