This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flirty Fishing 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added some further information. -- Details 17:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose in the "Purpose" section contradicts the rest of the article, in which the purpose is said to be/have been evangelization. Allens ( talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this an official practice of the Unification Church? I was approached once. Davidlark ( talk) 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Their religious soft porn should be included, see http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Flirty_Fishing
Zezen ( talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how anyone can possibly consider images of unverifiable provenance uploaded to the xfamily.org website to be even remotely WP:RS for anything. They clearly aren't, because (a) we have no way of knowing whether they have been tampered with, (b) they may have been uploaded in breach of copyright, and (c) even if they are genuine, and the website is hosting them legitimately, the use to which they are being put is WP:OR. Likewise, the Xfamily wiki isn't remotely acceptable as a source either. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added a 'Multiple Issues' template to this article, for the following reasons:
(1) The article currently cites articles on the xfamily.org wiki in several places. I see no reason whatsoever to see a minor self-published wiki as in any shape or form a reliable source for anything. I can think of no examples of such wikis being cited as sources in articles elsewhere. If there is a reason why xfamily.org should be an exception to established practice, I'd like to hear it. And to see verifiable evidence for how xfamily org meets WP:RS criteria: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
(2) The article directly cites what is purported to be Children of God material, again sourced to the xfamily.org website, in two places, and appears to be using such material, as shown on xfamily.org pages, as support for further statements unverified by any other source. Ignoring possible copyright issues (I very much doubt that xfamily.org owns the copyrights), and the question of whether the material can actually be verified as genuine, the use of primary sources in such a manner appears to constitute original research.
(3) The article cites passages from the Bible in two places, as support for assertions about doctrine of the Children of God, while likewise providing any other source making such connection. This again is original research.
The activities of the Children of God/Family International are of course a serious topic, worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. Whether 'flirty fishing' itself merits a separate article is probably open to question, but either way, if it is to be discussed on Wikipedia, it needs to be done according to best practice, and not in such a questionable manner. Readers have every right to expect Wikipedia to follow its own well-established norms in articles on sensitive topics, rather than (as appears to be the case here) to resort to poor practice in order to bolster the few proper sources that have been found. If such sources cannot be found, and used to replace citations to the xfamily.org wiki along with unsupported original research, the article will probably have to be deleted, per normal requirements that topics be based on significant coverage in WP:RS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Putting aside the discussion about xfamily.org, there seem to be numerous secondary sources available:
-- John B123 ( talk) 16:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"because of the spread of the AIDS" - isn't it just called AIDS? No need for the definite article. It sounds as bad a usage of language as "The gays". 2.31.162.111 ( talk) 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flirty Fishing 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added some further information. -- Details 17:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose in the "Purpose" section contradicts the rest of the article, in which the purpose is said to be/have been evangelization. Allens ( talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this an official practice of the Unification Church? I was approached once. Davidlark ( talk) 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Their religious soft porn should be included, see http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Flirty_Fishing
Zezen ( talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how anyone can possibly consider images of unverifiable provenance uploaded to the xfamily.org website to be even remotely WP:RS for anything. They clearly aren't, because (a) we have no way of knowing whether they have been tampered with, (b) they may have been uploaded in breach of copyright, and (c) even if they are genuine, and the website is hosting them legitimately, the use to which they are being put is WP:OR. Likewise, the Xfamily wiki isn't remotely acceptable as a source either. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added a 'Multiple Issues' template to this article, for the following reasons:
(1) The article currently cites articles on the xfamily.org wiki in several places. I see no reason whatsoever to see a minor self-published wiki as in any shape or form a reliable source for anything. I can think of no examples of such wikis being cited as sources in articles elsewhere. If there is a reason why xfamily.org should be an exception to established practice, I'd like to hear it. And to see verifiable evidence for how xfamily org meets WP:RS criteria: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
(2) The article directly cites what is purported to be Children of God material, again sourced to the xfamily.org website, in two places, and appears to be using such material, as shown on xfamily.org pages, as support for further statements unverified by any other source. Ignoring possible copyright issues (I very much doubt that xfamily.org owns the copyrights), and the question of whether the material can actually be verified as genuine, the use of primary sources in such a manner appears to constitute original research.
(3) The article cites passages from the Bible in two places, as support for assertions about doctrine of the Children of God, while likewise providing any other source making such connection. This again is original research.
The activities of the Children of God/Family International are of course a serious topic, worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. Whether 'flirty fishing' itself merits a separate article is probably open to question, but either way, if it is to be discussed on Wikipedia, it needs to be done according to best practice, and not in such a questionable manner. Readers have every right to expect Wikipedia to follow its own well-established norms in articles on sensitive topics, rather than (as appears to be the case here) to resort to poor practice in order to bolster the few proper sources that have been found. If such sources cannot be found, and used to replace citations to the xfamily.org wiki along with unsupported original research, the article will probably have to be deleted, per normal requirements that topics be based on significant coverage in WP:RS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Putting aside the discussion about xfamily.org, there seem to be numerous secondary sources available:
-- John B123 ( talk) 16:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"because of the spread of the AIDS" - isn't it just called AIDS? No need for the definite article. It sounds as bad a usage of language as "The gays". 2.31.162.111 ( talk) 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)