Talk:Science Moms

Did you know...? history

 * On 11/25/17 this article was approved for Did you know...? placement and was moved to the approved page. RobP (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After a second DYK review (requested after WP:Notability issues were raised), on 12/10/17 it is was re-approved and moved to the DYK Queue page. RobP (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Beginning at 7pm EST on 12/14/17, the article was featured in DYK for 24 hours. RobP (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article's DYK appearance garnered 6,462 pageviews, enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Pre-DYK WP:notability discussion
I've seen this film, and I liked it, but I am not sure it passed GNG. I think immediately, the sources by Senapathy need to be removed, since she is featured in the movie and therefore is not an independent source. The other sources are either partially okay or not RSes. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that at a minimum, the sources by Senapathy should be removed. If no one else does this by tomorrow (Nov 21) I can do it. Once that happens, we can evaluate whether or not the remaining sources are sufficient to meet WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have done this, and many of the other sources also look questionable. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the logic of removing all Senapathy references. She did not make the film but is one of the subjects. Why is her commentary on the material being discussed in it not pertinent? If there were a film about someone else, let's say Neil Degrass Tyson for example, would it be inappropriate to cite his opinion on the topics he was filmed about (as expressed in Cosmos or in a book he wrote)? RobP (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Her opinions do matter, indeed, but her writings cannot be used to establish that the article passes GNG, since she is a star in the film. We need independent RSes. I am not seeing much of these in the article's current form. My hunch is that this is article is well within the domain of WP:TOOSOON. Delta13C (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK... Then if the removed references do not violate WP policy for inclusion, I would say they should be reinstated as they originally were. The text as it is - with so many refs removed - now has a lack of citations to back much of it up. The GNG issue should be separate and based on what else is used for ref that either satisfies the criteria or not. No? RobP (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I WAS discussing it here. And why do I have to ask first to make a change but not the folks deleting the original material in the first place? Seems backwards. Also, the deletions are being done incompletely and are leaving citation errors in the References section.RobP (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing the issues here. Please read Identifying_and_using_independent_sources. Independent refs should be used whenever possible. When non-independent refs are used, they should clearly state 'according to X' or similar wording clarifying the source. If an article relies heavily on non-independent refs, that raises the likelyhood of neutrality issues. A bot fixes orphan cite errors periodically, but yes, I could have been more careful to preserve references.Dialectric (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will restore the Senapathy references as appropriate then and make sure to "clearly state for each case: 'according to X' or similar wording" as suggested. This will restore the condition where all text is backed by some reference - as I originally wrote the article. Hopefully the issue of GNG and WP:TOOSOON can then be decided regarding the quality of the other references used. RobP (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Check it out. If I was not explicit enough somewhere, please improve it. Also, I have found a reference (a negative one) to Science Moms in an anti-GMO book and am working on getting the details to add to the article (to aid notability). RobP (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the lede of this article contains substantive content sourced only from a star in the movie, and it's just one sentence. Unless there are third-party sources that can describe the film more in-depth, including its genesis, plot, reception, etc., this deficiency is highly revealing that the article does not meet GNG. Delta13C (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a documentary, and as such actually has no "stars" (is there an info-box for documentaries without "Staring"?) and no "plot" as such. However, your point is understood regarding an over-reliance on citations from Senepathy's articles. Her material is more concise and clear than the other refs, so I may have overused hers a bit. But the Pastemagazine.com reference (by Mamone, Trav) also discusses what the documentary is about, as do others, so I have added these elsewhere as was appropriate, in addition to adding new references. RobP (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a source in a book published this year that alleges that the film has ties to Monsanto and is essentially promoting "favorable industry information": Gillam, Carey. 2017. Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. Springer. I don't particularly like this source, but it is a mention nonetheless, which could be added to the article to help establish notability and present part of the film's reception, even if by the anti-GMO crowd. Delta13C (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that WP:FRINGE book is a main example of why Gilliam generally isn't considered a reliable source, so I'd be conflicted about using it as well (even if done carefully). From what I've been able to find at a quick glance, here are a few more sources (haven't done more than an inital glance for source quality),. I'll take another more in-depth look sometime in the future, but the fringe GMO documentaries often pass notability with very little, so we're not looking at an extremely high bar either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added the Gillam info. Let me know what you think. Regarding the two sources mentioned above (pastemagazine & the telegraph), I already used both of those in the article! RobP (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a template to the article. We've got to remove the non-RSes. It is hurting the article by inflating the number of sources. By my measure, this article does not meet GNG. Also, the book by Gilliam just needs to be cited once and not linked to Amazon. Delta13C (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK... I can remove the Amazon reference although I am a fan of multiple web sources in case one goes away. (I usually do archiving but could not for the first source for that for some reason.) On the main topics, we seem to be going in a circle. I thought we established that the material by Senapathy was OK as long at the text made it clear that it was from her (the way I re-instated it)? Now you said it is hurting the article. You had said: "Her opinions do matter, indeed, but her writings cannot be used to establish that the article passes GNG" Are you now saying again that you believe this all should be removed again despite my improvements at your request? Or are you referring to other material as non-RSes... and if so, which ones? And on the larger matter of GNG, as was said I see this as a separate issue and should be determined by the quality of the other references. No? If you do not believe there is enough to meet that criteria, how much more do you see as necessary, and do others agree? RobP (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not clear about Senapathy's opinions: they matter to society in the sense that she seems like a reasonable science advocate, but her writings bear little to no weight in an article about a film to which she is closely connected and is a subject in. Other problematic sources include the blogs, podcasts, press releases, kickstarter, etc. These are not reliable sources on WP. We need third-party coverage. We cannot just list facts about the film based on low-quality sources. Delta13C (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delta13C and I are saying essentially the same thing. Articles should be built on independent RS refs. While you can use non-independent refs, in this case content by Senapathy, extensive use of non-independent refs in an article suggests (a)the article is likely to have WP:NPOV neutrality problems as it over-represents opinions of people connected to the project, and (b)good quality independent sourcing on the topic - significant coverage - may be limited/nonexistent.Dialectric (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Harriet Hall of Science-Based Medicine just published a review of this documentary! That certainly must aid the Notability of this article. RobP (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added this to Reception. RobP (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that is highly coincidental. Delta13C (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pre-DYK WP:RS discussion
I want to break up the discussion that has been occurring in an intertwined fashion in the Notability section. How about if we move the issue of what references specifically are reliable - and which are not - to this section, and limit the Notability section to a discussion of the larger issue of whether or not this article passed notability? So... assuming the article has enough RS to pass notability - because if it doesn't, the extra references do not matter - which of the current references are not reliable sources? RobP (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I flagged problematic sources. They should probably be removed. I wish this article had gone through the AfC process, because now we are left with an albatross that probably doesn't meet GNG but appears to be reliably covered. If we do not resolve these issues soon, AfD may be a suitable solution. Delta13C (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to list the 11 (I think) refs you believe are NR so they could be individually discussed here - (some suggestions seem logical, but others not so much) - but first can you explain your troubling comment "...that probably doesn't meet GNG but appears to be reliably covered." Having read the GNG section, it seems to me that this is a self-contradiction. How can it be reliably covered and not suitable? The Notability article itself says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So how can it be reliably covered and not meet GNG in your opinion? What criteria are you using? And I have to point out that you did not answer my previous question regarding how many more RS are necessary then, in your opinion? I get the feeling now that even if coverage of this was picked up by the NYT or Washington Post tomorrow, you will still want to delete the article for some reason I cannot fathom. RobP (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said it *appears* to be reliably covered, which is a product of the detail and breadth of the article. However, most of the sources underlying the content are not RSes. I do not know how many sources it takes to pass GNG. That is a judgment call we reach through consensus. If there were more RSes, such as NYT or WashPo, then we would not be having this discussion. We have to do better than Paste magazine, a university web page, small-town paper, a review on a prominent blog, a brief mention in a book, podcasts, and writings by a person in the film. Delta13C (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are setting unreasonable standards. Your list fails to mention several other RS publications, including several from CFI. Beyond that Let me point you to a set of other films I found by just 5 min of searching on (film) in Wiki, which to me seem much less Notable - at least by what is in their articles - than this one. Some have minimal refs., while others have many but they are all film industry sources, sometimes repeatedly used. Not a NYT or Post between them I think: Rampage (2018 film), Aval (2017 film), Wind River (film), The Whole Truth (2016 film).


 * In any case here is the list of the refs you flagged (let me know if I missed any!), and my comments on them. I will go ahead and delete the ones I agree with right now.

'''1.	Openargs.com. Agree to delete as it is extraneous. Material covered by another ref.''' 2.	Pastemagazine.com. No flag 3.	SIUE.edu      No flag '''4.	Geneticliteracyproject.org. Agree to delete as it is extraneous. Material covered by another ref.''' 5.	Blogtalkradio.com. - Disagree. The podcast site is being used just to validate that Newell is a host ON that PODCAST. How is this innapropriate? '''6.	Theleagueofnerds.co.uk. - Agree to delete as it is extraneous. Material covered by another ref.''' 7.	Mythicistmilwaukee.com. No Flag 8.	Kickstarter.com. Disagree. It seems Kickstarter page is a reasonable source to verify this WAS a kickstarter project. 9.	Centerforinquiry.live. Disagree. CFI is a RS 10. Thetelegraph.com. No flag 11.	iwf.org. No Flag '''12.	Groundedparents.com. Agree to delete as it is extraneous. Material covered by another ref.''' 13.	Forbes.com. No flag. 14.	"PRESS KIT FOR THE FILM". Sciencemomsdoc.com. Disagree. It seems the press kit for the film is a reasonable source to list the “stars” 15.	Csicop.org. No Flag 16.	Csicop.org. No Flag 17.	qedcon.org. Disagree. The QED site is being used as validation of the premier. Why is this innapropriate? 18.	Qedcon.org    Disagree. The QED site is being used as validation of the premier. Why is this innapropriate? '''19.	Reasonableriskpodcast.com. Agree to delete as it is extraneous. Material covered by another ref.''' 20.	Sciencebasedmedicine.org. No Flag '''21.	Psyongames.com. Agree to delete as it is extraneous.''' 22.	Gillam, Carey. No Flag

RobP (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the non-Rses. The primary sources were especially problematic, such as QED website, press kit, and kickstarter. Other problem sources included the SIUE website, which seems to replicated in the Telegraph source, and also the podcasts. I recommend you read WP:NFILM, especially the section on RSes and criteria for notability. The bottom line is that we need reliable, third-party coverage. If the info is not in such sources, then it should not be on WP. One example is the Kickstarter campaign. Since this is not covered in an RS, it does not get included in the article. Delta13C (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to note here that Delta13C ignored my detailed list above and did not see fit to reply to my Disagree comments on some. They just went ahead and implemented their own opinion without engaging in detailed discussion. Delta13C (Dino monster now) has been overly zealous in critiquing the primary refs on this article for some reason. One example is removing the QED, presskit and Kickstarter citations despite my push-back. As well as others that were merely used to validate factual content: Use of those as I did seem to be more than adequately covered by WP policy on primary refs: “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." That seems a long winded way of simply stating that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (but non-extraordinary claims need only standard evidence)." RobP (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So as I said, using a Kickstarter ref to validate this was funded by kickstarer, or the QED schedule ref to validate that this film was shown at QED, was totally correct.


 * Another news source was published on 12/2 and I have added that to the article. Removing Notability banner. RobP (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By my count of RSes, we have two news articles from small-scale outlets. (The most recent one is semi-promotional, as indicated by the contact email address at the bottom of the article.) There is also the Paste Magazine article, and I do agree that the SBM post is a reliable source, but others may not agree on that point. The book mention counts minorly, since there is little detail, and it's likely the author highly biased against GMOs and biotechnology. The IWF source is basically a blog, and the other sources, including the Forbes and CFI interviews, should be considered primary. I think you should keep the banner up. Dino monster (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Dino monster is Delta13C so this is not a separate editor's opinion. What's with the (repeated) ID changes - going back to TR...? RobP (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)