Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Wales' letter of apology

 Done

Why doesn't the article mention Jimmy Wales' letter of apology in the March 19 edition of the New Yorker? Has anyone else read it yet? Geuiwogbil 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 19? Hold on and I'll ask John Titor. Cloveoil 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lulz. — MichaelLinnear 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the section title "Making Amends", first letter on page 24.

I am writing to apologize to The New Yorker and Stacy Schiff, and to give some follow-up concerning Ryan Jordan (Editors' Note, March 5th). When I last spoke to The New Yorker about the fact that a prominent Wikipedia community member had lied about his credentials, I misjudged the issue. It was not O.K. for Mr. Jordan, or Essjay, to lie to a reporter, even to protect his identity. I later learned more about the deceptions involved and asked Mr. Jordan to resign from his positions of responsibility at Wikipedia. He has since resigned from his position at Wikia as well. Mr. Jordan is a wonderful and thoughtful young man who made a series of very bad judgements. I consider him a friend, and I hope that the world will allow him to move forward in peace and dignity to regain his honor through a life well lived. Wikipedia is built on trust and love. Our trust has been broken, and only love can rebuild it. The community has begun discussing a proposal of mine that we adopt some verification measures for claimed credentials, so that Wikipedia may further improve from this painful experience.
Jimmy Wales
President of Wikia, Inc.; board member and Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation
St. Petersburg, Fla.

There you have it. Geuiwogbil 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness! A doubting Thomas! Please, do me the service of having a look-see at the New Yorker's website, under the "In This Issue" header. What is, the page would imply, the most recent issue? Why, it's March 19th! And the contents are already right up there! I'd give you a photograph of the letters page, but my camera's still charging and it would be a violation of our Fair Use policy anyways.Geuiwogbil 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Geuiwogbil, the most recent issue of The New Yorker is actually the March 12th one. All one can see for the next issue (March 19th) on the webpage is the table of contents right now, and it doesn't contain any mention of Jimmy Wales or Wikipedia at this point. Not presupposing one way or another, but I don't think it reasonable to incorporate a yet-unpublished letter into this article. Should this letter actually appear in the March 19th issue, I imagine it would be an important addition to the article. Not sure when that issue hits the newsstands in the US; being a foreigner and all, I won't see it until after the publication date. Risker 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT - Just to expand, I do understand that weekly magazines are usually available to their subscribers and even on newsstands several days before the official publication date, so I am not quite as dubious as some about the provenance of the information you have provided. Risker 03:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked too and don't see independent source for it (though I believe the post above). I'd wait until it can be tacked to a verifiable source. Gwen Gale 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as the New Yorker can be said to be reliable... Please, I've uploaded an image of the letters page. I'm really not sure if the issue's out on news stands as of yet, but I hold a copy in my hands. Take a look, please. Geuiwogbil 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! If you have the copy in your hands, please cite it in the article then :) Gwen Gale 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, mystery solved. I was curious, as the online version contents for the 19th aren't up yet. Thanks for the shot of the Dior model too *wink and a grin* -- Kavri 03:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. We are all in agreement. :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What an extremely odd thing, that the print version of a magazine that has been continually published for over eighty years should be considered less of a "verifiable source" than its online version. For those of us who remember a world before the internet, the idea of receiving the April issue of a magazine in March is as unremarkable as the notion that we might have to actually visit the library to look something up in a book or magazine. There are more reliable sources in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are available online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.105.10 (talk • contribs)

Ah well, now that the issue's mentioned in the article all's well. I understand how some people aren't willing to believe something until they see it with their own eyes, especially given how contentious the matter is. I guess the answer to my first question was, "No, no one else has read it yet." The sad thing is that I don't think the letters page would ever have been put up online...Just one more of those perks for those who actually purchase the ink and glossed paper version.

As an additional note, I think the letter's mentioned too far up in the article. It disturbs the chronological flow of the piece. It should probably get a large subsection under "Wikipedia community". As it is now, the article jumps from July 2006 to March 2007 and then back to January 07.

