RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Whitley Strieber

Whitley Strieber | Result: Moved to user space

Whitley Strieber (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Copied from Wikipedia Hertzy (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Is it? What parts are copy-and-pasted? I couldn't tell by eyeballing it.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   @CheeseburgerFace That comment was from January 1. The page had originally been copied from Wikipedia, it was then deleted, and has now been recreated. CowHouse (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2. This plagiarism check page[1] shows the RW and WP pages to be different. Nonetheless, it is poorly written and poorly referenced, apparently relying on a single reference. The reference is by a suspiciously named man (Heinrich Moltke)[2] from a seemingly non-existant journal (Peristalsis: A Journal). Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   That is indeed suspicious. Also, @Bongolian I am appropriating your the link to that plagiarism checking site in the name of the revolution. Comrade GC (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   As author of the new entry, I'm baffled. Most of the entries I see I RW have no sourcing at all. This new entry sources a single paper, but that paper in turn cites all the original sources. I can go in and re-point original sources, but Jesus: is this standard always applied across the board? Hochichi667 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Generally, the source-less articles are stubs or at least short and in need of expanding and sources. Your article is long, opinionated and sourced to a dubious reference, @Hochichi667. I never hard of this journal and could not find it on Worldcat. Bongolian (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Bongolian: Bit of a catch-22. RW promotes original research. But if that research replicates material already found elsewhere online, it's plagiarism. Right now, I'm citing from the paper pretty much only to the extent that it cites other reputable sources. For example, Strieber's own books or things written about him. Even if the journal format is a spoof, the paper's conclusions seem pretty solid. If Strieber says one thing in one book, then in the next book says some prophet came down and told him the same thing for the first time, it's obvious to anybody. If the paper is first to point it out, it seems fair to credit it within limits. That said, like I wrote in the comment below, I hope to cite more sources directly and firm it up in the coming days. I think it's important to not just call Strieber's stories ridiculous, but to highlight how he comes up with the stories in a way even woo-proponents can't deny. Hochichi667 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. i'm fan of ufo and alien conspiracy theories and glad whitney striber page is created but this page is too lengthy shorten it and make sure plagiarism is also removed Krish1997(talk) 15:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Plagarism is easy to remove. Everything else looks good to me. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Hochichi667 seems pretty intent on having an article about this, move it to their userspace until it's properly cleaned up? —Kazitor, ^pending 04:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Sounds good. Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Say, I'm a first-time RW contributor just trying to make a contribution. I'm 'intent' on putting up an entry on Whitley Strieber because he's a big deal in the world of woo. I'm surprised that there isn't an entry on the guy already given his notoriety. Can you tell me precisely what it needs to firm it up? More sources? The entry as written has a lot of gotchas about Strieber that I think would be useful to the public for seeing this sad chump as he is. I'm happy to improve the entry any way I can within reason. Cheers. Hochichi667 (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2. The article in question needs more sources and polish but I can see it becoming a decent addition to our site. As thus I second Kazitor's proposal Comrade GC (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Very much on-mission in the sense that Strieber has been a prolific source of BS and a purveyor of his own special brand of woo for years. Where it goes off the rails is that it is a virtual copy of an online manifesto by a single individual who obviously has an axe to grind on two or three points important to them. Leuders (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Understood. I'll try to fill it out with some other sources. Cheers. Hochichi667 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Read this. Unlike Wikipedia, sourcing on RW is intended to address "did X say or do the thing we're criticizing them for?" rather than be a summary of someone else's published ideas about X. Happy trails. Leuders (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)