This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question regarding citations for Wikipedia. Is using a Commentary/Editorial page with regards to an event considered a poor reference? This page uses a Christie Blatchford article, which was posted in the National Post as a commentary/editorial. It is clearly written as such (not that there is anything wrong with opinion/editorial articles). Isn't there better articles out there that don't inject their own personal opinion into the event? As well, the entire article on this wikipedia is incorrectly titled. In Canada, Criminal Cases which are charges brought before the court from the Crown (kind of like the DA in the USA), aren't titled with the name of the accuser. The name of the court case should actually be "R. v. Elliot", not "Guthrie v. Elliot" which implies a civil court case. Nothing-Significant-to-Report ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There's been an editor warring to insert "falsely accused" in the lede of the article, but that phrasing is POV-loaded and not supported by any of the sources. A few editors (including myself) have changed "falsely accused" to "accused", and it has just been changed to "charged with" which I agree is better and neutral, and follows sourced info in the body of the article. I noticed someone also changed "several women" to "two women" so I want to open the question about that edit. Elliott was charged with harassing three women originally but one of the charges was dropped. Is it appropriate to say "charged with ... accusing two women" then, or should it be three, or something else? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that LinkedIn is a valid source considering it is Stephanie Guthrie's own material. Regardless, her formation of a political group composed of active Toronto politicians is relevant, particularly given the allegations of a conspiracy reaching the prosecutor's office. The website of this organization IS a valid source vis-a-vis its existence and it's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.123 ( talk) 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Olly150: I see that you accepted two edits by an IP here which I just partially reverted for adding unsourced BLP info. I reverted before I noticed you approved, so I thought I should ask. While both women's names appear in the sources, I don't see where it's indicated that they're affiliated with Guthrie's organization or the Toronto Police in any way, so I removed those parts. Did you review the sources and find something different? If so, feel free to revert me. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What is this person's actual name? We have "Bendalin" in the article, which seems to be wrong either way. His Twitter handle is (was?) "Bendilin", but it appears that his real name is just "Ben". In the court records and various sources he's called "Bendilin Spurr". Which should we use? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the subheading "Trial", please change:
On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" were actually made by an account impersonating him. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." and stated the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief." [1] [2]
to:
On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." He further stated that the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief." [1] [2]
This should be an uncontroversial copyedit. The references are list-defined in the article and I'm not sure how to repopulate them on a talk page. Note that this could also be a COI edit request but I can't use both templates. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lede, please change:
Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. [1] [2] Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition. [3]
to:
Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. [1] [2] Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition.
--
The "metronewsHadARight" source does not back up the sentence that it cites and should not be used here. I am of the opinion that material in a lede does not need to be referenced when it is properly cited within the article body (and this statement is) but if leaving the sentence unreferenced is considered controversial, then the reference can instead be replaced by the "metroBail" source. As in the request above, this could be a COI request but I can't do both, and ditto with the list-defined references. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
postjan222016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).cbcDismissed
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).metronewsHadARight
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the subheading "Background", please change:
Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers of Spurr in his hometown. [1] [2] Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, [3] criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". [4] In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter, and reported his account to Twitter, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. [5] [6] An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women. [7]
to:
Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers in Spurr's hometown. [1] [2] Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, [3] criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". [4] In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter and reported his account to the site's operators, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. [5] [6] An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women. [7]
Should be uncontroversial: copyedit to an awkward sentence which mentioned Twitter by name twice. As above, could be COI, list-defined refs, yadda yadda yadda. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
torontostandardUproar
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarFrustrations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).torontoistCafe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ocanadaWrath
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarLeaveHerAlone
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarFirstOfThree
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarWhenDoesTweeting
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Leaving them intact can mislead a reader into believing that someone is connected to involved parties of the subject, which can be nonexistent. Right? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question regarding citations for Wikipedia. Is using a Commentary/Editorial page with regards to an event considered a poor reference? This page uses a Christie Blatchford article, which was posted in the National Post as a commentary/editorial. It is clearly written as such (not that there is anything wrong with opinion/editorial articles). Isn't there better articles out there that don't inject their own personal opinion into the event? As well, the entire article on this wikipedia is incorrectly titled. In Canada, Criminal Cases which are charges brought before the court from the Crown (kind of like the DA in the USA), aren't titled with the name of the accuser. The name of the court case should actually be "R. v. Elliot", not "Guthrie v. Elliot" which implies a civil court case. Nothing-Significant-to-Report ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There's been an editor warring to insert "falsely accused" in the lede of the article, but that phrasing is POV-loaded and not supported by any of the sources. A few editors (including myself) have changed "falsely accused" to "accused", and it has just been changed to "charged with" which I agree is better and neutral, and follows sourced info in the body of the article. I noticed someone also changed "several women" to "two women" so I want to open the question about that edit. Elliott was charged with harassing three women originally but one of the charges was dropped. Is it appropriate to say "charged with ... accusing two women" then, or should it be three, or something else? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that LinkedIn is a valid source considering it is Stephanie Guthrie's own material. Regardless, her formation of a political group composed of active Toronto politicians is relevant, particularly given the allegations of a conspiracy reaching the prosecutor's office. The website of this organization IS a valid source vis-a-vis its existence and it's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.123 ( talk) 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Olly150: I see that you accepted two edits by an IP here which I just partially reverted for adding unsourced BLP info. I reverted before I noticed you approved, so I thought I should ask. While both women's names appear in the sources, I don't see where it's indicated that they're affiliated with Guthrie's organization or the Toronto Police in any way, so I removed those parts. Did you review the sources and find something different? If so, feel free to revert me. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What is this person's actual name? We have "Bendalin" in the article, which seems to be wrong either way. His Twitter handle is (was?) "Bendilin", but it appears that his real name is just "Ben". In the court records and various sources he's called "Bendilin Spurr". Which should we use? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the subheading "Trial", please change:
On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" were actually made by an account impersonating him. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." and stated the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief." [1] [2]
to:
On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." He further stated that the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief." [1] [2]
This should be an uncontroversial copyedit. The references are list-defined in the article and I'm not sure how to repopulate them on a talk page. Note that this could also be a COI edit request but I can't use both templates. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lede, please change:
Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. [1] [2] Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition. [3]
to:
Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. [1] [2] Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition.
--
The "metronewsHadARight" source does not back up the sentence that it cites and should not be used here. I am of the opinion that material in a lede does not need to be referenced when it is properly cited within the article body (and this statement is) but if leaving the sentence unreferenced is considered controversial, then the reference can instead be replaced by the "metroBail" source. As in the request above, this could be a COI request but I can't do both, and ditto with the list-defined references. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
postjan222016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).cbcDismissed
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).metronewsHadARight
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
R v Elliott has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the subheading "Background", please change:
Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers of Spurr in his hometown. [1] [2] Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, [3] criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". [4] In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter, and reported his account to Twitter, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. [5] [6] An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women. [7]
to:
Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers in Spurr's hometown. [1] [2] Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, [3] criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". [4] In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter and reported his account to the site's operators, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. [5] [6] An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women. [7]
Should be uncontroversial: copyedit to an awkward sentence which mentioned Twitter by name twice. As above, could be COI, list-defined refs, yadda yadda yadda. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
torontostandardUproar
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarFrustrations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).torontoistCafe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ocanadaWrath
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarLeaveHerAlone
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarFirstOfThree
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thestarWhenDoesTweeting
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Leaving them intact can mislead a reader into believing that someone is connected to involved parties of the subject, which can be nonexistent. Right? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)