| Revision as of 02:58, 7 February 2013 edit2.30.146.240 (talk) →Admissions← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:40, 7 February 2013 edit undoMathew5000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,937 edits →AdmissionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ==Admissions== | ==Admissions== | ||
| Having watched the film the two admisisons mentioned did strike me as very noteworthy. However I can see the first one (covert buying back of ones own bad debt) may be more appropriate in BLP than here. However the second one, Siegel's claim to have swung a US presedential election, is most certainly noteworthy in this article. Its quite astonishing. Had he made the claim less seriously and not repeated it and gone into detail and substantiated it, perhaps it would not be noteworthly here. However he did and it is perhaps the most remarkable 'plotline' of the documentary ] (]) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC). | Having watched the film the two admisisons mentioned did strike me as very noteworthy. However I can see the first one (covert buying back of ones own bad debt) may be more appropriate in BLP than here. However the second one, Siegel's claim to have swung a US presedential election, is most certainly noteworthy in this article. Its quite astonishing. Had he made the claim less seriously and not repeated it and gone into detail and substantiated it, perhaps it would not be noteworthly here. However he did and it is perhaps the most remarkable 'plotline' of the documentary ] (]) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC). | ||
| :The point about the 2000 election takes up maybe 15 seconds of screen time, and then is never referred to again. ] (]) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Noticeboard discussions == | == Noticeboard discussions == | ||
Revision as of 06:40, 7 February 2013
 | Film Stub‑class   | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | United States Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
sources
WP:RS Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist.
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.
WP:BLP Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
Collect (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a great source, it's partly an opinion piece but there are journalistic facts included: Joe Nocera piece in NYT, 2012-06-21 Mathew5000 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That source is hardly favourable to the producer - scenes presented out of sequence, and eliding facts is not exactly the hallmark of a great "documentary" at all. Collect (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously, I never said it's a great source for the producer of the documentary! Mathew5000 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we just be clear firstly that court judgements are valuable sources for BLP? Obviously court transcripots are not as anyone may allege anything in court but the judgement is about as relaible and trusted source as you can get.
Secondly can we also be clear that in a page about a documentary, important sections of that documentary are valid sources.
Thirdly can we agree that the transcript of a documentary woudl be less a valid source than the actual video.
Lastly if online transcripts are to be insisted upon for all video (including onlein news agency video??), then surely it applies to all books and newspapers that may not be available online, or are behind a paywall. That would be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Admissions
Having watched the film the two admisisons mentioned did strike me as very noteworthy. However I can see the first one (covert buying back of ones own bad debt) may be more appropriate in BLP than here. However the second one, Siegel's claim to have swung a US presedential election, is most certainly noteworthy in this article. Its quite astonishing. Had he made the claim less seriously and not repeated it and gone into detail and substantiated it, perhaps it would not be noteworthly here. However he did and it is perhaps the most remarkable 'plotline' of the documentary 2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
- The point about the 2000 election takes up maybe 15 seconds of screen time, and then is never referred to again. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Noticeboard discussions
This article and the closely-related article David A. Siegel are being discussed at the BLP noticeboard and the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories: