User talk:Jimbo Wales - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BusterD (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 2 October 2011 (→Your early career in finance.: I've copied this to the right talkspace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:09, 2 October 2011 by BusterD (talk | contribs) (→Your early career in finance.: I've copied this to the right talkspace)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on commons and meta. Please choose the most relevant.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index–

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

(Manual archive list)

Awareness

Dear Mr. Wales, what is your take on this situation? My very first article was Triangle Studios, a translation of the Dutch wikipedia article. Triangle Studios is the leading game developer of the Netherlands when it comes to Nintendo DS platform games and the article has been on the Dutch wikipedia for three years without anyone ever complaining. Now I create it here, on the Dutch wikipedia, and it is immediately deleted. The same goes for Cross of the Dutchman (game), an article on a major upcoming game. It is the largest Dutch-based game project ever to take place in gaming history, and two years of research have gone before the official announcement(s). Still, it has been nominated for deletion. For speedy deletion, no less! Only after much comments on my part, it was changed into a regular deletion attempt. I would like to raise some awareness over this issue by sending you this message.

Greetings from a long-time reader and a new but quite discouraged newbie. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Triangle Studios article has been proposed for deletion, with a notification that notability has not been stated nor established. There is actually nothing in the article that says anything that you have said above regarding notability, and no external third party reliable sources that help anyone find it. You'll note that the notability requirements on the Dutch and English Misplaced Pages's are quite different - but on either one you need to actually provide proof of any claims. Why not add those references, then remove the PROD notice...you have 7 days. The second one, you'll need to beware of WP:CRYSTAL, as it's not necessarily notable before its release, no matter how much time has been spent on it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the article itself I have provided five reliable sources. In the discussion at the AfD entry I have provided 12 different reliable and verifiable sources. I provided links to several websites, newspapers (local, regional, national and internantional) and magazines, I provided all these sources and this is just the tip of the iceberg, all that to prove the article's notability. Because it is notable, and some people seem to be hellbent on deleting it still. The requirements at the Dutch wikipedia are, btw, probably stricter then here. So that, too, is a non-argument. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would focus your efforts on improving the main article, Triangle Studios, ensuring that you reference the claims there using valid third party sources (not blogs, etc). For example, you have made claims that it is "one of the largest...in the Netherlands", but no third party reference to prove it. The individual game is probably less of your worry - if I were you I would ask for it to be userfied, and resurrect it once it is released to the public (the same concept around music albums). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could userfy the game article and redirect the page to the "In popular culture" section of the Pier Gerlofs Donia for the time being, if the RfD fails. But I'd rather wait a couple more days with that, see where it goes. Thanks for the advice, Bwilkins. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to further inflame anything, but I felt I had to remove a chunk from the "Triangle" article as a copyright-violation . Chzz ► 12:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed up Triangle Studios with references and all the necessities, so it should be good now. Silverseren 21:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a controversial subject make reference to subject-relevant peer-reviewed journals?

I would have assumed that question reads like a ridiculous one, but the article on Astrology has suffered a lot of disruption since Monday night, on the basis of this argument. I am talking about indiscriminate removals of whole passages of carefully referenced text, on the basis that if a reference goes to a journal which gives its focus to astrology - even if the journal is peer-reviewed and the author is a notable scientist with an excellent reputation for being a foremost authority, this constitutes an unreliable reference because it goes to a 'fringe' source. Other uninvolved editors have contributed arguments that sources are judged in context and even fringe subjects are allowed to reference their own journals. However this disruption is still ongoing by a few editors who claim that Misplaced Pages's policy on pseudoscience must prevent all reference to scientific claims unless they appear in mainstream recognized peer-reviewed journals.

I am trying to encourage the new editors to slow down and allow us all to work together to look at each passage critically, so we can identify if the problem really exists - and if it does, is it based on lack of objectivity or reliability of source. But the deletions keep re-occuring with the insistence that concerns about not giving coverage to pseudoscience-issues trumps all else on Misplaced Pages. The net result is that the astrology page is being prevented from making reference to what the dominant and influential astrological sources report.

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to give the content something like a 2-week period of edit-protection, in order to force amendments to go through the process of collaborative review. I see you are marked as having suitable status so can you do this Mr Wales? I am wary that I don't know who is going to be reliably objective on this matter, but it seems a big enough principle to deserve your attention. (And yes, the matter was brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard (see here) - but in such a way that it stirred up controversy, rather than clarifying what the issues really are.)

Hope you can find time to look at this - it would benefit everyone to have a sane voice from an objective observer, able to clarify that the real trump on Misplaced Pages is the application of common sense. -- Zac Δ 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually get involved to the point of actually protecting articles outside my normal personal editing interests. I do enjoy, however, hosting philosophical conversations about such matters. I'm reluctant to offer an opinion on the specific case, because I don't know anything at all about the journals in question. Are they published by reputable universities? Who are the peers in the peer review process? Or are they more like self-published fan-zines, with "peer review" being done by people without actual scientific qualifications of any kind? Editorial judgment is important, including judging some sources to be not good for much more than documenting the opinions of some people with fringe views. I don't know which is the case here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed this briefly, I did have one idea that may be helpful in some small way. A compromise might be reached here without having to determine the big philosophical question of whether "Correlation" is a legitimate source. (It is my view that without additional evidence, I'm inclined to think no, but I should re-emphasize that I know nothing about this area, and am not particularly interested in learning!) There seems to be no argument about Eysenck being a valid source, and so why not look that up and write about that? Does the "Correlation" article add anything useful to it? Is the author of that article notable in any way?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor of Correlation commented in the thread, with this post:

I am the current editor of Correlation, the journal of research in astrology that has been referred to as a fringe journal because, it is alleged, it is a journal of pseudo-science as defined by Misplaced Pages. Correlation is a journal of research in astrology and publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest. The journal also publishes reports from researchers about ongoing projects. It publishes comments from readers on papers that have appeared within its pages and it has a Letters page for critical comment of any part of its published content and to encourage objective intellectual exchange. It has also published material of a philosophical nature in order to encourage scientific and sociological research, which includes statistical analysis, and new approaches in thinking to the ever-present challenge of designing good studies that are appropriate to the research question. The journal aims to inform its readers on research matters and to encourage its readers to express their opinions within the journal in order to promote balanced and informed thinking in any issue that relates to research in astrology. The peer review process seeks to ensure a high standard is maintained within the journal pages where these matters are concerned. That which is defined as pseudo is that which is false, counterfeit, pretended or spurious as in the case of scientific claims, for example. The journal, Correlation is, therefore, not a pseudoscientific journal.
Pat Harris, PhD, MSc., DFAstrolS., Editor, Correlation.

But I am more interested in looking at the philosophical principle too - which is the question of whether Misplaced Pages accomodates reference to notable opinions, that have been influential upon the subject matter, regardless of where they have been published? (So long as they are published)? For example, one passage of text has been criticised as being apologetic, for giving Carl Sagan's response to a scientific condemnation. Editors are happy to have the scientific condemnation covered in the article, but not the Sagan response which gives another view on why the basis for the condemnation, by itself, is not convincing. This is relevant because his comment is repeated in astrological texts and publications, although in the article we are pointing out that this does not show support for astrology, only Sagan's lack of support for the basis of the condemnation in principle. I would not have thought that it is treading through dangerous territory to explain the issues involved; and it is not necessary for anyone to know the subject matter well to understand the point in principle here. You can see what I mean here. This is what I am trying to establish; that editors slow down and get involved in the process of ensuring appropriate, objective reporting of relevant issues; not slash away indiscriminately on content that involved editors have been trying very hard to get right, in what concerns a complex and controversial subject.

We have a situation here where one editor caused a panic by placing a provocative suggestion on a noticeboard that the article was using fringe to question mainstream research. A small group of previously uninvolved editors then came the same night to remove 1000 words with 30 accompanying references, and immediately suggested they were acting with consensus because they came at the same time. This was done without any effort to make talk-page arguments or reasonable review. Four days later it is still the case that one or two of the more extreme editors are returning periodically to mass-delete content rather than engage in the process of reviewing it to determine if it is appropriate, and if not, what needs to be done to get it right. A little bit of support for the process of thoughtful and responsible editing would be much appreciated -- Zac Δ 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the edits, Zac, but I'm definitely not seeing the same thing as you. I does look like the article gives undue weight to the whole question of scientific support for astrology and has serious problems of bias because of its improper use of sources. For example, an 1985 paper from Nature (one of the world's most highly respected science journals) is discussed and it is claimed as outright fact that the study had "deep flaws" and various methodological problems, purely on the basis of a critique (a primary source) from Scientific Exploration, a (~~genuine, peer-reviewed~~) journal dedicated to researching the paranormal. That's just not acceptable. --FormerIP (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the editor's comments but I'm personally unsure what to think of them. This is a journal that no one seems to have heard of. It has no website. It is not published by a University. It is not clear who is on the editorial board. It sounds super-fringe to me, despite the thoughtful comments from the editor, and so I think some evidence needs to be adduced to establish the credibility and importance of the journal. What is the paid circulation, and who buys it? etc. I don't think it's unfair to ask these questions. Anyone can write what is essentialy a fanzine with pretentions.

I should add that there are, to my mind, two separate and equally important questions. Is it a reliable source, and is it a notable source? If it is neither, we shouldn't reference for anything. If it is not a reliable source, it could still be notable, if it has a lot of readership and influence. And even if the journal as a whole is something we need to be skeptical about, there could be some exceptions, for example if a major scientist writes for it, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP - to answer your point first while I have a minute to spare; we have given a commitment to looking at every passage that has had a concern raised against it - so that section will be re-evaluated to get the tone and balance right. The problem here is that there was no criticism or demonstrated concern at all, then suddenly - wham - whole sections ripped out without any discussion or willingness to explain. That can't be right, especially once a commitment to review and incoporate all valid criticisms had been given, and that process initiated. At the moment, that problem does seem to have abated though and editors are showing willingness to go through the material systematically, so I'm less concerned about that now.

