Felewin
July 2020 edit
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Close encounter. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The following is Felewin's response and ensuing discussion with others attending the conversation:
Hello, I saw you reverted my additions to Close encounter only 7 minutes after I made them. I would ask that you take further time to review these additions. For instance, the new interview with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, on the update to the classification system lasts longer than 7 minutes, so it is impossible for you to have reviewed that material in full in this timespan.
I was left the message, "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia". Thank you for letting me know why you reverted my changes. However, not only was it not my intention to add 'promotional' material, but it was unnecessary to have all of the edits reverted, instead of piecewise removing such promotional material (if it was even added). Can you please indicate which parts you consider promotional, and why? You could edit my latest version, with promotional content removed, and we could go from there – what do you say? To the best of my knowledge, I only linked free resources (that do not require any payment, much like Wikipedia itself). I put effort into updating the page based on recent developments, and would not like to have this effort go to waste. If there is only a formatting or citation issue that you are aware of, please direct me on how to improve the formatting. Everything I have added is verifiable and I would be happy to point you toward further verification sources. Thank you in advance for getting back to me so we can further the pursuit of free and open knowledge. Kind regards, Felewin (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Felewin: The burden does not rest on LuckyLouie to sort through your edits and manually remove problematic material in order to preserve anything that might be positive. This might be a practical approach if the edits largely conformed with our guidelines. But in this case they do not. Please see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem, and thank you very much for your response. In order to be clear, can you point to which particular sources you deem unacceptable? Thus far, only other Wikipedia pages on best practice have been shared. We should be able to determine this, as justification for the change. If it would take too much of your time, you could at the very least select one source and explain the issue with it, yes? It would also help to educate me if there is a key rule I am not aware of, as you claim. I don't think this is too much for me to ask. Here is a relevant excerpt from Help:Reverting: "Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?" In particular, considering what one objects to should be able to be explained when asked. I will also review those pages you shared. Thank you, Felewin (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Felewin. As far as I can tell all of the sources cited in your edits fail WP:RS. YouTube is almost never an acceptable source and the others appear to be WP:FRINGE. Ideally sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, if an interview was conducted between two people and is only available on Youtube, how else can it be cited on Wikipedia? Does one need to generate a transcript? Does it have to be covered in the news? In this case, the interview is with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, who formed the original Close encounter classification system. As far as I'm concerned, that is very relevant, and for the sake of knowledge should be included, particularly because it was a milestone for the addition of a new class to the classification system. Please understand that I am interested in citing the indisputable fact that this interview occurred and am willing to explore alternatives to citing Youtube, but thought it best to share the direct source. What do you think is the best approach? I am open to suggestions. As for the other sources, I don't see how WP:RS applies *because of the fact that I am not making claims about the claims the sources make*. Is Wikipedia so mainstream that it isn't allowed to cite sources which would appear fringe to most people, just to say they exist? Are we to pretend that such things do not exist, simply because they are not mainstream? It's not like you have to agree with the content of the sources. I only made meta-claims in the sense that I was stating such things exist. I am not claiming any of the claims of those sources to be grounded in reality; that is a separate matter; I only stated that such sources exist. To put it more concretely; can it be argued that the following websites do not exist?: https://ace5handbook.com/ http://etletstalk.com/ Absolutely not. Furthermore, they are entirely free resources, so it is not promotional of me to mention them. If I was claiming that the claims of those sources are true, that would be another matter. But all I am doing is indicating the effect that Dr. Greer's work has had. This is not a matter of opinion, superstition, or belief. It is objectively true that those sites exist and that they have come about as a result of Dr. Greer's work. If there is anything else that catches your attention as a violation, please let me know. I must be sincere with you that I still do not understand the cause for reversion, although I suspect there is some suspicion at quick glance. This is indicated by the quick response (7 minutes after my edits), as well as your stating that "the others appear to be WP:FRINGE" which sounds like a perusal. Is that fair to say? Again, you can peruse them and critique their individual validity, but I am only citing the fact that they exist, not that the claims of the sources are verifiable. I'm thankful for your discussion and your commitment to Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response, and