Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nibiru cataclysm/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2019 [1].

Nibiru cataclysm

[edit]
Nominator(s): Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a longstanding and frankly infuriating public panic that has seemingly only grown over the years. As I have kept track of it, I think it has grown to the point at which it might be considered for FA status. Please note, all references to the site Zetatalk are in reference to that site. Zetatalk links there. Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Serendipodous 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZECHARIA_SITCHIN.jpg: I've nominated this for deletion as copyvio on Commons - it's from a 2010 New York Times article
  • File:Statue_of_Virgin_Mary_in_the_Cathedral_of_Strasbourg.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work
Doesn't it have one? It's listed under {{PD-user}} Serendipodous 01:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to the photo. Because France doesn't have freedom of panorama, we need a separate tag for the work being photographed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was made in 1858, so presumably public domain applies. Serendipodous 11:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, but we still need a tag indicating why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Serendipodous 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright page doesn't work on the linked HubbleSite page so I assume yes. Serendipodous 01:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which link are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the link to the source on the image information page, and scroll to the bottom, you will see a list of links away from the page, all of which are clickable, except "copyright", likely meaning that copyright doesn't apply. Serendipodous 11:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link seems to be clickable for me... it leads here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 8 without);
  • Carl Sagan (1977). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Govert Schilling. Missing Year/Date;
  • i dunno how much you care about " Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)". You have 12 of them.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Serendipodous 11:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All other issues resolved. Serendipodous 13:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Looking at sourcing and reference formatting; no examination of prose at this time. All reference numbers are based on this revision of the article.

  • In general, your reference formatting is very inconsistent. I see both First Last and Last, First for authors. I see at least three ways you've formatted citations to ZetaTalk (Zetatalk, zetatalk, zetatalk.com) – and more on that momentarily. And so forth.
  • Several references conflate the url with the website. For example, telegraph.co.uk is the address of the online publicatons of The Telegraph.
  • You cite unreliable primary sources. A lot. I suppose, based on WP:SPS, that Lieder's posts on ZetaTalk are a reliable source for the unique purpose of showing that Lieder said something. But you depends on them well beyond what policy allows, especially at the FAC level. These operate in an intersection of several policies and guidelines: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE, and I think on the whole the article runs afoul of threading that intersection.
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • #2: This article is bylined (Jesse Emspak) and has a publication date (2015-12-15). Additionally, Smithsonian should be in the website parameter because it was actually published via Smithsonian (the magazine), not the website of the museum itself. That also means the publisher link goes to the wrong place, but that's a separate issue, because you're very inconsistent with what you link in these references.
  • #3: This article is bylined (Avi Selk) and has a publication date (2017-11-18). Washington Post should be the website, not the publisher, so that it is correctly italicized.
  • #5: This article is bylined (Natalie Wolchover).
  • #9: Extraneous equal sign. I'm not really certain this cites all the necessary bibliographic information for this citation either.
  • #12: Phil Plait is a recognized expert, so although Bad Astronomy was self-published, it is an acceptable source for astronomy commentary per WP:SPS. However, that policy states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," (emphasis in original) which seems to preclude any use of his writing there to directly comment on Lieder.
  • #16: This does not include sufficient bibliographic information to serve as a valid reference. You need to cite the information about the actual interview before introducing its archival location.
  • #17: Fortean Times is a traditional publication as well, as so should be italicized via the website parameter.
  • #21: This appears to be a random document created by a doctoral candidate (but is not a doctoral thesis), and self-published on the author's website. I can see absolutely no reason why this constitutes a reliable source.
  • #22: This article is bylined, and has a publication date, and isn't titled what you have it titled in the reference, but none of that is relevant. Because as far as I can tell, The Skeptic's Dictionary is self-published (by Robert Todd Carroll) and is not a reliable source.

