This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Family Ties article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Shouldn't there be some mention of the remarkable coincidence that Baxter-Birney and Gross were both born on Saturday, June 21, 1947? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE ( talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a citation on the Mallory entry that says Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi (1962-2005), a female television producer, was the inspiration for the character of Mallory. But no citation is offered. Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi is the daughter of actors Marcia Henderson and Robert_Ivers.
Jcravens42 21:19, 15 July 2015
It says in part of the article that Andy was born in 1984 (I don't remember this being specifically stated in an episode, so I assume this is when it aired). Should we just leave the year out since he ages like many sitcom children? I mean, he turns 6 in a 1988 episode. 184.53.33.4 ( talk) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SQGibbon; this information is inappropriate in tone, unsourced, with fan-like emphasis on another TV program, and appears to consist solely of original research. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Disclosure: I have not edited an article in Wikipedia before, and so am not very versed in the general rules and regulations for doing so (I was under the impression anyone could edit if they provided true information). Thus, I am not versed in how these discussions work either. It took me a while to figure out how to use the "talk" feature even to get to this point. I'm not entirely sure I'm writing this in the correct place. If need requires it, you may refer to me as "Newbie editor."
SQGibbon is removing material I contributed to the "References in Other Media" section of the "Family Ties" article.
The reasons listed are as follows: "Some of this is puffery and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The rest is unsourced and much of it is original research WP:OR. We need reliable sources discussing all of this and then cite them."
Reply: I fail to see how the references here are any different from the others, excepting in that they are more detailed. Let's think about the statement above:
"Puffery" = please define and explain (with specific reference to the edited material, please).
"doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - please explain; what is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and WHAT should be excluded from an encyclopedia entry and WHY (again specific references to the edited material in question along with justification for the irrelevance of each would be appreciated)?
"the rest is unsourced" = do you mean that these aren't quotes from some secondary material? If I quote an article or interview, I will need to cite that material. However, each of these references is to a direct or indirect reference to "Family Ties" within an episode of a TV show (Psych). Each instance is referred to the specific season, episode, and original air date. So please explain to me how any of these fail in the citation department.
"much of it is original research" = if you mean to say that I myself hunted down each of these references, then you are correct - it is my original research. Please explain why it is bad for me to do my own leg-work to locate information that is not reported anywhere else and which is, by the way, easily accessible to anyone who has access to these episodes (or their scripts, which are all online). And if you're worried I'm not getting proper credit for my "research," I'm fine. I don't desire the recognition. This information is free for whomever would like to benefit from it without having to track this down, unless they want to (in which case, they can do so just like I did).
As a final word, I'd like to know by what authority my edits are being removed? My understanding is that wikipedia articles are open to contribution by anyone. Misinformation should be discouraged and removed, but if an edit provides additional information that may be of interest to some readers, why would you remove it (for any reason)? You cannot say that the information provided is irrelevant because that will be relative to readers. For instance, I have exactly zero interest in any of the other "references in other media" listed in this section. I suspect I am not alone. I think there will be many readers who couldn't care less about the references I've included. That's fair. The question I have is why my references are removed and others permitted to stay, given that they are of the same nature (excepting, again, the fact that mine are more thorough - something that is generally taken to be a virtue rather than a vice).
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.164 ( talk) 19:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this statement needs a citation or other support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.90.146 ( talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the phrase "ex-hippie liberal," used several times in this article to describe the elder Keatons, is a bit loaded... sounds almost like a pejorative.... PurpleChez ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Family Ties article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Shouldn't there be some mention of the remarkable coincidence that Baxter-Birney and Gross were both born on Saturday, June 21, 1947? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE ( talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a citation on the Mallory entry that says Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi (1962-2005), a female television producer, was the inspiration for the character of Mallory. But no citation is offered. Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi is the daughter of actors Marcia Henderson and Robert_Ivers.
Jcravens42 21:19, 15 July 2015
It says in part of the article that Andy was born in 1984 (I don't remember this being specifically stated in an episode, so I assume this is when it aired). Should we just leave the year out since he ages like many sitcom children? I mean, he turns 6 in a 1988 episode. 184.53.33.4 ( talk) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SQGibbon; this information is inappropriate in tone, unsourced, with fan-like emphasis on another TV program, and appears to consist solely of original research. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Disclosure: I have not edited an article in Wikipedia before, and so am not very versed in the general rules and regulations for doing so (I was under the impression anyone could edit if they provided true information). Thus, I am not versed in how these discussions work either. It took me a while to figure out how to use the "talk" feature even to get to this point. I'm not entirely sure I'm writing this in the correct place. If need requires it, you may refer to me as "Newbie editor."
SQGibbon is removing material I contributed to the "References in Other Media" section of the "Family Ties" article.
The reasons listed are as follows: "Some of this is puffery and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The rest is unsourced and much of it is original research WP:OR. We need reliable sources discussing all of this and then cite them."
Reply: I fail to see how the references here are any different from the others, excepting in that they are more detailed. Let's think about the statement above:
"Puffery" = please define and explain (with specific reference to the edited material, please).
"doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - please explain; what is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and WHAT should be excluded from an encyclopedia entry and WHY (again specific references to the edited material in question along with justification for the irrelevance of each would be appreciated)?
"the rest is unsourced" = do you mean that these aren't quotes from some secondary material? If I quote an article or interview, I will need to cite that material. However, each of these references is to a direct or indirect reference to "Family Ties" within an episode of a TV show (Psych). Each instance is referred to the specific season, episode, and original air date. So please explain to me how any of these fail in the citation department.
"much of it is original research" = if you mean to say that I myself hunted down each of these references, then you are correct - it is my original research. Please explain why it is bad for me to do my own leg-work to locate information that is not reported anywhere else and which is, by the way, easily accessible to anyone who has access to these episodes (or their scripts, which are all online). And if you're worried I'm not getting proper credit for my "research," I'm fine. I don't desire the recognition. This information is free for whomever would like to benefit from it without having to track this down, unless they want to (in which case, they can do so just like I did).
As a final word, I'd like to know by what authority my edits are being removed? My understanding is that wikipedia articles are open to contribution by anyone. Misinformation should be discouraged and removed, but if an edit provides additional information that may be of interest to some readers, why would you remove it (for any reason)? You cannot say that the information provided is irrelevant because that will be relative to readers. For instance, I have exactly zero interest in any of the other "references in other media" listed in this section. I suspect I am not alone. I think there will be many readers who couldn't care less about the references I've included. That's fair. The question I have is why my references are removed and others permitted to stay, given that they are of the same nature (excepting, again, the fact that mine are more thorough - something that is generally taken to be a virtue rather than a vice).
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.164 ( talk) 19:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this statement needs a citation or other support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.90.146 ( talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the phrase "ex-hippie liberal," used several times in this article to describe the elder Keatons, is a bit loaded... sounds almost like a pejorative.... PurpleChez ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)