User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Blood Libel

Would you take a look at recent history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_libel&curid=4941&diff=381675453&oldid=381673825 ? I find the goodfaith clause nearly exhausted.--Galassi (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite tied up this week, but hope to be back to more regular editing next week, and will take a look then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the conflict there; why do you object to "myth" as opposed to "false accusation"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the suffering inflicted due to the myth was real and well documented. My impression is that Steinberger is attempting to dilute the issue.--Galassi (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article now has "false" in it as well, but with a request for citation - why not just add back the citations you were using before? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. So far Steinberger didn't revert it. He is good with legalisms, and is behaviorally correct. But the content advocated by him seems to be intended to create a possibility of justification of BL.--Galassi (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

After your comment, he apparently did revert again. I've added a few reliable sources, re-written parts of the lede and article to accurately reflect them; let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was fine. Would it last?....--Galassi (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The material is pretty strongly sourced; he seems to have accepted it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see he is still at it, though he's trying a different angle this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Troy was a myth. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On a tangentially related subject: user Lvivske is active on the Stormfront forum, just to give you heads-up.--Galassi (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's completely unsurprising. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As is his handle there: Sokil - his favorite hockey team... Now he's warring to dilute Jews out of Babi Yar. --Galassi (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been told Steinb. hangs out there as well.--Galassi (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for the wrong reason: just a remark

I am not going to make too much of because the passage you have removed from E1b1b and E1b1b1a had other issues (as will be seen from E1b1b archives), but I do want to remind you that a source's profession or University degree is not relevant at all to any comment they make in an editorial about what the media says. I could imagine an amateur source being questioned on a technical matter (questioned, not deleted automatically, one of the most cited authors in this field, Stephen Oppenheimer, is not a geneticist for example) but reporting what the media writes is not such a technical point. To repeat though, the meaning, relevance and notability of the passage were a source of much debate anyway. I wanted to contact you and explain what I think partly because I noticed that you deleted the comment from E1b1ba not long after you were involved in an RS debate using very similar words to the ones you used in your edit summary. During that discussion, although you did not like it I think, I did show how the JOGG as a journal has a verifiable reputation for fact checking in the relevant scientific community. (Just for your interest, whether you like it or not, it has in fact become standard practice for "real" population geneticists to cite sources who are "hobbyists" in this field, most obviously the ISOGG website. This trend progressed further this month with the publication of a major breakthrough paper which openly states that their starting point was information supplied by the genetic genealogy community. Myres, Natalie (2010), "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene effect in Central and Western Europe", European Journal of Human Genetics)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The jogg website is not The New York Times orThe Washington Post. It's not a media outlet, it's an amateur website run by non-professionals. It fails WP:RS. As a contributor to that website, you have a natural interest in protesting that fact. Are you claiming to be a professional geneticist? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You were involved in the RS discussion concerning JOGG where that type of vague and irrelevant innuendo rightfully failed to convince anyone other than you. The other uninvolved editors were User:Jmh649 and User:DGG. (By the way I have done other things in my life than have one review article published in JOGG, but so what? Are you saying my qualifications and/or publications would count against me or for me?) To remind you, the basic problem is that your way of saying that a whole source can simply fail RS in an absolute way, even if it has a reputation for fact checking, is quite blatantly opposed to normal WP practice and policy. I am confident that you also already know that being a professional journalist or a professional geneticist also has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy except in special cases. RS discussions which involve very specific demands like the two different ones you are now giving here (your edit summary did not say Coffman-Levy needed to be a professional journalist, and indeed that would have looked odd) have to be based upon something specific to the content, so in future all I ask is that please try to frame your explanations that way, noting what it is in the deleted text which you think requires special sourcing, so that reasonable discussion can be had where necessary. I believe what I am asking is just standard policy on Wikipedia? If you think not, can you please explain in a way which does not ignore what I hope you know to be my good faith WP-policy-based explanation? WP:RS states that "Proper sourcing always depends on context".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to be misunderstood, so I'll add that another way of stating the concern I just wanted to raise is that it does not look like you even read and comprehended what you deleted in the context it was deleted from. And I'll explain why I say that...

The passage you deleted had several quotes, but (if you actually read E1b1b almost all of these were simply repeating statements already in the article with better sourcing. So those particular parts of the paragraph obviously needed no new special sourcing, but if it had been the ONLY source given for those facts, it would have been questioned harder. (To remind you, I DID question this quote quite hard, and the way it was used, but not in the context-insensitive way you did.)

Here is the quote you deleted:-

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, {{Harvcoltxt|Coffman-Levy|2005}} wrote that although E1b1b1 "arose in East Africa," it is "often incorrectly described as 'African'" in the sense that it creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005. She cites E1b1b as one of several examples of Y haplogroups (including also [[Haplogroup J1|J1]], [[Haplogroup J2|J2]], and [[Haplogroup G|G]]) too simplistically associated with a particular geographical or ethnic background.<ref group="Note">{{Harvcoltxt|Coffman-Levy|2005}}: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."</ref> In particular, she writes that "various branches and sub-branches of haplogroup E had very different evolutionary histories and distinct migration patterns" while, as will be discussed below, "certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years".

The ONLY parts of this paragraph and footnote which are not already in the E1b1b article with better sourcing are:

• The assertion that the media describes E1b1b as African. For this you need no degree.
• The synthesis that describing it as simply African is an over-simplification which ignores the complex history (already cited better in the rest of the article where some parts of E1b1b have been outside of Africa for thousands of years). This synthesis is a fairly trivial and uncontroversial synthesis, at least the way the paragraph eventually came to be written, so I did not believe it could easily be dismissed using WP:REDFLAG. Furthermore it was correctly presented as one person's opinion.

OTOH I believe the notability of the synthesis is however more open to question, particularly given the time which has elapsed since this statement about what was once in the press. I hope this clarifies what I mean. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read this carefully. jogg is a hobby website, run by non-geneticists. It is not a media organization, and therefore cannot be cited as such. Nor is it a professional journal of genetics, therefore it cannot be cited as such. It does not qualify as an WP:RS, as noted by the uninvolved editors at the WP:RS/N board, including me, User:Abecedare, User:MarmadukePercy, User:Dougweller, User:Crum375 and User:Hans Adler, despite your incredibly lengthy, WP:ICANTHEARYOU defense of the site at WP:RS/N. Coffman-Levy is a family lawyer who has only been published on this hobby website she helps run; therefore she does not qualify as an "established expert", per WP:V. She is also not a reporter working for an established media organization, who published her comments in an established media outlet (e.g. The New York Times). As far as can be ascertained, you also do not qualify as an "established expert". You do, however, have a WP:COI regarding this website, since you have had material "published" by it. I'm not going to re-argue the consensus at WP:RS/N with you on my Talk: page. Nor am I going to discuss the contents of a specific article here. To re-iterate:

1. jogg is a hobby genetics website, that fails WP:RS.
2. jogg is not an established media organization.
3. You have been "published" on the jogg website, and therefore have a WP:COI regarding it.
4. Coffman-Levy is a family lawyer, and does not qualify as an "established expert" on genetics.
5. You apparently also do not qualify as an "established expert" regarding genetics.

Please do not make further comments here that simply re-iterate your previous arguments rejected at WP:RS/N and elsewhere. Accept Wikipedia's policies and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I want to follow WP policy, which includes trying to work with others to build consensus, and my trying to discuss this is done in good faith. I understand from the above tone of response that this effort to communicate has failed miserably now. (Honestly, it seems you simply have not read anything I've ever tried to write about this. Your comments about me are also apparently intended to be unpleasant although you clearly don't know me.) That happens I suppose. But anyway we have no practical case to hand, and maybe if we did things discussion would also be more focused. So I'll leave it as requested. But for the record, just to complete the inventory of things we disagree on for now, your recital of what happened in the RS/N case is very obviously wrong. Thanks for your time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't mean to be unpleasant, but I'm also finding it a bit wearing at this point. I've read your statements, but I basically don't agree with them, or agree that they have an impact on whether or not the website is a WP:RS. Do you not recognize that your view of the site might be biased by the fact that you, like the site's maintainers, are a non-expert in genetics writing papers on genetics, and have had your paper uploaded to this website? Do you not consider it at least a bit odd that this website claims to be a peer-reviewed source on genetics (a scientific discipline), but that essentially none of the website's maintainers or authors are professional geneticists? That professionals all publish instead in established peer-reviewed genetics journals? If a family lawyer, economist, law-student, and biologist created a "peer-reviewed" website on quantum physics or pharmacology or some other scientific discipline, with themselves as the editors, and similar non-experts as contributors, do you think it would be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I will assume from this that you don't mind if I respond to what you've just written, because it contains questions and implied accusations. As there is no practical case open, please take your time and indeed I require no response unless you see a problem you think worth remarking to me. It is certainly not my intention to attack you or pressure you or waste your time. I'd just rather get this stuff discussed while there is no urgent need to, and before some sort of misunderstanding builds up any further.

First the (implied) accusation: Of course you can now claim that I might be driven by a conflict of interest, but such proposals (i.e. assuming bad faith) are easy to make for any given Wikipedian, and the more a Wikipedian does, even if what they do is good, the easier it is. No discussion is possible if this is all we have to discuss. So no offense intended, but I believe the only possible way to work on Wikipedia, with people you do not know, is to focus on the merits of the cases, not mental images about the people in the discussions. (Hopefully evil plots will be exposed by a slips of the tongue or inconsistent actions, but if the baddies successfully act good the whole time then actually that will be good anyway!) I hope you can agree.

(If I may defend myself though:- The RS case was for me just a small episode in a larger series of edit wars most of which did not involve JOGG, and I believe my consistent actions show my intentions.)

1. Putting aside good faith questions, the discussion we've had so far comes down mainly to the distinction "hobbyist versus professional", terms which seem to relate to who pays someone's salary, and me saying that if we are going to be serious we need to convert these into definitions that relate to WP policy. There is nothing about salaries in WP policy for example.

• What makes a person or source cite-able on WP is pretty simply whether they are taken seriously elsewhere, outside of Wikipedia, by people or organizations with reputations for fact checking in the relevant area. (Maybe this is what you really mean by professional?)
• "Citations" is the question where the RS discussion went after you apparently left it, with all sides admitting that JOGG and particularly some of its authors, have some level of recognition in the relevant academic (or if you want "professional") peer-reviewed journals. After that it became a relative question rather than an absolute one.
• By the way, you have pushed the question pretty hard so I'll answer that I have been published in the European Journal of Human Genetics. Perhaps more relevant is another example: the Russian author whom interests wanted filtered out of R1a has been published and cited in a big name "professional genetics" journal also (Human Genetics). Both these examples were just letters, but both replied to by "bigger names". I do not want to make any point of that or claim to be the most cite-able person on earth, and remember I did not cite myself or anyone I agree with during any of these discussions. (Honestly that is really not my interest in life. I really like trying to be neutral. But I do think that it would be silly to imply that being a bit better informed than the average WP is just a bad thing because it implies COI.) The real point is that relatively speaking at least, it is citations like this which in principle can at least potentially be used by Wikipedians to discuss whether someone might be cite-able in WP, not who pays their salary. In other words having at least this amount of citation would seem to me to make it impossible to dismiss a source in an absolute way and without discussion, just because anything about genetics is mentioned, as you apparently proposed.

2. WP:RS rules not only require a source to be known for fact checking, but also to be relevant to the field in discussion in case it is specialized. Your response to this has again been straightforward, and again focuses on wording which I tried to discuss with you. Although you had the least to do with any of the articles involved you proposed very confidently that we were simply discussing "genetics". (To me that was a bit wrong of you to be honest. Surely this needed to be part of the case being proposed, not something an outside party should be defining everyone. And to me it at one point it even seemed like you actually tried to stop people talking about it.) Here also, the RS discussion got to grips with trying to convert back to the reality of the real cases where JOGG might be cited, not worst case scenarios, after you seemed to leave it. Part of what I consider to be the final agreement was that JOGG is not a great source for the really primary technical stuff. It turned out that no one had ever been claiming that. Once this distinction came into the conversation discussion became more practical and easy.

The question raised here is relevant to the Levy-Coffman quote and my point to you about it not being "genetics" in a technical sense but just a comment about what is in the media. You replied in a way which actually raises questions about your previous replies. When you say that Levy-Coffman would have to be writing in the New York Times or Washington Post you show that we agree that not all mention of the word genetics requires the same level of "professional" citation, but you also seem to make up a new rule out of thin air. For an uncontroversial comment like this, which can be verified just using Google (to check if the media really talked about it), WP has no such demand. This question about whether something less than the New York Times can be used to say what the media says was of course never part of the RS case, but I think there are many like it every day and the answers are easy to predict.

It seems to me that one maybe the "established" is important, as in established media. JOGG is not very old. But what happens when a new source develops? Does Wikipedia reject all sources younger than 5 years old or something like that? No. WP has clear guidelines on how to determine if a source is known and taken seriously outside Wikipedia in the appropriate way. Wikipedia tells us not to decide that ourselves.

Once again thanks for your time, and once again please do believe that my intentions are good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, getting a letter to the editor published in a peer-reviewed journal is not what Wikipedia means by a "work", when it says an "established expert" is someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Having a paper on the topic published in a such a journal would qualify as a "work". While such letters to the editor may well be edited (typically to reduce their length), they are not in any sense peer-reviewed for accuracy - and it is peer-review (and acceptance) by experts that gives an author credibility as an expert. So too, getting one's letter to the editor published in a newspaper does not mean that the author of that letter now has the same reliability as a reporter for that paper. In addition, the whole point about having an established media outlet publish something is that such media outlets have experienced editors (and lawyers) who comply with journalistic and legal standards, and fact-check articles for accuracy. The jogg website does not claim to be a media outlet; rather, it claims to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is obviously not the former; it's not an online newspaper reporting "all the latest genetics news". It's also obviously not the latter, since the people involved in adding material to the website are all amateurs, whose expertise lies in fields other than genetics, such as economics, family law, mathematics, computer science, engineering, library science, etc. And finally, there is no exemption to WP:RS for "an uncontroversial comment... which can be verified just using Google." Verifying by Google is original research, and if a comment is truly uncontroversial, then some actual reliable source will have made it. jogg.info is what I and many other editors have already explained to you many times; a hobby website, run by non-experts, that fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, really, if I am misunderstanding you then you have my apologies and please explain my errors. But the following is a reply to you the only way I can understand you. My apologies for yet another post...

• This type of "Letter" in this type of journal is peer-reviewed in a long slow process. It is basically a short academic article. It is not a "letter to the editor" but a letter to the field. These letters are part of the literature of the field and are frequently cited like any other peer reviewed article. The letter is just a side issue of course, in response to your probing and innuendo, but frankly, your response strongly implies that you are not familiar at all with how publication in this field works.
• If a person like Stephen Oppenheimer, a good example from outside our discussion, is widely cited outside Wikipedia as someone who knows about genetics, he can be potentially be cited by Wikipedia in articles about genetics. Wikipedia policy does not tell us exactly when to use him, but it certainly does the opposite of telling us to delete mention of him only because of who pays his salary or what he did at University which is what you appear to be insisting? If you know of a real WP policy which says otherwise, and tells us that salary source or undergraduate history are more important than citations in the field then please cite it? Otherwise we are indeed talking in pointless circles.
• In exactly the same way, if a publication is treated as a source of news, then it can potentially be used as a source of news. And again, if the people working for the newspaper are unpaid, and even if you as a Wikipedian think their degrees were wrong, this has no relevance to WP policy. It is how the outside world views them that counts. Once again please cite a real policy in a clear way if you really know of one which disagrees.
• Verifying a source using google as a bit of back-up research during a talk page discussion about a source does NOT come under WP:OR rules, and indeed nothing on talk pages does. Using google while considering a sourcing case is common on RS/N, and by the way internet searching was used (in a specific way which policy has actually been written to advise against) by the person whose arguments you say convinced you, in the RS case we were discussing.

Frankly, you seem unable to give this subject the attention it requires in order to be able to have worthwhile things to say about it, not the science, nor the WP policy questions, nor the Wikipedia articles involved, nor the positions stated by fellow Wikipedians (even including the ones you think you agree with). I would leave it that, but please understand my real and not my imaginary interest in this, which is that between the lines your way of insisting on your recent edit summary seems to be reserving some right to take absolute sides in content debates about genetics article without reading or understanding the content? If you really insist on that extreme position, which is way outside of WP norms or policies, then I think we strongly have to consider taking it to a bigger forum to get a community reading on it before any damage is done. There has been a lot of work done on genetics article to stop edit warring, mostly ethnic-based, or OR driven, which specifically often uses non-neutral ("cherry picking") source selection. My insistence on trying to make all editors justify their source deletions in terms of CLEAR WP policy is neutral and has been recognized by fellow editors and admins over-looking multiple cases as working well, and the RS case that your were involved was recognized by all or most involved parties to be a small part of that bigger story. The edit summary you've recently made, if you insist it was acceptable, would threaten to reverse a lot of that work.

If on the other hand you want to discuss the fine points of the real question of how to get the "inclusionist" balance right in genetics articles, that is another discussion and I'd be happy to have more people thinking about it in terms of real WP policies such as WP:DUE, WP:Neutral, WP:NOTE, WP:REDFLAG, etc. I am really not an inclusionist by faith, and remember that my calls for clear policy related explanations of deletions has been universal, not favoring any theories. I am just an editor who found that some types of article need more inclusionist approaches than others in order to get past never-ending edit wars and try to achieve WP:CONSENSUS.

Salaries and university degrees are not a relevant subject according to WP policy. And yes, if some biologists start a journal which starts getting cited by physicists as a physics-related source then WP does indeed tell us that this journal thus becomes a potential source for physics subjects, depending partly upon the way it is cited by the physicists and what it is being proposed for in WP. We on Wikipedia definitely do not get to tell those hypothetical physicists they are wrong on the basis of salaries or qualification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, all letters to the editor are, in fact, a letter to the reader of whatever publication they happen to be in. Are you seriously suggesting that they undergo the same peer-review process as an article in a scientific journal? That they meet the same standards? In addition, you keep making the odd argument that the jogg website is a media outlet, but it simply isn't, and no amount of rhetoric will turn it into one. It doesn't claim to be one, it claims to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal. When it changes its website to read "Jogg.Info - all the latest genetics news", ot "Jogg.info - your favorite genetics news portal", and refers to its contributors as "reporters", then Wikipedia can assess whether or not its a reliable "media outlet". Until then it will be assessed on what it claims to be. You cannot bring a source that claims to be one thing, but then insist it be assessed on the standard of something it does not claim to be. And while people use Google to confirm all sorts of things, one cannot insert a claim into an article based on the notion that it's "an uncontroversial comment... which can be verified just using Google." All claims in articles that are challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be cited to reliable sources. And finally, your comments here have been far too personal; in the future, if you reply, comment only on jogg.info, and say nothing whatsoever about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No: I never called the letter a letter to the editor; I never made any argument about WP policy concerning "media outlets" (however you define that); and I did not say that you can use google as a source for a claim which is challenged. Unfortunately you are "answering" concerns and comments that you are making up for me, not the ones I have written myself. (Fact of the matter is that you did not say anything in the Coffman-Levy quote was controversial, nor engage in conversation about why you think it would be when offered. Nothing in your discussion so far shows evidence you have read and understood what you deleted. That's the point.)

Basically I am reminding you very simply that if you delete sourced material you can expect to be reverted according to the real WP policies if...

• You can show no sign of having read and understood the context of the content you removed. (You can not claim to be removing controversial material if you have not done this, and you can not claim to have considered the sourcing properly according WP policy if you have not done this. WP:RS says clearly that this always has to be content specific.)
• You can not cite a real WP policy which would apply, rather than a wording developed yourself. (There is nothing about salaries and degrees and job titles being more important than citations, verifiability and reputation for fact checking in Wikipedia for example.)

If you want, I can write a draft RS/N post to see if we can agree on what we actually disagree about? In fact I would be interested to see if we can even agree what our disagreement is. There are several difficulties I am having discussing this deletion example with you:-

• You do not respond to what I really write. I keep trying to bring it back to terms of WP policy as it is really written, but you introduce your own terms, as if we were discussing them, or as if they are in the WP policies, when they are not.
• I can never see any clear definition of what your arguments really are. You switch from one subject to another, pushing me about my qualifications, or whatever, but keep away from the core. Just saying "X fails WP:RS" is not an argument at all and "X is not a media outlet", "X is not a professional journal" etc are not conclusive arguments only points which may or may not be relevant once you define them and put them together in an argument which refers to WP policy. (What's the WP-policy equivalent of your terms "professional", "media outlet" etc, and does WP say these are the only possible ways a source can be acceptable, etc.)

Please understand that as long as a deleting editor can state a reasonable case in terms of real policies no long discussion is necessary. I watch these articles and react neutrally to visiting editors who delete sourced materials, whether I agree with those sourced materials or not. Cherry picking of sources without such explanations is definitely a frequent practical tit-for-tat problem on genetics articles and can't simply be ignored. I'm only asking you to accept WP policy as it is really written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DRAFT for RS/N. Please comment about whether it is accurate. Maybe just trying to define our disagreement will help though.

• This question is not about any current editing disagreement, but about how sourcing-based deletions should be explained, especially when questioned. There is a disagreement on this, and concerning what WP policy is about this.
• A sourced passage was deleted by User:Jayjg on E1b1b several times, and re-inserted by other authors and this is apparently now a slow edit war. I am not involved but I have the article on my watchlist. I do not find the passage particularly notable or important or controversial the way it is currently worded. However I know other editors do, and that it has been the subject of edit wars before. I have raised concerns about the quality of the deletion justifications with the deleting party because genetics articles often have visitors who cherry pick sources, for good or bad reasons, and start tit-for-tat edit wars. See talk page. There is disagreement about whether better deletion justifications are needed.
• A list of Jayjg's deletion edit summaries:-

• remove WP:REDFLAG material by family lawyer on hobby website [1]
• remove WP:REDFLAG material by family lawyer written on hobby website [2]
• Coffman-levy practices family law. her degrees are in law, not genetics. [3]

• As can be seen, the initial claim justifying deletion is WP:REDFLAG which implies that the quote being deleted makes "exceptional claims" about genetics. However when read in context, the quote being deleted only makes the following claims, which were reported as personal opinion in the deleted passage, and are uncontroversial or even trivial points concerning what the media says...

• ...That the media tend to describe E1b1b in a correct but simple way as "African".
• ...That this description might be wrongly understood to imply that E1b1b outside of Africa left Africa in recent millenia.

(Uncontroversial sourcing already exists in the article for the facts that E1b1b originated in Africa, but that non African E1b1b has for the most part been out of Africa for millenia.)

• The deletions started not long after Jayjg participated in a RS/N case concerning the journal (JOGG) where this source comes from, the Journal of Genetic Genealogy the RS discussion concerning JOGG. He does not normally edit on any genetics related articles. I remark this firstly to point out that the term "hobby website" is a polemic term with a history, and not uncontroversial, and secondly because that case is raised by both parties on the talk page discussion again. Just quickly:-

• The deleting party believes deletion can be justified in this case without reference to anything in the specific deleted material, just based on the journal it appeared in.
• I believe that nothing in the conclusions of that previous RS/N discussion show any clear and absolute guidance about what to do about this one edit, and certainly isn't clear enough to justify the kind of deletion where the content of what is being deleted can be ignored out of hand and not mentioned as part of the deletion justification.
• Jayjg and I do not agree on who agreed with what in that RS/N discussion, even though it is on record. That happens I suppose.

