User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2022/April

WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, et al.

Hi. A belated welcome to Wikipedia, and to the many reality TV articles I've been editing for years, including The Real World.

For the purposes of mentioning the mere content of a created work, such as a novel, TV episode, film, comic book, etc. that work can function as its own primary sources -- although in the case of serialized works such as TV shows and comics, it is reasonable to tag it in order to request the specific episode or issue in which the info appeared. It is not accepted practice, however, to remove it wholesale. This does not pertain simply to the work that serves as the subject of the article, but any other related work, such as spinoffs, that is mentioned in an article. I know this, because I'm the primary writer of the text of those guidelines.

What they prohibit is material that is analytical or evaluative, which does require a citation of a secondary source. But merely relating facts given in an episode, such as how money a contestant won in The Challenge, or the appearance of the cast in a reunion show, is not evaluative or analytical. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Relating facts about an episode of "The Challenge" on a page about a season of The Real World is not what is covered by WP:TVPLOT, thats about summarizing a film or TV shows plot on its own page. Also note that its covered by WP:BLP so wholesale removal is actually policy: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." At the very least its WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"...thats about summarizing a film or TV shows plot on its own page."
No it isn't. The subject of the article is irrelevant, because the principle at the heart of the guideline is not article subject-specific. The principle is derived from the understanding any description of content of the plot/content of a novel, film, tv episode etc, is presumed to come from that work, so long as it's been released. In this way, the need to inform the reader of where information in a given passage comes from, per WP:V, is satisfied. For this reason, there is no logical reason it would apply only to the subject of an article. Rather, it refers to any description about the content of a creative work. I know this because I wrote the text of those guidelines.

"Also note that its covered by WP:BLP..."
Wrong again. The material in question is not contentious, because it merely concerns the content of episodes. BLP was never intended to mean that you cannot source the content of a film or television episode to the film or television itself. I know this because I've been editing Wikipedia for over 17 years, and the community consensus that informs that policy has never reflected your interpretation of it.

For example, the Jean-Claude Van Damme article mentions that he appeared in an episode of Friends, but there is no citation for that article, other than a wikilinked mention of the episode's name. Could you add a secondary cite to that passsage? Sure. But is it required? No. And the idea that the lack of one would call for that passage to be removed is absurd. Similarly, in the article for that episode, there is no citation for the mention of his name in the plot synopsis (nor for the Lead section or Infobox). Are you suggesting that BLP requires a citation to be added to the Synopsis? Because if so, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Trust me, what you're saying does not reflect how the editing community here treats television episodes or any other television programming. If you don't believe me, then ask around. Ask other editors who work on television articles, and/or reality television articles in particular, and you'll see. Nightscream (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No coverage means something like that Challenge section is WP:UNDUE, even if the use is kosher their combination into a table is WP:SYNTH unless someone has actually covered that topic. Those guidelines do not override WP:BLP, when we're talking about actors/living people and not characters then we need actual sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Synthesis refers to information derived from primary sources that is evaulative or interpretative. Information that is derived merely from the direct relation of content (i.e.: Saying what happens in an episode) is not synthesis. The information in the table merely states the information provided in the episodes, just as the other tables in the article, and tables in other TV-related articles on Wikipedia. BLP does not require secondary sources for the content of reality television articles in simply tables relating episode content. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You mean tables relating episode content of shows other than the one the page is about? How is that not information derived from primary sources that is evaluative? It directly evaluates their performance across multiple shows (not including the one the page is actually about). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to Idaho

Hi. I saw a recent edit you made to the page for Idaho and my instinct was to revert it (namely the Judy Garland reference in the pop culture section since, well, that's exactly an example of Idaho in pop culture) but then I saw you made a bunch of rather large edits. Most of them are quite productive but a few of them I think warrant discussion on the talk page but I didn't want to go in and remove all of your work. What do you think is the best way to resolve this? I can move some of the topics to separate discussions on Talk:Idaho, if that works? Definitely appreciate you taking the time to clean up the page. - Procyonidae (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Procyonidae: the only way to restore unsourced text is to find a WP:RS for it. Always happy to participate in a talk page discussion, just give me a ping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

why are you mass reverting edits?

you seem to be hounding users. you mass revert multiple edits made by users. reason?