thanks for your time and effort. Felewin (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Felewin: The community has long determined that YouTube is not a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. For the record, I concur with that determination. It has no editorial oversight and is frequently used for self promotion and the promotion of views that are rejected by mainstream experts in the subject field. Wikipedia is not, and the community has firmly decided that it will not be a vehicle for the promotion of fringe ideas and theories. That said, some fringe beliefs are notable by virtue of having been discussed in mainstream reliable secondary sources. When that occurs, and there are RS sources that can be cited, then they may be mentioned and discussed. But fringe sources may normally only be discussed to the extent that have been covered in RS sources. I realize that this may be frustrating, but it is important to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only repeats what has been stated elsewhere by RS sources. We are not a clearing house for all ideas and beliefs. Nor are we especially concerned with what is true or not. (See WP:NOTTRUTH.) We only report what has already been stated by independent reliable sources, with a very strong preference for secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientum, again thank you for your time and sticking with me here. It is clear you are truly commmitted to Wikipedia's principles. I am interested in sharing up-to-date information within the confines of Wikipedia's rules. At present, information is lacking that seems to me should be easy to include. What you shared honestly makes so much sense, on paper. And I respect that theory in principle myself: a Youtuber's opinion is not often sufficient to represent mainstream knowledge. However, it is clear that this is not always going to be the point upon which a statement should depend. It should be possible, for example (as a thought experiment), to present a list of the most popular Youtube channels in a Wikipedia format for December 2019. This would require citation to those Youtube channels. This citation does not imply that those Youtube channels speak nothing but the truth. It only implies that they exist. The rules just aren't well-shaped enough, by your description, to allow for complete information verification on Wikipedia pages, by citing Youtube channels in such an instance; is it true that, as far as you know, there is no way (within Wikipedia's rules) to mention on the Close encounters page that Paul Hynek was consulted in a recorded, in-person, video interview setting about adding a new classification to the system his father created? Even though it is extremely relevant? And easily provable with video footage? If so, I will need to forget about Wikipedia altogether as a useful way of compiling information, and regard it as a site for "mainstream"-only (which is unfortunately also a subjective determination) and objectively out-of-date knowledge. If that is true, then so be it. I did not create the rules of this platform. If this is *not* the case, please proceed by telling me how I can include such information within the rules as you see them. I am *all ears* on ways to share verifiable knowledge, which is all I wish to achieve here. To be exact, the only statement I wish to prove in this regard (to your Youtube discussion) is the following: "A Close Encounter of the Sixth Kind is human-initiated contact (as in CE-5) but on a global scale, via synchronized meditation across the world. The Harmonic Convergence 2020 event is where this concept was introduced; as part of the event, Mark Sims interviewed Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek himself (who defined the original classifications), about this very Wikipedia page and this new classification." This statement is objectively true, indisputable, and not based on any "ideas and beliefs" as you bring up when saying "We are not a clearing house for all ideas and beliefs." and the video recording's existence proves that my statement is true, objectively. I wish to cite this fact and don't even have interest in implying that I agree with everything in the discussion recorded in the interview therein. So: • is this possible, with Youtube or any other means of citation • or is it not, meaning Wikipedia is forced to stay out-of-date on this extremely relevant topic (a literal video discussing the very Wikipedia page in question on the topic of a system created by the interviewee's father) I eagerly await your response. Thanks again for all your help, Felewin (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Felewin: This is a topic that comes up quite frequently. YouTube channels and personalities can only be covered to the extent that they have been mentioned or covered in mainstream independent reliable secondary sources. YouTube is not in and of itself a reliable source. If the statement you wish to add is objectively true (which is actually irrelevant from our perspective) then it should be discussed at length in the aforementioned RS sources to a sufficient degree that it is not only verifiable, but also meets the conditions of WP:DUE. If such coverage does not presently exist, then it may not be added into the article or any other, until those conditions are satisfied. I realize that is not the answer you are hoping for, but thems the rules. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem: So be it. Wikipedia is not what I think it should be. At least future readers who find this thread will be made aware. I thank you for your time and wish you the best. Felewin (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome content edit
Welcome! edit
Hello, Felewin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
A slightly expanded welcome with more links... edit
Welcome Felewin!
I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
