Jacob Barnett

[Koala Claw Cuts]

Jacob Barnett (T-H-L), now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 4‎ (T-H-L) after the sizable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) (T-H-L). Jacob Barnett is a 16-year-old Masters student at the Perimeter Institute who began receiving media attention as a "boy genius" in March 2011. The numerous sources easily meet WP:GNG, but their scientific details and speculative predictions have been debunked by skeptic bloggers. The Spark. A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius, written by Jacob's mother Kristine and published in 2013, received similar scrutiny.

Compare the post-AFD version (note the sentence with five references) to one with the puff removed. The only way to be truly NPOV is to add a Controversy section with dueling POVs.

[Stierlitz]

The article first appeared in February, written by the now-deleted "Pieter202." Then a couple of anonymous, IP-only users messed around with it, then it got tossed around by the likes of "AnomieBOT", "Richard Arthur Norton", "Comatmebro", "Ashishlohorung" (claims to be article author), "CyberXRef", "Waacstats", "Leemorrison", "Frze", and "Trivialist." It was linked to a list of prodigies, then removed, grown and shrunk, but not radically changed. At least let the kid get his Nobel Prize before really dickering around with his "online legacy."

[Poetlister]

This is a splendid example of the difference between "WP:Notable" and notable. Obviously, no sensible editor of a reference work would want an article on this topic.

[Ming]

So what's this Viewfinder (T-C-L)'s interest in defending the article?

[Ming]

.....aaaand "non consensus"-kept by Sandstein: diff only

[Poetlister]

.....aaaand "non consensus"-kept by Sandstein: diff only

I've always thought "non consensus"-kept is a contradiction of the rules. An AfD is not a vote. People discuss and the closing admin must arbitrate based on the discussion. Thus "non consensus"-kept means "I can't be bothered, or I don't have the courage, to come down on one side or the other". Anyway, with a BLP, "non consensus" ought to mean deletion.

[Anroth]

Thats out of scope for Deletion review which is supposed to concern itself with 'was the deletion closed correctly'. It is not meant to be a place to re-hash the AFD. In this case as there really is no evidence the AFD closer did anything incorrect, his close (and keep decision) stands.

[eppur si muove]

Ruth Lawrence (T-H-L) is an example of a previous generation of child prodigy who has had a good but not exception academic career but still has a WP article. The person who I shared the Maths prize with in my last year at school has had two full professorships in the UK but has no article. Lucky for him.

[Poetlister]

Ruth Lawrence (T-H-L) is an example of a previous generation of child prodigy who has had a good but not exception academic career but still has a WP article. The person who I shared the Maths prize with in my last year at school has had two full professorships in the UK but has no article. Lucky for him.

The coverage of academics is very hit and miss. I recently noted a very distinguished mathematician with no article, Keith Stewardson. It's the distinction between notable and noted. Ruth Lawrence had plenty of coverage at one time (though very little in recent years) so it is scarcely surprising that she has an article. She might just pass WP:PROF even without her early life.

Incidentally, for those who imagine there is some conspiracy to "out" every Jew in the world, she is one of many people not flagged as Jewish despite being at the Hebrew University (and being related to former British Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks).

[TungstenCarbide]

Incidentally, for those who imagine there is some conspiracy to "out" every Jew in the world, she is one of many people not flagged as Jewish despite being at the Hebrew University (and being related to former British Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks).

That's a good point. I'm not sure what's going on nowadays, but back in the day Jayjg used to find reasons to identify famous Jews as Jews in their wiki article, while doing the opposite for infamous Jews.

[Ming]

Perhaps the fourth time's the charm.

[Zoloft]

Pfft!

