Talk:Serial (podcast)

Welcome, and a note about copyright violations

Hello User:167.115.115.2 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Serial (podcast), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on copyright and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

I've also left a note on your IP's talk page. Please do not hesitate to ask questions. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee

Should there be a separate page for the Murder of Hae Min Lee and not just the podcast? Remember (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be useful. RealDealBillMcNeal added the paragraph summarizing the case, and there seems to be enough material published at the time in the Baltimore Sun to expand and support a separate article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun articles I've used as sources in the main article are the only six reports of the murder made at the time. Everything else out there is because of this podcast. There's probably not enough information independent of the podcast to create the article solely on those sources, so I wouldn't deem it a necessary creation. But, if the article is created, I personally wouldn't object so long as it was greatly sourced and written outside of it's existence within the Serial sphere. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I support creating a new article for the murder. I think the recent media coverage, even when ignoring the Serial podcast, makes it not only notable in 1999 but notable now too. Lugevas (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has been created at Murder of Hae Min Lee Lugevas (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Slate blog and Reddit post

Klute, that Slate blogs have been rubber-stamped by Slate does not sound like an editorial policy that includes fact verification. It also ignores that Waldman's statement, "Serial drew criticism for painting what some felt was an inappropriately glowing portrait of Adnan Syed while undercutting his detractors" links to a Reddit post that is not a reliable source, as anyone can post comments on the Reddit site. Please follow Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Regards, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Eugene,

I'm sorry, but I really do not agree with your removal of my link. I think that a blog that is officially published and endorsed by an outlet like Slate is not the same as some random blog. This article was published directly on the Slate site. I do not agree that it does not qualify as a source. What do we do now?

Klute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klute (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(moved from Grand'mere Eugene's talk page)

Dear Klute,

While I still have reservations about the Slate blog as a reliable source, I take your point. I found a relevant Wikipedia policy : "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). I have added a tagline for Slate's Katy Waldman to the text. The reasons for this policy have to do with the legal liability for Wikipedia when opinions are presented related to living people — the reliable sources policy urges, "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine."

I also think the Atlantic discussion you cited deserves some article space, and have added text there.

A few more pointers for you: first, discuss issues related to disagreements about article content on the article's talk page to keep the process open to all interested editors. Second, please use citation templates to insert references rather than inserting bare URLs to help prevent the loss of citations with link rot.

Third, if you are the person who originally posted the revision with the Slate citation from an IP address, please be aware your last revision would be a third revert, considered edit warring, which could result in a block on your account/IP address.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=372577482. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Negative Reaction Sources

Can we get better sources of criticism than Buzzfeed and The Awl? Maybe we can trim those sources and leave up the Atlantic's until something better comes along. Jbmcb (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)