Talk:Groupon

Chicago Unassessed

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Censorship or NPOV?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groupon&diff=prev&oldid=325085128. This text has been added and removed twice. Despite being wrongly called a vandal, I tried to start a conversation, with the edit summary asking discussion to be brought here.

The content is : "San Francisco at 50% to 90% off!", claims the site's main (SF) page, however the recent deals page shows some highlighted deals have a lower discount, e.g. 37.5% off the Oct 28, 2009 deal, with no deals approaching 90% off.

Negative facts can be presented in a neutral way. If I'm not doing so (I think I am.) I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. I don't think the article is filled with negativity. It says nothing negative at all at the moment. At Hitler, we say "The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in ... the Holocaust." --98.248.113.11 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to comment on the "false advertising" from Groupon.com, we'll need to find a reliable source that makes this claim. (Perhaps, there is a news article discussing their false claims?) Otherwise, linking to the claims on their site and calling them "false" would be considered original research, and definitely not be WP:NPOV. The content of this article should be encyclopedic, and presented without bias. Jwesley₇₈ 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Jwesley₇₈ 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the first paragraph of that page:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Jwesley₇₈ 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one using the word 'false', and the phrase 'false advertising'. Please don't misrepresent what I've said or done. Leveling a false advertising claim without a reliable source for it would be OR. That's not what's happened here. Company websites can be and are used here as sources, in order to respect WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. The info certainly is verifiable. Would an archived copy of the provided sources meet the verifiability criteria, in your view? What's your relationship to the company, if any?

Third Opinion

Hi, I found this on WP:3. User:Jwesley hit the nail on the head: the statement in question, while it may be correct, is pretty clearly original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. In order for something to be included in the article, it needs to have been covered by a reliable source such as a major news organization or academic journal. Mildly Mad^T_C 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an archived copy of the provided sources meet the verifiability criteria, in your view? The statements are sourced. There's no question that they're accurate. That makes them reliable. You're oversimplifying the definition of RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.113.11 (talk • contribs)

If a fourth opinion helps, let me point out that we can't take pieces of information like deals on a company's web page, put them together, and draw our own conclusions. That is considered synthesis which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia. Essentially, you can't claim in the article that Groupon has engaged in false advertising, you have to cite someone in a reliable source who has done so. Now, looking at the information you added, you haven't gone quite so far as to explicitly make the claim, but you certainly imply it in your edit. I maintain that the edit was still a poor one to make, for two reasons. First, you are using two web pages that are highly dynamic as a reference; that "Recent Deals" page in particular changes constantly. That's definitely not a source that can be considered reliable; what if next month almost all of the deals on that page are almost 90% off? Secondly, I see that kind of edit as trivial. Certainly it isn't an example of false advertising, almost every advertiser fudges the numbers a bit when talking about percentage deals. And the main page doesn't say that every single deal is at least 50% off, it says that you can get deals between 50-90% which the Recent Deals page verifies. I don't see a justification for the edit. -- Atama頭 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) If the sources you are referring to are the URL links in your proposed edits, then no, that statement does not conform to policy. WP:SYN (a part of WP:OR) states:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
"'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Mildly Mad^T_C 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama makes some valid points. Which is why I ask again: "Would an archived copy of the provided sources meet the verifiability criteria?"--98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC) If they do, I can work on addressing the other points Atama raised, in order to create an edit that merits keeping. (Feel free to help.) --98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article, as per WP:SYN. Since Groupon has not accused themselves of false advertising, neither can you. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No what? I haven't done any accusing. But Atama is right; it is implied. I believe it is false advertising, prosecutable as a violation of, e.g. § 12024 of the B&P code of CA. But an accusation would need an RS. If even an implication does (and I'm not convinced that's policy) then I don't see a way to salvage the edit. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH, which is part of the "no original research" policy, does say that even implying something is a violation. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even realize that point until today. But it does make sense, I suppose. -- Atama頭 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I stand corrected. I don't see a way to salvage the edit w/o new sources. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, not just true. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as Hotmail can use Microsoft as a source 5 times, then this article can use quotes from Groupon.com as sources as well. I just removed some unsubstantiated puffery from that article.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]