See also[edit]
Churnalism
Circular reporting
Clickbait
Fake news

[Rogol Domedonfors]

A case study in the internal inconsistencies of Wikipedia. The press coverage of this person as a child includes a number of sources usually deemed "reliable" by Wikipedians, and indeed by the world at large, such as the BBC, Independent and Time. On the other hand, it is "debunked" by Skeptic magazine. Wikpedia, in its own voice, sides with the sceptics, possibly because that is their in-house line on such matters – the fact that Burnett's speculations are taken up by creationists was presumably what triggered that. attention So, reliable unless they conflict with Wikipedia's own POV. I note that there's also Original Research here to support the "theories have never been published", no attempt at reliable sourcing at all.

The deletion discussions revolves around the question of whether this person is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Notability was originally about whether there are sufficently many reliable sources to make it possible to write an article. Now it's a prize to be awarded (to porn stars), or withheld (from scientists).

By the way, I have only sympathy for this young man. He's obviously precicously bright and that has its disadvantages as well as advantages. Most children with an early interest in science are not subjected to having their speculations touted in the media as potential Nobel material – he's probably hugely embarassed by them now that he knows rather more physics. Anyone with experience of how journalists treat science will know exactly how this works. You hear of a child with a high IQ, precocious in maths and science, and with an idea about the Big Bang. A friendly physicist at a local university says something like "Well, IF he can overthrow Einstein, then he'll probably get a Nobel prize for it". You report that as "in line for a Nobel prize" and there's your story, freely copied in other media. You don't mention the heavy emphasis on the word "if".

[thekohser]

He's obviously precicously bright...

Is that like "precisely preciously precocious", maybe?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I think you'll find it's a typo. Oh, you did.

[iii]

By the way, I have only sympathy for this young man. He's obviously precicously bright and that has its disadvantages as well as advantages. Most children with an early interest in science are not subjected to having their speculations touted in the media as potential Nobel material – he's probably hugely embarassed by them now that he knows rather more physics. Anyone with experience of how journalists treat science will know exactly how this works. You hear of a child with a high IQ, precocious in maths and science, and with an idea about the Big Bang. A friendly physicist at a local university says something like "Well, IF he can overthrow Einstein, then he'll probably get a Nobel prize for it". You report that as "in line for a Nobel prize" and there's your story, freely copied in other media. You don't mention the heavy emphasis on the word "if".

Ding Ding Ding.

The question is, why the hell should Wikipedia even attempt to explain this situation in the context of a living, breathing person?

There is this idea of WP:BLPDELETE (T-H-L) which some who have been active on critic sites now and in the past have advocated for ferociously. In matters such as this, I think they should be listened to.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I don't think that Wikipedia has made any attempt to explain this situation. The article is quite hostile to the young man and his mother, presumably because his early speculations were viewed favourably by creationists and therefore viewed unfavorably by sceptics (who have more influence on Wikpedia's editorial POV).

There are serious articles about how the press covers science and why that coverage is less than satisfactory. This is not one of them – indeed, I see no reason to believe that Wikipedia or Wikipedians have ever tried to come to terms with the way the press works in any sophisticated way.

[iii]

The article is quite hostile to the young man and his mother, presumably because his early speculations were viewed favourably by creationists and therefore viewed unfavorably by sceptics (who have more influence on Wikpedia's editorial POV).

Eh... the creationist connection is somewhat secondary -- although it certainly didn't help matters that the child ended up on Glenn Beck's show in a way that made an almost laughable object lesson of Glenn Beck's sophistry. The hostility is mostly, I would say, because there are a lot of nattering nabobs who get mad at the way the media fawns over pseudophysics claims (including myself -- though I've tried in vain to get that article to be more media-critical as long as Wikipedia is going to entertain including such a travesty of character assassination of a child). The real story goes something like, "Ten-year-old teaches himself calculus using the internet. Supportive family helps him get resources and connect academically in spite of their relative isolation in rural Indiana. Child enrolls in college mathematics and physics programs at young age." It's a heartwarming story when you remove the bullshit that the media pulled -- though arguably some of the added attention may have helped the family gain the visibility they needed to get the resources they required.

[Tarc]

Perhaps the fourth time's the charm.