Anyways, good luck with the article and thanks for finding a way to mention Jimmy's New Yorker apology. :) Geuiwogbil 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My editorial take on the NYer apology: Too much raw text, too little context. What do editors think about picking two lines from the apology along with a narrative summary of the rest? Cheers! Gwen Gale 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit by Casey is fitting! Spot on what I had in mind, anyway :) Gwen Gale 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment. My only problem is that the "New Yorker interview" section is now too short. Really, I'd like to combine it with the "Identity revealed" section. This would make a coherent, continuous account of the actual incident. Then the "Reaction" section would follow with the many reactions to what occurred. But some editors seem committed to a separate "Identity revealed" section for its dramatic value, so I'm hesitant about making the change. Casey Abell 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've always thought the "Identity revealed" section was a superfluous factoring of the text. Gwen Gale 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:C.m.jones just removed the letter and accompanying info. Just to note. Geuiwogbil 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...Though he didn't remove it from the accompanying infobox. Geuiwogbil 02:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted only because of his/her edit summary, which was not a valid reason. Just because something is not on the internet does not mean it is "unverifiable". Editors above have confirmed its authenticity. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx muchmuch Bbatsell! Geuiwogbil 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

very BOLD re-format (no change to content)

I broke the introduction into an intro and new section, "initial reaction"

I broke the new intro section into two paragraphs

I got rid of the 'box within a box' contents ( the TOChidden )

I widened the Timeline box (from 20em to 30em...hope that doesn't go in the face of policy)

My intention was a less cluttered and more readable beginning to the article

NOTE: I just made the changes instead of trying to describe them all, if i've broken policy regarding size of boxes, or if people in general dislike, it isn't a problem, feel free to revert...however, I'd appreciate it staying long enough for a few people to weigh in, rather than the first person to see it re-verting it. Thanks.

Since it didn't refer to content, I figured I'd try the 'be Bold' credo *grin* -- Kavri 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Netscott, sorry for taking out TOChidden before others could weigh in, but I found the Table of Contents box containing a Contents box a bit extraneous. Same as the other changes, if it is usual format or others like it, it can be reverted no problem. -- Kavri 04:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the timeline box takes up too much space on 1024x768 resolution, so it was changed from 30em to 30% by Ned Scott. -- Kavri 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I boldly reverted the separate "Inital reaction" section and put the information back into the lede. The lede now gives the reader a quick overview of the entire incident, which is what a lede should do. The change also eliminates the oddity of two "Reaction" sections. Casey Abell 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my edit summaries for these changes were a little harsh, and more than a little misspelled. My apologies for not phrasing them better. I do think a somewhat more comprehensive lede, covering the entire incident as briefly as possible, is better for the reader looking for quick information on this widely publicized controversy. Casey Abell 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revert, what prompted me in the first place, was that I disliked how 'scrunched up' the Timeline box seemed, and how it slopped over into the 'New York Times' section. As mentioned, it was easier for me to just go ahead and make the change, and call for reactions to it, than to try and explain the format (a picture is worth a thousand words? *grin*). I do like the TOChidden staying out (apologies to Netscott). As to lede, I guess I was looking at it more as a summary lede, where the initial incident was the lede, and the wider implications were the story...and saw the reaction as two seperate portions, the reaction to the initial incident, and then later, the reaction to the larger implications. That said, it still works perfectly fine the way it is now, and I'm just mentioning my thoughts on it, NOT arguing for my format change (I figure its best to explicity state that, given the intensity surrounding the article and the editing of it). By the way, for those that may not not much about ledes, this is a nice site to explain it (http://www.uark.edu/~kshurlds/FOJ/HW2.html). And Casey, thanks for the head's up, but no harshness detected at all. *smile*. -- Kavri 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to organize to the timeline box. At the moment it is hanging over a quote. I will try to fix it. The 30% was too wide. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, QG...the problem was that someone put the quotes in boxes, and those boxes were interfering with the timeline; I've reverted it back to the blockquote style. Please don't make the timeline any narrower, or it will be hard to read. Risker 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I see you were actually doing this at the same time as I was writing, no problem in the great scheme of things. I don't have a problem with placement of the timeline, though I'm not too fussy on the boxes around the quotes, which have the effect of giving them undue weight. (On the other hand they make for a visual break that may be needed.) Any other perspectives?

Risker 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I believe the timeline box position is better placed at the top right hand side. It looked odd in the middle right hand side of the page. And it was hanging over a quote and moving all the sentences the "Wikipedia community" section over to the left. Another editor added the quotations to the article. I agree, it makes for a visual break that is needed. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

International Flavour: French/French-Canadian articles

==International Flavour : French/French-Canadian articles Continuing from discussion from the Maclean's section above.