...and I'm done here, although I'm quite certain that problems persist all the way down the reference section. Frankly, based on the quality of sourcing – with large passages referenced exclusively to ZetaTalk or to the work of Sitchin – this would be impossible to support at FA even if the reference formatting was immaculate. Indeed, because of the problems with WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE, I'm not at all convinced this is a GA-quality piece either. This is a very firm oppose (1c, 1d, 2c, and policy compliance); any revision sufficient to remedy these concerns would be a different article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hang on a secFixing reference formatting is a wee trivial little thingie. Like washing dishes. And as you stated, there's room for sorting out the SPS issues. I am not at all saying I support. I'm saying your +O is a wee bit premature and more than a bit too forceful. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the formatting issues are relatively minor (although things like missing bylines are concerning because they tend to indicate a lack of due diligence with source handling). The reliability of sources is not. I don't believe I stated there was "room for sorting out the SPS issues" other than rewriting passages to avoid relying on the sources that are currently being used in a manner contrary to policy (and there's enough of that needed that doing so would raise criterion 1e stability concerns). I'm an admittedly picky reviewer, and proud to be, but I don't like directly opposing candidate articles. I stand by my statement here, but, as always, if the FAC coordinators feel that my stance is unduly harsh or out of sync with the expectations, they are welcome to discount it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It;s decidedly past my bedtime here and I won't be able to do anything for several hours. But after reading the article and your comments, I conclude: 1) I respectfully disagree that reference formatting is reason enough for Oppose. All can be fixed with elbow grease and nor too much time. 2) More importantly, I respectfully disagree that this article in any way shape or form runs afoul of FRINGE, It is an article about a fringe theory; its principal thrust is very much in line with mainstream thought. Emphatically so. 3) SPS needs time to percolate a bit, but initially I am not at all seeing it the way you are. 4) WP:RS.. you mention one source that seems to fail RS but I need to look at this tomorrow. Is the whole article framed by unreliable sources? I don't think so. Let this FAC breathe a bit. It is very much something that can be worked out, and not with too much trouble. Good night. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'm relying on three inter-related policies for the strength of my opposition. WP:SPS prohibits most self-published sources. There is an exception for "established experts" (such as, here, Phil Plait in astronomy), but such sources can never be used for information about living persons, per policy. The policy also encourages the use of reliable independent sources in place of SPS; my reading of criterion 1c's "high-quality" requirement is that replacement of SPS references with reliable independent sources, when possible, is an expectation at the FAC level. WP:ABOUTSELF says that self-published sources even by non-experts "may be used as sources of information about themselves", but not about any exceptional claims, claims about other people, or events not directly related to the source. Additionally, the article may not be "based primarily" on such sources. I argue that the FA criteria also mandate applying this policy more stringently here; I consider any sections (or significant passages) cited exclusively to sources of this type to be suspect. Finally, WP:FRINGE says (at WP:FRIND) that "points ... not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

Large sections of §History are incompatible with these policies. The NYT article can replace some of the claims in §Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk, but the last two paragraphs in that section are cited almost entirely to Lieder (the other source there, the Fortean Times, isn't exactly going to satisfy FRIND either). Much of §Zecharia Sitchin and Sumer cites exclusively Sitchin for his own fringe claims. The VOA source in §2003 Hazelwood claims is a dead link, but that material is available here; although it briefly mentions Nibiru in the context of the Pana Wave (and is a reliable source), it makes no mention of Hazelwood; the Lieder source used to discuss him has impermissible BLP implications. The entire second paragraph of §2012 and the Mayan calendar also violates the SPS/BLP prohibition. The §2017 revival section is... better (although we can debate whether Unilad is a reliable source), but some of Meade's claims here are still an issue as referenced. Elsewhere in the article, in §Misappellations, neither Rabolu nor Lieder is an acceptable independent source for §Hercolubus.

