Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Queen of Versailles

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 7 February 2013 (→sources: why books are already considered "archived"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:48, 7 February 2013 by Collect (talk | contribs) (→sources: why books are already considered "archived")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconFilm Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
Note icon
This article needs an appropriate infobox template.
WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Books are generally considered to already be in an "Archived" form. A film without a verifiable version to cross-check is not a valid source per WP:V and WP:RS and where it makes a contentious claim, is absolutely not usable per WP:BLP. Films are edited - and thus determining actual context of a quote is a major issue in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 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: