Talk:Yuba County Five

Dyatlov Pass in the See Also section
I removed a SeeAlso connection within this article to another article, the Dyatlov Pass incident. It was reverted by another edtor, citing MOS:ALSO. Funny, the part of that link is the following quote:
 * "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

In my judgment, they aren't related, apart from each article discussing about the mysterious deaths in each matter...and that's just about it. There are no other common factors that relate one to the other. While references aren't explicitly necessary to connect them, references are a pretty damn good way to cement similarities that don't rely on a signle editor's opinion. There is in fact a See Also link to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously article, which I think is reasonable, as Mathias remains missing to this day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found a source and moved the statement to the end of the intro because I'm such a nice guy and I really don't want to go through all this again, anymore than I think you want to go through this again. "There are no other common factors that relate one to the other" ... please. That is just risible ... people abandoning a shelter on a winter night far from civilization, some wearing each others discarded clothes, and bodies being found ravaged by animals in the springtime. You are setting, I think, a deliberately high bar here just because you believe that all see-also links between specific articles should be referenced, which is strongly against consensus of many discussions. As noted in the abovelinked discussion (which, remember, you were forced to initiative after you decided to unilaterally rewrite SEEALSO to back up your position), and not really disputed by anyone taking part in it but you, the "see also" wording in the header implicitly allows this expression of an editor's opinion as to something similar a reader might be interested in after they've finished reading the article. Nothing there has ever been regarded as a statement of fact. I have never seen anything wrong with, say, an editor in "see also" in an article about a film mentioning an article with a similar plot if nothing about it came up in the sources used for the research; I really can't understand why anyone would. In my editorial judgement, there was no problem with putting Dyatlov Pass in see-also here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I have undone your addition of the source from Ranker.com. In the three instances that I can find where Ranker.com has been vetted at RSN, it has failed time and again. You have suggested that they are related in several ways:
 * ; and
 * No.1 is pretty true, though "far from civilization" is a pretty relative term. The Dyatlov folk were much further away from the nearest help than the men from Chico. No.2 is actually incorrect; only the folk from Dyatlov were wearing other people's clothing. No.3 is probably common to anyone found in the Spring after a winter in the woods as a corpse. These aren't enough in the way of commonality to connect them. Especially when you also take into consideration that no one from Dyatlov is missing.
 * So, while it appears that we have a differing view regarding the inclusion of Dyatlov in See Also as a matter of similar nature, your editorial judgment is not connecting enough dots for inclusion; the burden for inclusion is upon you to connect them better. I don't see it, beyond the most superficial of connections. Stop making it about me; focus your attention on the edits instead. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jack, Jack, Jack ... do you realize what time it is? I was writing a nice response, hoping to call it a night afterwards (hint hint) and you just had to create an edit conflict. First of all, if you don't want this to be about you, I would suggest you stop using foul language in edit summaries. That said, thank you for at least engaging on the merits. "Far from civilization" is perhaps a bit relative, but only on paper. The point was that in both cases you had people leaving the only shelter they had for some distance and starting a long walk through freezing temperatures without adequate attire with no apparent destination (And having hiked a lot in winter, whether you're in the Urals when you do this or in a National Forest in California doesn't make any difference ... Nature just doesn't care). As for No. 2, by "clothing" I was including Weiher's shoes, which Mathias is believed to have taken, in the comparison. Do you think another word ("attire", maybe) would be more inclusive? I suppose I will concede you the point on No. 3, especially since it's clearer here that it was animals, whereas in the Dyatlov Pass incident there are theories that an avalanche caused the damage to the internal organs. As for the RS/N threads you linked to ... the one from Archive 181 does not seem to reach any consensus (note the multiple editors saying "I don't know") and the point that just as there's no such thing as a completely reliable source, there's no such thing as a totally unreliable one either. Ultimately the editor who started the discussion seems to decide he won't use ranker or any of the other many sources he lists, but that's a personal choice and not consensus. In the Archive 141 discussion there is no specific judgement on ranker, just the original editor's concern that it might not be reliable, and DGG, whom I know personally and respect, says he doesn't think any of those sources are reliable. Not a consensus of editors. The second discussion, in Archive 183, was one I had examined at length as you were posting. It comes down to one editor's passing remark that ranker "should not be relied on for any claim of fact. And there, to me, is the key point. I was relying on ranker not for a factual claim but for its opinion that there are similarities between two sets of reliably sourced facts (I wouldn't use ranker as a source for a factual claim; in fairness they don't really seem to do much original reporting anyway). WP:RSOPINION suggests, to me, that we can distinguish between sites whose facts we don't trust but whose opinions might matter given their wide dissemination. I will respond to what you left on my talk page but really, I have to call it a night (more like a morning at this point) after that (hint hint). Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A few comments here. Seems the inclusion criteria here for a see also is somewhat arbitrary. Seems a good faith process would be to talk it out before leaving nasty edit summaries. I see that an argument for inclusion was made that has relevant points. Sourcing is not an issue, which everyone seems to acknowledge but still uses as an argument. No sourcing is required here. Reverting based on personal opinion, while arguing that the edits were based purely on opinion, seems pointless. No burden to remove anything here unless a larger group of editors weigh in to form some sort of opinion that is actually actionable. Otherwise I move that a link in see also that does not detract from the article in any sense remain. Beach drifter (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It also appears that one editor has 4 reverts on this article in less than 24 hours. Beach drifter (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your sympathetic point of view here. Jack and I have decided, on my talk page, to just back off this for a while, and go to any formal dispute resolution later if we are so inclined at that point. Yes, I seem to have gone over three reverts, though the latter two were after I tried to substitute a sourced inclusion inline, which I might argue was a different edit entirely, although I am aware that that has not always been held to be the case. My bad. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It also appears that one editor has 4 reverts on this article in less than 24 hours. Beach drifter (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your sympathetic point of view here. Jack and I have decided, on my talk page, to just back off this for a while, and go to any formal dispute resolution later if we are so inclined at that point. Yes, I seem to have gone over three reverts, though the latter two were after I tried to substitute a sourced inclusion inline, which I might argue was a different edit entirely, although I am aware that that has not always been held to be the case. My bad. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are they called the “Yuba County Five”?
Yuba City is in Sutter County, and it seems like their car was found in Plumas County (maybe Butte), and it doesn’t seem like they were found in Yuba County either. 45.49.10.103 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone misunderstood this, and before the name could get corrected it became the common name. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * commonly conflated as Yuba and Sutter counties are adjacent to each other with their county seats being twin cities that form a common metro area. To add to the possible confusion, Yuba City is the county seat of Sutter, not Yuba, County whose county sest is Marysville across the Feather River 2604:2D80:ED08:A00:C0BC:4702:1713:6178 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Descriptions on all of them
I wonder what the life story behind all 5 men was... Like a detailed description for each of them. 2603:6011:8200:1344:659E:111D:55B:30BF (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, this isn't a biography ... they are notable for this event, not their lives. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They all had a mental disorder or a mental evilness 75.200.104.49 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you mean “illness” … English not your first language? Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)