• A secondary reason that discussion is apparently going bad is because Jayjg has now implied that he believes my attempts to discuss this can be assumed to be bad faith, because I had a review article once published in the JOGG, which he sees as a conflict of interest. Rather than treating me as a Wikipedian with a good history of neutral editing on this and similar articles, he has asked for more information about my qualifications, and then when told I also had a Letter published in the European Journal of Human Genetics, which I say is irrelevant anyway, responded that this is just a letter to the editor. In other words, conversation is failing to stick to WP policy. Hence the need for a bigger forum.
• Note: nothing I have published is involved even indirectly in this discussion. The deleted material is material I've raised other issues with, especially notability, and the request for better deletion discussions is not even attached to a request for a reversion of the deletion.
• QUESTION 1. Is it correct to cite REDFLAG, specifying that a high level of genetics qualification would be necessary, in order to summarize what the media says about a minor uncontroversial point?
• QUESTION 2. Shouldn't a deleting party citing REDFLAG, if questioned, be willing to show they have an argument about what way they believe deleted material was controversial?
• QUESTION 3. It is a concern of mine that one of the ways discussion is getting stuck is the constant use of very absolute remarks such as "JOGG fails WP:RS" with no qualification. Am I not correct to say that WP:RS says that all arguments against a source should say be content-relative, in other words "fails WP:RS for subjects of type X, Y, Z"? (That's what is says at the top of the RS/N noticeboard.)
• QUESTION 4. Is it ever possible to argue that WP:RS tells us that we on Wikipedia may judge the University qualifications, current job descriptions, or salaries of people doing peer review and decide here on this basis only, that we can delete citations from a source even if the source is cited favorably in uncontroversially professional academic literature?
• QUESTION 5. Is there any aspect of WP:RS which says that an author who is paid to write is a better source than an author who is not paid to write?
• QUESTION 6. Coming from the talk page discussion as a secondary point: is it true that in order to cite JOGG as a non-technically-specialized source, just commenting on something in the media, that it would need to call its authors "reporters" and change its website to say that it is a "news" source?
• QUESTION 7. The way I read WP:RS, statements of position such as "X does not have paid journalists, so X fails RS" are not complete because they are only stating that a source is not something, and that something is not the only type of acceptable source. Do others agree?

Comment requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's far too long, and too much about content, rather than sources. It's also inaccurate - there is no "slow edit war" going on here - I removed it in May, and removed it again at the end of August. That's not a "slow edit war" by any stretch of the imagination. Also, many of your questions refer to REDFLAG, based on an edit I made in May - that's old news, and irrelevant at this point. In addition, many of your comments misconstrue, misunderstand, or take out of context statements I've made here - for example, I never made the claims you allude to in Questions 4, 5, 6 or 7. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Length. Yes the whole discussion is longer than I like it too, of course. Is it possible to shorten it to a core issue or two do you think? I would be interested to hear what you think. My problem is partly that I can not quickly state your position, and what we disagree upon. If I could state it quickly on my own we wouldn't have the circular discussion we've had.
• Content. I am thinking this is a fundamental point where we disagree about WP policy, and therefore it was a point I felt we should ask others about. WP:RS says very directly that all sourcing reliability is context dependent, and for example also states that "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". The RS/N board also states at the top that any cases being made should explain the content. During the JOGG RS/N you actually appeared to want to close the discussion very quickly before anyone had attempted to discuss types of content, and during discussion with me you've similarly seemed to think that sources which be treated with as little consideration of the content that might be sourced as possible.
• Slow edit war. It is borderline in my opinion. I see your point, but I also know the history of this article and similar ones. As part of trying to maintain such articles, it is my hope to eventually be able to post on the article talkpage with a brief summary, hopefully based on an agreement between us, showing that an argument for this deletion can and should be given in an uncontroversial form. It want it clear that it was not non-neutral cherry picking, and does not give the green light for non-neutral cherry picking.
• Old news. If REDFLAG is no longer your reason for deletion then this is progress for me because I did not know that. It is still not clear to me what your justification can be, based on anything in WP:RS or other policy pages you've cited. See next.
• If 4, 5, 6, and 7 misconstrue you then it strikes me as potentially very useful if you say why. To you it might be obvious, but it is not to me and it certainly won't be to a lot of people, and that is the problem. If you would explain, that might break the circle in our discussion and even finish it. Remember all I am asking for is uncontroversial policy based reasons for any major deletions of (apparently) sourced material on genetics articles. (If I think 4, 5, 6, and 7 are your position, at least how you've explained it so far, then we can't say we're succeeding in this yet.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• RS/N discusses the reliability of sources; while sources are reliable in a given context, this does not, however, mean that the board makes complicated decisions about which content in an article is more accurate.
• Removing an IP insertion once in late August, after removing it over 3 months earlier is not a "borderline slow edit-war" by any stretch of the imagination.
• The reason for removing Coffman-Levy in particular, and the jogg.info website in general, is that it fails WP:RS. Whenever the source disagrees with what reliable sources in peer-reviewed journals say, it also fails the WP:REDFLAG test.
• Regarding question 4, someone can qualify as an expert in a number of ways - one can, for example, publish a peer-reviewed article in a relevant journal, one can write books on the topic publish by a University press, one can teach the material as a University professor. One could even try to claim to be an expert based on having a PhD in the relevant subject. Coffman-Levy, as an example, fails on all of these counts. It turns out that her education is in a different field, she is not a University professor in that field but a practitioner of a completely unrelated discipline, etc.
• Regarding question 5, I've never made that claim. Show where I do.
• Regarding question 6, I've never made that claim. Show where I do. What I have said is that jogg is not a "media outlet", and does not claim to be one - it claims to be a peer-reviewed journal. To qualify as a "media outlet", it would have to at least claim to be one - then Wikipedia could examine that claim, and assess the source accordingly. One assesses the reliability of peer-reviewed journals differently from media outlets.
• Regarding question 7, I've never made that claim. Show where I do, and also review the response regarding question 6 above.

In general, you seem to be cherry-picking small parts of a complete argument I've made, misconstruing them, and then asking "questions" based on that for claims I have never asserted in the first place. In general, if you can't quote me saying it, as part of a complete in-context sentence, then I haven't said it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• In answer to questions about why something fails WP:RS, why do you keep repeating things like "it fails WP:RS"? I know you are an experienced good faith editor. Surely you know this is not a real answer? I do not want this to be taken the wrong way, but I imagine you also are not enjoying the circularity of the discussion. Obviously such answers, if they continue, will make everything very difficult. You might want to compare to the examples in WP:TEND just for perspective.
• I would be very happy to read that you have actually got a reason for saying that the Coffman-Levy quote was exceptional as per WP:REDFLAG. But as someone who knows the literature reasonably well, it is not obvious what you mean. What you deleted seemed extremely uncontroversial. Just an observation about the way 2 different ways of describing something can lead to misunderstandings. IIRC it was once argued in the history of E1b1b that such a comment did not even need sourcing. But, most importantly can you let me know in what way the quote disagreed with "what peer reviewed journals say"? Thanks in advance. (I must admit that I have had thoughts that you were deleting "on principle" without actually having considered the deleted content and whether it really was exceptional.)
• Q4. So, assuming there is some specialist character to the deleted material, which I do not see myself, what about if a source is cited approvingly in the specialist literature? Can we really delete "on principal" something from a journal that has been cited like that? Citations which demonstrated that JOGG had been cited approvingly were of course the turning point of the previous RS/N discussion. You never commented at the time and I am still not sure if/why you would disagree with the seemingly clear facts which convinced nearly everyone during that discussion. (On the other hand, if you really have a basis for invoking REDFLAG, that's different. JOGG is not a strong specialist source for most REDFLAG material I would say, and this was also what was discussed in that RS/N case.)
• Q5.Q6.Q7. You ask me to quote you giving an explanation in each case. You do not give explanations which are clear to me as I've already said, and that's why I am checking a draft with you. But as I said, the above is the only way I could put together what you've written. You repeat explanations about not being professional, not being a media outlet, as if these are your argument. Doesn't this imply that my wording is correct?
• Do you have any pointers about how you would re-write the draft? In other words what do you think we are disagreeing about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating your points/questions:

1. Regarding why the source fails RS, I think I've explained it reasonably succinctly, and more than once. It purports to be a peer-reviewed journal on genetics, but none of the authors or editors are what Wikipedia or the outside world would consider to be experts in genetics: they do not have degrees in the subject, do not work professionally in the field, do not teach the topic at universities, have not had peer-reviewed articles published on the topic in recognized journals, etc. Being cited or mentioned approvingly a couple of times in actual reliable sources does not in any way overcome this staggering impediment to being considered a RS.
2. Regarding the REDFLAG summary, it's not reasonable to expect me to remember what exactly I was thinking when I made one edit-summary comment 4 months ago. I've made thousands of edits since then, not to mention having lived a real-life etc. In general, though, as I recall Coffman-Levy's articles, she does at various points disagree with the results published by actual geneticists in peer-reviewed articles in genetics journals. When a family lawyer writing on a website run by non-experts disagrees with a geneticist writing in a peer-reviewed genetics journal, that is a classic WP:REDFLAG situation.
3. When something is cited to a non-reliable source, one can (and indeed should) remove the source, and either remove the material too, or at least replace the unreliable sources with tags requesting sources. When the material is restored to an article several months later by an IP editor, still without providing proper sourcing, removing it in its entirety is perfectly reasonable.
4. If you can't quote me saying it, in context, then I haven't said it, and you should probably reconsider using these as examples or questions. I've explained the issues with the jogg.info website again in point 1 above.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once more. Going through your points:-

1. It does not purport this. You also never made any case that it purports this, and no one has debated the opposite either. No one argues that JOGG is a peer-reviewed genetics journal. It is a decent genetic genealogy journal, "hobbyist" if you like, with a few quite notable articles, but clearly not normally suitable for "redflag" genetic science citations. I think there was a lot of confusion allowed in that RS/N case about what content was really being considered. (IMHO that's what comes from not demanding content be specified in RS/N cases as per the header of that noticeboard etc.)
2. The quote you removed is undeniably about potentially confusing word-use in the non-specialist world, and is not in conflict with anything. You repeated the deletion, and it is very reasonable for me or anyone else to ask for you to show that you understood what you deleted.
3. Repeating deletes without remembering the content or your original argument, and without answering calls to use the talk page, is a debatable judgment call, but understandable sometimes. However, this is not the subject of my concern as such. I am informing you that the deleted passage is one that's been edit-warred over in the past, and that tit-for-tat edit wars are frequent on genetics articles because there is a lot of paranoia about people trying to bias the sourcing on them for "ethnic" reasons. I do expect reversions to continue. I would prefer to get something transparent and uncontroversial on the article talkpage about it if possible.
4. I can quote you responding to direct answers in what I consider indirect ways, using the words professional, hobbyist etc, over and over, but remember that I wrote a draft to CHECK my understanding. I think it is rarely practical to blame others for not understanding you, but especially if you are referring to a text they wrote to ask you to help them understand you.

DRAFT 2. Once again, making drafts can help in communication. I am trying to understand you, and the draft shows my best attempt so far (but also shortened etc, as per your suggestions). The act of checking this draft could actually led to better understanding and make the draft useless as a draft, but that would be great.

Comment is requested about the importance of looking at content when deleting sourced material, and when being asked to explain a deletion.

• A sourced passage was deleted by User:Jayjg on E1b1b several times[4][5][6], and re-inserted by other authors. His basis of deletion, both in edit summaries and user talk page discussion is that the source comes from a publication not good enough for "WP:REDFLAG" genetics related material.
• QUESTION 1. Is it correct to cite WP:REDFLAG, specifying that a high level of genetics qualification of author and/or reviewers would be necessary, in order to summarize what the media says and to make a remark about potentially confusing wording?

• I understand Jayjg's argument to be that for any Wikipedia material which even touches upon genetics can be assumed to be technical and/or controversial and should only contain highest-level scientific sources.
• As an editor of genetics articles this assumption seems wrong to me, and also seems to be far beyond the spirit and letter of WP:RS. Indeed making deletions based on assumptions, as opposed to some understanding of what you are deleting, seems to be problematic in itself.

• QUESTION 2. Shouldn't a deleting party citing REDFLAG, if questioned, be willing to show they have looked at the content, understood it, and have an argument about what way they believe deleted material was controversial and in disagreement with whatever peer-reviewed or other literature is being accepted?

• I understand Jayjg's argument to be that he does not have to consider the content at all, because if a source even comes close to touching upon genetics then the source is either going to be just agreeing with better sources, or else in conflict with better sources.
• To me this seems like a basic non sequitur and does not cover many very common cases. It also appears to be in conflict with WP:RS which says that all sourcing questions are context relative?

What do others think? To me the principles being proclaimed here seem tantamount to saying that hit-and-run deletions without looking at content are OK. BACKGROUND:-

• The deleted material was from the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, a source which has been discussed here and considered by some as potentially OK for some uses, though indeed not "Redflag" scientific research.
• There is no content discussion. No one has claimed that the deleted material was controversial in any way.
• The deleted material contains a fairly simple opinion/observation about how word choice in the non-specialist media has led to confusion in the non-specialist public.
• I have no strong position on the deletion itself, and have not asked for a revert. But I have the article on my watchlist, and in order to avoid otherwise frequent outbreaks of tit-for-tat edit warring one of the things I watch for on such genetics articles is deletion of sourced materials as per WP:Neutral. I ask for clear policy-based reasons whenever such deletions are proposed or made, trying to keep such actions as transparently neutral as possible.
• The bit of confusing word-use discussion being deleted had been a sensitive issue to get right for some editors of E1b1b, and it has been edit-warred over (which is why it at time of deletion it contained such detailed footnoting of what the source said exactly; frankly, in other articles one could imagine the comment being treated as "obvious" and not needing sourcing).

Is this better? Does it help explain my thinking and maybe show more clearly where we might misunderstand one another?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on a practical note, now that I realize how little you know about what you deleted, I have also reinserted pretty much the same wording point that the Coffman-Levy was being used for, but with no special source being cited at all, just in my own words. Maybe that helps both show what this is really about and resolve the problem. (I've thrown in a Battaglia citation as a kind of reminder of the facts about where E1b1b and its branches come from, already mentioned in other places in the article, but what it is being used for, is already in the article.) I think if you look at those words the way I've written them they don't even really need a source anyway apart from the general ones like Battaglia et al which explain the dating. Just joking, but it strikes me a good way for editors to avoid drive-by interventions by people who are not familiar with the content, is not to source things at all. Let's hope no-one draws that lesson from these events!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for yet another post but maybe it is the last on this, and I want to continue making my thoughts and actions on this as transparent as possible. I am going to try to switch to a practical case-by-case mode, because I think that attempts to explore whether there is any real general "point of principle" have seemed to show very clearly that there is nothing to discuss apart from the word "hobbyist". So I've simply presented my reasoning for each case I know of where you've done deletions, different in each case, looking at the content in each case, trying to get a practical consensus article text in each case, on...

• Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)
• Talk:Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Country by Country
• Talk:Haplogroup F (Y-DNA).