With regard to the report "that the study had 'deep flaws' and various methodological problems, purely on the basis of a critique (a primary source) from Scientific Exploration, a (genuine, peer-reviewed) journal dedicated to researching the paranormal": firstly, the Journal Scientific Exploration has also been called an unacceptable source because it covers 'fringe subjects'. Are you saying that is not the case? You see, this is not about Correlation per se, but the fact that if a journal covers fringe subjects then it is automatically questioned as a reliable source, regardless of its reputation or relevance to the subject matter. The second point is that the flaws and criticsms were not made by astrologers but by scientists of high repute, who undertook independent assesments. One was Suitbert Ertel whose paper was published in Scientific Exploration; the other was Hans Eysenk, whose assesment was published in the Astrological Association Journal. The AA journal does not have the standards applied to it or academic reputation that Correlation does, but I would argue that the weight of the scientist's reputation makes it notable and reliable. This brings me back to the question I asked earlier - does WP accomodate reference to notable opinions, that have been influential upon the subject matter, regardless of where they have been published? (So long as they are published)?. It seems to me that Jimmy Wales has given his opinion on that where he says "there could be some exceptions, for example if a major scientist writes for it, etc". I would say that's the case here, and that the real problem is not the use of sources, but the fact that the content is not balanced properly and needs to adjust its tone and approach. Would you agree? (Thank you for your response Mr Wales, I'll come back and give a brief response to your questions shortly) -- Zac Δ 19:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Zac: here are some statements which could potentially be put into Misplaced Pages and sourced to the same issue of Sci Ex:

Scientists are divided as to whether evidence of mediumship provides a better fit with the hypothesis that ESP exists or the hypothesis that ghosts exist. (Sudduth)

It is probable that human beings are able to perceive things remotely. (Braude)

Trancendental meditation probably works because of the existence of a collective consciousness among human beings. (Orme-Johnson and Oates)

And I haven't even looked at the book reviews, but can't you understand the concern at making such liberal use of these types of journals (although Sci Ex seems to actually be better than the others) in an article about astrology? I'd also be concerned that some papers have been cited without anyone who has worked on the article having read them. The Eysenck paper, for example, is 25 years old and doesn't seem to be contained in any databases. But it is quoted in the Sci Ex article, so I'm guessing that's how it found its way into the WP article. But it is normal for notable studies to be critiqued. One of the dangers of using primary sources is that the source will not tell you whether its critique is valid or not. Ertel's title describes Carlson's work as "renowned", which suggest to me that we are looking not at mainstream science, but at a fringe attempt to dismantle mainstream science. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me a bit more direct, while at the same time thanking FormerIP for being so diplomatic here. Those claims are so patently absurd, they instantly demolish any sort of claim that it is a "genuine, peer-reviewed journal". It's quackery of the worst kind, and should only be used as a source for Misplaced Pages whenever it might be necessary to illustrate what kind of nonsense some people believe. It isn't science, it isn't academic, it's just rank nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What we've got here is a situation where believers in fringe theories are distorting the meaning of the term "peer-reviewed journal" to cover publications which are written by and for true believers, but masquerading as scientific journals. I've most often seen this trick used by so-called "scientific creationists"; I'm sorry to see it spread to other fringe topics. Adopting the mask of a peer-reviewed journal does not make a fringe-theory publication into a reliable source. "Just because the cat had her kittens in the oven, doesn't make 'em biscuits." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Or to use another cliche, you can put peer-reviewed lipstick on a journal, but it's still about astrology. Neutron (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have an answer to this particular issue. Mystic Meg. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's so funny. By one of those amazing co-incidences; I have a two word answer for you. I'll send it telepathically -- Zac Δ 05:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I take exception to the suggestion that an editor such as myself is a 'believer' in anything, or that a subject-specific journal is presumed to be written for "true believers". Why have you assumed your belief that a peer-reviewed journal presents itself as a "scientific journal"?; much less that it might only publish favourable papers rather than those that are critical too? It's standards are academic, not scientific - it was set up (in the 1960's I think) to act as the foremost journal in its specialist subject and ensure that there is a publication that would adhere to the standards required for academic papers on this theme. It does not pretend scientific authority and no one would suggest that; but it does have a reputation for critical analysis and fact-checking.

To FormerIP, it's not true that the refrences have not been checked. Other editors have done this and I've made it my responsibility to check the references. In the process I discovered a mass of irrelevant references attached to older content which did not connect to the point they were supposed to be substantiating. I think there is a problem on WP that content gets edited and updated, but often without critical attention to the references. (And, incidentally, one of the reasons I bother to commit to WP is because I applaud its ethic of reporting information based on reliable sources -- Zac Δ 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I think you're look at their "about" page without the proper critical eye. "Subject specific journal" isn't an adequate description of what this is. Such a journal would probably be staffed predominantly by psychologists (who may have an interest in things like ESP and astrology), but have you noticed the predominance of engineers, physicists and astronomers in the various committees? If proper scientific peer review were conducted, then it would seem obvious that it would at least be noted (for example) that there are potential scientific explanations for clairvoyance that allow us to escape from the "is it ghosts or is it ESP?" dilemma. This isn't a proper scientific journal, it is a hobby for academics who, quite separately from their professional work, also have a belief in the paranormal. Good for them. Hobbies are healthy. It may have a reputation for "fact-checking", but I'm guessing that this only applies to the extent that facts are only checked within the pseudo-scientific paradigm that the publication appears to follow. --FormerIP (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

At least you admit when you are guessing, and that's refreshing. But I think you also 'intuited' that it's a "hobby for academics", didn't you? (Be honest). Note I agreed that it's not a scientific journal - assumptions that it claims to be may explain the instinct to discredit it. The question of what constitutes a relevant and reliable source is more than the publication though. The author and the quality/notability of the work are also significant, and any one of these can justify inclusion. That's the way that I understand it and I'm under the impression that Jimmy Wales has said the same thing. Overall, I do take your point, and just so you know, my last post ended abruptly because I was called away before I'd finished writing what I was thinking - now I have little time and have forgotten what it was; but rest assured, it was probably important. -- Zac Δ 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To be clear on my view. Based on this conversation, it seems abundantly clear that SciEx is completely and utterly useless as a source for anything serious at all. People who publish such things, and participate in such things, should be ashamed of themselves. The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So to be clear then, you are saying that Ertel Suitbert is a crackpot and should be ashamed of himself? And you gathered that deep and profound realisation on the basis of this conversation? I didn't even know we were talking about SciEx.

I really don't profess to know much about The Journal of Scientific Exploration myself; except I have heard it described as an unacceptable source, and so was suprised when FormerIP described it here as something to be compared with Correlation as being "a genuine, peer-reviewed journal". Could it be that WP editors, even at the top, tend to speak/act first and think later? This may be problem which causes knee-jerk cuts to content which is really in need of more thoughtful attention and consideration. -- Zac Δ 03:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not "and", "or". There are possibly other explanations, but yeah, basically, I'd say that legitimate people who lend credence to fake crackpot journals ought to be ashamed of themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Legitimate people" ? Going down the philosophical principle of this, am I to assume you mean people who have respectable reputations based on their proven knowledge and demonstrated experience? I'm wondering what would make such a person stoop to such shame, does the journal pay huge sums of money? I would be surprised. Perhaps the opportunity to publish what their proven knowledge and demonstrated experience demands their concience to express? Looking at the journal's website, I see the associated editors are:

Carlos S. Alvarado, Ph.D, Atlantic University, Virginia Beach, VA, Daryl Bem, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Prof. Robert Bobrow, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, Prof. Courtney Brown, Emory University, Alanta, GA, Prof. Etzel Cardeña, University of Lund, Sweden, Bernard Haisch, Ph.D, Digital Universe Foundation, USA, Michael Ibison, Ph.D, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TX, John Ives, Ph.D, Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VA, Roger D. Nelson, Phd.D, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, Dean I. Radin, Ph.D, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Petaluma, CA, Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL, Dr. Michael Sudduth, San Francisco State University, CA,

- and the members of the editorial board are:

Dr. Mikel Aickin, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, Prof. Rémy Chauvin, Sorbonne, Paris, France, Prof. Olivier Costa de Beauregard, University of Paris, France, Dr. Steven J. Dick, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC, Dr. Peter Fenwick, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK, Dr. Alan Gauld, University of Nottingham, UK, Prof. Richard C. Henry (Chairman), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, Prof. Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, NJ, Prof. W. H. Jefferys, University of Texas, Austin, TX, Dr. Wayne B. Jonas, Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VA, Dr. Michael Levin, Tufts University, Boston, MA, Dr. David C. Pieri, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, Prof. Juan Roederer, University of Alaska–Fairbanks, AK, Prof. Kunitomo Sakurai, Kanagawa University, Japan, Prof. Yervant Terzian, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Prof. N. C. Wickramasinghe, Cardiff University, UK,

And all these, along with all the others who have contributed papers for publication, are either crackpots or shameful? Well I am not a professor and I'm supposing you are not either, so maybe the likes of you and I will never understand what motivates people like this to want to document "nonsense" to "influence crackpots". I agree, it's dreadful; and suggest you don't look any more closely at Correlation than you already have. -- Zac Δ 04:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Zac, naturally I agree with Jimbo's position on this. But the thing is we also don't need to actually determine whether Ertel is a crackpot or should be ashamed of himself. we just need to determine whether we it is appropriate to use his paper to demolish mainstream science in an article on astrology. However, according to Misplaced Pages his main claim to fame is work in relation to the Mars effect which, to put it in neutral terms, does not look very much like mainstream science. I'd take a liberal stance on whether its okay for him to work on that (I hope he isn't taking public money for it).

I think you're missing the point listing all the worthies listed on Sci Ex's website. They are mostly or entirely unqualified to comment on the paranormal from a scientific perspective, because they are engineers, physicists and so on. --FormerIP (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the question of the acceptability of Correlation as a reference source in Misplaced Pages. Correlation was first published in 1968 and described as "Research Publication of the Astrological Association in collaboration with ISAR (International Society for Astrological Research). The Astrological Association (the publisher of the journal) made efforts to ensure that a journal of research in/into astrology was available so that critical comment on astrology could be published and made available to academics and astrologers and also inspire high standards of research in this discipline. This earliest version of the journal was published for two years. In 1981, Correlation was re-issued with Simon Best as its editor. The list of consultant editors, at that time, was as follows: John Addey, Patrick Curry, Geoffrey Dean, Francoise Gauquelin, Michel Gauquelin, Charles Harvey, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Arthur Mathers, Frank McGillion, Michael Rees, Michael Startup, Beverley Steffert. Two issues of the journal are published each year. The current eidtorial board still includes Patrick Curry, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Arthur Mathers and Frank McGillion. But other academics have been added, over the years, and the board remains a broad collection of specialists in academic fields, among them Professor Suitbert Ertel and Dr. Nicholas Campion. Correlation does not have its own web site because it is a publication of the Astrological Association and you will see pages about Correlation on this site. You will find abstracts of every paper published in every issue of this journal on the database of Research Grants for the Critical Study of Astrology (RGCSA) of which I am the Convenor. Access to the database is free to everyone. The RGCSA was created in 2000 in order to encourage high standards of academic research in astrology. It considers applications from students in UK universities where astrology forms a component part of their research project for a post-graduate degree or fellowship, provided the research is being carried out within a UK university under academic supervision. We were acutely aware that academics within Universities were not aware of the complex research that existed in astrology and it was imperative that it was made available to them. This is why the database was created. There are other abstracts from other journals and the abstracts currently total about 300 in all and the number continues to grow. It is essential that information on research in and into astrology is accessible in order to promote debate on it. I did a Master's degree (1994 to 1997) and a doctorate (2000 to 2006) at the University of Southampton, UK both of which involved research in astrology applied to health psychology. The University of Southampton is one of the leading most respected research universities in the UK and it has extremely high standards in this regard. Both my degrees involved research in astrology applied to health within the NHS and the consultants with whom I worked had no issues with my methods or study design as, indeed, you would expect, given the University in which I was located. The University of Southampton is a “hospital university” so is particularly concerned with research in medicine and health. I used references from Correlation for my research for both projects and these references were accepted by my supervisors, lecturers and examiners, and given the same respect as other reference sources. My research covered a number of areas in health psychology as well astrology applied to it. The title of my doctoral thesis is "Astrology and psychology: astrological and psychological factors and fertility treatment outcome." I hope this background helps you to understand Correlation and its value as a resource to academics and astrologers working in research in this field. ---- Pat Harris, Editor, Correlation.

Pat, thanks for these details. Based on reading this, I can say without hesitation that I do not consider Correlation to be a valid source for Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, having not seen any indications of extreme, irrational, condemnations in your posts, I don’t naturally assume you take anyone’s position, but that you base your opinion on the best judgement that your knowledge of facts allows at any time. This is the scholarly attitude, and the one I presume WP strives towards. Ertel was called into the investigation of the Mars Effect phenomenon in order to identify a supposed bias in the data. He published on the matter in the Skeptical Enquirer, and I think it is to his credit that he did not limit the publication of his findings to the subscribers of skeptical literature, but allowed publication in subject-relevant literature too. He is either a respected, reliable source, based on his established academic weight and notably respected reputation, or he is not. He surely cannot be a guardian of skeptical truth when he publishes in one source, and then a crackpot, or shameful, when publishing in another. In general, I’ve never noticed a general character trait that defines academics by their interest in the lucre trail, so why go there (even in brackets)? Once an academic loses his or her academic reputation, all of their work becomes questionable. Unless such a thing happens, we must equally assume all is reputable.

I am also keenly interested in bringing this back to the question of Correlation, which as the leading astrological journal, is of consequence to the content of the astrology page article. Perhaps, now that the editor has given more information, it could be established more clearly whether a source deemed acceptable by supervisors, lecturers and examiners of respected universities can also be deemed a reliable source of reference for WP, in reference to the research papers that examine elements of astrological study? I am aware that a general principle does not negate the need to adhere to related policies.

On a personal level, I want to say that as a Misplaced Pages editor I have striven, to the best of my ability, to bring appropriate objectivity and balance between the extremes that this emotive subject invokes. But right now, I feel beset by the dilemma that only patently incorrect information is being allowed, due to the selective reference to or questionable interpretation of WP policy. This is forcing us to not give the proper explanation of the subject’s relevant and notable points, but to give only wrong explanations, as they have been put together by the subject's hostile sceptics. These are explanations which anyone with more than a beginner’s-level knowledge of the subject would find offensive. Although there is no doubt that science has rejected astrology, and the page reports that plainly; it is not true that astrology has rejected science, or shows no interests in its values. I made a post today where I identified the irreconcilable problem that Misplaced Pages faces if it adopts a rigid and unthinking policy approach to a subject so unique that you are not even able to find a place for it in your article categories (see here). My post expresses a relevant concern as succinctly as possible, and if you have any thoughts or suggestion you can offer on that, I would very much appreciate it. It is shown here in this diff. -- Zac Δ 18:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, it seems fairly obvious what's happening here. The astrology article is currently dominated by a handful of editors dedicated largely or solely to that single topic, and to presenting it in a relatively favorable light. Outside editors quickly and universally perceive that there's something wrong with the article, but attempts to address it are met with polite but interminable obstructionism, as outlined here.
This is the sort of situation that Misplaced Pages has, in general, been really poor at dealing with. You have clear problems with advocates controlling an article, producing poor-quality and non-encyclopedic copy, and using Misplaced Pages's systems to frustrate attempts by outside editors to fix the problems. But if the astrology advocates are careful to avoid overt incivility and rotate their reverts to sidestep 3RR, this will go on forever. MastCell 20:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, what about this, this, this, this, this, and this? You are an involved editor who is polarizing the situation, unnecessarily IMO. Anyone who reads the talk-page can see that now the silly, indiscriminate ripping out of content has stopped, the only ‘thing’ going on, is the difficult process of gaining consensus. This afternoon we have the first indication that is starting to happen. BeCritical has helped a lot in this regard, as has the involvement of previous skeptical editors, who are sharp with critcisms, but not unreasonable or suspicious. The avoidance of 'overt incivility'? Good lord, that's a new one to me. I prefer frankness to incivility, sorry. -- Zac Δ 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, I've made zero edits to astrology, and first started commenting on the current situation about 4 days ago in response to a noticeboard post, as your diffs demonstrate. That is, I am an outsider to the article. But OK, let's be frank.

As currently written, the article is an embarrassment to an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. It presents astrological "journals" as if they're part of mainstream scientific discourse. It categorically describes an article published in Nature as "deeply flawed"... on the basis of an astrologer's criticism in an obscure fringe-science periodical.

Presenting Nature and the Journal of Scientific Exploration as two equally scientifically valid sources would be risible enough, but the article doubles down on the absurdity by actually giving JSE precedence over Nature. That's bad. What's worse is that it's like pulling teeth to try to address this glaringly obvious violation of this site's most fundamental and non-negotiable principles. MastCell 23:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcell completely. If I didn't find the subject so uninteresting, I might go and make some edits myself. I support a total rewrite, and some topic bans if people keep up the same sort of nonsense. I think that, in particular, treating the Journal of Scientific Exploration as much more than a fanzine is a huge mistake.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I’ve never known the experience of agreeing with someone else completely; though I do try to compromise and respect other people's views. I’ve also never put Journal of Sci-Ex on the same footing as Nature, nor seen anyone else involved referring to them as two equally scientifically valid sources. Sorry, but that has not been the issue here.

Mr Wales, you are unspecific about “same sort of nonsense”. Whatever you mean, I'm likely to disagree. No editor has indicated resistance to revising any element of text that has received criticism. We all share the motivation of improving this historically-difficult article, to a level where it resolves its issues and gains featured article status. The article is still under development and not ready to submit for review, but it has always been understood that will go through a critical review process to look at issues such as neutrality, undue weight, etc. The criticisms of skeptical editors have not only been responded to but, actively sought (see here, and here).

Maybe you think the ‘nonsense’ lies in my asking for clarification on the status of Correlation, and the fact that WP:Sources states the term 'reliable source' has three relevant meanings: the work, the author and the publisher; which appears to avoid specific exclusion of anything except by the logic of context. I don’t think you understood my point about why the problem is better resolved through identification of undue weight, not censorship of sources. There is now an emboldened comment on the talk page, left by FormerIP, which leaves the instruction: Do not make use of pseudo-journals. At all. We are told that this is not because you have spoken, but because of the principles involved.

Can we clarify that this does not apply to the discussion of ideas and theories? If it does, then it would surely be because you have spoken, since the policy on fringe specifically states that alternative, non-mainstream, sources can be used for that purpose; and we are told we are required to give all majority and significant-minority positions, (whilst recognizing they not be given undue weight); to include “ideas supported only by a tiny minority, so long as secondary reliable sources have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.”

I am considering the significance of this to areas where theories are discussed as alternative, not competing ideas. I am happy to accept the situation as soon as I understood it. It’s clarity I’m looking for, not extension of an argument.-- Zac Δ 05:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Any impartial editor will notice that the astrology article is critical of astrology. Also, there are more editors on the page who are critical of astrology than those who are neutral or favourable. Some of the criticisms include opinions by well-known scientists even though they are not supported by studies and there are no extravagant claims supporting astrology. What may appear 'wrong' to the more fundamentalist sceptics is that when looking at the evidence astrology is not exactly what they believe it to be or what they have been taught to believe. This is bound to cause some cognitive dissonance. However it is important that Misplaced Pages report current verifiable information rather than pander to outdated and uninformed personal beliefs. Robert Currey talk 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known scientific bias". Robert, you, Zachariel, and whomever else you have recruited off-site need to stop pushing fringe sources, stop obstructing consensus, and offer significant compromises. Nearly every editor, involved or uninvolved, who has seen the sources you guys want to use has rejected them as unreliable. Skinwalker (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MastCell's point is confirmed by the above replies. I commented at Talk:Astrology that "there are two sides with irreconcilable differences and this discussion will go nowhere—only a major intervention from ANI or Arbcom will resolve the situation". The enthusiast SPA editors will never avoid an opportunity to use Misplaced Pages to promote astrology—consider this text from the article:

The investigation of astrology has used the empirical methods of both qualitative research and quantitative research. The most common forms of qualitative research are case study and pattern matching (cycle research), but data coding, and grounded theory have also been used.

Note the eight blue links to valid topics that will mislead readers into believing that astrology is related to science. I could start an edit war to remove those links, but I would be rewarded with 3RR warnings and a block since there is no mechanism to match the pool of SPAs. Further, tweaking that short extract would not address the other undue material, and any corrections to the article would disappear in a month or two. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am more optimistic than you are. It seems to me that there is a critical mass of people now whose interest in this article has been raised enough by this discussion that real progress might be made. The snippet you quote is, as you say, highly misleading, and it seems easy enough to fix it. I would recommend adding something to indicate that in all investigations that have been done using proper research methods and published in legitimate journals, the results have been completely negative. As I indicated earlier, I am not really interested enough in the topic to help out personally - at least not yet, and I have a pretty intense week of work coming up. But I encourage others to start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A personal tradgedy occured for me this morning - I came to WP to put a note somewhere that all these issues have fallen to a place of no concern for me in the short-term. I need to be somewhere else to support my family. I hope all editors will have the integrity and good sense to continue working together with consideration and respect for each other, and the fact that everyone is trying to achieve the ideal of truth. Be aware that the truth looks very different according to perspective and levels of involvement and knowledge. For example, although I do appreciate that Mr Wales has made his recommendations in good faith - for someone of my level of knowledge I just see someone who is insufficiently informed, recommending untrue comments that will not - because they cannot - be substantiated by any reliable source. Please just stick to what the sources say, and don't go down the route of being influenced by anything other than that. Referring to sources makes sense, because even if they don't report the facts accurately (which is the case here) at least WP will have kept its own integrity by reporting what is reported accurately. -- Zac Δ 15:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I wish you well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. -- Zac Δ 00:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I need some advice...

Hi Jimbo... <br\>Despite not being a newcomer, I keep getting bitten on the Simple English wiki, especially by Administrators of all people, which actually came as quite a shock. I am currently catching up on the policy, but is there any way of getting them to stop biting? They are just constantly being what I consider nasty, and not using polite ways of explaining wrongdoings. Can you please help me? Orashmatash (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "Despite being a newcomer..."? Because otherwise this doesn't make sense. Looie496 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant what I wrote. Orashmatash (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to look into it and to try to provide some soothing words for everyone. It will help if you can show me some diffs in which you perceived something as being "nasty" and "quite a shock".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Woah. First, thanks for replying. I never thought I would ever, ever get a reply. :)

Second, it turns out that the annoying user isn't an admin, and the simple English admins have helped me out. Thanks for your offer Jimbo. :) Orashmatash (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jimbo. I am surprised very much at such a short term for my nomination. The nomination lasted for five hours, from 21:32 September 29 to 02:29 September 30. I was asleep at this time. My reviewers have not given me time to reply to their remarks. Is it fair? I would be glad to fix some problems they noted but their awful haste and cold attitude to my work destroyed my motivation to improve the nominated article. Good luck to you. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This was a Featured Article nomination. The FA process has a lot of work to do and only a few people to do it, so it is necessary for things to be handled efficiently. When an article is clearly not ready for nomination, it needs to be moved out of the queue quickly. This article is far from ready. That isn't the fault of the nominator: the article received a Peer Review and a GA Review, both of which were extensive and thoughtful. However, they missed key issues. The GA review was the first one that the reviewer had conducted, and the reviewer is not a native English speaker, so the problems with prose style -- which are extensive -- did not become apparent. It is too bad you were offended -- but the reality is that the article still needs a lot of work to reach the FA level. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not informed of such a practice on en-wiki. Now I withdraw my ultimatum. I am sorry for it. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bianca Jagger

Since you'd taken an interest in the incorrect maiden name that keeps getting reported, I'm just letting you know that I added her ICorrection error report as a source for her preferred name. Maybe with a reference footnote people will leave it be. Cloveapple (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful!!! This is the first time I have heard of that website. It sounds great!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

wow, I thought you didn't went online

Don't you get bored? wikibreaks? anyway I am just wondering how many people are watchlisting this page.. --190.158.215.220 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2,419 watchers Bielle (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

More than Jesus! Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Be careful with that, someone might start burning Jimbo's record albums. Neutron (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo for president! --190.158.215.220 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like bad when trying to edit jimmy wales user page? --190.158.215.220 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Evidence

There is still a need for more detailed text, with each nation, about "Rules of evidence". I think the titles should be named by nation: "Rules of evidence in Canada" or "Rules of evidence in Italy". I found a source for text about Italian courts:

International Comparative Legal Guide Series - Italy (2008)

That webpage states, "ach party has the burden to prove the facts substantiating his claim or defence" so that a judge can determine if there is enough evidence to proceed. Also, a judge can request expert help to see if evidence is "real" as required: "experts can be appointed by the Judge to assist in evaluating matters". Finally, the Judge can exclude unreliable witnesses, because the Judge has "discretion to decide if non-documentary evidence (e.g. fact witness) is or is not admissible". Hence, after hearing all the claims, then a judge in Italy can decide when there is not enough evidence and drop charges, within 1 day. Those types of details could be written in a redirected section, such as "Rules of evidence in Greece" being a redirect to a section of an article about "Criminal court in Greece". -Wikid77 (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have no opinion about the redirect part, but in general, I think more information about such topics is a good thing. One of the problems people have in reading about criminal cases in different countries is that procedural details matter, and are a lot different in different places.

In a similar vein, I saw an article about the Knox appeal the other day in which Mignini made an argument that I think would get him thrown out of court in the US. Essentially, his argument was that if Knox wins her appeal, he will appeal to the next highest court. But she will obviously leave Italy and never come back if she wins her appeal now. So, he argued, find her guilty again, even if you think she's innocent, so this can go to the higher court. Perplexing, to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That is another interesting aspect for legal articles: the prosecution's directions to a jury and whether a prosecutor can state, "Deliver a verdict of guilty, even if not, to prevent the defendant from evading arrest if there is a problem in the future" (hence, invoking a punishment for a "precrime"). Also, there could be articles such as "Statute of limitations in Italy" to list how long a person could be charged for murder, and later be allowed to return to Italy without fear of old charges again. I think reader interest in related topics spikes to huge pageviews during a period of about 5 days, depending on people predicting a date when a verdict is to be delivered. We already have pageview data for the Casey Anthony trial verdict (5 July 2011, stats), with 1.1 million pageviews, then 1.0 million, 0.5 million, 135 thousand, etc. So, comparing data for other trials could show a pattern of how much time editors will have to prepare articles during high-profile court verdicts. -Wikid77 19:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your early career in finance.

Hi Jimbo. Can you explain a little about your work before you set up Bomis? I can't find any consistent information. Britannica says that you were a bond trader at Chicago Options Associates. Another source says you were a research director. Another says that you traded currency and interest rate options on the CME. Are any or all of these true? Wired magazine says that you stayed at COA for 6 years, which would take you up to 2000. Or did you leave in 1996 to set up Bomis?

Sorry, so many questions. I'll shut up now. With best wishes 109.149.240.75 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you asking? I mean, if I answer here, it won't be a proper source for the article about me. That's all more or less right, but with some minor inaccuracies of no particular importance. For example, I wasn't technically a "bond trader" in my opinion, since I never traded actual bonds (although colleagues did and I might well have except that I didn't) but rather traded various interest rate and currency futures and options. But, it's a very minor point. The mistake that is sometimes made is calling me a "broker" when I wasn't ever a broker.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he is asking because your input could be quite valuable in the process of weighing the reliability of other sources. 72.94.166.193 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am asking because of the conflicting information available in secondary sources like Britannica and Wired, and the almost complete absence of information in primary sources. I looked for your records in the NFA database and there aren't any, nor is there much in their records for Chicago Options Associates. It's possible I am looking in the wrong place. You have confirmed you were trading, rather than merely acting as Research Director. Were you trading your own money? Or client money? Or house account? Was Chicago Options Associates a principal or market maker, or a CTA or something else? I would be grateful for any help, although I understand if you don't want to answer any personal questions. Regards 109.149.240.75 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Another puzzle is that Chicago Options Associates ceased to be registered as an IB in 1991. What company were you working for? And what entity were you trading under? (Sorry if these are personal questions, please feel free to ignore this) 109.149.240.75 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If an editor turned up on my talk page asking if worked for xyz company in 19xx and if I might have worked for abc instead because xyz got shut down;..... and exactly what did I do at xyz and abc ...blah blah blah... I'd just reply that I'm not really prepared to respond and they would do well finding something else to do with their typing time rather than (rudely) intruding in this way and in this medium. By very definition, personal history and C.V. are not relevant here. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, Pedro, but I imagine you aren't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages biography. Jimmy does, and it says "in 1994, Wales took a job with Chicago Options Associates, a futures and options trading firm in Chicago, Illinois. This firm apparently never existed at that time, at least as a registered trading entity. And the article states that Jimmy 'accumulated capital'. How? 109.149.240.75 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem 109.149 but, as the saying goes - assume makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". So perhaps your imagination might actually stretch to the possibility that Misplaced Pages does indeed have an entry on me - well that's a problem for your imagination (or rather lack of it). Now, aside from you looking a little silly now, as Jimbo says above "I mean, if I answer here, it won't be a proper source for the article about me" - so the fact that this is the talk page of an editor who happens to have an entry in the eyclopedia is, well, irrelevant when it come to fact digging - you're asking personal questions in entirely the wrong place. Pedro : Chat 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this subject deserves discussion, but over at the subject's talk page. Jimmy, is there a book length biography of you? Why the heck not? You'd think there are yellow scribblers out there who'd love to make money off of his story. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copying this entire thread over to Talk:Jimmy Wales. If editors more experienced on this talk than I disagree with my actions, I have zero problem with reversion of my choice. BusterD (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy commission

Policy pages are different from article pages because the original ideas of editors are prohibited from article pages, but not from policy pages.

Just offering a suggestion that you consider appointing a commission of people you know to be trustworthy competent clear writers, that oversees the editing of the policy pages. The purpose of the commission is to help by noting problems and/or suggesting changes. The main interest of the commission should be the clarity and organization of policy, rather than content which I expect would only be rarely affected, if at all. If the editors at a policy page are either unwilling or unable to make appropriate changes, the commission would have the authority to make the changes. These changes by the commission could not be reverted, except possibly through an appeal to the commission, which the commission would either accept or reject. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I too favor something like that, except I believe the policy committee should be elected rather than appointed. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons for Jimbo appointing a commission is to avoid the politics of an election, which can include voting based on political alliances, stealth canvassing, etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "governance from on high" for policies or for anything much other than mechanical operations might have "unforeseen consequences" froma legal point of view. While I think it would be great if salaried Wikimedia employees had some authority over articles and editors, such would assuredly affect the legal status regarding libel and other laws in various nations. By devolving the decisions to the "community", the foundation has a layer of insulation it should be unwilling to forego. This is not actually "mere opinion" but from many years experience as a contractor for an on-line service. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I modified my suggestion to more accurately reflect what I intended and perhaps address some of your concerns. I added the sentence, "The main interest of the commission should be the clarity and organization of policy, rather than content which I expect would only be rarely affected, if at all." Also note that the commission would not have authority over article editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)