The Rescue Squad used to be quite a force; general douchebaggery from I/Okip & Benjiboi, A Nobody's sockfarms, Cunard's Wall o' Texts. He's like the last of the Roman 9th legion, looking for hills to die on.

They salivated over saving articles on nonsense like flash-in-the-pan child prodigies, swearing airline stewards, and dead cat drones (hi Milo!)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

This is exactly why WP should have a formal channel for expert editors. Open editing is romantic and all, but the trouble is that it rightly lowers the trust the reading public has in the WP product. For example, WP is still not deemed sufficiently trustworthy to actually cite in school reports. It's a little sad that all of our work here doesn't amount to a more authoritative product.

Perhaps Agricola44 (T-C-L) is ready to cross over to the Other Side? A guest blog maybe?

[Poetlister]

For example, WP is still not deemed sufficiently trustworthy to actually cite in school reports.

Indeed, WP is still not deemed sufficiently trustworthy to cite in other WP articles. This is Kafkaesque.

[thekohser]

This is Kafkaesque.

"You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

[Poetlister]

This is Kafkaesque.

"You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

I knew I could rely on Greg to remember that one.

[Ming]

closed as delete and salted

[Ming]

.....aaaaaand it's back.......

So Prisencolin (T-C-L) went and created The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius (T-H-L), which is Barrett's mom's book which Ming gathers is the origin of all the hype. This has turned into a bizarre AfD struggle around the question "Can you write an article about a book about a person without have an article about that person?" as people try to edit the article down to avoid having it turned into a pillar of salt by the gods of BLP, with a side order of "I don't see how this is BLP evasion." Uh huh. Meanwhile, it turns out that this has been made the target of every possible variation of Barnett's name except "Jacob Barnett" (because that's salted). When called on this, Prisencolin's obtuse reply was "There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically wrong with creating these redirects, at least as far as what I see in the community guidelines. There's no attempt to recreate the article in its entirety under another name." Riiiight. Could a visit to AN/I be in their future? Stay tuned.

[Poetlister]

I'm intrigued by the comment "Delete A few reviews of the book exist, but they are burdened with indications of unreliability (e.g., "At 9 he began working on a theory in astrophysics that, according to those who can understand it, may put him in line for the Nobel Prize" [1])." This review was published in the Washington Post. Surely a significant mention in the Washington Post is evidence of notabiliry, even if the article has a mistake. Would an obituary in a major newspaper be rejected as evidence on those grounds?

[Ming]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

[Poetlister]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

if so, it's a spectacularly good con trick. Why shouldn't such a well-documented con trick be notable? Or should the article be titled "The Jacob Barnett con trick"?

[iii]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

if so, it's a spectacularly good con trick. Why shouldn't such a well-documented con trick be notable? Or should the article be titled "The Jacob Barnett con trick"?

There are editors at Wikipedia who, if the article is kept, will use "reliable sources" to force such an outcome.

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by the well-attended-ness of this ongoing controversy. I guess Barnett's story hits all the notes: disability, genius, science, pseudoscience, media sensation, red versus blue states, stage moms, psychometrics....

There is definitely a blogpost here.

[Anroth]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

if so, it's a spectacularly good con trick. Why shouldn't such a well-documented con trick be notable? Or should the article be titled "The Jacob Barnett con trick"?

The main, if over-riding reason for this: It wasnt a con trick by the subject, it was by his mother. I am fairly certain Barnett himself is embarrassed by the whole thing, or will be in a few years. The problem is to have any sense of factuality in an article on it, it ends up attacking the kid for the actions of his pushy parent. While a number of people here are down with publically shaming people, the majority who are grounded in reality save it for people who actually deserve it.

[Poetlister]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

if so, it's a spectacularly good con trick. Why shouldn't such a well-documented con trick be notable? Or should the article be titled "The Jacob Barnett con trick"?