Canada is a bilingual country, French and English. In the Province of Quebec, which is a majority French, and New Brunswick, which is heavily (not sure about majority) French, one can often easily have access to French media from both Canada and France. As well, Ottawa, the nation's capital, has media in both languages readily available, as all government employees are both French and English, usually. As well, Nova Scotia has several historically important French enclaves. Just a bit of background on why I'm tossing out some French links, rather than say them going to the French version of Wikipedia, though they could go either place as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm not going to touch content on this one, just giving info for others to discuss. My french is pretty basic, so please don't put too much stock in my interpretation.

• Les spécialistes devront s'identifier sur Wikipedia

http://www2.canoe.com/techno/nouvelles/archives/2007/03/20070307-193504.html Associated Press (AP) 07/03/2007 19h35

The title roughly translates to something like, 'Experts will have to identify themselves on Wikipedia'. It seems to contain the usual facts that are already in the 'Essjay controversy' article. However, there is one part that seems to be saying that an idea proposed at Wikipedia two years ago, is now resurfacing due to the controversy. Was there some sort of identity/credential issue that hit the news two years ago?

Sidenote:I am a firm believer in the idea of using 'a' founder or no mention of founder at all This article uses 'founder' -- Kavri 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article also mentions that ordinary editors can remain anonymous:

Jimmy Wales, fondateur de Wikipedia, a déclaré lors d'entretiens au téléphone et d'échanges de messages instantanés mercredi depuis le Japon que les auteurs en ligne pourraient rester anonymes tant qu'ils ne se présenteraient pas comme des professionnels dans leur domaine. Dans ce cas, ils devront produire leurs diplômes.

Translation: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia said during telephone interviews and emails from Japan, on Wednesday, that editors can remain anonymous as long as they do not present themselves as experts in their field. In such cases they have to submit their diplomas (credentials).Ivygohnair 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Un faux professeur cesse ses activités d'éditeur et d'arbirtre sur Wikipedia

http://www2.canoe.com/techno/nouvelles/archives/2007/03/20070307-121606.html Canoë D'après la BBC News 07/03/2007 12h16

Um, little less sure of this, but seems to be saying 'A false professor ceases his activities as editor and arbitrator at Wikipedia. The article contains a picture of J. Wales

Sidenote:I am a firm believer in the idea of using 'a' founder or no mention of founder at all This article uses 'co-founder' -- Kavri 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article just reports what has been said about the background of the controversy. The last few paras may be of interest:

Le 3 mars dernier, Jimmy Wales, co-fondateur de Wikipedia, écrit sur le site que malgré le repentir de M. Jordan, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que «Wikipedia repose sur les piliers jumeaux de la confiance et de la tolérance».

«Même si je lui pardonne personnellement, j’espère qu’il acceptera de remettre sa démission parce que pardon ou pas, les décisions qu’il a prises sont tout à fait inappropriées», écrit Wales. M. Jordan annonce finalement qu’il se retire du site dans un texte publié le jour suivant sur Wikipedia. «J’espère que maintenant, les gens sauront canaliser toute l’énergie dépensée ces jours derniers - à me défendre ou à me dénoncer – vers des objectifs bénéfiques à Wikipedia»,écrit-il.

Translation: Jimmy Wales the co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on Wikipedia, the 3 march, that despite the confession of Mr Jordan, it must not be forgotten that Wikipedia is based on the twin pillars of trust and tolerance.

"Even if I personally forgive him, I hope that he will agree to submit his resignation, because forgive or not, the decisions he has made are completely inappropriate", wrote Wales.

Finally Mr Jordan announced in a post on Wikipedia the following day the he would retire from the site: "I hope now that people will be able to transfer all the energy spent these last few days- on defending or attacking me- to improving Wikepedia", he wrote. Ivygohnair 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipédia, à visage découvert

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-651865,36-880852@51-837044,0.html LEMONDE.FR | 08.03.07 | 15h01 • Mis à jour le 09.03.07 | 16h16

Hmm...really not sure of the translation, 'to face discovery'?...its also the title of a book by a Canadian politician, so it might be some sort of phrase with a non-literal meaning. La Monde is a publication from France, but is widely available in French or cosmopolitan areas of Canada. For whatever reasons, the article made the use of the Catholicism for Dummies one its headings. My French wasn't up to understanding this article very well, but of note is that it links to the 'Essjay Controversy' article here (ie in the English Wikipedia)

Sidenote:I am a firm believer in the idea of using 'a' founder or no mention of founder at all This article uses 'Father of Wikipedia' (at least that is my presumption, of what 'la papa de Wikipedia' translates as. -- Kavri 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A visage découvert simply means "Uncovered" or "Exposed" in English. The heading "Catholicism for Dummies" is just usual newspaper editing for the following paragraph which mentions that Essjay sourced from this.

