How to Start a Revolution
LGLDSR73 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 Hello again. I noticed that you made an addition at How to Start a Revolution. You added a sentence explaining how a particular shot in the film was done, and who did it. Do you have a (published) source for that information? If you read up about how Wikipedia is run, you will see that all information must be verifiable through reliable sources. It would be good if you could add a footnote to the source which cites a reference supporting the information. If such a reference doesn't appear on the page within a few days (or perhaps sooner), the new sentence may be deleted (in fact, unsourced additions that look like they may be self-promotional are often deleted sooner than a few days). Best regards, and thanks again for your contribution. --Presearch (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Lyman (as you called yourself on my talk page). I largely agree with the response to you on my talk page that was added by User:Huon. Essentially, your personal testimony as a Wikipedia user would not be enough for sourcing such a fact. However, the film credits would be regarded as reliable about the film itself, so that if you (or others) are listed in the film for photography credits, then you (or those others) could in principle be mentioned on Wikipedia as contributing to the film photography (though details about camera, particular sequence, etc., could not be listed, unless those too were listed in film credits). On the other hand, if there is some external published source that could be viewed as reliable that credits your efforts, then that source could be cited, and your efforts mentioned.
- With regard to User:Huon's warnings about conflict of interest, it is true that there is strong discouragement of editors from editing material about themselves, but there is not total prohibition. There is also encouragement to acknowledge the conflict of interest (which you have already implicitly done). In terms of conflict of interest, the biggest problem is with issues that are in a "gray zone" and require judgement. In principal, photography credits is a fairly "black and white" issue: there's either a citable source, or there isn't - and if there is a source, the material can be inserted. But there are potentially a few judgement issues, such as what counts as reliable, and whether the article is giving undue and disproportionate credit to smaller details. In that case, I'd encourage you to read up on Wikipedia policies and look at examples of what's done elsewhere (even though sometimes policies are violated, so not all examples are good). Another option is to use a talk page to request that other editors insert material for you (this is often recommended when a conflict of interet exists. I hope these comments are helpful. Good luck. --Presearch (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I will have the Producer add it. What I have put is patently FACTUAL and is neither self-serving or promoting. I also fail to see why an Affidavit would not suffice. That said I have no choice but to waste the time of Rory (the Producer, known to his associates by that name) to satisfy, in this case, an egregious policy. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, I really disagree that requiring reliable sources is an "egregious policy". The policy on reliable sources is one of the facets of Wikipedia that is most responsible for having made it such a valuable resource for millions of people. I suspect you are speaking impulsively without reflection. And including this information would indeed be "self-promoting" by virtue of the fact that it will give your name more exposure. It would not be solely self-promoting, but it would, objectively, be self-promoting. Regarding an affidavit, probably you are speaking in jest. But third-party publications might also potentially qualify for WP:RS. Regarding us being responsible for wasting Mr. Arrow's time, presumably he'd want to help you out if your are in dire straits and need publicity to generate work. It's not something I see as needing to be done for Wikipedia. Personally, I think most people would agree that few if any readers of the article would be deeply distressed about not knowing exactly who was responsible for filming this particular sequence. The fact that you are responding in this manner just underscores the value and necessity of the Wikipedia policy, since issues of self-promotion come up rather often, and people are often unable to be objective where their own intersts are at stake. I think you will understand the Wikipedia perspective after further reflection. --Presearch (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I said it was egregious with direct respect to my personal issue, not others. As far as the inclusion of my name giving me more exposure I think it safe to say that could be said about any individual given any credit(s) for, in this case videography, in any article on Wikipedia. While I have not checked, in the review of (for example) the movie 'The Godfather' does in not mention Francis Ford Coppola? (For the historical record, I am not comparing myself to Coppola. But the rules need to be enforced across the board). Given your logic, should not his name be stricken as it is providing him with more exposure? Or an article on the Mustang, does it not mention Ford and / or Lee Iacocca? My guess it does. Again, pull both "Ford" and "Lee Iacocca" as you're giving them more exposure. Be clear on this: I love Wikipedia and enough emphasis on it's importance cannot be stated. But with respect to my issue I have merely provided the facts about the inclusion of my footage, for which Rory called me from England for the rights to use it. The other videographer is also mentioned. As I said, I will ask Rory (Mr. Arrow) to make the inclusion. You and I have both spent too much time on this. Again, thank you. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- My friend, I have not checked the other pages you have mentioned. But the only reason I can think of not to mention someone who can be documented as contributing to a film is the issue of proportionality (see WP:DUE), and no one has asserted that is a concern here. So once there is a verifiable reliable source that can be cited then (barring unexpected complications) I will be happy to add that material. Comment: I reread your oroginal comment and notice that you had mentioned the possibility of an affidavit. I've never heard of that being done before in Wikipedia. If such an affidavit was a matter of public record, then perhaps Wikipedia could cite it, but probably not in its editorial voice. Rather, Wikipedia might say something like "so-and-so has claimed to be responsible for filming a segment...", with a footnote that mentions the affidavit, and (if possible) links to it. It would sound weird, and I don't think that's what you'd want. And since I'm not aware of it being done previously in Wikipedia, there's an element of conjecture to the scenario I'm painting (i.e., even then, maybe it wouldn't be cited - I'm not the only one who decides things, and there are policies to consult...). Anyway, be assured that you're not the first to be frustrated by the fact that things they absolutely know are true cannot straightaway be included. Yes, now let's get back to all the other things to be done.... Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)