User talk:Bronte.Alcott

Welcome!
Hello, Bronte.Alcott, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Nerd does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

October 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Nerd, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. I've read Bill Nye's book and it clearly speaks to the topic of Nerd Pride.

Every statement I make is in the actual book.

Why would a secondary source be preferable to a primary source?

I went back to my first submission and took out anything that could be considered subjective and I added an additional citation from the book itself.

This is the entry I want to add to Nerd Pride ... because I think anyone interested in the topic would find a great deal of useful information in this book and it clearly addresses the topic and is by an expert, Bill Nye. I've read the FAQs and still don't see how this is either subjective or disruptive. I'm trying to help.

In 2017, Bill Nye published Everything All At Once. The book is subtitled How to Unleash Your Inner Nerd, Tap into Radical Curiosity, and Solve Any Problem. Nye's stated objective for the book is to change the world. . He describes the attributes of the nerd mindset as “persistence in the pursuit of a lofty goal, resilience to keep trying no matter what the obstacles are, humility for when one approach turns out to be a dead end, and the patience to examine the problem from every angle until a path forward becomes clear.”

Bronte.Alcott (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Bronte.Alcott
 * You need to find secondary sources that discuss the book and how it pertains to the concept of "nerd". Nye's book is a primary source, and your opinion about its importance and relevance to the article need to be backed up with reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not written on the basis of what one editor considers "useful", which is the reason we require reliable secondary sources. So again, please find such sources that discuss the book and its relationship to "nerd". Click all the blue links in the messages on this talk page to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Sunday. I've always been taught that primary sources trump secondary sources, so this will be a learning curve for me. Given the newness of this book, it may take a while to provide that secondary source that verifies what the subtitle of the book is and what the author explicitly states about the characteristics of a nerd. So maybe by 2018, I can make an entry that confirms this 2017 publication for what it explicitly states itself to be. I'm really trying to understand the wikipedia culture. BTW, would the New York Times be a reliable source? And do you also check the veracity and bona fides of those secondary sources? Thanks again for helping me understand how this works.

It appears I am within the Wikipedia guidelines on using primary sources: "Policy: 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.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 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. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

Since I am only citing what is in the primary source, with page numbers, and not interpreting, analyzing, evaluating or synthesizing, perhaps that brief entry can stand.

Your thoughts?

BTW, I apologize for my persistence. I don't mean any harm. I'm a long time supporter of Wikipedia, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute in my areas of expertise to a resource I personally find invaluable.

Bronte.Alcott (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Bronte.Alcott
 * The problem with using the Nye book as a source is that it is you who is deciding whether it is important enough and relevant enough to include in the article. If you were editing Bill Nye there might be a need to use a source written by him (for example, someone claims something about him that he contradicts). But this article is Nerd, and the importance and relevance of Bill Nye to the article can't be decided by one editor. If Wikipedia allowed individual editors to add their personal opinions to articles it would be a huge chaotic mess of opinions. Encyclopedias that have professional editors may very well use primary sources, but Wikipedia does not have professional editors, so the policies about reliable sources and secondary sources are used to help maintain some semblance of encyclopedic content. The other point about use of Nye as a primary source in the Nerd article is that there almost certainly are or will be a number of reliable sources that discuss his book. Those may be appropriate for use in the Nerd article. If good secondary sources are available, the restrictions on use of primary sources get tighter. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether a source is considered reliable isn't always answered with a simple yes or no. Some sources are reliable for some topics or in certain contexts but not others. For an example of this issue, see Talk:Zooey Deschanel/Archive 1. Generally, however, NYT is well respected on Wikipedia. Read WP:RS. Specific concerns can be addressed at WP:RSNB. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll bow out now. This has been an interesting, if frustrating, experience. I genuinely thought I had found something that would add to a positive understanding of the topic. In fact, it was in the process of writing a review of the book that I googled nerd and found the wikipedia article and saw that Nye's book hadn't been included yet. That was the impetus for my writing a brief entry to continue the development of the topic and point readers to a rather lengthy explication of the concept. Unfortunately, except for the fact that the book is a NYT bestseller, there don't seem to be reviews that make exactly this claim. If you had the book in front of you, as I have, you would know that I am not misstating the case for this as an exemplar of "nerd pride." Take care.
 * Even if I agreed with everything you wrote, that would not make any difference. My opinion carries no more weight than yours here, nor should it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, if your review is published in a reliable source, then use of it here may be appropriate. But if its in a blog or anything self-published, that isn't considered reliable. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a blog I write for the STEM program I direct for teachers, so clearly not appropriate for your purposes. Thanks for your time. Perhaps someone will come up with the key to adding this information to the article in future because, without it, the topic "nerd pride" isn't really encyclopedic. I thought I met the criteria for when primary sources are permissible, but clearly not, in your judgment, and your opinion, contrary to your statement, obviously carries more weight than mine. That is as it should be, given your dedication to this project over many years. I'll watch from the sidelines.
 * Let me suggest you discuss this at WP:RSNB. My opinion certainly doesn't carry more weight than any consensus that might develop there. You might also get some helpful suggestions. Sundayclose (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)