Talk:Marina Orlova (YouTuber)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bad Reference

Reference #3 (the Bill O'Reilly reference) simply refers to his Fox News page. It says to look half way down the page, but that reference was probably obsolete about 2 days after it was posted. This should probably be removed as well as the portion of the article that it is referencing if it can't be replaced.--76.104.90.6 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, this one is difficult. But the source material is still out there on the internet -- I just could not find it, at Fox News, nor at the Wayback Machine (ext. link), nor at WebCite (ext. link). There was not even an "accessdate" field supplied (which would have been a nice gesture!); but, the edit seems to have been done "as of 20:43, 1 July 2008"; (see the "diff" page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marina_Orlova&diff=next&oldid=222254125). The date of the material "intended" for this footnote, seems to be April 14, 2008 (see next sentence). A Google search did turn up some "hits", that still contain the original content, such as these two: http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/the-oreilly-factor-keep-it-pithy/3831422129 (apparently that is a web site that is allowed to echo or "mirror" "cached" stuff like this), and http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:PGk_56HR6YkJ:www.univision.com/uv/video/Keep-It-Pithy!/id/3831422129+%2B%22Internet+vixen+teaches+O'Reilly%22&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [that is a "cached" copy (at Google, -- I think) of a web page that was a "hit" from a Google search].
Is one of these better to use, to repair the broken link? For example, is one of these more likely to still be there, in the future? OR, is one of these more eligible, to be archived using WebCite or the Wayback Machine?
Meanwhile, I did add a "{{broken link}}" tag -- (which diplays as "").
Any advice will be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with one comparable link, the content is not controversial though so IMO there is not much of a worry, even if the link becomes dead it did exist at some time, I do like to have active links though, let me know if you feel it is not ok, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I'm certain she plagiarizes the etymological definitions from the Online Etymology Dictionary. Just compare a few videos yourself. I think we should put that in this article. Bluesagesjokeshift (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research. Find a reliable third party source reporting that. bd2412 T 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It would also be a WP:BLP violation. You simply cannot add a statement such as that to the article unless ther are reliable sources to back the claim up. Resolute 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to Marina, and asked her a few questions. Here is what she wrote back:

"The Online Etymology Dictionary is very similar to many of my lessons because it gets its information from a few of the books that i have... including the Oxford English Dictionary and The Facts on File Word and Phrase Origins.

I live in Los Angeles and I make these videos for my living.

Marina" --80.164.127.165 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Background

The "facts" in this article are merely taken from her online act. It could all be part of the act. Does she have any qualifications as a philologist/etymologist? What did she do before she was an internet star? What led to this career? 121.44.147.91 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are part of the act (i.e. are not true), then she's fooled some journalists. bd2412 T 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a cirticism section in this article, I could look up origins for words on etymonline or another etymology website. The only thing Marina is an "expert" at doing is using these websites, that's pretty obvious. I also think she grossly misrepresents the linguistic community. As a linguist myself, I'm insulted that she is making people believe we sit around all day and trace etymological roots. the fact o the matter is that etymology barely qualifies as linguistics, as what we REALLY deal with the theoretical basis of how language is structured and sequenced at all of its levels, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. and finding ways to account for emprical evidence we come across in any language while still accounting for that which we do know. That is the true pursuit of linguistics, not her etymology crap. And besides, spelling bee champ Kavya Shivashankar probably knows WAY more about etymology than Marina does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.89 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious that Marina Orlova is just using etymology websites for her videos. Early this year, AP did a television special showing her looking up words in books. She has uploaded a video titled Behind the Scenes recently where she showed a bookshelf with books dealing with word origins.

The only thing that is pretty obvious here is that she's not just doing hardcore linguistics on her Youtube channel. She's doing word origins for entertainment. If you want to question her academic degrees in the "criticism" section, well, remember that "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". It's a fact that she's been interviewed many times, in fact you can watch or read all of her interviews on her website, and no journalist has ever questioned that she has two degrees from a Russian university. The simple fact that you personally dislike her has no encyclopaedic relevance and does not justify questioning her academic credentials in this article.--80.171.1.220 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If she is a linguist then what theoretical framework does she work in? Generative Grammar? She probably doesn't even know what Generative Grammar is, she has probably never read anything by Chomsky (to do with linguistics) and she grossly misrepresents our field. All of these things are worthy of being in the article! Hey wiki nazis, don't you bastards take this down again because I'll keep doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) So what university did she go to?

Historical linguistics is the only real linguistics. Formal languages are computer science discipline that can only partially be applied to natural languages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean historical linguistics is the only real linguistics? Clearly you have never studied linguistics in your life and know nothing about it. Don't go running your mouth about things you don't know.

Apparently misrepresented her background

This documentary investigated her background in Nizhny Novgorod. The University says she was never a student, but a local strip club claims she once worked there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmt_JdUJAbA 75.49.238.83 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's a true account it is certain to catch up with her. What show is that on? I don't know anything about how reputable a given Russian TV show would be. bd2412 T 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an Entertainment Tonight type of show. Someone moves to Hollywood with a falsified backstory? I am SHOCKED.--Milowent (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)