To some extent, I regret having even considered reference formatting issues for an article with policy-level problems ("arson, murder, and jaywalking" as it were). Otherwise, I'm open to the possibility that my interpretations of policy and the FA criteria are too expansive. If the @FAC coordinators: think I've strayed from reviewer expectations or been unnecessarily harsh in my reading of sourcing requirements, I'll be happy to reconsider some of these objections. Otherwise, I feel I've given more than enough time to this nomination, and will not be revisiting it in future. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the issues he raised. That said I'm not sure that third party sources exist for the very beginning of this. It took a long time, and a few suicides, before anyone "credible" took notice of this. Serendipodous 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those cases where someone throws out a multi-part argument, asserts he/she is correct in every step of that argument, folds arms over chest and says, "See, ha ha, I'm done." Squeamish keeps mentioning BLP but I struggle to see any BLP violation of any kind here. If John Doe from Peoria says the moon is made of green cheese, is it a BLP violation to say that John Doe said the moon is made of green cheese? I think not. SPS would prefer that we have highly reliable sourcing that says that someone reliable repeated John Doe's assertion and attributed it to John. These are not hard to find, as forex Rob Hafernik, a NASA aerospace engineer, discusses Sitchin's 12th planet claims, see http://skepdic.com/essays/sitchin.htm. Mike Heiser,who earned an M.A. (1998) and Ph.D. (2004) in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/. Hmmm, Ian Lawton may not be as high-quality a source as we might hope for, but... maybe. And on and on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most significant BLP issue is citing Lieder to say that Lieder accused Hazlewood of "being a confidence trickster". I'm reasonably certain that passage is actually problematic under WP:BLP rather than just WP:SPS. But regardless, SPS sources cannot include claims about third parties. This isn't a rule that I'm making up. It's WP:SELFPUB#2. So citing Lieder to reference Lieder's claims about Hazlewood, or Obama, or (arguably) "the establishment" is problematic even before considering that WP:FRIND also prohibits doing so. The same goes for at least one of the "better" sources you have provided; Sitchin is Wrong is a self-published source (by Heiser). Regardless of his credentials, it cannot be used to source claims about Lieder or Sitchin (who is not alive, but is still a "third party"). However, I have stricken the objection to The Skeptic's Dictionary above; despite my substantial concerns that it doesn't have a real editorial policy, the bulk of the historical discussions at WP:RSN seem to favor accepting it as a reliable source (note that the print version of The Skeptic's Dictionary was published by a reliable publisher, and is unquestionably acceptable). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serendipodous: I suggest that the entire 2003 Hazlewood section be deleted, and his name removed from the infobox. He's a very minor character. I also agree with Squeamish that we probably shouldn't have mentioned the confidence trickster bit in the first place. I was confident that I would find that mentioned elsewhere, but I looked for.... maybe 30 or 45 minutes... and didn't. It's a peripheral bit of trash-talking in addition to Squeamish's concerns. Delete entire section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""@Squeamish Ossifrage: Further concerns? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Can you give us an update on your stance? I'm looking for whether all/some/none of your concerns have been allayed (or you're disengaging, if that's the case) --Laser brain (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Fundamentally, the question is whether I'm interpreting WP:FRIND appropriately. I feel the content guideline establishes a bright-line rule: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." There are a lot of sections of this article that are sourced exclusively to non-independent, fringe sources (often Leider and Sitchin themselves). The second paragraph of §Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk (anything about the "pole shift"), anything in §Zecharia Sitchin and Sumer that directly refers to Lieder (including the entire second paragraph), the second paragraph of §2012 and the Mayan calendar, and so forth. The editors who have put in the work on this article respectfully disagree with me over that interpretation. If the coordinators feel that my reading of FRIND is an appropriate one, then I still oppose on largely the same grounds I did initially because no FAC-reasonable amount of editing to the article will change the overall source selection. If consensus is that I'm being unreasonable about the content guideline, then I'll merely opt to disengage in the interest of mutual comity. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serendipodous: Would you read all of SO's detailed comments above and check carefully for violations of WP:FRIND? please err on the side of caution and interpret the rules strictly. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Not opining on the matters at hand, but I think this needs to be archived so discussion and consensus can occur on the article's talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nibiru_cataclysm/archive1&oldid=881027968"