"Le Monde" is one of the leading newspapers in France known for its intellectual content. The article is well-written but adds nothing new to what has already been reported in the media.Ivygohnair 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on talk page

Please discuss content changes to this article here on the talk page before making them. Three edits were made in short order by different editors that changed the entire POV of the article. I have reverted to the state before those edits, please discuss them here before re-editing. Risker 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will clarifiy the first sentence based upon the facts of the references provided. It needs a little work. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Content and Reference.

upon using these false credentials in "content disputes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=115468890&oldid=115461506

I added better detail to a sentence. Please discuss before removing next time. Adding more detail improved the article. :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page, QG. I am concerned about picking out two words from an article that were in turn quotations from some unknown source. I think it would be better to have a good idea of the original source of those quotes before adding this reference. Risker 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales issued a new statement on his Wikipedia user talk page after realizing Essjay used false credentials in content disputes:

I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc. I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach. From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistake.[1]

• This is the direct quote from a co-founder.[2] If we are so inclined we can add the entire quote or we can put back the summarizing of the quote. :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks for finding the original original source! I can't register for the Boston Globe because of the network security system I'm working under, so only got to read one page of their article. Well, I think you have responded to my concern about sourcing. Since this will be archived in the talk page (Archive 9 already!), and it is indeed quoted in a reliable source, I have no ground for objection. In fact, I would suggest that the quotation marks be dropped at this point. It is just too precious to quote a quote for two words. Risker 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I suggested we also consider adding the entire quote and entire paragraph. This is part of history!

2) For now you can add back the info you removed and then we can gain consensus to add the whole thing to the body of the article. Any suggestions. :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean that entire section of Wales' talk page? It's really too long, to start with; but more problematic, we would wind up back with the arguments about self-referencing again. I think the source you inserted when you made the original edit should be able to stand quite well, based on the fact that you have been able to trace the "content disputes" bit back to its original source. Risker 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, if you get a chance you can add the info you deleted. As for the entire quotes. If a reliable source is found we can consider its weight for the article. Of course, a shortened version because it is is bit long. :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add the info back in since I have verified the facts to your satisfactory. Thanks for double chiecking. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the "Catholicism for Dummies" reference?

I am willing to be persuaded. My absurdist sense of humour is having a real chuckle over the idea of an edit war over any book title that includes the word "Dummies." Let's discuss please. Risker 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's non-neutral and sensationalistic. The only reason I didn't bring this up several days ago is because I had mistakenly thought it was part of a quote. --tjstrf talk 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There have now been five reverts related to adding the information about this book in the past two hours, involving four editors (myself included, with an edit summary asking that this be discussed). Folks, could we please talk about this here rather than making a mess of the history? Risker 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with mentioning the book. There is nothing non-neutral about it. This is the book Essjay brought up. We didn't introduce it into the situation. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but the way it's being used is not neutral, and that's rather obvious. Also, we don't know that he even used the book a lot, only that he defended it. Mention the book if you want, but the emphases it had where it was written was inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll jump in with my opinion (can't resist being part of the 'Dummy War'...*grin*). The article currently says, and had relied on sources such as Catholicism for Dummies[9] when editing articles Currently I'm working on an article about Canadian poet Dorothy Lovesay, it exists, but I'd like to expand it. One of the sources I'm relying on for my edit is '15 Canadian Poets Plus 5'. My point? There is NOTHING wrong or incorrect about using a book as a source for editing an article. Under that reasoning, I think it should be dropped.

However, if one can show that he used the book in context of backing up or refering to his credentials as a theology professor, than I am fine with its inclusion in some form. I do recall someone quoting/saying he had made a remark about having his students read it, when someone challenged him on using it as a source... if that is true, then some sort of quote, or summary, saying he used the book under the auspices of his credentials, would, imo, need to be included.