The main, if over-riding reason for this: It wasnt a con trick by the subject, it was by his mother. I am fairly certain Barnett himself is embarrassed by the whole thing, or will be in a few years. The problem is to have any sense of factuality in an article on it, it ends up attacking the kid for the actions of his pushy parent. While a number of people here are down with publically shaming people, the majority who are grounded in reality save it for people who actually deserve it.

Certainly yes, I wouldn't want such an article. I'm just speculating on what the "community" could do.

[Anroth]

The problem, as best Ming can follow, is that all those reviews came at the front end of the thing; they were all written credulously and probably helped the hype cycle get going. The true story of the book is "mom (accidentally or on purpose) gulls a lot of book review sites into promoting her kid as a spectacular prodigy."

if so, it's a spectacularly good con trick. Why shouldn't such a well-documented con trick be notable? Or should the article be titled "The Jacob Barnett con trick"?

The main, if over-riding reason for this: It wasnt a con trick by the subject, it was by his mother. I am fairly certain Barnett himself is embarrassed by the whole thing, or will be in a few years. The problem is to have any sense of factuality in an article on it, it ends up attacking the kid for the actions of his pushy parent. While a number of people here are down with publically shaming people, the majority who are grounded in reality save it for people who actually deserve it.

Certainly yes, I wouldn't want such an article. I'm just speculating on what the "community" could do.

Not that I could be accused of being paranoid, but its not that difficult to stuff a BLP with a load of negative-sounding but reliably sourced material then argue its an attack page at the resulting AFD.

[Ming]

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by the well-attended-ness of this ongoing controversy.

Well, (a) for the fourth AfD, everyone had ever participated in any of the previous discussions or the DRV was paged, and (b) when the book article was created, every possible variant of Barnett's name was created as a redirect except "Jacob Barnett", which had been salted. So when the book AfD appeared, everybody went after it.

[Ming]

The problem is to have any sense of factuality in an article on it, it ends up attacking the kid for the actions of his pushy parent.

Exactly. And Ming is almost ready to keep a list of the prominent names who are pigheadedly on the wrong side of this.

[Poetlister]

Not that I could be accused of being paranoid, but its not that difficult to stuff a BLP with a load of negative-sounding but reliably sourced material then argue its an attack page at the resulting AFD.

I wonder if that would work. Many would argue that if it's reliably sourced, it should stay. NOTCENSORED and all that.

[Anroth]

Not that I could be accused of being paranoid, but its not that difficult to stuff a BLP with a load of negative-sounding but reliably sourced material then argue its an attack page at the resulting AFD.

I wonder if that would work. Many would argue that if it's reliably sourced, it should stay. NOTCENSORED and all that.

It has before. And no I am not giving links. It works better on the 1E type of thing. People who get in the news because of one event, the gutter press do their background digging and suddenly we can reliably source they cheated on their first wife, stole cars in their youth and puched a baby...

[Ming]

Somewhat surprisingly, deleted.

[Ming]

... and the inevitable DRV having been started, it's not looking good so far for the "overturn" crowd.

[Poetlister]

... and the inevitable DRV having been started, it's not looking good so far for the "overturn" crowd.

One of the most enthusiastic endorsements I've ever seen at a DRV. The only note of dissent so far is this:

Comment While I continue to find it astonishing that Wikipedia will have nothing to say about a book that was covered by so many sources, it seems to me that those who were upset by the extent of the coverage are here in sufficient strength to ensure that if their position is overturned, they will be able to re-write the article to reflect their take on its subject, like they did at Jacob Barnett. In such circumstances, despite the complete lack of media support for the deletionists' take, I do not see that any overturn ruling will be helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[iii]

NECROTHREAD ARISE!

Everything We Know About The Bizarre Case Of The Ukrainian "Orphan" Who May Be An Adult Woman

[Poetlister]

NECROTHREAD ARISE!

Everything We Know About The Bizarre Case Of The Ukrainian "Orphan" Who May Be An Adult Woman

This is amusing, but surely it is unlikely to have much impact on the notability or otherwise of Jacob Barnett.