This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Cancellation controversy" section describes upset fans clamoring to get this show back on the air. Unfortunately the only sources provided are to a petition site, Facebook, and a response posted to fan forum. There is no independent, reliable, secondary sources who reported on this issue. Compare this to the fan outcry when Jericho was cancelled which did receive significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The problem is that every show that gets cancelled has a fan base that protests the cancellation and starts up Facebook pages, petitions, and complains on forums (official and/or otherwise), but none of that is notable or worth mentioning in the article for the show unless it receives significant coverage from reliable sources. This is no different than using fan-sites and fan-forum commentary as sources for the content in an article -- that's not how Wikipedia does things. Unless/until independent, reliable, secondary sources are found that discuss the fan protests in significant detail then this stuff just does not belong in the article. SQGibbon ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"It does not matter what you think is noteworthy or not, what matters is if reliable, secondary sources think it's noteworthy."
Wrong. Again, you are wikilawyering a guideline into a rule, needlessly. You can use primary sources for non-controversial information, as long as you're not interpreting them. Saying "this is happening" and pointing to it happening, for example. "There are petitions" and pointing to petitions, or "the subject of this article posted a plea for people to stop" and pointing to the plea are perfect examples of legitimate primary source use.
You're not dealing with a Wikipedia newbie, here, I've been doing this for eight or nine years. I have a clear understanding of how the guidelines you're confusing for absolute rules work. This is not controversial, is at least arguably of use or interest to the reader, and has primary sources that are valid references to the facts stated. There is NO need for a secondary source, in a case like this. — Kaz ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Cancellation controversy" section describes upset fans clamoring to get this show back on the air. Unfortunately the only sources provided are to a petition site, Facebook, and a response posted to fan forum. There is no independent, reliable, secondary sources who reported on this issue. Compare this to the fan outcry when Jericho was cancelled which did receive significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The problem is that every show that gets cancelled has a fan base that protests the cancellation and starts up Facebook pages, petitions, and complains on forums (official and/or otherwise), but none of that is notable or worth mentioning in the article for the show unless it receives significant coverage from reliable sources. This is no different than using fan-sites and fan-forum commentary as sources for the content in an article -- that's not how Wikipedia does things. Unless/until independent, reliable, secondary sources are found that discuss the fan protests in significant detail then this stuff just does not belong in the article. SQGibbon ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"It does not matter what you think is noteworthy or not, what matters is if reliable, secondary sources think it's noteworthy."
Wrong. Again, you are wikilawyering a guideline into a rule, needlessly. You can use primary sources for non-controversial information, as long as you're not interpreting them. Saying "this is happening" and pointing to it happening, for example. "There are petitions" and pointing to petitions, or "the subject of this article posted a plea for people to stop" and pointing to the plea are perfect examples of legitimate primary source use.
You're not dealing with a Wikipedia newbie, here, I've been doing this for eight or nine years. I have a clear understanding of how the guidelines you're confusing for absolute rules work. This is not controversial, is at least arguably of use or interest to the reader, and has primary sources that are valid references to the facts stated. There is NO need for a secondary source, in a case like this. — Kaz ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)