This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello. I noticed that you have taken part in other discussions regarding sources connected with religion at WP:RSN. As an uninvolved party, could you give a look at my closure of this RfC and either confirm it or add your own final review? Given that I opened the RfC myself, my endnote could be considered biased. Æo ( talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: 4; no/but: 2; no: 8. There is no consensus at this time for the step of deprecation, which has been deemed extreme in this case. The sources in question, two statistical datasets (ARDA/WRD/WCD and Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures), are explicitly linked to some American Christian organisations ( Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), missionary projects ( 10/40 window), and philanthropic companies with roots in American Christianity ( John Templeton Foundation; Lilly Endowment), and have been criticised for containing some systematic bias (overestimation of Christianity, underestimation of other religious and irreligious populations), and Erp «also noted [that] very few peer reviewed articles ...use the data outside of Christian mission related articles». Both of them are also old mathematical projections, "purely glassball", often misleadingly passed off as hard data from surveys (cf. Æo, NebY, Nillurcheier). It is clear from the discussion that the sources in question should never be used in place of data from censuses and statistical organisations, should be treated with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value. Even some of those who voted no and no/but agreed that «we can all agree that census data should be used where it can» (Pyrrho the Skipper) and that «in-text attribution should be required [to] ...alert the reader that there might be bias» (Blueboar). Those who voted with a clear no (cf. Foorgood, Jayron32, Ramos1990, Wareon, Dee, عبد المسيح) pointed out that some of the sources in question are published by respectable publishing houses, are listed on some academic institutions' websites, and some critical reviews underline the positive sides of them; however, Drmies «contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion, and they told [him] they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website – and noted of course how linking something is hardly the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement». Erp also highlighted that the datasets in question fail the CRAAP test: they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases; (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate; (c) they don't give error bars.
"Hi Foorgood: there is an RFC on it now. Since you were part of the discussion and provided great insights on it, I thought you should be notified of it". And regarding JzG, I just read previous RSN discussions having to do with religion topics and chose a user who seemed to have taken part in most of them, thus demonstrating an interest in and therefore an understanding of the topic, which could be a plus; I am not an expert on RfCs and other similar Wikipedia procedures, it is my first time opening one and I've taken part in few of them in ten years. WP:AGF and respect my efforts to contribute to what should be an encyclopedia, and I will do the same with you. Æo ( talk) 00:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
"it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". The "multiple editors" I WP:MENTIONed are users who already took part in the previous discussions on the topic and made significant contributions to them, who I was sure would have improved the quality of the discussion, and note that I quoted them or linked to previous discussions with them, and I think pinging is a correct practice when one quotes another user. I also never asked, either in my message to Nillurcheier or in my mentioning the others, to vote a certain way. Therefore my message/mentions were appropriate notifications ( WP:APPNOTE:
on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion;
editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article;
editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics);
editors known for expertise in the field/
notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief). Æo ( talk) 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.
In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello there! Would you care to explain the rationale behind why you've alleged that the "Journal of Otology & Rhinology" is supposedly a "predatory journal"? I'd be interested to hear exactly which part, or parts, of WP:RS that this Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Journal is purported to have "failed". I'm all Ears [& Nose]. Cheers— 203.142.136.254 ( talk) 23:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank-you for taking the time to respond. 203.142.136.254 ( talk) 23:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
Hello, I have decided to remove the block of this user you blocked almost five years ago as they seem to understand the issue. 331dot ( talk) 09:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Guy,
I tried to reach out to you a year and a half ago; happy to see that you're doing well, and away from en.Wiki for the right reasons.
Back in 2019 you commented in a discussion that took place on Jimbo's TP, [8] explaining some of the problems we were seeing from an admin's perspective - problems I myself tried to explain, from my own perspective (and less convincingly, as it turns out), just a few days earlier. [9] Now there's a new study that addresses all of it, [10] which I hope will clarify what I and other editors were talking about then, and since. It's fairly long, so only if you have the time, patience, and interest.
Best regards,
François Robere ( talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
intentional distortionfalls short of Hanlon's Razor. Most of the time, people who distort facts do it because they are fooling themselves.
Wikipedia's intentional distortionuses sleight of hand to swap those Polish nationalists for the whole of Wikipedia. Those two basic mistakes in the header turn me off from reading more of that article because I have no reason to assume that it gets any better and any less sensationalist. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Thought I'd share this with you: 128.187.116.31 ( talk) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I met James Bowman (countertenor) at the St. Albans International Organ Festival, where I used to do seating and staging (I was the "Festival Chair Man" according to my T-shirt). He was huge, an imposing man, 6'4" tall and built like a rugger player, but his voice was that of an angel. It was sweet, but it had remarkable power, easily carrying the length of the longest cathedral nave in England. Power, yes, but nothing of force or artifice. I have shared a stage with Iestyn Davies, at the memorial for John Shirley-Quirk, and I hope he would not be offended by a comparison. Bowman's voice was more robust, where Iestyn's is (in my view) more ethereal. Both wonderful performers and a delight to hear either sing Purcell, especially. Bowman was a worthy successor to Alfred Deller, who reignited interest in counter-tenor performance, and I think it's not fanciful to say that he was highly influential - and very popular, due to the musical generosity so common among early music specialists.
It was a privilege to have heard him, and a regret that Wikipedia is unlikely ever to include someone like him in Recent Deaths. His singing influenced my tastes in music, and encouraged a generation or maybe two generations of fabulous performers. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Template:Poll top has been nominated for merging with Template:Closed rfc top. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Izno ( talk) 02:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen that you have been contributing to deleting the User SyedNaqvi90. There is a user called User:Dragon819010 and it seems like this is a sock of SyedNaqvi90. I would be grateful for your assistance in rolling this case, because User:Dragon819010 is radically vandalizing many articles. Cheers! -- MadRoyalist ( talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)