Just saying he used a book as a source for an edit, in and of itself makes it appear as if this is somehow 'wrong', and is extraneous to the article in general. -- Kavri 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my issue isn't with the title of the book or the use of a book as a reference (although actually, the book itself isn't a reference, just some info to make the title turn to a link to the "...for Dummies" article), it is with the spectacle of several experienced editors and admins edit warring over it. Tomorrow, someone will come along and delete (or insert) it again, and start off another bout, because there has been no discussion of the situation on the talk page that editors can point to that demonstrates that a consensus has been reached. Risker 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of leads to another point, that it was clearly being used as a negative remark, when using such a book is not necessarily negative in the first place. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that this tidbit of information doesn't really seem to belong in the lead of this article, simply because it isn't anywhere near a key fact. If it is to remain in the article, it would make more sense in a later section. Risker 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with User:Risker here. (→Netscott) 05:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can support a compromise to move it, but it would be wrong to delete the fact. The mainstream media thought it was important enough to report. The very fact that some people think it speaks well of Essjay (Great, he used a book as a source!) and that some people think it comes across as negative (Ewee he used that book?) means that we should include the fact and let the reader weigh the facts. Johntex\^talk 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1) ABC News: Wikiscandal

2) Wikipedia 'expert' admits: I made it up.

3) Wikipedia canon law "expert" outed as a 24-year-old dropout References! :) Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that more media sources have reported Essjay edited the Justin Timberlake article than reported he used Catholicism for Dummies as a reference. It just seems to be to be giving this undue weight to have it in the lead. Perhaps the last line of the first section? Risker 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Its noteworthy as multiple non-trivial RS have covered it, but it's hardly central to the story. Either drop it towards a later part of the article or keep it in the lead is fine--but it must be included for completeness... - Denny 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting the book is fine, but clearly its use in the lead is.. wrong.. for many reasons. Even if you disagree with one of those reasons, we've got about 10 other reasons not to mention the book there and in that way. It's like everyone here just expects things to be controversial preemptively.. Calm down, people. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just drop it lower out of the lead. it's not a huge thing, but I will object to it's censure/removal. it's main to the story/history, but hardly main overall. - Denny 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship isn't a factor here, so rest assure about that. Funny thing about Risker's comment, this made me think about the weird focus on Justin Timberlake as well.. Also, We shouldn't kid ourselves here, we know the news media doesn't understand the ins and outs of our community, and they're far from being flawless. Like a line from a movie or something, I can see someone saying in a serious voice, "It's a dark day when you can weasel something into an article because the media decided to hype it up for ratings." :) -- Ned Scott 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"In a world... with faked credentials, trolls at the gate, and vandals on recent changes... one man had the mop that could clean up..." Thats what the movie should be. - Denny 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of considerations...

Issues:

IF it is used, does it go in the lede, or later in the article.

Inclusion

• It could be seen as positive, he had a source related to the credentials he made up.
• It could be seen as negative, he shouldn't have used it.
• Other sites mention it in their articles.
• Include it, but make clear it isn't a Wikipedia violation.
• Possible inclusion, if we show how he misused it.

Exclusion

• It would be misleading, we know that there is nothing wrong with using a book as a source for an article, and we are perpetuating a possible NPOV. (also, Wikipedia is NOT a newsmagazine).

• Unless it is shown he used the book improperly, to weigh an argument, it is extraneous to the story (revisit, What is this article about? the book is NOT part of the controversy) UNLESS, there is proof he misused it (I read somewhere he made reference to him saying he gets his students to read it, when questioned about the use of a Dummies book as a citation, but have no reference to this myself).

-- Kavri 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My vote, don't include, BUT, if it IS included, pull it out of the lede, and preferably give it some context (ie, isn't against wikipedia policy in and of itself) -- Kavri 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

the thing is, that context has to be RS as well. I like how every line is going for bulletproof sourcing. All of them should be like that. On all articles... - Denny 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I might be confused here, and not understanding, but wouldnt the source for context be at the very least, Wikipedias own rules/policy? Also, it was pointed out earlier that Maclean's had it's facts wrong, but it is a source...would that mean we can use information we know to be wrong, so long as it's sourced? -- (slightly befuddled) Kavri 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More senior people can clear it up, but verifiability, not truth... like, we can't try to prove anything right or wrong, it's not our role, and it would be OR. Since we also can't link/cite to WP policies directly, that's offlimits. We have to work without that. If RS say that our policies prohibit, xyz, then we can say that in article space, which has super-tight, good rules on what can be in or out. - Denny 06:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Denny, that was enough for me to get a better feel as to where I was running off the tracks. -- Kavri 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to be clear about something. There is no blanket prohibition against linking to Wikipedia policies We can and should link to Wikipedia to prove points about Wikipedia. For examples, please see the Wikipedia article itself. Reference 18 for example. It is a reference that proves the fact we have portals. How? By linking to one of our portals, of course. The very first "external link" is to the Wikipedia main page. This makes perfect sense.

