Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Results of General application of interpretation of WP:V and WP:RS

Now, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant issue is whether Zoe's deletion was in process given that the AfD was closed as a no consensus centering precisely around the question in hand. Zoe's deletion was out-of-process and not even discussed with the closing admin before doing so. So as far as I am concerned, this article should stay. However, some people are bringing up the issue of WP:V and WP:RS again here and using it to argue for deletion. However, Some people have claimed that if a newspaper does not mention a specific source then that fact cannot be cited under WP:V and WP:RS and that therefore this article should stay deleted. To answer there concerns, I have performed a small experiment; I have picked the first few paragraphs from a pseudo-random article from the front page of the New York Times(I believe the short nature of this excerpt counts under fair use):

"Under pressure from angry drivers and leaders in both political parties, President Bush said today he was taking steps to at least slow the rising price of gasoline.

He said that deposits of oil in the nation's strategic petroleum reserve would be halted for the summer to increase supplies available to the public.

Mr. Bush also said the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice would investigate whether anyone has been manipulating gasoline prices, but said the main reason for higher prices was overall growing demand for oil which "reflects the global economy."

"This administration will not tolerate manipulation," Mr. Bush declared, saying Justice Department officials will meet with the 50 governors to investigate what has been happening in local markets.

As gasoline prices have surged toward $3 a gallon and more in some locations, administration officials have scrambled to find ways to keep them from rising even more. But they admit their power to do so is limited.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman, said of gasoline prices, "This is not something we got into overnight and it is not something we are going to get out of overnight."

He said the actions announced today "will help some in the short run."

Now appying the standard of Tony and others we get the first sentence which ties the article together and provides context is completely uncitable. We cannot cite the New York Times to report that there is pressure from angry drivers, nor that leaders in both the Democrats and Republicans. We also cannot cite that the Times says that adminstration officials are "scambling" (third to last paragraph). Nor can we cite that gasoline prices have "surged toward $3 a gallon and more in some locations." The above shows the absurdity that results in claiming that facts from newspapers cannot be cited unless they name specific sources. The standard renders large parts of front page articles of the New York Times, one of the most reliable newspapers in the English-speaking world, uncitable. Given the absurd results of applying this standard and the lack of supporting statements in WP:RS and WP:V, this standard should be soundly rejected and the Belgian source should be considered sufficient. JoshuaZ 17:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Moderately interesting, if completely and utterly irrelevant. Nobody is trying to use this single source as the basis for an encyclopaedia entry, for starters. For second, most of the content of the article is still verifiable. There will be documentable evidence of what Dubya said, for instance. Rising petrol prices are (probably) documentable from tertiary sources (I wouldn't know how to go about finding such information, although Google would be a starting point). Etc. (Note that while Wikipedia's verifiability criteria stress "verifiability, not truth", the only criteria imposed on the mass media is that they report the truth.) Thirdly, you stated that the New York Times is "one of the most reliable newspapers in the English-speaking world" - I'd ask you to cite that, but I think we'd end up in circles - we have no such assurances for the Daily Belgium or whatever that other thing's called. And fourthly, none of this alters the fact that there still shouldn't have been an article to form no consensus on, given that the article lost an AfD and a subsequent DRV before being recreated by a rogue admin. Of course, as this isn't that "only relevant issue" that you're concerned about, I expect you probably don't care about any of this analysis either. Kinitawowi 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was in direct response to those who claimed that newspapers always cite there sources and that something is not citable when it isn't. Whether or not there are other ways to cite the relevant facts isn't relevant(would you insist that the NYtimes article would not be citable for those claims?). Second, newspapers generally have a presumption of reliability, the NYT is just an extreme example (and picked as one to which I had an online subscription). As for the claim about the recreation being out of process, as I have said in the deletion review, that is essentially wiki-lawyering since it then came for an AfD as a contested deletion and then resulted in a no consensus. In any event, none of these other matters are relevant to what I was trying to address on this talk page, 1) that claims that reliable newspapers always cite there sources are false and 2) that those who are calling for deletion based on WP:V and WP:RS are imposing an interpretation which lacks textual basis in the policies and results in an absurd attitude towards citing newspaper articles. JoshuaZ 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's no reason to get solipsistic. Media outlets are considered reliable sources because they are assumed to adhere to certain basic principles regarding truth, accuracy, and responsibility. At the very least, we expect to be told, in satisfactory detail, how the reporter came to have the information he or she is relating to us. One of the ways journalists do this is through strict adherence to the 5 Ws: who, what, where, when, and why. Answers to these questions are necessary to provide context for a story, to explain where it came from, and to demonstrate why you're hearing about it now. David Sanger's story, which I assume has been updated since you looked at it, answers all of these questions in short order:

• Who: President Bush
• What: announced a series of short-term steps that he said might slightly ease energy prices, including a suspension of government purchases to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and investigations into possible price gouging and price fixing
• Where: in a speech … before the Renewable Fuels Association
• When: this morning
• Why: The moves reflect growing concern among Republicans that the price hikes would become another election-year liability for them.