Disruptive edits are going to be reverted. Less than subtle socks are going to be identified. These are just facts of life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And we're pretty good at identifying the subtle socks too! :) BilCat (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

you are the one disrupting edits. hypocrite 84.26.190.194 (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Indo-European Studies

Hi Horse Eye's Back. Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a "fringe journal" that needs to be purged from articles? Was it discussed somewhere? I know there is (was?) a problematic association with racist publisher Roger Pearson, but if you look at the current editors and contents, there's nothing fringe-y about it. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: All three of the Pearson journals (Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Journal of Indo-European Studies, and Mankind Quarterly) are fringe. How can the Journal of Indo-European Studies not be fringe when its published by the fringe Institute for the Study of Man (an organization devoted to scientific racism)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Their continuing involvement with the Institute for the Study of Man is deplorable, but despite their origins, the content is not fringe. If you look at recent issues it's all perfectly normal papers on linguistics and folkloristics and the editorial board includes several very eminent names (and not Pearson). – Joe (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: What do you mean continued involvement with? They're a part of the Institute for the Study of Man not just involved. If the publisher is unreliable then for our purposes on wikipedia the publication is as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's... not how journals work. They are separate entities run by independent editorial boards. They can move between publishers (and why JIES hasn't done this yet baffles me). The publisher generally doesn't have any direct influence on the content of articles beyond formatting etc. Again, I fully understand why seeing citations to a journal published by Pearson set your alarm bells ringing, but look at the actual content: these are reliable, mainstream sources that should not be removed from articles without specific reasons. – Joe (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Journals are a part of their publisher's ecosystem, they do not exist independently. If they move publishers we can re-visit their reliability, as long as they continue to be published by a fringe scientific racism organization there isn't much we can do. I'm sorry that your feathers are ruffled but we have to stick to our policies and guidelines, we can not ignore WP:RS just because we personally like a source or are involved in some way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying ignore WP:RS, I'm saying JIES is a reliable source. And as far as I can tell, despite your adoption of the royal "we" here, there has been no prior discussion that would justify you mass-removing citations to it. If you don't believe me, take it to WP:RSN, WP:FRINGEN or something, but please don't start casting baseless aspersions. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate reliability lies with the one who wants to use the source not the one who challenges it. You know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You expect to remove references from dozens of articles on the bare assertion that they are to a "fringe journal", and have that stand until someone convinces you personally that the publication is reliable? Give me a break. Drop it or take it to a noticeboard, but I've exhausted my patience here. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

On the very true assertion that their publisher is a fringe scientific racist organization (which you do not dispute) which makes them by definition a fringe journal and a non-WP:RS. You have presented literally nothing besides your personal opinion, no policy... No guidelines... No past consensus... No third party sources saying they're reliable. Has that sort of thing ever satisfied anyone? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to explain to you that sources are considered reliable or unreliable, not publishers, and that a source is not automatically unreliable because it has a publisher that also publishes unreliable sources. If that were true, WP:DAILYMAIL would have also deprecated The Times, The Wall Street Journal, and all books published by HarperCollins. I've offered as counter-evidence of its reliability JIES' editorial board, which includes many notable Indo-Europeanists (J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, William W. Malandra, Melanie Malzahn, Peter Schrijver, Yaroslav Vassilkov, David W. Anthony, and so on). I have also invited you to look at the content of any the dozens of sources you are removing to see if they are, as you originally asserted, fringe. These are not opinions. You haven't asked for sources until now, but take for example William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (p. 171, emphasis added): It is instructive that none of Pearson’s writing appeared in the one publication at the institute of acknowledged academic value, the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which he left to the control of respected scholars Edgar Polomé and Marija Gimbutas. – Joe (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down a source, I guess its probably wisest to split the discussion at RSN into three parts then. That would appear to render JIES as borderline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that your argument there doesn't add up though... We're talking about the effect of an unreliable publisher on a publication not the effect of an unreliable publication on the publisher. Your analogy is a non-sequiter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)