If there is any more discussion necessary obviously I'd prefer content discussion on each article talk page, between people who've read the content. But of course the whole original concern was that you didn't think you need to do that. If you insist on arguing that there are strong principles involved which are not even content-relative, and which might lead to you doing future hit-and-run deletions of sourced material without looking at the content (other than noting that the letters JOGG appear somewhere), then let me know please and we can consider going ahead with an RS/N case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I've removed one of your posts here that was little more than a personal attack. If you want to do another RS/N posting on the website that's fine, but please keep in mind that your comment there must be about the source, not about me. RS/N is a board for evaluating sources, not editors. Also, I've noticed you showing up recently on RS/N almost exclusively in threads in which I've already commented, and generally to disagree with or question what I've said. Please review WP:HOUND. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg. Here's where I guess we can only finish the discussion but anyway, FWIW:-

• I honestly believe I have consistently attempted to frame all discussion with you, here and elsewhere, in terms of real edits and real WP policies and real concerns etc - in other words improving and maintaining articles here on WP. You get mentioned because your edits and explanations are involved, and for no other reason. I've gone out of my to explain my real concerns as concretely as possible. I also believe I have been civil. I honestly think if called upon you'd not be able to present a single case where I have written anything which was not based upon real edits and real WP policies and real concerns or questions etc. And despite what you insinuate, that would include the deleted material, and also anything I've posted on RS/N.
• If, when talking about real edits etc, I have implied doubts about anything you have done, in terms of civility, WP policy, tendentious talk page behavior, etc, that does not make it a personal attack, and you should not throw that accusation around so lightly. You might want to consider what WP:NPA actually says:[7].
• RS/N, is a community noticeboard which I have been watching more than usual lately because, as you know, I've been considering RS questions with you here as a colleague and even discussing potentially posting there. That's been pretty transparent and I've gone out of my way to try to keep you in the loop and get you in a constructive discussion. Again, you should not throw strong accusations around lightly. Invoking WP:HOUND implies that I have been deliberately focused upon disrupting your enjoyment of editing, and had no other reason to be involved in those threads. Really?
• Your post above, for example how it insinuates things which are not true about stuff I supposedly wrote somewhere else that you happened to delete, is in essence an attempt, whether conscious or not, to make things personal. I am not going to participate in that, just note my concern, and register the fact that constructive communication about working together to make a better encyclopedia is not working for the time being between us, at least in this discussion, because let's face it you do not want it to. I remain open for further discussion if you are ever feeling more open to that.

If you post any replies to this let me know please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, when you make comments imputing motives to me or my actions, and negatively characterizing them, those are personal attacks. For example, when you say I'm "simply one more hit-and-run editor deleting material at a personal whim", or refer to "Jayjg's apparent mission of hit and run deletions in genetics articles", or assert that my arguments are "tendentious", or state (as you did directly above) that our conversation is not working because I "do not want it to", those are simply personal attacks. In addition, your recent interest in RS/N is about me; almost all cases were in threads to which I had contributed, and in which you challenged me. This is very easy to ascertain from the archives - before September you rarely commented in RS/N, and since then you focus on the threads where I comment; there are many threads on RS/N in which I don't comment, and you avoided those too. WP:HOUND is appropriate - of course, you can always prove me wrong by, for example, not showing up in threads I have commented in simply for the purpose of opposing me. That should be pretty easy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So what you appear to be saying is that yes, you have no actual case for accusations of "hounding", but it is easy to make up some complex web of unseen bad intentions and sinister plans which I might have, and this is the justification for your accusation. Then on the basis of this accusation (and implied threats that go with it) you are trying to bulldoze me from posting on RS/N. OTOH, in another context, i.e. me, you correctly say that proposing that people have bad intentions when you have no evidence for that, and no WP-relevant need to do so, is a personal attack. But apparently you do not realize this is exactly what you are doing, and not me? Concerning the personal attacks you accuse me of, if you read the ones you mention in their original context they are all connected to factual discussion about real edits and are backed up not just by straightforward observations of your real edits but also your own real descriptions of your edits. That you have no idea what you were deleting on E1b1b is something you admitted for example, and you've now agreed with me putting in un-sourced text which says what you previously called "redflag" material. So un-sourced is preferred to sourced, or isn't it obvious that your redflag call was "on a whim"? Making up an invalid edit summary and deleting something you do not read is indeed what one calls deleting on a whim, at least in my dialect of English. I also think it is clearly not a personal attack to use the words "apparent mission" to describe an editor on a programme of looking through genetics articles he does not read and deleting anything with key words they have an issue with, then reverting people who try to reinsert it, and playing no other role in such articles. That's just the facts, and they are facts about edits and improving the encyclopedia, not guesses about intentions which I have no evidence for, or which are not relevant to improving WP. I can back up any comment I make. You have to make stuff up. That's the difference, and that's why you are the one violating WP:NPA. If you really think I am violating WP norms in a serious way, maybe you should call in more community opinion and test your case. Otherwise please refrain from personal attacks in order to try to scare me away from good faith editing.

As for the previous RS/N case, let me try to explain one more time: I have often said that the problem with the way it started was that the WP content being sourced from JOGG was never specified by the person bringing the question, and that this is still a source of confusion (and wasted time and effort) for you. Looking at your most recent comments which I responded to above the second draft it seems like you still think the question being asked was whether JOGG is a "professional" academic genetics journal. Maybe that position gives help in trying to explain: If that was the question then there is indeed a consensus that the answer is no. In fact, no-one I am aware of has ever argued otherwise. It was certainly nothing to do with why rudra brought his case to RS/N, as several editors tried to point out to you. So that question was actually not of interest to anyone on WP. I think everyone in that discussion realized that except you. The accusation that JOGG itself or someone on WP was pretending JOGG was an academic genetics journal was simply bogus. But the secondary and more relevant question is whether it can be used for anything else and on this point you and rudra never gave any clear discussion about at all while all editors who did address it said that there would be contexts where it could be cited. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I quite obviously didn't say that I have no case, since it's not true. Please don't attribute to me things I haven't said. Your sudden appearance at RS/N, in all cases but one in specifically the threads in which I had already commented, and in almost all cases to oppose me in some way, is obvious in the article history. I'm not going to waste my time looking up the diffs, and don't insult me again by pretending it didn't happen. In addition, I said in this thread on September 3 your comments here have been far too personal; in the future, if you reply, comment only on jogg.info, and say nothing whatsoever about me. I really mean that - if future posts of yours here comment in any way about me, rather than about jogg.info, policy, etc., they will be removed, and not responded to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Open questions

OK then, here are some open questions taken by just running through the discussion above. I can only say how things appear to me, but honestly these appear to be just the open questions anyone reading this thread would see as being left open on one side making any real examination of potential agreement or disagreement impossible...

• What do you mean by saying that the JOGG "purports to be a peer-reviewed journal on genetics"?

a. I have a sourced explanation for this, which is...

b. I have no source for this accusation.

• Is the JOGG a reliable source for articles discussing subjects which are studied under genetic genealogy, the "hobbyist" subject which it is positively and correctly associated with?

a. Yes, as long as it is not used for content which is also "redflag" controversial material for some other specialist field such as genetics, archaeology etc.

b. No, because...

• When you refer to acceptable sources (individual or publication) as "professional" in the subject of genetics, are you literally referring to salaries and degrees or would you (as per my understanding of WP policy) mean anyone published or cited seriously in peer-reviewed literature?

a. you mean it literally, ignoring where and how sources are cited

b. you accept there might be exceptions where "hobbyists" are citeable to some extent

(but obviously just being cited does not automatically make someone an RS. There are gradations.)

• As a related case which might help illuminate others, are the books of Stephen Oppenheimer reliable sources for genetics articles?

a. Yes, because...

b. No, because...

• When "genetics" is the subject matter needing to be sourced (putting aside "redflag" material), for example general comments in secondary sources such as newspapers, what are the relevant WP criteria for such a source to be considered reliable?

a. There is no other type of source which could be used in this way apart from media outlets with "news" in their name and paid professional journalists. The WP policy on this is...

b. The WP criterium is that the source needs a reputation for fact checking, preferably a reputation geneticists themselves agree with.