How did David Sanger obtain this information? Easy to answer: it's from a speech by a named individual given publicly at a named event. Even Sanger's assertion that "consumers are paying over $3 a gallon in some markets" is backed up: "[A] pool reporter traveling with the president's 14-vehicle motorcade today pointed out that prices posted at an Exxon station near the Watergate complex were at $3.29, $3.39 and $3.49 a gallon".

What if we apply the same standards to the De Morgen article?

• Who: "young people" (jongeren)
• What: play "The Game"
• Where: undefined locations in the US, England, Brazil, Australia, and Japan
• When: unknown
• Why: God only knows

If I'd tried to turn this story in as an assignment in J school it would have come back with some variation on the words "very disappointing" written on it in red pen. How did the (unnamed) reporter obtain the information in this story? No clue. "The Game" is played by "young people," but none are named. There are rules, but no indication is given as to where or how or from whom the reporter learned about them. English players engage in various antics in class, but they are not named, nor are their schools identified. Basically, all this article tells us is that some people somewhere do something, for some reason.

The really disappointing thing is that this article should be so easy to fix. Lifestyle-section stories are almost as easy to phone in as White House press briefings. If I'm a journalist and I receive an assignment to write about the latest idiotic article of clothing that the kids like to wear, the first thing I do is head down to the mall and talk to a couple of kids. Bingo, there's my lede:

"Keightlynnn Summers, 14, owns two of them. Her best friend Dakota Montana Smith owns three. Sophomore Dylan Hunter wears his on his head; his friend Hunter Dylan prefers to wrap his around his balls. What is it? It's the Amazing Electrified Foo, the hottest new trend at Local High School and across the country."

Piece of cake! I add some hard numbers by mentioning how many people belong to the MySpace group devoted to the thing. I look through my Rolodex for some sociology professor at the local university who'll provide a juicy quote about what it all means about the state of today's youth (he doesn't even have to have heard of it before I call him!), and wrap up with a couple of sentences about little Keightlynnn happily chatting away on some Amazing Electrified Foo message board to give the story a little more color. That's -30-, off it goes to editorial, and I get to go home early. And yet even a hack story like this one has names, dates, places… all those little things that the De Morgen story lacks. --phh (^t/_c) 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So would the comment about people from both major US political parties putting pressure be citable under WP:V and WP:RS in your view or not? Also even if we include your use of the 5Ws as some sort of magic rule (which mind you is not mentioned anywhere on WP:RS or WP:V, your phrasing is massively lacking. Where is given, many different places with specific countries listed. When is also given, all the time (by defintion, if they acknowledge the rules) and Why is implied- it amuses them. JoshuaZ 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment about both major US political parties isn't in the article as it currently appears, so I can't say anything about how and whether it's supported. Everything in the current article looks pretty well sourced to me. The only assertion that isn't explicitly backed up is that "Republican leaders …, in a reversal, have suddenly called for the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to conduct investigations and to consider 'windfall profits' taxes, which the party has usually rejected," although that isn't unusual when the statement is current and fairly widely reported--say, in articles like this one.

For the NYT article to be as poorly sourced as the De Morgen one, it would have to go something like this:

"President Bush is taking steps to slow the rising price of gasoline. He—"

—no, that's no good; it still refers to an identifiable person. Let's try again:

"Steps are being taken to control the rising price of gasoline. Deposits of oil in the nation's strategic petroleum reserve will be halted for the summer to increase supplies available to the public. An investigation will try to determine whether anyone has been manipulating gasoline prices, but the main reason for higher prices is overall growing demand for oil, which reflects the global economy. In Boston, Annapolis and Jersey City, more and more drivers are paying a lot for gasoline. This is not something we got into overnight and it is not something we are going to get out of overnight. Those of you who were not paying close attention might have missed it, but there can be no misunderstanding about it: all those who drive, pay more for gasoline now, whether you like it or not. Sorry."

The day the New York Times runs an article like that, I assure you, I will be in your corner all the way insisting that the article should not be taken seriously as a source.

How and where did the De Morgen writer obtain any of the information in the article? Feel like tackling that one? --phh (^t/_c) 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinite regress. Kernow 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

phh has made my point far more clearly and constructively than I ever would have. Exactly what I was trying to convey. Thank you. Tony Fox 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)