We do have a policy to avoid self-reference, but this is talking about a style thing. It means to avoid things like "In this article we will discus..." and "Click here to see a picture...", etc. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

We also have a policy that says we can't rely on an article from Wikipedia as a reference for another article. That means I can't write in Bill Gates that Microsoft just went out of business and then run over to Microsoft and say the same thing, citing our article on Bill Gates as my source.

None of this means we can't link to our own policies. We can and should link to our own policies when it is our policy that is under discussion. Johntex\^talk 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Johntex, I respect your opinion on this matter, and on the whole agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a lot of editors and admins who vehemently disagree with that interpretation. In an article as contentious as this one (AfD #4 is due any time now), it behooves us to go the extra mile to find the best possible sources - and the sources least susceptible to challenge - for every item. (Sorry, forgot to sign this at the time, this edit was by me Risker)

If some editors have a mistaken idea of our policy, then we need to educate those editors, not give in to their mistaken demmands. Since this is a controversial article, we should follow policy closely. Policy includes the ability to link to Wikipedia as a source - we should do so. Johntex\^talk 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now...there are fine sources for the Catholicism for Dummies reference; it seems there is more or less agreement that if it is moved out of the lead, most of the editors around here are comfortable with keeping it in. Have we reached consensus? And if so, does someone want to draft up the sentence and let MessedRocker know? Risker 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker, I'd suggest it be written in the talk page, but not put in the article till daytime on the 16th, it's rather late eastern/central time, and it would be better for the non-nighthawks/insomniacs to see it as well. -- Kavri 07:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some new info, it's a long entry, so will start new section PS - that means scrolling down past the photo section -- Kavri 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, a lot of you seem to be forgetting that someone who claimed to have a doctorate in Canon Law was using a book for people who don't know anything about Catholicism to make his edits. I think that speaks for the quality of the book, sure, but it also says something about Essjay. Include it -- just include it later on in the article, not in the lead. --Dookama 09:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy, sure, but I think we should avoid making it sound like this is the only thing he had for reference. We don't know one way or another, and even if he lied about being a professor doesn't mean he didn't know anything about the topic. It's obvious that he spent a good amount of time talking and writing about the topic and that he had an interest in it. The way the ABC article phrased it made it sound like he was choosing random discussions to be involved in, pulling "cheat notes" off a book on a shelf. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So... because the ABC article phrased something a certain way, it's unsuitable for inclusion...? And even if he had an interest in a topic, he gave his arguments weight by saying that he had certain credentials. Then, he later admits that isntead of having a Ph.D. he was just using a book that's basically Catholicism 101. And it doesn't deserve to be included... because ABC made it sound bad...? --Dookama 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be widely agreed that the "Dummies" reference is worthy of inclusion; there remain two issues, the placement in the article and the wording of the sentence to maintain NPOV without adding or taking away from the words of the reliable sources. I hesitate to say that it is such a key issue that it needs to be in the lead; if it was that important, a huge number of sources would be referring to it, but indeed it is only a minority. Risker 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that it's a minor issue. All it needs is a passing mention, really -- but a comment made even in passing is still a comment made. --Dookama 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dookma, I'm fine with a passing mention, as to your above mention, the problem in my view, wasn't that it didn't deserve to be included because ABC made it look bad, but rather, that it shouldn't be included in such a way as to appear that using the book _as a source for edits_ was wrong. Whether it is merely mentioned in passing, or mentioned as giving weight to his arguements seem fine to me. Just wanted to clarify that, since I'm the one that tried tossing out an 'Issues' list. -- Kavri 14:03, 16 March 2007

(UTC)

I risk sounding old-fashioned, but I can't resist adding that common sense points to the fact that if we forbid even the mentioning of the book, are we not being biased (violating WP:NPOV) ourselves and practising some form of censorship?Ivygohnair 10:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)