• Do you understand and accept that a large percentage of major academic Y chromosome related articles in the last approximately 2 years do explicitly cite hobbyists as serious sources in one way or another?

a. Yes. This is true.

b. No. This is not true.

• If a hobbyist is cited in peer reviewed literature or has been published in peer reviewed literature in the same subject matter, do they become potentially citeable in that field? (in other words, not someone you would delete without even discussing the content)

a. Yes.

b. No because...

• Do you understand and accept that a major Y chromosome related review in Trends in Genetics, written by two of the more cited authors in that field, has written approving on the one hand about the JOGG, (mentioning that it has attracted academic authors and that it has "articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups") and on the other hand hobbyists generally saying that "genetics is now joining astronomy as a science in which amateurs can make useful discoveries"?

a. Yes. This is true.

b. No. This is not true.

• If a hobbyist journal has a reputation for fact checking concerning some non redflag subjects which "touch upon" genetics, do they become potentially citeable in that field? (in other words, not someone you would delete without even discussing the content)

a. Yes.

b. No because...

It is striking to me that after so much attempt at discussing them, I honestly can't even explain what your position on the above questions is, although none of them is new. That seems like a recipe for creating un-necessary conflict and misunderstanding. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A new one:-

• Why do you seem to argue on the Haplogroup F talk page that the ISOGG website, used in a way not intended, is a good source and JOGG not? What is the difference you see between these two "hobbyist" sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

why do we understand the RS/N case so differently?

Copied from above, as this is also effectively an open question that has come up many times, and where you position remains unexplained (just stated)...

As for the previous RS/N case, let me try to explain one more time: I have often said that the problem with the way it started was that the WP content being sourced from JOGG was never specified by the person bringing the question, and that this is still a source of confusion (and wasted time and effort) for you. Looking at your most recent comments which I responded to above the second draft it seems like you still think the question being asked was whether JOGG is a "professional" academic genetics journal. Maybe that position gives help in trying to explain: If that was the question then there is indeed a consensus that the answer is no. In fact, no-one I am aware of has ever argued otherwise. It was certainly nothing to do with why rudra brought his case to RS/N, as several editors tried to point out to you. So that question was actually not of interest to anyone on WP. I think everyone in that discussion realized that except you. The accusation that JOGG itself or someone on WP was pretending JOGG was an academic genetics journal was simply bogus. But the secondary and more relevant question is whether it can be used for anything else and on this point you and rudra never gave any clear discussion about at all while all editors who did address it said that there would be contexts where it could be cited. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there what you would consider to be academic journals on genetic genealogy? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What's your point please? How is this relevant? My open questions are posted above. If you have answers, post those answers there. If you have a comment in response to my description of the RS/N discussion, please post in the appropriate section for that. If you can avoid constantly creating side tracks or rewinding the discussion to ignore known answers then that should help reduce excess use of your talk page. For my part I'll be avoiding following any new side tracks or back tracks unless there seems to be some clear new relevant point. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked you many questions which you have not answered, and I find your responses to be huge walls of text filled with straw man questions, implicit and erroneous assumptions, personal attacks, and irrelevant side issues. Responding to everything in your posts would require me to write whole chapters in return, and much of that would be pointless, since (for example), there's no reason why I should even bother responding to personal comments. When, instead, I respond to what I see as the two or three salient points in your post, you accuse me of avoiding, side-tracking etc. If I return to a point that you have not yet answered, you accuse me of back-tracking, ignoring known answers, etc. I can't work that way. Please assume good faith that my questions are indeed relevant and on-track. I'll work one question at a time here: this is the first question. You may answer it, or choose not to, but I won't respond to anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur

According to biography at the official Walter Laquer site he studied for 1 year at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem in 1938/9 and recieved no further formal education in history. Please, explain your revert. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that the way reliable sources describe him? If so, which ones? As it stands, it looks like poisoning the well, and a WP:BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you undelete the Yuval David page?

Why have you opted to delete the Yuval David page. His is a page about him as an actor, similar to many other pages about other actors at his career level. Please assist in providing information on how his page might need to be altered in order to have it back up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etepr (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuval David. If you think the decision was made in error, please contest it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to userify

Can you please userify the deleted page Buzzsaw (Transformers) to my user page so I can try to improve it? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, see User:Mathewignash/Buzzsaw (Transformers). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mathewignash (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourneys in A Song of Ice and Fire (2nd nomination)

I've made the subject article into a redirect. When closing subsequent nominations without much participation, it would be helpful to sanity-check the participation. In this particular case, DELSORT was never done--neither by the nominator, the relister, or any of the volunteers who typically do such things. The outcome was mostly correct--it is a level of detail inappropriate for Wikipedia per se--but the redirecting vs. deleting didn't get the voice it would have (c.f. the first AfD) had the DELSORT happened. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my redirection. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Creating red-links to article deleted at AfD

Re: Glynn Geddie. I am not recreating the article and have no intention of doing so because I understand that he is not notable enough. Why do you have a problem with me making it a red link? Surely it is ridiculous to have one driver unlinked on a page where all other drivers (regardless of having an article or not) do have a link on them. He looks out of place and no difference is gained either way by just leaving him there with a red link on him. I find your actions/responses towards me bizarre and unnecessary. The only thing gained by leaving people such as Glynn Geddie unlinked is to further draw attention to the fact that he doesn't have an article. Is your reasoning that you think it is more likely of someone to create his article if there is a red link over his name, because I seriously doubt that.

Another point I'd like to draw up is the fact that his name has been red-linked for some time (quite correctly, in my opinion) on the 2010 Porsche Carrera Cup Great Britain article. This re-edit, against your preferred opinion, was done by User:Cs-wolves and I see you haven't flagged him down about it. Now, there is absolutely no reason why you should have, but why are you doing so then for me? Officially Mr X (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of having a red-linked article is so someone will create an actual article. A red-link is an invitation to create an article - just click on the link and start. However, when an article is deleted at AfD, it is unlinked, because the Wikipedia community has decided that the topic should not have a Wikipedia article. There are even special tools provided for unlinking deleted articles. Adding red-links purely for aesthetic purposes is inappropriate, and constantly recreating them is disruptive. Please stop doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your logic, which is born only from current Wikipedia guidelines (however poorly thought out they may be) and not from you using your own independant viewpoint on the subject, I will drop the matter simply due to its relative insignificance as a problem. However, I notice you haven't followed up on my other point about Glynn Geddie links still existing elsewhere. Is it just that you find me easier to oppose than User:Cs-wolves? Do you believe his edits, even when mirroring mine, to be of greater value and worth keeping instead of confronting his own edit decisions, whereas I get "a warning"? Officially Mr X (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cs-wolves simply added the link once, and likely wasn't aware that it had been removed, or why. You, on the other hand, explicitly reverted my removal of the linking, even after the rationale was explained. Twice, in fact. Thus the two warnings. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But you don't find a need to remove the red links from 2010 Porsche Carrera Cup Great Britain? Officially Mr X (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had. I certainly tried to. It's done now. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Buzzsaw (Transformers)

Hey you, you're deleting Buzzsaw (Transformers) and you're not supposed to be delete this page. You can create this page of Buzzsaw (Transformers). 75.142.152.104 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ethnicity

Hi, thanks for comment at the RSN . I have added a couple of points and I would be interested in your response, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop being so polite. It's annoying.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On the same issue, this is a list with issues,(one of many) there are half a dozen citations but they almost do not support African American about anyone. List of African-American Republicans - Sadly, there is a general assumption that black or blackish looking means Africa and doesn't require a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The ethnicity-related categories and lists are, in general, a minefield of WP:NOR and WP:BLP violations. I'd be surprised if even a third of them were properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:

I didn't add unreferenced content. I have removed Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow from list of Jewish actors moments ago because Johansson and Paltrow have now converted to Islam that I saw on magazine and newspaper, and then I'm looking for reliable sources. --Videogamer13 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For WP:BLPs, first you find the reliable sources, then you make the edits. Not the other way around. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

accusations and all that wikidrama

I am not a big fan of accusations and drama on WP. Between experienced editors at least, it normally starts from misunderstandings and leads to more. But in our case accusations are being made by you in the exact places where replies might otherwise have come into being, thus impeding the search for communication and consensus building, which is all I am after here. So for that reason I think it is worthwhile to note, for your consideration and perspective, that these posts [8], [9], [10] appear to be written in such a way that I think they can only be read as seeking to create or emphasize conflict where there was none before, rather than to simply define disagreements or common ground. Of course I already got the picture that you currently don't see me as a person to take advice from, and that you have a pre-made counter argument which is that you supposedly honestly believe I was "hounding" you, so maybe you could ask a neutral Wikipedian to read those diffs and tell you what they think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, those posts can be read in very different ways from the manner in which you describe them; they certainly were not "seeking to create or emphasize conflict where there was none before, rather than to simply define disagreements or common ground". You appear to assume bad faith about whatever I write, and proceed based on that assumption. In the future, please work from the opposite assumption. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, while the above style of answer fits many other situations on WP, and is frequently a good response to accusations, there is no way to see good faith in some of your recent posts. That's just a fact I'm afraid, and I do not point this out to offend you, but, as mentioned above because I honestly believe you need to take a step back and consider what you are doing. Why would you suddenly post a message on an article talk page accusing a person of abusing the talk page, simply because they have not actually stated a new edit proposal but only raised a concern about another person's edit? Isn't that an extremely unusual post for such a situation? Why, when that person then proposes an edit, would you accuse him of being disruptive as per WP:POINT for adding a second source for which he gave a complete talk page justification? How could you justify doing this without showing any sign of recognizing the explanation? Do you think a neutral observer would read those posts and see signs of some good intention? What would that good intention be? Those two accusations are not exactly intended to inform or communicate about anything practical to do with editing are they?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew:

• When I say Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about any more, it's because I don't know what you're talking about any more. I was responding to a paragraph you wrote that started OK, so I take you now admit that citing deadline was not just a sign of not reading what was being written. That's progress. I can't even parse those sentences.
• When I tell you Article Talk: pages are for discussing changes to article content. Are there any changes you would like to make to this article's content?, it's because you're using the page to discuss things other than content (in fact, make comments about me), which is not what Article Talk: pages are for, so I'm refocusing the discussion on what the page is actually for.
• When I say No, it's not "new information" that the person "actually refused to answer". Bali ultimate stated it explicitly in his comment of 17:46, 6 September 2010, to which I responded "I've been in that exact situation". Please review the previous comments, and ideally read peoples' responses more carefully in the future. Thanks. it's because in that very thread, just a few posts up Bali ultimate had said that exact thing (that someone refused to answer), over a week ago, and that is what I responded to and affirmed, yet you continued to post as if it had never been said, or had suddenly just now come up.

Etc.

I post in good faith. You, on the other hand, appear to make lengthy, sometimes incomprehensible statements that are typically about other editors (me, in this case), rather than about article content, reliable sources, etc., i.e. rather than the proper purpose for the pages. Please accept in the future that I am posting in good faith, and examine your own postings more critically. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my point at length in the post immediately above going through one of the examples, and I notice that the example I chose to explain myself is not the one you choose. I'm sure we can go in circles forever like this, switching between examples, but that's why I suggested you ask someone else's opinions. I only started this thread for you. For my part I'll continue trying my hardest to assume good faith, (which does not mean I will be able to avoid describing your edits etc) but the examples I noted above were beyond my feeble powers, and that's why I noted them here in a separate thread rather than inappropriately in an article-related thread. Please understand I am not angry about this, just noting something that is a practical problem, just in case my noting it helps us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the example I chose to explain myself is not the one you choose - please note that every example I brought was from a diff you provided in the comment you made when you opened this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You rewound the discussion and ignored everything in between. I understand. You do that very often. Anyway, the point is that your explanations of the edits are distortions, and I could spend time going through each example but I think it would be a waste of time. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, my explanations of the edits are not "distortions" in any way, so please stop making these baseless, bad faith accusations. Oh, and I "rewound the discussion and ignored everything in between"? Seriously? There were two posts in between, one by me, one by you. The total elapsed time between your post and mine responding to it was two hours and 41 minutes. Had your post become completely obsolete in the interval, then? In the future, please review your posts for a few hours before actually posting them, and dial down the rhetoric from 11 to, say, 5, on a scale of 1 to 10. OK? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

If you have time, would you mind looking at this section of the article, and then at this section of talk and specifically this subsection? If it's too much to read, start at the end, because most of it's repetitive.

For reasons I don't really understand, two editors are saying the section either shouldn't be there at all, or is too long or inappropriately written. Any input would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting issue, thanks, I've commented. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of epic films:1930s

Just seen this. Would you look at the arguments put forward in the discussion again. The main thrust is that identifying an Epic film is subjective; yet the term is well accepted. We have an article on it, we have a category, and there are plenty of books on the topic which mention specific epic films which appear in the lists. The arguments pointing this out seem not to have been counted. There isn't a substantial majority saying delete, so defaulting to no consensus is an acceptable outcome. If the nominator felt the inclusion criteria of the lists was not clear enough, and that the films were not sourced to an appropriate reliable source identifying them as an epic films, then that is an editing mater, not a reason for deletion. Our ethos, guidelines and usage - Category:Lists of films by genre - along with common everyday usage make these lists appropriate and encyclopaedic. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still think the arguments made by those arguing for deletion were more compelling. It doesn't help that the Epic film article has been tagged for WP:NOR and WP:V problems since mid-2008, and that some of the few sources used in the article are unreliable or deadlinks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites (again)

John Carter has opened a request for a new mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebiontes. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation, in this case, taking into account how Ovadyah has previously accused you of libel regarding this subject earlier. I believe the fact that it is both formal, which the previous informal mediation was not, and will almost certainly not have a mediator which some party might object to later as an impediment to resolution are points in its favor over the previous informal mediation. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your stated reason for requesting a new mediation, when there is already one in place, betrays a clear lack of good faith diff. Your supposed renewed interest in mediation seems to be a result of being stripped of your admin privileges for libeling other editors that are working on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So you may interpret it. And I never was stripped of my administrative priveleges. Please try to get your own facts straight, if you can. And, yes, with the sources now available, and possibly with Nishidani's involvement, given as he has said that he declined participation in the pre-arranged mediation because the mediator selected was one he had difficulties with, that is another reason. And please note that the scope of the formal mediation request is rather clearer and more defined than the informal mediation. And, yes, formal mediation is the last step before Arbitration. If you would prefer going directly to Arbitration, however, I would have no objections. Or is this just another attempt at misdirection on your part? I notice you have made no real comments on the article talk page itself, by the way, which under the circumstances could be seen as indicating your own fear of facing mediation, possibly with Nishidani involved, and with numerous more sources available. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani has indicated he will probably not participate in the mediation, wishing to avoid the appearance of impropriety diff. However, I have the highest respect for Nishidani's scholarship, and I certainly would not object to his involvement in any mediation process. Ovadyah (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The question which you don't address, of course, is whether Nishidani would, and he has said that he would not take part in a mediation by Jayjg. Evidently you didn't see fit to mention that? Although I hesitate to ask him this, perhaps if Jayjg withdrew as the mediator of the informal mediation, that might be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And what *you* don't address is that Nishidani stated he wishes to avoid any appearance of impropriety by colluding with you. Therefore, there is no reason for Jayjg to withdraw as a mediator. Ovadyah (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If John Carter wishes to have formal mediation rather than informal, that's certainly his right. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

As someone who helped with the early drafting of Al-Azhar, I much appreciate the fine-tuning you gave the article. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)