Talk:Self-expression values

Can someone please explain why the sources in the article are 'not reliable'? As far as I can tell, they are all Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serban.tanasa (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the tags say that the sources in the article aren't reliable, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in this instance. Are you referring to the {{synthesis}} tag? That one (added by Ukexpat) says:

It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic.

As an example, in the section "Emergence of self-expression values," there are three bullet points: the first has no citations, the second is referenced to Florida (2002), and the third to Beck (2002). The section concludes with a paragraph referenced to Inglehart (2005). Does that last reference itself contain references to both of the previous refs? If not, then the article is synthesizing multiple viewpoints.

Yes, actually, Inglehart (2005) does reference the two authors in this context, and uses these sources to reach his conclusions (the three bullets). Would it be better if I cited him alone in this case?Serban Tanasa (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd cite both (showing a given statement can be found in two sources), but that's my personal preference. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'original reserach' tag should be dropped. Serban Tanasa (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the two experienced editors who've looked at it both think the {{or}} tag applies. Your best bet is to add citations for everything that isn't currently cited and see what it looks like then. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dori, fair enough. Serban Tanasa (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Current article issues

• Post-wikification, User:Serban.tanasa removed the {{notability}} tag and added a bit to the opening paragraph (with an edit summary of "Added proof of notability") that said:

  The idea has since gained a wide audience,<ref group="Note">Baker and Inglehard's 2000 paper ''Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values'' has over a thousand academic citations on Google Scholar</ref> and was discussed at great length in [[the Economist]].<ref>The Economist, ''American Values: Living with a superpower'' January 4, 2003</ref>

  However, "Baker and Inglehard's 2000 paper" isn't mentioned in this article—which makes this change irrelevant to both this article and to the topic's notability so far as I can tell. Consequently, I've removed it and re-added the notability tag.

However, if you read the original Economist article, the topic of "self-expression values" is discussed at great length. In my view, I thought that meant the topic of the article is therefore notable? The Economist is one of the foremost magazines in the world, is it not? Serban Tanasa (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone who isn't familiar with the topic, though, would have no way to know that that Economist article is even about self-expression values when it's not used as a source. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Baker and Inglehart are conducting a review of the previous twenty years on the topic of the growth of self-expression values. You're right that I should have established that in the article. I'll do it as soon as time permits. Serban Tanasa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that that's worth adding here unless they change something fundamental about the topic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a line in the article (added here) that says, "Note: This factor alone explains 25% of total cross-national variation." I wikified it as a note referring to the same chart, but It's unclear (to me, at least) what the note is referring to.

Agreed. That is not significant for the article. I'll take it out. Let me know if you think the whole table section is useless and needs to be removed, actually. In my view, it helps explain how scientists actually assess these values, but if it is more trouble than it is worth, it can definitely go. Serban Tanasa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Much of the article still has no references at all (e.g., the first paragraphs of each section), so that still needs work.

I'm a little pressed on time. Will work on it in the next couple of days, hopefully.

• The refs still need ISBNs, ISSNs, and/or OCLC ids where applicable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs? I have rarely seen those in any wikipedia articles, but I'll see what I can do. I have no idea what OCLCs even are. Thanks again everyone. Serban Tanasa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at {{cite book}}—when books are used as references, it's common to include the ISBN (or it should be!). When the ISBN is included, WP does some nice behind-the-scenes work to make it easy to find further info on the book. That same template also has more about OCLC ids. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)